HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater and Related Land Management Advisory Board 1994Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
eythe metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes.
Di
MARCH 4, 1994 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met at Black Creek Pioneer Village in the
Visitors Centre on Friday, March 4, 1993. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at
9:05 a.m.
PRESENT
Chair Lois Griffin
Members Lorna Bissell
Ila Bossons
Victoria Carley
Lois Haricey
Joan King
Maja Prentice
Paul Raina
Frank Scarpitti
Kip Van Kempen
Chair of the Authority William Granger
ABSENT Members Joanna Kidd
Bev Salmon
Joyce Trimmer
MINUTES
Res. #W1/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/93 be approved.
PRESENTATIONS
(a) Don Watershed Task Force
Maja Prentice
Lois Hancey
CARRIED
Mark Wilson, Chair, Don Watershed Task Force, presented the fourth progress report on the
works and achievements of the Task Force. He updated the Board on the May 15, 1994,
Celebrate the Don Day.
Lois Griffin extended thanks to the Task Force on behalf of the Board for the hard and
impressive work being done by the Task Force and the many community volunteers.
D2 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
PRESENTATIONS (CONTD.)
(b) The Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan
Mr. Bernard McIntyre, Fisheries Biologist, Water Resource Division gave a presentation on
The Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan.
(c) First Annual Metropolitan Toronto and Region Big Birdwatch
Mr. Dan Stuckey, Wildlife Theme Coordinator, Kortright Centre for Conservation gave a
presentation on the First Annual Metropolitan Toronto and Region Big Birdwatch which will
be held on June 4, 1994. Information on this event will be included with the minutes of
the meeting.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. THE ROUGE RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
KEY ISSUE
Completion and implementation of the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan. The plan was
available for review and a copy of the Executive Summary was distributed at the meeting.
Res. #W2/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Rouge River Fisheries Management
Plan, dated December, 1992, be approved;
THAT staff be directed to implement the plan when reviewing documents including official plans,
subwatershed studies, stormwater management plans, and permit applications under Ontario
Regulation 158 dealing with alterations to watercourses;
THAT staff present the plan, in cooperation with the Ministry of Natural Resources, to the
watershed municipalities and interest groups to seek their endorsement;
THAT staff coordinate fisheries management activities between municipalities and other partners
on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources, subject to available funding;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to pursue external funding opportunities to assist with the
development of a three year project to implement the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan
based on local priorities.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D3
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. THE ROUGE RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.)
BACKGROUND
Development of the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan was a recommendation of the
Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed ICBMS).
The preparation of the plan was initiated in the spring of 1990 with the Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) acting as lead agency and the Authority as project manager. Funding for the
project was provided by the MNR ($50,000), The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto ($12,500),
the City of Scarborough (S12,500), the Town of Markham ($9,000), the Town of Richmond Hill
($8,000) and the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville ($2,000).
An advisory committee was established to review the plan during its preparation. Membership of
the committee included MNR, the Authority, watershed municipalities, Save the Rouge Valley
System and Save the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The objective of the Fisheries Management Plan is to:
Protect, rehabilitate and enhance the Rouge River watershed so that it will support healthy,
self- sustaining fish populations consisting of resident and migratory cold and warm water
fish communities, where appropriate.
To meet the objective for the watershed, a 15 -year planning horizon has been selected. A horizon
of this length reflects a compromise between the slow rate of change in biological systems and the
practicality of funding and projecting future management requirements. Upon completion of the
planning period, progress toward the objective should be evaluated, and where necessary, a second
planning horizon established.
The plan provides detailed information and direction to assist in meeting the objective. The five
major topics in the plan include:
Aquatic Habitat Assessment
The present conditions and potential of the ecosystem are described. Details on water quality,
physical characteristics and the fisheries community are provided.
The results from habitat assessment indicated that the Rouge River watershed presently supports
coldwater fish species in the headwaters along the south slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine and
mixture of cool and warm water species throughout much of the rest of the watershed. However,
based on analyses of the habitat data collected, the Rouge River watershed still exhibits many of
the characteristics that historically allowed it to support resident and migratory salmonids.
Based on the inherent characteristics of the watershed, seven management zones were identified.
Within each management zone, sub -zones were designated in which to manage for specific fish
species. The species, to be used as a "barometer" of ecosystem health include, the brook trout,
rainbow trout, brown trout, redside dace, smallmouth bass and largemouth bass. Selection of
indicator species was based on the characteristics of each management sub -zone, to ensure that
the inherent characteristics of the watershed are protected, degraded habitat rehabilitated, and
thus the nature of the ecosystem preserved.
D4 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. THE ROUGE RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.)
Rehabilitation needs are identified and prioritized. Options for rehabilitation include streambank
planting, sediment control, barrier removal, channel renaturalization and pond removal or bypass.
Assessment of Existing Management Strategies
This section identifies existing fisheries management strategies, discusses their role in fisheries
management, and indicates where improvement might be achieved. Legislation, rehabilitation and
education options are reviewed.
Monitoring
Monitoring is described as a tool to identify the long term benefits of rehabilitation efforts as well
as to identify and resolve and negative impacts associated with land use practices. The plan
recommends the physical habitat, water quality, sensitive fish species and general fish community
and invertebrates be utilized as the principal monitoring tools.
Public Lands
The Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan provides a current inventory of public lands to support
the identification and creation of greenways within the watershed. The plan can be used to
prioritize areas for acquisition, assess locations for trails and identify sensitive areas that may need
to be protected. Publicly owned lands that are in contact with, or in proximity to, major tributaries
of the river are presented.
Communications Plan
The communications plan provides an outline of how to build awareness of the fisheries plan by
identifying communications objectives, and specific mechanisms through which to reach target
groups.
The Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan provides a framework where government agencies,
private businesses, interest groups and individuals can obtain information to assist them in a variety
of management activities. For example:
Activity
Ministry of Natural Resources Subwatershed planning
Reviewing development applications
Habitat rehabilitation
Municipalities Land use planning
Municipal land management
Park and open space planning
Authority Reviewing:
- subwatershed studies
- permits for alterations to a watercourse
Authority land management
Community outreach activities
Public Planning and implementing rehabilitation activities.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D5
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. THE ROUGE RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.)
The Draft Rouge Park Management Plan (January, 1993) has set long term fisheries objectives for
the park and identified the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan as the interim guide to fisheries
management.
The Authority was advised by MNR in a letter dated February 15, 1993, that they had formally
approved the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan as a component of their District Fisheries
Management Program. The Authority's original commitment to MNR and the other partners had
been fulfilled.
MNR suggested the implementation of the plan be undertaken in two phases.
Phase One would use existing planning mechanisms and resources. This could involve MNR and
the Authority encouraging the integration of the plan at meetings with other agencies, utilizing the
plan as a guide in the development review process to manage lands directly under MTRCA'S or
MNR's jurisdiction, and in undertaking MNR and Authority fisheries management activities.
Phase Two should be a more active approach which could include funding for a number of projects
and development of appropriate partnerships to assist in implementation.
Implementation of the plan is the last and most crucial step. On November 15, 1993, members of
the Advisory Committee met and discussed the implementation of the plan. The Committee
members agreed that MTRCA would be the appropriate agency to coordinate implementation
actions between all partners. In a letter dated December 17, 1993, MNR requested the MTRCA's
assistance to implement the plan through the phased approach outlined above.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Send copies of the completed plan to all members of the advisory committee including
MNR, watershed municipalities, Save the Rouge Valley System and Save the Oak Ridges
Moraine.
• Present the results of the plan to the watershed municipalities and other interested agencies
and groups seeking their endorsement.
• Enter into an agreement with MNR whereby MTRCA would act as project manager to
implement the plan and coordinate activities between all partners.
• Identify and secure funding for projects.
• Develop and implement a community based stream rehabilitation program.
• Develop site specific rehabilitation designs and cost estimates.
D6 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. THE ROUGE RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.)
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Implementation of the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan will require the continued
partnership between the Authority, MNR, municipalities and other interested groups.
Staff will work in cooperation with the other partners to:
• explore opportunities for implementing the plan
• provide technical advice
• assist with setting priorities for work
• assist community groups in planning and undertaking projects
• promote the "Adopt -A- Stream" concept
It has been estimated that approximately $60,000 will be required annually for one person, plus
support costs, to coordinate implementation actions. A funding arrangement will be required
between all the partners. MNR will be requested to contribute 50% of the annual cost to
coordinate the implementation of the plan. The balance must be raised from external sources.
As the coordinating agency, staff will contact potential partners to explore funding opportunities
and develop an appropriate cost sharing arrangement. Potential funding sources will include MNR,
municipalities, interest groups, foundations and other external grant programs.
2. THE METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT TRAIL
Jane Welsh, Project Coordinator, Metropolitan Waterfront Trail, was available to answer questions.
KEY ISSUE
To report on the recommendations relating to The Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Trail as adopted
by the Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and for the Scarborough sector by the
Council of the City of Scarborough.
Res. #W3/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Trail
recommendations of the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto as adopted on
August 11, 1993 and of the Council of the City of Scarborough as adopted on December 13, 1993
be received;
THAT the Authority reaffirm its support for a continuous recreational trail across the Metropolitan
Waterfront which is part of the approved Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992-
1994;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D7
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. THE METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT TRAIL (CONTD.)
THAT staff be directed to consider Recommendation 7 as adopted on August 11, 1993 by the
Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in undertaking specific annual capital works;
THAT staff be directed in preparing subsequent multi -year capital projects - the Lake Ontario
Waterfront Regeneration Project and the Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration
Project to consider the recommendations outlined by The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and
City of Scarborough;
AND FURTHER THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Scarborough, the City
of Etobicoke, the City of Toronto, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and Citizens for a Lakeshore
Greenway be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In the fall of 1991, the Metropolitan Lakeside (now Waterfront) Trail Working Committee was
established with members from Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway (CFALG), the cities of
Etobicoke, Toronto and Scarborough, the Province of Ontario (Waterfront Regeneration Trust), The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( MTRCA) and chaired by The Municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto.
This Committee was to co- ordinate a continuous waterfront trail within Metropolitan Toronto which
had been identified as a key component of the proposed new Metropolitan Waterfront Plan.
Public consultation included: 1) a brochure /survey; 2) public meetings; 3) presentations and
special events; and 4) community advisory groups. At the invitation of Councillors Kinahan,
Ashton and Morrish, community advisory groups, comprised of representatives of the local
community and the Metropolitan Waterfront Trail Committee, were established in Etobicoke and
Scarborough. The MTRCA participated in all community advisory group meetings.
The Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its meeting held on August 11, 1993,
adopted the following clause embodied in Report 16 of the Economic Development and Planning
Committee concerning the Metropolitan Waterfront Trail:
(1) the adoption of the report (July 16, 1993) from the Commissioner of
Planning subject to amending Recommendations Nos. (9) and (10) by
deleting there from the words "encouraged to give priority to ", and inserting
in lieu thereof the words "requested to consider ";
(2) that priority be given to those sections of pedestrian and /or bicycle trails
that achieve coincidently, the completion of identified shoreline protection
projects;
(3) that Metropolitan Toronto initiate discussions and consultations with the
Guildwood Village Community Association on the trial implementation of a
bicycle route on Guildwood Parkway /Grey Abbey Trail;
D8 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. THE METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT TRAIL (CONTD.)
(4) that the City of Scarborough be requested to report on the impact and
success of signed bicycle routes in Scarborough;
(5) that the Commissioner of Planning be requested to submit a report to the Economic
Development and Planning Committee on:
a) the approval process and timing to be followed to achieve funding
and design approvals; and
b) the path through Bluffers Meadow, with a view to making it as
natural as possible.
The Economic Development and Planning Committee submits the following report (July 16, 1993)
from the Commissioner of Planning:
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Metropolitan Toronto establish a continuous recreational trail across the Metropolitan
Waterfront in conjunction with area municipalities, the MTRCA, the Province of Ontario,
other public and private agencies and the community, in order to provide continuous public
access along the Metropolitan Waterfront for public use and enjoyment;
(2) the Waterfront Trail be developed such that the pedestrian route follows the alignment as
identified on Maps 1 and 2;
(3) the Waterfront Trail be developed such that the cyclist route follows the alignment as
identified on Maps 1 and 3, and the following action be taken to resolve outstanding
alignment issues in Etobicoke and Scarborough:
i) the Metropolitan Waterfront Trail Working Committee, in conjunction with the
proposed Metropolitan Cycling Advisory Committee, continue to pursue resolution
of outstanding issues regarding the location of the cyclist route for
the Waterfront Trail; and
ii) Metropolitan Toronto consult with local waterfront Councillors and the community
to discuss alternatives and implementation of the cycling route in Scarborough;
(4) the Metropolitan Commissioners of Planning, Transportation, and Parks and Property, in
conjunction with the proposed Metropolitan Cycling Advisory Committee, develop linkages
between the Waterfront Trail and the Metropolitan bicycle trail system;
(5) the Metropolitan Commissioners of Parks and Property, and Transportation, take the
necessary steps to implement the Waterfront Trail on Metropolitan -owned or managed
property and rights -of -way as generally identified on Maps 1, 2 and 3 by;
i) implementing those segments of Waterfront Trail in the 1993 -97 Capital Program;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D9
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. THE METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT TRAIL (CONTD.)
ii) including the remaining segments of the Waterfront Trail in capital and operating
budgets; and
iii) giving priority to implementation by the end of 1994 of the following:
a) pedestrian access from the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant east to the proposed
pedestrian route;
b) a cyclist route through Guildwood Park; and
c) resolution of the feasibility of a cyclist alignment along Lakeshore Boulevard
(First Avenue to Humber Bay Promenade), Kingston Road (Victoria Park to
Livingston Road) and Lawrence Avenue East (Beechgrove Drive to Port
Union Road);
(6) the Commissioner of Works incorporate access for the Waterfront Trail on Metropolitan
lands owned or managed by the Works Department, as identified on Maps 1, 2, and 3, in
conjunction with future facility improvements;
(7) the MTRCA be requested to take the necessary steps to implement the Waterfront Trail,
including:
i) establishing a pedestrian trail on the shoreline protection works from the R.C. Harris
Filtration Plant to Fishleigh Ravine, and from Sylvan Park to Guildwood Park, by the
end of 1994;
ii) constructing a pedestrian and cyclist trail on shoreline protection works from
Bellamy Ravine to Morningside Avenue, pending completion of such works;
iii) determining the feasibility of lakefilling to accommodate a water's edge trail (as
generally identified on Maps 1, 2 and 3) and part of the preparation of the Shoreline
Management Plan; and
iv) acquiring property and /or easements as required to implement the Waterfront Trail
(as generally identified on Maps 1, 2 and 3);
(8) the Cities of Etobicoke, Toronto and Scarborough be encouraged to assist Metropolitan
Toronto in the implementation of the pedestrian and cycling routes for the Waterfront Trail
(as generally identified on Maps 1, 2 and 3) by implementing those segments of the trail
that are located on their properties and rights -of -way:
(9) the Cities of Etobicoke and Scarborough be encouraged to give priority to providing trail
signage on local streets and in local parks by the end of 1994;
(10) the City of Scarborough be encouraged to give priority to construction of a cyclist trail
through Grey Abbey Park to Copperfield Road by the end of 1994;
D10 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. THE METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT TRAIL (CONTD.)
(1 1) the Province of Ontario be requested to support implementation of the Waterfront Trail (as
generally identified on Maps 1, 2, and 3), including:
i) negotiating easements with Canadian National Railway (CN); and
ii) cost -share funding for acquisition, construction, and further studies, including the
MTRCA Shoreline Management Plan;
(12) Metropolitan Toronto undertake promotion of the Waterfront Trail, including the preparation
and distribution of maps, heritage interpretation, and other means; and
(13) this report and appendices be forwarded to the area municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto,
the MTRCA, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, CFLAG, the Waterfront Trail Community
advisory groups, and be distributed to interested members of the public as part of the draft
Metropolitan Waterfront Plan public consultation process.
The City of Scarborough through its Waterfront Committee held a number of workshops on the
Scarborough sector of the Metropolitan Waterfront Trail. Authority staff participated in the
workshop sessions with the Scarborough Waterfront Committee and provided comments as
outlined in a letter dated November 3, 1993 to the Committee. On December 13, 1993, the
Council for the City of Scarborough adopted the following recommendations:
1) if a trail is to be built in Scarborough, it should be a continuous trail at the water's edge;
2) the trail should be constructed in sections as opportunities arise, and preferably in the
following order:
First: from Bluffer's Park to the Guild Inn
Second: from East Point Park to the Rouge River
Third: from the R.C. Harris Plant to the Harrison - Rosetta McClain - Fishleigh
node
Fourth: from the Guild Inn to Grey Abbey Ravine
Fifth: from the Harrison Rosetta McClain - Fishleigh node to Bluffer's Park;
3) no public funds should be expended to construct or publicize a trail route that does not
directly contribute to a trail at the water's edge or afford a direct lake view.
RATIONALE
The 1967 Metropolitan Waterfront Plan provided the basis for the designation of the Authority as
the implementing agency. This plan specified that extensive lakefilling, the acquisition of private
property and better linkages between public lands would give "virtually unlimited public access to
the lake." Metropolitan Toronto's present Official Plan (1980) articulates the regional interest in a
waterfront trail, noting that "continuous public access along the entire waterfront, through private
and public lands, is a long -term objective of the plan.
In 1991, the City of Scarborough adopted waterfront policies which included the following specific
policy on the waterfront trail.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D11
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. THE METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT TRAIL (CONTD.)
a waterfront trail system shall be developed, placing priority on enhancing
access to the waterfront, and linking Scarborough to adjacent municipalities
where possible, the trail may also include a component for educating the
public, for examp /e, the geological processes that contributed to the
formation of the bluffs."
The Metropolitan Waterfront Trail initiative to improve public access to and along the waterfront is
supported by the policies of Metropolitan Toronto and the City of Scarborough. As an
implementing agency, it would be appropriate to reaffirm our support for a continuous recreational
trail across the Metropolitan Waterfront which is currently part of the Authority's approved Lake
Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -94.
The recommendations and priorities outlined by The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the
City of Scarborough should be considered in preparing annual capital works and subsequent multi-
year capital projects, the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project and the Metropolitan
Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project.
WORK TO BE DONE
The Authority would continue to participate in the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Trail Committee
and work with the waterfront member municipalities in establishing annual and multi -year priorities
for the waterfront trail on our lands or as part of other capital works.
FINANCIAL
The Authority will pursue alternative cost sharing arrangements with the waterfront member
municipalities and seek approval of annual works from the Authority.
3. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1994
- Mimico Apartment Strip Waterfront Access/Trail, City of Etobicoke
KEY ISSUE
To ensure public access across the Mimico Apartment Strip, City of Etobicoke from the Marina Del
Rey /Grand Harbour Boardwalk to Norris Crescent.
Res. #W4/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Victoria Carley
Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1994 development program for the Mimico Apartment Strip, City of Etobicoke, under the "Lake
Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 - 1994 ", at a total cost of $25,000. subject to
receipt of funding approval from the Province of Ontario;
D12 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1994 (CONTD.)
- Mimico Apartment Strip Waterfront Access/Trail, City of Etobicoke
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Etobicoke, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of June 28, 1993, Etobicoke Council directed staff to consult with the MTRCA and
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto regarding land requirements, ownership alternatives,
design, cost, and funding to secure public access across the Mimico Apartment Strip from the
existing Marina Del Rey /Grand Harbour Boardwalk to Norris Crescent.
At its meeting held on Monday, November 29, 1993, Council adopted, without amendment, Clause
260 of the Twenty- Second Report of the Planning and Development Committee, which
recommends as follows:
"THAT a report dated November 16, 1993, from the Commissioner of Planning, requesting
authorization for the initiation of discussions in order to secure public access to the
waterfront between Humber Bay Promenade and Norris Crescent Park, be adopted; and
THAT staff be authorized to initiate discussions with affected property owners and
the appropriate agencies in order to secure public access to the waterfront between
Humber Bay Promenade and Norris Crescent Park;
THAT the participation of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority be requested in implementing this project; and
THAT a copy of the Commissioner's report be forwarded to The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust for information.
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and all of the waterfront area municipalities, Waterfront
Regeneration Trust, and the MTRCA are working toward the creation of a waterfront trail system
extending across the Metro Region. The Authority has approved a waterfront trail as a component
of the "The Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 - 1994" . Metropolitan Council as
coordinator for this initiative also endorsed the creation of a Waterfront Trail at its meeting of
August 11 and 12, 1993 by adopting the following:
"1) Metropolitan Toronto establish a continuous recreational trail across the
Metropolitan Waterfront in conjunction with Area Municipalities, The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( MTRCA), the
Province of Ontario, other public and private agencies and the community, in
order to provide continuous public access along the Metropolitan Waterfront
for public use and enjoyment."
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D13
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1994 (CONTD.)
- Mimico Apartment Strip Waterfront Access/Trail, City of Etobicoke
RATIONALE
Improved public access for the Mimico Apartment Strip is part of the Lake Ontario Waterfront
Development Program and is also a component of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project
1992 - 1994. The Metropolitan Waterfront Trail initiative is to improve public access to and along
the waterfront by means of a continuous recreational trail, including the Mimico Apartment Strip
area as shown on the trail alignment maps (see Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Trail Report,
August 1993).
The Board also has before it on March 4, 1994 a recommendation to reaffirm its support for a
continuous waterfront trail.
The City of Etobicoke has requested the participation of the Authority in implementing this project.
Authority participation is appropriate as part of the 1994 capital works priorities.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Property Negotiations
MTRCA, in coordination with the City of Etobicoke and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto,
will negotiate at the appropriate time with the public (Ministry of Natural Resources) and private
property owners for approximately 25 parcels of land. These negotiations will also include survey
plans and appraisal work.
Public ownership of the proposed right -of -way is the preferred approach to implementation where
property owners are prepared to make lands available to accommodate the trail. Some portions of
the land may be purchased at a nominal cost. Where public acquisition is not possible, right -of-
way agreements could be a method of securing access in the short term.
The cost associated with securing lands to accommodate the trail will be critical since no
significant funding sources are currently available. Private property owners will be approached to
determine the level of support for the trail link.
Trail and Shoreline Design
Staff discussions with the City of Etobicoke have identified preliminary design parameters for the
Mimico Apartment Strip Trail. The concept proposes a maximum 10 metre right -of -way including a
combined pedestrian and bicycle trail approximately 3.5 metres in width, along with an adjacent
area for landscaping or shoreline protection.
South of the trail alignment, a modest amount of shoreline remediation is necessary in order to
enhance the existing function of the shoreline and provide consistent protection to the trail and
private lands.
Construction costs have been estimated by the City of Etobicoke and Authority staff, on the basis
of a preliminary concept plan at approximately 2 million dollars (excluding property acquisition
costs).
D14 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1994 (CONTD.)
- Mimico Apartment Strip Waterfront Access/Trail, City of Etobicoke
If sufficient support is found, staff will proceed to a detailed design stage and identify specific
funding requirements and mechanisms to implement the proposed works.
MTRCA staff, in cooperation with the City of Etobicoke and The Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto will assist in the design of the Mimico portion of the trail combining a pedestrian and
bicycle trail approximately 3.5 metres in width, along with an adjacent area for landscaping and
shoreline protection.
Total cost of this work in 1994 is estimated at $25,000.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total 1994 budget for this component is $25,000 subject to funding approval from the
Province of Ontario under Account No. 206 -01.
This work will be carried out under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -
1994", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91.
4. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996
- Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
KEY ISSUE
To continue with the construction of the erosion control works along the Lake Ontario shoreline
adjacent to Nos. 33 to 83 Fishleigh Drive in the City of Scarborough.
Res. #W5/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the next
phase of the construction of erosion control works; adjacent to Nos. 33 -83 Fishleigh Drive, City of
Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley Shoreline Regeneration Project
1992 - 1996 ", at a total in 1994 of $242,000., subject to receipt of provincial funding approval.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D15
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996 (CONTD.)
- Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
BACKGROUND
The Fishleigh Drive erosion control project was approved under the Class Environmental
Assessment process in 1988.
Construction began on the access road in 1988 and was completed by 1989. Construction of the
shoreline protective works began in 1990 and by the end of the 1993, a total of 326 metres of
offshore armoured revetment had been constructed at a total project cost of $ 1.68 million.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Consultants will be retained to review the final details of the easterly termination of the armoured
revetment. This will include an assessment of the impact of the shoreline protection to the Needles
Bluffs, aesthetics, geomorphology and coastal analysis.
Subject to the conclusions of the consultant's review, it is proposed that an additional 70 metres of
off shoreline revetment be constructed along with backshore filling and grading along the Fishleigh
Drive shoreline. All work will be carried out by Authority staff utilizing the annual equipment
supply contract.
Environmental monitoring of the project will also continue in 1994. This work will include fisheries
survey, benthos and substrate analysis to document changes to the aquatic environment in the
vicinity of the project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out 1994 work is $242,000. under Account Nos. 138 -03 and 138 -23.
The cost estimate for the various components of the work are:
Labour $ 67,000.
Materials 85,000.
Equipment 70,000.
Environmental Monitoring 10,000.
Coastal Study 10.000.
Total Budget $242,000.
Funding availability will be subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario. This work will be
carried out under the "Municipality of Metro Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project
1992 - 1996 ", approved at Authority meeting #3/91.
D16 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996
-5 Kingsbury Crescent Slope Stabilization Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront,
City of Scarborough
KEY ISSUE
To continue construction of the slope stabilization work at 5 Kingsbury Crescent, City of
Scarborough.
Res. #W6/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the next
stage of slope stabilization work in the vicinity of 5 Kingsbury Crescent, City of Scarborough, under
the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996 ",
at a total cost in 1994 of $ 100,000, subject to receipt of provincial funding approval.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Shoreline protection work was completed below house number 5 Kingsbury Crescent in 1991.
However, ongoing erosion of the slope and table land is threatening the long term stability at
5 Kingsbury Crescent. In 1992 funding was received from the province to proceed with the
necessary studies as required, under the Class Environmental Assessment process for slope
stabilization work. The geotechnical investigation and design of remedial works was completed by
Terraprobe Limited.
During 1993, the Authority commenced work on two of the actively eroding gullies in the vicinity
of 5 Kingsbury Crescent. A rubble buttress was constructed at the toe of both gullies followed by
top dumping of 19mm clear stone to create a filter drain.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
In 1994, staff propose to continue the slope stabilization measures in accordance with the
Terraprobe report. This work will consist of top dumping of select broken concrete rubble in the
gullies behind 5 Kingsbury Crescent. The rubble slope will be treated with appropriate seed mixture
and shrub planting where feasible. Similar construction will proceed on the 4th gully behind the
former 9 Kingsbury Crescent property.
All work will be carried out by Authority staff utilizing the annual equipment supply contractor.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out 1994 work is $100,000 under Account No. 142 -14. The cost
estimate for the various components of the work are:
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D17
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996 (CONTD.)
-5 Kingsbury Crescent Slope Stabilization Project,, Lake Ontario Waterfront,
City of Scarborough
Labour $ 38,000.
Materials 25,000.
Equipment 37,000.
Total $100,000.
Funding availability will be subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario. This work will be
carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration
Project 1992 - 1996 ", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91.
6. KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING
KEY ISSUE
Continuation of annual maintenance dredging of Keating Channel, City of Toronto.
Res #W7/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Loma Bissell
Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be
requested to continue maintenance dredging of the Keating Channel in 1994 and to fund one third
of the cost for dredging and the Cell One capping in the amount of S300,000;
THAT the City of Toronto be requested to fund a one third share of the cost of the work in 1994 in
the amount of $300,000;
THAT the Authority continue with the environmental monitoring program;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority contribute a one third share of the cost of the dredging and the
Cell One capping up to a total cost of $300,000, subject to provincial funding approval.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) dredged Keating Channel from the time of its
construction in the 1920's to about 1974. As the dredging became more expensive and disposal
of the dredged material more difficult, the THC sought partners in the work. Transport Canada
initially agreed to participate on the basis that if the Channel was not dredged, eventually the delta
D18 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING (CONTD.)
would spread into the north east corner of the Inner Harbour and affect shipping channels where
the federal government was responsible to maintain safe navigation depths. The MTRCA also
agreed to participate on the basis that if the Channel was not dredged, the threat of flooding in the
lower Don River valley would be increased. The MTRCA's participation was the subject of an
environmental assessment between 1980 and 1986 which was subsequently approved. Hence, a
three party agreement was struck which saw the cost of dredging shared three ways during the
period 1986 to 1991, i.e., THC, Transport Canada and MTRCA.
The cost sharing agreement which began in 1986 was to fund the cost of dredging the material
which had accumulated between 1974 and 1986. It did not specifically address the funding of the
maintenance dredging which is required annually. The Channel has been completely dredged as
originally planned but additional sediment is deposited annually. The channel will fill in over time if
annual dredging is not maintained.
The federal government, represented by Transport Canada, advised the THC that no federal funds
will be available for maintenance dredging unless Environment Canada assumes the federal
involvement.
During the first two years of maintenance dredging (1992 and 1993), the THC, City of Toronto and
the MTRCA participated in the cost sharing.
RATIONALE
There is a continuing need for dredging of the Keating Channel. Recent studies for the City of
Toronto on Ataratiri confirmed the connection between the dredged channel and Lower Don River
flood risks. In addition, some navigation interests still exist in the north east corner of the harbour.
THC has estimated an annual siltation rate of between 40,000 to 60,000 cubic metres.
The approval of the Keating Channel Dredging Project under the Environmental Assessment Act
imposed conditions on the capping of the dredged material within the disposal cells at Tommy
Thompson Park. There are costs associated with the construction of the proposed cap which were
not part of the original funding for the dredging project. It was anticipated that the cap could be
constructed by placing clean fill over the dredged material, which would have been done at no net
cost. However, the desire to create wetland habitat, while enhancing the existing fish habitat in
the disposal cells which is consistent with the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan, has resulted in
a solution requiring approximately $600,000 in funding over a two to three year period.
DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE
The THC will coordinate and carry out the dredging program. It is estimated that up to 35,000
cubic metres of material would be dredged from the channel and disposed of in Cell Two of the
Endikement (Tommy Thompson Park). MTRCA staff will continue the environmental monitoring
program for the dredging and disposal operations.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D19
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING (CONTD.)
We anticipate the plan for the wetland cap will be approved by the Regional Director, Ministry of
the Environment and Energy in accordance with the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment as
amended by the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Environmental Assessment approval expected
by mid -1994.
Subject to receiving final approval from the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, capping of Cell
One will commence in 1994. Details of the construction and implementation of the Cell One
capping will be co- ordinated between the THC and MTRCA staff.
FUTURE BENEFITS /PROBLEMS
If the regular maintenance dredging of Keating Channel is delayed or deferred in 1994, it is likely
that the cycle of the past 15 years will simply be repeated. It is unlikely to get easier to find funds
in future budgets. With each year the dredging is delayed, the volume to be dredged increases and
the channel capacity decreases. While the existing Environmental Assessment approval includes
annual or biennial maintenance dredging, it is possible that if the work was delayed beyond that
period that an environmental assessment review may be requested.
The Cell One capping will not only minimize contaminant mobility and biological uptake but ensure
the ecological sustainability of Tommy Thompson Park with the wetland and fish habitat
regeneration efforts.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The THC has budgeted a total of $150,000 as its share of the dredging cost and the City of
Toronto has contributed $150,000 as its share.
Funding for the Cell One capping will need to be confirmed by the City of Toronto ($150,000) and
THC (150,0001.
The Authority has budgeted a total of $300,000 for 1994, subject to provincial funding approval.
Funding up to $150,000 will be available under the Keating Channel Flood Control Project within
Account No. 113 -20. The remaining $150,000 has been budgeted as the Authority's share for
Cell One capping, under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -1994 within
Account No. 210 -04.
D20 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. MUNICIPAL ADOPTION OF A TOPSOIL PRESERVATION BY -LAW
- Second Progress Report
KEY ISSUE
Update on municipal adoption of Topsoil By -laws and completion of MTRCA's Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelines for Construction (Draft, January 1994).
Res. #W8/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated February 21, 1994,
on the status of municipal adoption of a Topsoil Preservation By -law be received for information;
THAT the Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Construction (Draft, January 1994) be
received;
THAT staff continue to solicit the Ministry of Natural Resources for its endorsement of the
Guidelines;
AND FURTHER THAT these Guidelines be used by Authority staff as a reference document, once
endorsed by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #10/93, held on November 26, 1993, Resolution #A203193 was adopted
which states in part:
"THAT staff be requested to continue negotiation with municipalities, especially those in
the Metropolitan area, to encourage the adoption of a Topsoil Preservation By -law;
THAT members of the Authority be encouraged to implement Top Soil By -laws in their local
municipalities;
THAT staff be requested to report back to the Board on the status of the Top Soil By -laws
at their March 4, 1994 meeting."
In response to direction received at Authority Meeting #10/93, staff have prepared a report,
following as Table 1., on the status of municipal adoption of Topsoil By -laws. Of particular note,
staff have been involved in further discussions with the City of Vaughan and the Town of
Richmond Hill regarding their potential adoption of a Topsoil By -law. City of Vaughan staff are
actively investigating the legal and administrative implications of such a by -law in support of their
staff report to council.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D21
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. MUNICIPAL ADOPTION OF A TOPSOIL PRESERVATION BY -LAW (CONTD.)
- Second Progress Report
MTRCA staff met with representatives of the Town of Richmond Hill Engineering and Planning
Departments to discuss their comments on the draft Don Watershed Regeneration Plan and, in
particular, the recommendation that the town adopt a Topsoil By -law. A review of water quality
conditions in the Don River provided a new context within which to examine the need for improved
erosion and sediment control mechanisms in the Town of Richmond Hill. Town staff have agreed
to review Richmond Hill's existing Fill By -law and consider either the amendment of that By -law or
enactment of a Topsoil By -law. Town staff will contact Authority staff for any additional
information or advise, as necessary.
As municipalities adopt Top Soil By -laws, they will be assuming more responsibility in the area of
sediment control. Therefore, their staff will rely on the availability of sound reference information
in this area. The Authority's 1992 Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Study found existing
provincial guidelines on erosion and sediment control practices for urban construction sites to be
technically adequate, but weak in the areas of planning, selection, monitoring, and maintenance of
sediment controls. In response to this finding, staff have prepared the attached Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelines for Construction ( MTRCA, Draft January 1994). The Guidelines are
not intended to supersede existing provincial guidelines, but rather to complement them. The
Guidelines were prepared to serve as a reference document for the following purposes:
• to assist contractors, consultants, municipal and Authority staff in achieving a
comprehensive approach to controlling erosion and sedimentation from land
disturbing activity; and
• to act as a reference document for newly adopted municipal Top Soil By -laws and
the associated memorandum of understanding, which transfers the review /approval
of sediment control from the Authority to the municipality.
Authority staff have requested that the Ministry of Natural Resources endorse the Guidelines as a
mutually acceptable reference document.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Study, implementation of that study's
recommendations (e.g. Top Soil By -law promotion, preparation of guidelines, etc.), and staff
support for that study, were funded completely by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy. As
of January 31, 1994, that study budget was exhausted. Due to the lack of funding for support
staff, the Authority's ability to conduct further proactive negotiations with member municipalities
regarding adoption of a Topsoil By -law has been constrained. Therefore, priority has been given to
those municipalities located within the Don Watershed and discussions held, as part of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Plan development. Authority staff will continue to provide advisory
services on this topic to all municipalities, as requested.
D22 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. MUNICIPAL ADOPTION OF A TOPSOIL PRESERVATION BY -LAW (CONTD.)
- Second Progress Report
TABLE 1. Current Status of Municipalities That Participated in May, 1993 Topsoil By -Law Discussions
Municipality
E & S control
mechanism prior to
meeting
MTRCA request
Status as of October, 1993
• Changes in status as of February,
1994 noted in bold.
Pickering
subdivision agreement
adopt by -law
Letter dated Dec. /93 indicated municipal staff
have concluded that sediment control is being
effectively regulated through subdivision
agreement, therefore a topsoil by -law is not
required.
Ajax
subdivision agreement
adopt by -law
•
Staff report supporting adoption of a by -law is
pending - No date set for taking report to
council.
Vaughan
subdivision agreement
adopt by -law
Staff report supporting adoption of a by -law is
pending - No date set for taking report to
senior management and council.
Scarborough
subdivision agreement
no request - draft
was tabled at
May discussions
Staff working on "draft" topsoil by -law may be
incorporated in consolidated Env. by -law. Will
take report and by -law to council in July /Aug.
1994
King
subdivision agreement
adopt by -law
Internal staff discussion: No date for report to
council. Unlikely to adopt by -law
Richmond
Hill
fill by -law &
subdivision agreement
adopt by -law
Staff are now re- evaluating adoption of topsoil
by -law in context of the Draft Don Watershed
Regeneration Plan.
Adjala
subdivision agreement
adopt by -law -
Council (July/1993) decision not to adopt
Whitchurch
Stouffville
Subdivision
agreement & fill by-
law
adopt by -law
Internal discussion still (planning, works, by-
law enforcement). Unlikely to adopt by -law
Caledon
subdivision
agreement,
preservicing
agreement & fill and
topsoil by -laws.
amend topsoil by-
law to strengthen
Staff indicates existing mechanism adequate.
Unlikely to amend by -law.
Uxbridge
topsoil by -law &
subdivision agreement
amend by -law
Made amendment to by -law (June /1993). Are
discussing other Authority suggestions to
strengthen by -law.
Brampton
subdivision
agreement,
preservicing
agreement, fill by -law
& draft
topsoil by -law
no request - draft
was tabled at
May discussions
Council passes topsoil by -law. June 1993
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D23
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1994
- Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke
KEY ISSUE
Continuation of the site development at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke.
Res. #W9/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1994 development program at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke, under the
"Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 - 1994 ", at a total cost of $769,000, subject
to receipt of provincial funding approval.
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to complete the wetland creation at a total cost of
$200,000 subject to receipt of funding approval from Environment Canada.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On March 3, 1993, the Authority received approval from the Ministry of the Environment and
Energy for an exemption to modify the Colonel Samuel Smith Master Plan under the Environmental
Assessment Act. Approvals of the Master Plan were also received from the City of Etobicoke and
Metropolitan Toronto.
This approval enabled the Authority to commence construction of a wetland area in late 1993. In
addition, the Authority awarded a contract for construction of the hard surface treatment for the
Public Promenade.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The major development components proposed for 1994 are set out on a priority basis. A brief
project description is as follows:
(1) Public Promenade - Walkway and Pedestrian Bridge
An important component of the Master Plan is the development of the waterfront trail
system through the park. The 160 metre shoreline section fronting the boating federation
area will become a key focal point for the general public. In late 1993, the Authority
awarded a $391,818 contract to Gateman - Milloy Inc., for construction of the pedestrian
bridge over the existing weir structure and the public walkway. Due to a late budget
approval, this contract was not completed because of adverse weather conditions so the
balance of this contract will be completed this spring.
The total cost to complete this work in 1994 is $140,000.
D24 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1994 (CONTD.)
- Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke
(2) Public Promenade - Landscaping
In 1993, the Authority's consultant completed the landscape plans in consultation with
Metro Toronto Parks Department staff and members of the Lakeshore Yacht Club.
Contracts will be called for the supply and installation of site furnishings such as park
benches and waste receptacles as well as the tree and shrub plantings.
The total estimated cost to complete this work in 1994 is $160,000.
(3) Pathways
Gravel treated pathways will be constructed to link the existing paved Metro Waterfront
Trail to the public promenade.
The total estimated cost to construct approximately 800 metres of pathway in 1994 is
$50,000.
(4) Interim Site Management
The northerly portion of the park was opened to public use in the summer of 1992.
Metropolitan Toronto Parks Department took over interim maintenance of this area.
However, the MTRCA continue to maintain and monitor the southerly portion of the park.
This work includes site security and monitoring the stabilization of the outer beaches and
headlands.
The total budget for this work in 1994 is S20,000.
(5) Site Grading and Landscaping
It is proposed that landscaping will be completed for the other public areas (i.e., westerly
arm, berms around the boat clubs and the area south of the wetland and east of the
parking lot) outside of the public promenade. This work, which is to be carried out by
Authority field staff, includes final grading, topsoil, seeding and tree and shrub plantings.
The total budget for this work in 1994 is $73,000.
(6) Site Lighting
The first phase of servicing in 1992 included the installation of the high voltage electrical
service and transformer. In 1994, it is proposed that provisions for electrical servicing be
extended to provide for roadway, parking lot and public promenade lighting. If sufficient
funding is available, provision for installation of navigation lighting will be included.
The total estimated cost to complete the final design and construction in 1994 is
$201,000.
(7) Roadway and Parking Lot Paving
The existing gravel -based road and parking lot was constructed in 1992 for public use. It is
proposed that these areas be asphalt paved in 1994.
The total estimated cost to complete this work is $125,000.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D25
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1994 (CONTD.)
- Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke
The total costs for the development activities, 1 -7 inclusive, proposed for 1994 is
$769,000. Should additional funding be made available from other sources then the
following activities would be implemented.
(8) Wetland Creation
Initial grading of an enlarged "wetland" area in the north easterly portion of the lakefilled
site was completed in 1993. In 1994, it is proposed that final grading and wetland
plantings can be completed within a total budget of $200,000.
(9) Final Armouring of Hardpoint
Subject to availability of funding, it is proposed to construct the next phase of final
shoreline armouring of Hardpoint Four. The total estimated cost for this work to be
completed in 1994 is $300,000.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget for the 1994 development components is $769,000. Funding in the amount of
$175,000 has been received for the Public Promenade Project under jobs0ntario capital. The
remaining funding availability will be subject to final approval of the Province of Ontario.
This work will be carried out under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -
1994 ", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91.
9. FILL LINE EXTENSION PROJECT
KEY ISSUE
To receive approval to circulate the Fill Line Extension Project, as amended to include the regulation
of headwater stream corridors, with drainage areas Tess than 130 hectares; significant areas
associated with waterbody features; and woody vegetation adjacent to valley or stream corridors in
the Fill Line Extension Project.
Res. #W1 0/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Fill Line Extension Project, as amended
to include the regulation of headwater stream corridors, with drainage areas less than 130
hectares; significant areas associated with waterbody features; and woody vegetation adjacent to
valley or stream corridors, be approved for circulation;
THAT staff be directed to begin the public review and approval process for the MTRCA Fill Line
Extension Project, as amended;
D26 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
9. FILL LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (CONTD.)
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the results of the public review and
approval process before submitting the project to the province for approval.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, the Authority has the power to make
regulations in part:
(a) Prohibiting or regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for the placing
or dumping of fill of any kind in any defined part of the area over which the
Authority has jurisdiction in which in the opinion of the authority the control of
flooding or pollution or conservation of land may be affected by the placing of
dumping of fill.
Fill regulations proposed by an authority must be approved by the province, and require the
completion of mapping and written schedules describing the areas to be regulated. Prior to
submitting the project to the province for approval, the public review and approval process as set
out in the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation Manual, Ministry of Natural
Resources, January, 1990, must be completed. This process involves providing opportunity for
public review, receiving a council endorsed resolution from each affected municipality and
notification of all members of Provincial Parliament whose riding is affected by the proposed
regulation.
At present, the Authority has approved fill regulations for valley and stream corridors that have
drainage areas greater than 1,300 ha (5 square miles), which encompasses only some of the valley
corridors in the watershed. With increasing development pressures in the Authority's jurisdiction, a
review of the fill regulation limit was required. It is staff's opinion that an extension of the fill
regulation line is the best way of protecting the remaining valley and stream corridors and
significant areas in the watershed.
In 1989, the Town of Markham recommended that the Authority extend its fill regulation within the
Town for all watercourses, stream and valleys, including watercourses which drain Tess than 1/2
square mile (130 hectares). At Authority Meeting #8/89, Resolution #256 was adopted:
"THAT the Town of Markham be advised that the Authority has proposed for 1990 a Fill
Regulation Extension Project and that the Town's recommendation to include all
watercourses, streams and valleys, even those draining less than 1/2 square mile, will be
discussed as part of the project;
THAT a decision regarding the extension of the Authority's Fill Regulation Line to include all
watercourses, streams and valleys beyond the 1/2 square mile limit be deferred pending the
results of the proposed 1990 Project;
THAT the Province be advised of the urgency to have an extension to the Authority's fill
regulation to address the development pressure within the Greater Toronto Area;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D27
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
9. FILL LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (CONTD.)
THAT, upon submission of the fill regulation schedules, the Province expedite the required
approval process;
AND FURTHER THAT the Province be requested to co- operate with the Authority in
identifying interim measures to control the placing of fill in areas draining less than 1300 ha
(five square miles)."
In 1990, the MTRCA hired R. V. Anderson Associates Limited to execute (in part) the Fill Line
Extension Project study. One purpose of this study was to prepare fill line mapping and written
schedules to extend the Authority's fill regulation to the 130 hectare drainage limit. For valley
systems with drainage areas less than 130 hectares, alternatives to fill regulation were to be
identified and documented. Phase ] of the report entitled "Fill Regulation Extension Project" was
approved in principle at the Authority Meeting #9/91, January 10, 1992 (Res. #293). Phase 2 of
the study was completed in December 1992, and recommended the use of fill lines as being the
most effective means of protecting watercourses with drainage areas less than 130 hectares. In
1993, staff completed a detailed review of the study and the mapping completed by the
consultant.
Pursuant to Authority Resolution #256 (above) and as recommended in the Fill Line Extension
Project study, it is staff's opinion that fill regulation is the best approach of protecting all valley and
stream corridors, including watercourses with drainage area less than 130 hectares and significant
areas that are associated with a waterbody feature. Fill regulation lines are intended to be used by
Conservation Authorities to manage control of flooding, pollution and conservation of land. In a
recent decision by the Mining and Lands Commissioner (611428) Ontario Limited vs. MTRCA;
February 11, 1994), conservation of land was defined as embodying not only the traditional
interpretation that includes the preservation of the physical attributes, such as soil stability and
erosion but to also include the recognition of the integrated functions occurring within the various
elements of the land.
Conservation of land includes the management of land resources such that the environmental
integrity of the resource is not adversely affected and has been interpreted by the Authority to
embody the principle of wise use. Wise use of valley and stream corridors and significant areas
requires the recognition of the fundamental relationship between the natural resources and their
ecological function. Using the Authority's mandate with respect to conservation of land, the Fill
Line Extension Project has been amended so that all valley and stream corridors and significant
areas associated with waterbody features will be fill regulated. The protection of all valley and
stream corridors and significant areas is a prerequisite to ensuring the long term environmental
health of the watershed.
The Criteria used to delineate the fill lines are consistent with the definitions of valley corridors,
stream corridors and significant areas that have been recommended within the Authority's draft
Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, 1992. It has been recommended that fill
regulation be investigated as a means of protecting significant areas by the province in the
Provincial Wetland Policy Statement (1992), and by the Authority in the Environmental Significant
Areas Study (1982), and the 1993 ESA Study Update. As well, staff have recommended to the
Board that as part of the provincial government's "New Approach to Planning," the Authority's
local and member municipalities consider this project, in part, as the basis of a process for defining
the significant natural components required for the long term protection of watershed ecosystems.
The amended criteria used by staff to delineate the fill line extensions are as follows:
D28 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
9. FILL LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (CONTD.)
VALLEY CORRIDORS:
• 10m from a determined stable crest of slope plus any woody vegetation that extends
beyond the 1 Om limit; or
• 10m from an estimated stable crest of slope using a projected line of 2H:1V from the base
of the valley bank plus any woody vegetation that extends beyond the 10m limit.
STREAM CORRIDORS:
• 10m from a calculated Regional Storm Flood Line plus any woody vegetation that extends
beyond the 10m limit; or
• 10m from an estimated Regional Storm Flood Line using the maximum elevation of 2.5m
from the watercourse bed of 1.5m above the sag elevation of a downstream crossing
embankment, whichever is greater, plus any woody vegetation that extends beyond the
10m limit; or
(Note: The sag elevation refers to the lowest point of a road crossing over a watercourse.
This criterion is a conservative approximation of the Regional Storm Flood plain
limits for use in this project. It does not negate any requirement for an engineered
flood study under the plan input and review process).
• 30m from any watercourse plus any woody vegetation that extends beyond the 30m limit.
SIGNIFICANT AREAS:
• 10m from the boundary of a Classified Wetland (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources); or
an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA; MTRCA) and /or Area of Natural or Scientific
Interest (ANSI; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) that is associated with a waterbody
feature plus any woody vegetation that extends beyond the 10m limit.
As stated above, part of the approval process for this project requires a council endorsed
resolution. To facilitate council endorsement of the project, MTRCA staff are meeting with
municipal staff to discuss the criteria and the delineation of the fill lines specific to the municipality.
In general, municipal staff responses have been favourable. MTRCA staff are also meeting with
staff from each of the adjoining conservation authorities to discuss the project. It is anticipated
that these meetings will be completed in March.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• MTRCA staff will continue to meet with municipal staff to explain the intent of the project
and to review the delineation of the fill line extensions within the municipality.
• MTRCA staff will continue to meet with adjoining conservation authority staff to discuss
the project.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D29
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
9. FILL LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (CONTD.)
• MTRCA staff will complete the written schedules that are required by the province for
registration and publication in the Ontario Gazette.
• MTRCA staff will complete the mapping that is required by the province for registration.
10. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE
- Minutes of Meeting #15/94 and Fourth Progress Report
KEY ISSUE
The minutes of the Don Watershed Task Force Meeting #15/94 and Fourth Progress Report are
provided for information.
Res. #W11/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Task
Force Meeting #15/94, (Appendix WR.1/94) be received;
THAT the Don Watershed Task Force Progress Report, October 1, 1993 - February 28, 1994,
(Appendix WR.10 /94), be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to forward copies of the Don Watershed Task Force
Progress Report to Don watershed municipal councils.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
At Meeting #4/92 of the Authority, the Terms of Reference, Membership Selection and Reporting
Procedures, dated May 1, 1992, for the Don Watershed Task Force were approved.
The Terms of Reference required that the Task Force:
"report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA and other agencies through the
Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board ".
To ensure that the Authority is kept informed on an ongoing basis, all minutes of the formal
monthly Task Force meetings are also being reported through the Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board.
D30 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
11. PROJECT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE CANADA POST CORPORATION PROPERTY
- City of Mississauga, 1994 Work Plan
KEY ISSUE
A status report and recommended actions relating to activities on the former Canada Post Property
in the City of Mississauga.
Res. #W12/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report dated February 24,
1994, on the former Canada Post Property be received;
THAT staff be directed to continue with the park master plan and site remediation plan under the
guidance of the Canada Post Steering Committee;
THAT the Authority concur with the demolition of the main building (approximately 21,370 square
metres or 230,000 square feet) and direct staff to investigate funding sources to proceed with the
demolition at the earliest possible date in accordance with existing Authority policies;
THAT staff explore interim management arrangements with our partners in a timely manner;
AND FURTHER THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Mississauga, the
Regional Municipality of Peel and the Province of Ontario be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The former Canada Post Property is located at 1400 Lakeshore Road East, on the shore of Lake
Ontario in the south east corner of the City of Mississauga. The property has a frontage of
approximately 440 metres on Lakeshore Road. It is bounded on the east and south by Marie Curtis
Park, to the west is the Lakeview Water Pollution Control Plant (MOEE), and the Lakeview
Generating Station (Ontario Hydro).
The property consists of approximately 15.7 ha of land containing approximately 30,000 square
metres of existing buildings (see attached Figure 1). The existing main buildings will have been
used by Canada Post as a sorting and distribution centre until February 28, 1994. A separate
building on the west side of the property is presently used as an Ontario Hydro training facility and
a police cadet school.
The Authority had expressed interest in acquiring at least a portion of the Canada Post Lands since
the early stages of the Waterfront Plan in 1970. Approval to proceed with the project to purchase
the property was given at Authority Meeting #9/91, held on January 10, 1992, when MTRCA
adopted Res. #285:
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D31
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
11. PROJECT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE CANADA POST CORPORATION PROPERTY
(CONTD.)
- City of Mississauga, 1994 Work Plan
"THAT the "Project for the Acquisition of the Canada Post Corporation Property,
1400 Lakeshore Road East, City of Mississauga as amended December 1991, be
adopted;
THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be requested to approve the project and
levy of S4,500,000 towards the cost of the project;
THAT the Regional Municipality of Pee/ be requested to approve the project and levy of
$4,500,000 towards the cost of the project;
THAT the Province of Ontario and the City of Mississauga be requested to approve
the project and contribute $9,000,000 towards the cost of the project;
THAT, pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, the approval of
the Ontario Municipal Board be requested, if required;
THAT Authority officia /s be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
complete the transaction including obtaining any additional approva /s which may be
deemed necessary and the execution of any necessary documents;
THAT upon closing of the transaction, staff be directed to coordinate a detailed
planning study of the property with the involvement of Metropolitan Toronto, the
Region of Peel, the City of Mississauga, the City of Etobicoke, the Province of
Ontario and such individua /s and groups who have an interest in the site;
THAT staff be directed to report to the Authority upon completion of the study with
respect to the proposed p /an and the recommended arrangements for development,
operation and maintenance of the site."
The property transaction vas completed on October 30, 1992, and title was transferred from the
Canada Post Corporation to MTRCA.
The total cost for the acquisition was $18,000,000 including the purchase price ($14,500,000),
taxes, fees and other ancillary costs associated with the transaction.
Funding for the acquisition was provided by the Province of Ontario by way of a land sale to the
City of Mississauga, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and the Regional Municipality of
Peel.
Through the agreement of purchase, up to $5,000,000 is available to prepare and implement the
Site Remediation Plan. All costs and expenses incurred in carrying out this work including permit
fees, consultants' fees, contractors' charges and removal, haulage, tipping and storage fees for
remediation, correcting, treating, removing, containing or capping the Adverse Environmental
D32 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
11. PROJECT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE CANADA POST CORPORATION PROPERTY
(CONTD.)
- City of Mississauga, 1994 Work Plan
Conditions, shall be paid as follows:
• as to the first $2.5 million of eligible expenses, by the Authority
• as to the next $2.5 million of eligible expenses, by Canada Post
• as to the balance of all eligible expenses and all other expenses, by the Authority
As a condition of the agreement of purchase, eligible expenses do not include costs and expenses
incurred by the Authority in developing a Park Master Plan. However, if additional park plan
development costs and expenses are incurred by the Authority as a result of the Adverse
Environmental Conditions, these costs may be considered eligible expenses.
A preliminary three - phased environmental audit by a consultant for Canada Post was supplemented
by an independent environmental audit commissioned by the Authority. It was determined through
chemical sampling and other means that isolated areas of the site were significantly contaminated
(see attached Figure 2). The Authority's consultant estimated that approximately 48,000 tonnes
of soil and the groundwater would have to be treated, removed or isolated, in order for the
property to meet the current Ministry of the Environment and Energy standards for the organic and
inorganic compounds, including an area of low level radioactive soil. The most heavily
contaminated areas are located along the southern boundary of the property. In addition, some
asbestos and PCB containing materials are present in the buildings.
Early in 1993, the Canada Post Steering Committee (CPSC) was established to oversee the
development of a master park and remediation plan for the property. This committee first met on
June 15, 1993, and includes representation from the Authority (the lead agency); The Municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto, Parks and Property and Planning Departments; The Regional Municipality
of Peel, Planning Department; City of Mississauga, Community Services Department and Realty
Services; City of Etobicoke, Planning and Parks and Recreation Departments; Ministry of the
Environment and Energy; Ministry of Natural Resources; and, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
The Authority and Steering Committee have considered options to utilize the main buildings once
they are vacated by Canada Post. Future tenants could potentially occupy the buildings on an
interim basis, until plans for the development of the site are finalized.
The City of Mississauga retained Randall Brown and Associates to analyze the existing buildings
and outline the costs to bring these buildings up to code to allow for a change in occupancy from
an industrial use to a retail or assembly use. It would cost $535,000 to $720,000 to bring Building
1 to code. An interim use of Building 1 for industrial storage would also require bringing the
buildings up to code.
The property is designated "Public Open Space - Waterfront Park" in the Mississauga Official Plan
acknowledging the potential reuse of existing structures with those uses to be focused on
recreational and community services facilities.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D33
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
11. PROJECT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE CANADA POST CORPORATION PROPERTY
(CONTD.)
- City of Mississauga, 1994 Work Plan
The Mississauga Zoning By -law has these lands zoned - M1 which permits industrial uses, a range
of generally non - retail commercial and restaurants in a multi -use building, limited space (i.e., 15 %)
within a particular permitted use may be used for retail sales and display of products manufactured,
repaired or wholesaled on -site with general retail commercial not permitted.
The two existing main buildings had been leased by the Canada Post Corporation. They have
vacated these buildings and the Authority will assume responsibility for them as of February 28,
1994. The Authority, in conjunction with the Canada Post Steering Committee, has obtained costs
to secure the buildings at approximately $100,000. Realty taxes are estimated at approximately
$200,000 per year. The Authority will also be responsible to pay the outstanding GST relating to
the acquisition within 30 days of Canada Post vacating the property. Canada Post has advised that
their annual operating costs for the buildings included approximately $110,000 for gas and
$165,000 for hydro.
The MTRCA investigated the costs of the demolition of Building 1. Costs for demolition and for
removal of asbestos and PCB products are estimated at $500,000.
Prior to the commencement of any demolition project, the asbestos and PCB products within the
structure must be removed in compliance with the applicable codes and regulations.
The Executive Committee at its Meeting #12/93, on February 11, 1994 adopted Res. #E245:
"IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the firm Pinchin and Associates be retained to
conduct both the asbestos and PCB surveys, and also to provide the Authority with
proper direction for the removal and disposal /storage;
AND FURTHER THAT the cost of this contract be limited to the amount of $11,610
excluding the applicab /e taxes."
RATIONALE
The Authority established the Canada Post Steering Committee in 1993 as a mechanism to involve
the partners in all decision - making for this site and to assist in guiding the Park Master Plan and
Site Remediation Plan preparation.
The CPSC, at Meeting No. 1/94 on January 26, 1994, agreed that the main building should be
demolished to facilitate the development of the park. The reasons being that: excessive costs were
identified with respect to upgrading the main building to meet present fire code regulations;
additional costs were identified with refurbishing the structure to attract potential tenants and a
zoning amendment being required for the interim use which would be contrary to the Official Plan
and the partners resolutions on the purchase of these lands for open space; the Committee came to
the conclusion that we are unlikely to find a short term tenant capable of providing us lease
payments commensurate with our investment; and, LACAC has indicated that the structure is not
significant enough to warrant preservation.
D34 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
11. PROJECT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE CANADA POST CORPORATION PROPERTY
(CONTD.)
- City of. Mississauga, 1994 Work Plan
With the Authority assuming all the costs associated with interim management of the site, it is
appropriate for staff to explore all interim management options with our partners to minimize the
Authority's exposure to these costs.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Canada Post Steering Committee has agreed with a consultant selection process for the Park
Master Plan and Site Remediation Plan. The prime consultant will be a park planning /landscape
architect firm with sub - consultants with expertise in site remediation and risk assessment. It is
anticipated that a consultant will be hired by the end of April, 1994.
The first step will be to assess the risks associated with the on -site contaminants. The study will
look at alternative options for sealing the on -site contaminants, consider contaminant pathways,
and park use scenarios. The results will assist the Steering Committee in evaluating options with
respect to remediation and park development plans.
Pending a risk assessment, officials of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy have indicated
that they may be receptive to a remediation plan which allows for the isolation and /or treatment of
some contaminants on -site. However, it is anticipated that the clean -up will enviably involve the
disposal of a substantial portion of the organically contaminated soil to a licensed landfill.
Staff is endeavouring to minimize this aspect of the remediation by exploring cost effective on -site
technologies.
The park master plan goal is to maximize the regional park significance of this site on the Lake
Ontario Waterfront as an integrated park unit providing public open space opportunities while
meeting the site remediation requirements.
With the recommendation to demolish Building 1 (approximately 21, 370 square metres), the
asbestos and PCB products within the structure must be removed in compliance with the applicable
codes and regulations prior to the commencement of any demolition project. On February 11,
1994, the Executive Committee approved the retention of Pinchin and Associates for this work.
Staff need to move expeditiously to obtain tenders for the demolition of Building 1 for approval in
accordance with the Authority's purchasing policies.
As of February 28, 1994, Canada Post will have vacated the site and the Authority will assume all
costs for the site except the building leased to Ontario Hydro and the Police Cadets. The Authority
needs to explore in a timely manner the options for interim management with the partners and the
mechanisms to reduce the Authority's exposure to these costs.
BENEFITS /PROBLEMS
With the actions proposed, the large land base presents opportunities for a park plan which take
advantage of the significant regional waterfront location, to evaluate cost effective site remediation
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D35
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
11. PROJECT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE CANADA POST CORPORATION PROPERTY
(CONTD.)
- City of Mississauga, 1994 Work Plan
technology, to provide environmental enhancements and ensure waterfront regeneration initiatives
provide for safe public use.
If the demolition of Building 1 does not proceed and a cost effective interim management
agreement is not secured, the public open space options may be curtailed and substantial costs will
be incurred by the Authority without any capital investment towards the future public open space
use of this site.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds are available for the site remediation in accordance with the conditions set out in the
Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
Costs for demolition of Building 1 are estimated at $500,000 - $600,000 for which funding is
being requested through the Federal Infrastructure Program by the Region of Peel. Staff are also
exploring other funding sources.
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING
KEY ISSUE
Response to the provincial government's proposal to reform the planning and development system
in Ontario based on recommendations by the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in
Ontario.
Res. #W13/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority strongly support the Province of Ontario's development of a policy
statement specific to natural heritage, environmental protection and hazard;
THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to consider changes to the proposed policy statements
that, in the opinion of the Authority, will assist in the long term protection of ecosystems;
THAT Figure 1 of this report be forwarded as the Authority's recommendations for rewording of
the proposed policy statements;
D36 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to consider the reworded definitions, as described in
Figure 2 of this report, prior to finalizing the proposed policy statements;
THAT the existing provincial planning policies, having been developed through a process of
extensive consultation be incorporated, in their entirety, rather than being summarized in the final
submission of policy statements to cabinet;
THAT the Authority support the change in direction to planning authorities from "have regard to" to
"be consistent with" Provincial Policy Statements;
THAT Authority staff continue to work with member and area municipalities to incorporate
initiatives to protect watershed ecosystems in municipal planning documents and decisions;
THAT the Authority request its member and local municipalities to support
watershed /subwatershed planning as the method of developing and implementing strategies for the
protection and restoration of watershed ecosystems;
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario was appointed by the Minister of
Municipal Affairs on June 12, 1991. The Commission's mandate was to recommend changes to
the Planning Act and to related policy to restore integrity to the planning process; to improve the
timing and efficiency of the review process; and to protect the environment.
The Authority provided input to the Commission in 1992. The Commission circulated its Draft
Report for comment by March 26, 1993. In responding to the Draft Report, the Authority
identified the following as its interests and resolved that:
"THAT The Metropolitan Toronto and Region conservation Authority endorse the
recommendation of the Commission that one of the purposes of municipal planning be to
protect and conserve the natural environment and foster the well -being of ecosystems; and,
THAT the Authority provide the Commission with information regarding the Don Watershed
Task Force as a model of a process for the development of a watershed strategy; and,
THAT conservation authorities coordinate the watershed planning process ensuring the
involvement of all interested citizens, municipalities and porvincial ministries and agencies;
and,
THAT, in preparing plans, municipalities develop policies based on studies done on a
watershed basis; and,
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D37
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
THAT the wording of the section(s) of the proposed Provincial Policy Statements dealing
with the natural heritage systme, be amended to add reference to the wastershed and
subwatershed planning processes as mechanisms whereby these resources can be
identivied and protected; and,
THAT the Commission delete references to regional and local significance from its
recommendations respecting provincial policies for natural heritage protection in order to
ensure a systems approach; and,
THAT, should the province proceed to establish development standards with respect to the
form, features and /or functions of the natural heritage system, conservation authority
representation be included on the committee responsible for this task; and,
THAT The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority request the commission
to reiterate its suggestions with respect to amendments to the conservation authorities act
as a part of its final report and that they be stated as recommendations to the Province of
Ontario; and,
THAT the Province of Ontario coordinate the development of a private land stewardship
manual to encourage good land management practices on private lands and of a private
land stewardship partnership amongst interested ministries and agencies, including
conservation authorities, to facilitate implementation; and,
THAT The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority discuss with its
member municipalities and the Province of Ontario the financial implications of and
opportunities to accelerate the development of individual watershed strategies."
The Final Report of the Commission was submitted in June, 1993 and the government's response,
A New Approach to Land Use Planning, released on December 14, 1993. Comments on the
government's proposed changes to the planning and development system will be received until
March 14, 1994.
Staff has reviewed A New Approach to Planning in Ontario with respect to the interest of the
Authority and prepared the following report and recommendations.
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In requesting comments on A New Approach to Land Use Planning, the government has specifically
identified the two main issues as:
the details of the proposed policy statements, and
the use of the term "shall be consistent with" to replace "shall have regard to ".
D38 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENTS
Six policy statements have been proposed on issues of provincial interest. Of specific interest to
the Authority is policy A, the Natural Heritage, Environmental Protection and Hazard Policies,
whose first goal is:
To protect the quality and integrity of ecosystems, including air, water, land, biota; and,
where quality and integrity have been diminished, to encourage restoration or remediation
to healthy conditions."
The Authority is a provincial /municipal partnership established in 1957, under the Conservation
Authorities Act, to manage the renewable natural resources of the watersheds within its area of
jurisdiction. The protection, restoration and remediation of the quality and integrity of these
watershed ecosystems is integral to the Authority's mandate.
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
strongly support the Province of Ontario's development of a policy statement spectific to
natural heritage, environmental protection and hazard.
In reviewing the proposed policy statements, Authority staff have raised a number of questions
with respect to the long term protection of watershed ecosystems.
In order to assist the province in finalizing the proposed policy and to ensure that the policy, once
in place, can achieve the stated objectives for protection of the "quality and integrity of
ecosystems ", Authority staff have reviewed and proposed revisions to those sections of the draft
policy statements that have a potential to affect Natural Heritage, Environmental Protection and
Hazard.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to consider changes to the proposed policy
statements that, in the opinion of the Authority, will assist in the long term protection of
ecosystems; and,
THAT Figure 1 of this report be forwarded as the Authority's
recommendations for rewording of the proposed policy statements.
There are a number of definitions included with the policy statements which, in the opinion of staff,
require clarification or correction. To assist in thi, staff have prepared, in Figure 2, reworded
definitions.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D39
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to consider the reworded definitions, as
described in Figure 2 of this report, prior to finalizing the proposed policy statements.
Policies related to Flood Plain Planning and in accordance with the existing Provincial Policy
Statement are proposed to be summarized and included in the final set of policy statements
following the review of the new proposals. The preparation of the Floodplain Planning Policy and
the Provincial Wetlands Policy Statement went through a lengthy process of preparation,
consultation and adoption. As they stand, they express agreed upon provincial policy and should
not potentially be weakened by being summarized.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the existing Provincial Planning Policies, having been developed through a process of
extensive consultation be incorporated, in their entirety, rather than being summarized in
the final submission of policy statements to cabinet.
INTERPRETATION
The principal change proposed in this section is that planning authorities are expected to make
decisions which "shall be consistent with" provincial policy rather than "shall have regard to" such
policies, as is currently the direction.
In administering the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy, it has not been our experience that there
has been significant difficulty in ensuring consistency with the provincial policy. It is our
understanding, however, that this is because the policy is supported by the Authority's regulation
which requires a proponent to apply for permission from the Authority and which is used in
conjunction with the provincial policy. In the case of other policy statements, this is not the
situation and the achievement of provincial objectives may not have been as effective. A
requirement to "be consistent with" would strengthen the effectiveness of the provincial policies.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Authority support the change in direction to planning authorities from "have
regard to" to "be consistent with" Provincial Policy Statements.
IMPLEMENTATION
Our understanding and appreciation of ecosystem interrelationships and interdependencies has been
improving over time. One of the difficulties in implementing initiatives to protect natural heritage
resources and watershed ecosystems has been to "fit" these interests into existing planning
documents in a timely manner. The adoption of Provincial Policy Statements that clearly give
recognition to and require protection of the features and functions of these systems will greatly
assist.
D40 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Authority staff continue to work with member and area municipalities to incorporate
initiatives to protect watershed ecosystems in municipal planning documents and decisions.
The province proposes that "municipal plans...adopt policies and designations based on watershed
considerations for matters of development and change affecting water ". The Commission had
taken a stronger position with respect to watershed and subwatershed planning and to the role of
conservation authorities in this process. The Authority's experience with the Don Watershed Task
Force has given support to the concept of a watershed based approach to the protection and
regeneration of natural systems and should provide a model for future watershed planning.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Authority request its member and local municipalities to support
watershed /subwatershed planning as the method of developing and implementing strategies
for the protection and restoration of watershed ecosystems.
The Authority is nearing completion of three initiatives which can be of assistance to its member
and area municipalities in developing a natural heritage framework and an approach to achieving
watershed -based ecosystem protection and enhancement. These initiatives are:
the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program,
the Fill Line Mapping Extension Project, and
the Don Watershed Regeneration Strategy.
In combination, the concepts contained in these documents can assist in preparing a watershed
strategy; provide mapping of the valley and stream corridors and, known, related natural heritage
resources; and identify policies and procedures for the consideration of proposals that may affect
the features, functions and landforms associated with watershed ecosystems.
At such time as these documents are finalized, the Authority will be circulating them for
consideration by and support from its local and regional municipalities.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D41
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
FIGURE 1
PROPOSED POLICY REVISIONS, MTRCA
GOAL A.1: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
FROM
TO
1_2 (pg. 7)
Development will not be permitted in significant
ravines, river, stream, and natural corridors, and in
the habitat of endangered, threatened and
vulnerable species. Development will not be
permitted in significant woodlands south and east
of the Canadian Shield. Development will not be
permitted on adjacent and related lands if it
adversely affects the integrity of the natural
features or ecological functions of the areas
included in this statement. New infrastructure will
be located outside these significant features unless
it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable
alternative.
1_2
Development will not be permitted in significant
woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield
or in the habitat of endangered, threatened and
vulnerable species. Development will not be
permitted on adjacent and related lands if it
adversely affects the integrity of the natural
features or functions of the areas included in this
statement. New infrastructure will be located
outside these significant features unless otherwise
approved through an Environment Assessment
Process.
Rationale:
- valley lands addressed in 1.4 below.
- EA revision consistent with Goal D,
Agriculture.
1_3 (p9. 7)
Except for areas covered in policy 1.2, areas of
natural and scientific interest, groundwater
recharge areas, significant wildlife habitat, and
shorelines will be classified into areas where either
(a) no development is permitted or (b) development
may be permitted only if it does not adversely
affect the features and functions for which the area
is identified.
1_3
Except for areas covered in policy 1.2 and 1.4
areas of natural and scientific interest, groundwater
recharge areas, significant wildlife habitat, and
shorelines will be classified into areas where either
(a) no development is permitted or (b) development
may be permitted only if it does not adversely
affect the landforms, features or functions for
which the area is identified.
1_4 (pg. 7)
Except for areas covered in policy 1.2, development
on lands adjacent to lakes, rivers, and streams may
be permitted only if it does not adversely affect
water quality, shoreline vegetation, bank stability,
and wildlife habitat.
1_4
• 1.4 to be deleted entirely and revised with
1.2 and 1.3 as follows:
Development, other than resource -based uses that
do not adversely affect the natural landform,
features or functions, will not be permitted in
ravines, river valleys, stream corridors and other
natural corridors.
Development will not be permitted on adjacent and
related lands if it adversely affects the integrity of
the features or functions of the area included In
this statement. (contd.)
D42 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
FROM
TO
1.4 Contd.
New infrastructure will be located outside the areas
included in this statement unless otherwise
approved through an Environmental Assessment
Process.
Intensification of lands will be directed away from
the areas included in this statement wherever
possible and may only be permitted within such
areas if, subject to the policies of A.2, it does not
adversely affect the natural landform, features or
functions.
Rationale:
"Significant" as applied to river valley
systems, including headwaters, and
shorelines cannot function as the only test.
- Provisions that recognize:
a) these systems function as a whole, not as
discrete "significant" segments;
b) existing development and communities
within "significant" river valleys, such as
downtown Toronto located within the
lower Don River valley;
c) compatible resource -based uses such as
trails, maple sugar operations, etc.
- Public health and safety within these areas
needs to be integrated with environmental
decision making.
- Ontario Regulation 345 under the
Environmental Assessment Act ensures
that new infrastructure will be considered
under an E.A. process and this revision is
consistent with infrastructure policy under
Goal D Agriculture.
1 (pg.7)
In decisions regarding development, every -
In decisions regarding development, every
opportunity should be taken to: maintain the
opportunity should be taken to: maintain the
quality of air, land, water, and biota; maintain
quality of air, land, water, and biota; maintain
biodiversity compatible with indigenous natural
biodiversity compatible with indigenous natural
systems, and protect natural links and corridors.
systems, and protect natural links, features, forms
The improvement and enhancement of these
or functions. The improvement and enhancement
features and systems are encouraged.
of these features and systems are encouraged.
Rationale:
Oak Ridges Moraine.
- clarifies the elements to be protected.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D43
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
GOAL A.2: PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE CONTD.
FROM
TO
2 -2 (pg. 8)
Development adjacent to ravines, river valleys and
streams should be restricted within the 100 -year
erosion limits.
(pg. 8)
Development will be directed away from hazardous
sites wherever possible. Development will only be
permitted on a hazardous site if no danger to public
health or public safety or property damage would
result, or If the site has been rehabilitated to
remove or mitigate the hazard.
2.2 & 2.3
Development within and adjacent to ravines and
river valleys will not be permitted within the
projected long term stable slope line.
intensification within and adjacent to ravines and
river valleys will be directed away from areas
susceptible to slope instability wherever possible
and may only be permitted within such areas if
subject to the policies of A.1, the site can be
rehabilitated to remove or mitigate the hazard such
that no danger to public safety or property damage
would result.
Rationale:
Preventative approach to risk
management;
Rehabilitation works can have
environmental impacts in conflict with A.1
policies which requires integrated decision -
making;
distinguish between natural vs. "man-
, made" hazards and risks.
(b)
Development within and adjacent to streams and
watercourses will not be permitted within areas
susceptible to erosion.
Intensification adjacent to streams and
watercourses will be directed away from areas
susceptible to erosion wherever possible and may
only be permitted within such areas if subject to
the policies of A.1, the site can be rehabilitated to
remove or mitigate the hazard such that no danger
to public safety or property damage would result.
Rationale:
Preventative approach to risk
management.
Rehabilitation works can have
environmental impacts in conflict with A.1
policies which requires integrated decision -
making;
distinguish between natural vs. "man-
made" hazards and risks.
Li
Development within the Regulatory Flood Plain for
rivers and streams will not be permitted in
accordance with the 1988 Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policy Statement, Appendix
D44 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
GOAL A.2: PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE CONTD.
FROM
TO
2.2 & 2.3 contd.
Intensification within the Regulatory Flood Plain will
be directed away from flooding hazards wherever
possible in accordance with the 1988 Provincial
Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement and may only
be permitted within such areas if, subject to the
policies of A.1, the site has been rehabilitated to
remove or mitigate the hazard such that no danger
to public safety or property damage would result.
Rationale:
Integrated reference to 1988 Policies;
Preventative approach to risk
management;
Rehabilitation works can have
environmental impacts in conflict with A.1
policies which requires integrated decision -
making;
distinguish between natural vs. "man-
made" hazards and risks.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICIES
8. (Pg. 9)
Servicing and infrastructure considerations will form
an integral part of land use planning. Municipalities
will plan servicing facilities which maintain and or
enhance the natural environment to accommodate
expected growth. In areas serviced by full
municipal sewage and water services, development
will only be permitted if sufficient reserve capacity
is available to accommodate it.
Development should be served by full municipal
sewage and water services wherever possible, to
ensure that there will be no adverse effect on the
environment or public health. Where full municipal
sewage and water services cannot be provided, and
where site conditions permit, multi -lot /unit
development should be serviced by public
communal services. Where the use of public
communal services is not feasible, and where site
conditions permit, development may be serviced by
individual on -site systems.
8.
Servicing and infrastructure considerations will
form an integral part of land use planning.
Municipalities will plan servicing facilities which
maintain and or enhance the natural environment to
accommodate existing or expected growth. In
areas serviced by full municipal sewage and water
services, development will only be permitted if
sufficient reserve capacity is available to
accommodate it.
Development should be served by full municipal
sewage and water services wherever possible, to
ensure that there will be no adverse effect on the
environment or public health. Where full municipal
sewage and water services cannot be provided,
and where site conditions permit, multi -lot /unit
development should be serviced by public
communal services. Where the use of public
communal services is not feasible, and where site
conditions permit, development may be serviced by
individual on -site systems.
Rationale:
New infrastructure is proposed to serve
existing and redeveloping communities.
(i.e. within Metro Toronto)
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D45
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
HOUSING POLICIES
FROM
TO
3 (pg. 12)
Opportunities for small -scale residential
intensification (including infill, apartments in
houses, and rooming, boarding and lodging houses),
will be provided in all areas permitting residential
use, except where infrastructure is inadequate, or
there are significant physical constraints.
3.
Opportunities for small -scale residential
intensification (including infill, apartments in
houses, and rooming, boarding and lodging
houses), will be provided in all areas permitting
residential use, except where infrastructure is
inadequate, or there are significant physical
constraints, or where the Intensification would
conflict with the policies of Goal A.2 Public Health
and Safety.
Rationale:
- Public Health and Safety are necessary
factors to consider. (i.e. flooding, soil
contamination, etc.)
G. INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
4• (pg. 15)
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs, together with
other ministries, and in consultation with the public,
may prepare guidelines to assist planning
jurisdictions in implementing policy statements.
Implementation guidelines will interpret but will not
derogate from policy.
4.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs, together with
other ministries and applicable public agencies, in
consultation with the public, may prepare
guidelines to assist planning jurisdictions in
implementing policy statements. Implementation
guidelines will interpret but will not derogate from
policy.
Rationale:
- CA role and local initiatives, i.e. Valley &
Stream Corridor Management should not
be compromised.
5. (pg. 16)
Ministries will provide available information to
planning jurisdictions on matters of provincial
significance outlined in policy statements, and may
assist planning jurisdictions in mapping and
developing their policies.
-
5.
Ministries will provide available information to
planning jurisdictions on matters of provincial
significance outlined in policy statements, and may
assist planning jurisdictions in mapping and
developing their policies.
Local and Regional municipalities and other local
and regional planning authorities will provide
information on matters of local and regional
significance outlined in policy statements.
Rationale:
- CA role and local initiatives, i.e. Valley &
Stream Corridor Management should not
be compromised.
- Mapping of resources is also available from
CA offices.
D46 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
G. INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES (CONTD.)
FROM
6. (pg. 16)
These policies are to be applied in dealing with
applications under the Planning Act. Planning Act
and any other act, applicable policies and provisions
should apply where possible. Where there is a
conflict between any of these policies and the
provisions of any Act or regulations, the provisions
of the legislation or regulations will apply.
Infrastructure may be authorized under legislation
other than or in addition to the Planning Act. Other
authorizing legislation may include the
Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Energy
Board Act, and the Ontario Water Resources Act.
An environmental assessment process may be
applied to new infrastructure as part of this
authorization process. Generally, such a process
involves the consideration of alternatives to the
undertaking and location and alignment alternatives
early in the planning process to avoid significant
features and environmental impacts; and the
incorporation of siting, construction methods and
mitigation measures to minimize environmental
impacts where avoidance of the feature is not
possible.
In this context, the term "environment" is broadly
defined and includes: air, water and land; plant
and animal life; social, economic and cultural
conditions; buildings and structures; and
emissions. As part of the environmental
assessment planning process, it is the responsibility
of the proponent to consider all applicable policies
in evaluating effects on the environment. The
applicable policies of Goals A to F would therefore
be considered as part of the authorization process
for the undertaking.
•
TO
6.
.4
First and second paragraphs remain the
same.
Revision to third paragraph as follows:
In this context, the term "environment" is broadly
defined and includes: air, water and land; plant
and animal life; social, economic and cultural
conditions; buildings and structures; and
emissions. As part of the environmental
assessment planning process, it is the responsibility
of the proponent to consider all applicable policies
in evaluating effects on the environment. The
applicable policies of Goals A to F will therefore be
considered as part of the authorization process for
the undertaking.
Rationale:
If it is assumed the policies would be
considered in all cases, eliminate the
ambiguity.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D47
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
FIGURE 2
PROPOSED GLOSSARY DEFINITIONS, MTRCA
FROM
TO
ADJACENT LANDS
means lands contiguous to an identified natural
feature or function or resource.
In relation to Ieda or marine clays means:
• an area defined as the horizontal limit of
historical regressive landslides and an
allowance to achieve "factor of safety"
slope equal to or greater than 1.5:1.
In relation to other features or systems, means
those lands within:
• the distance defined for a specific feature
in an implementation guideline, or
• the distance established for a specific
feature in an approved official plan,
whichever is greater.
ADJACENT LANDS
means lands contiguous to an identified natural
feature or function or resource.
In relation to leda or marine clays means:
• an area defined as the horizontal limit of
historical regressive landslides and an
allowance to achieve "factor of safety"
slope equal to or greater than 1.5.
• the distance defined for a specific feature
in an implementation guideline, or
• the distance established for a specific
feature in an approved official plan,
whichever is greater.
ADVERSELY AFFECT
means one or more of:
• impairment of the quality of the natural
environment for any use that can be made
of it;
• injury or damage to property or plant and
animal life;
and /or
• rendering any property or plant or animal
life unfit for use by man.
ADVERSELY AFFECT
means one or more of:
• impairment of the quality of the natural
environment or its ability to perform its
natural functions;
• injury or damage to property or plant and
animal life;
and /or
• rendering any property or plant or animal
life unfit for use by man.
CONTAMINATED SITE
means property or lands that, for reasons of public
health and safety or environmental quality, are
unsafe for development as a result of past human
activities, particularly those activities that have left
a chemical or radioactive residue. Such sites
include some industrial lands, some transportation
facilities (i.e., rail yards), electrical facilities, and
some abandoned mine hazards. -
CONTAMINATED SITE
means property or lands that, for reasons of public
health and safety or environmental quality, are
unsafe for use as a result of (word deleted) human
activities, particularly those activities that have left
a chemical or radioactive residue. Such sites
include some industrial lands, some transportation
facilities (i.e., rail yards), electrical facilities, and
some abandoned mine hazards.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
means the combined environmental effects of
human actions occurring in a defined area over
time.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
means The combined effects of all activities in an
area over time; and the incremental effects
associated with individual projects in an area over
time."
D48 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
FROM
TO
DEVELOPMENT
means:
• the construction, erection or placing of a new
building or structure;
• the making of a significant addition or alteration
to an existing building or structure;
• a significant change in use or in intensity of use
of any existing building, structure or premises;
• activities such as site - grading, excavation,
removal of peat, or the placing or dumping of fill; or
• drainage works.
DEVELOPMENT
means:
• the construction, erection or placing of a new
building or structure;
• the making of a major addition or alteration to
an existing building or structure;
• a significant change in use or intensity of use of
any existing building, structure or existing use of
the land;
• activities such as site - grading, excavation,
removal of peat, or the placing or dumping of fill; or
• drainage works.
EROSION
means a volumetric reduction of land by natural
processes.
EROSION
means a process of gradual washing away of soil
by water movement or seepage (at the ground
surface), ,commonly occurring in one of the
following manners:
a) rainfall or snowmelt and surface run off
(sheet, ill or gully erosion);
b) internal seepage and piping;
c) water flow (banks or base of river, creek,
channel);
d) wave action (shorelines of ponds, lakes,
bays)
The erosion process affects the soil at the particle
level, by dislodging and removing (transporting) the
soil particles from the parent mass (with water
movement as the agent). Other processes such as
wind and frost may assist in the weathering or
dislodging and transport of soil particles.
HAZARDOUS SITE
means property or lands that, for reasons of public
health, safety, or potential property damage, are
unsafe for development as a result of naturally
occurring or human made perils. They may include
unstable lands, or areas subject to changes as a
result of their previous use as sites for petroleum
operations, sites prone to erosion, slope and banks,
unstable soils such as some organic and clay soils
(Ieda and portlandia clays), areas of unstable
bedrock (karst topography), sites containing orphan _
wells, suspended wells, capped wells, underground
caverns (petroleum wells and brine wells and
caverns) and abandoned mine hazards.
NATURALLY - OCCURRING HAZARDOUS SITE
This means property or lands that for reasons of
public health, safety, or potential property damage
are unsafe for use as a result of naturally occurring
perils. They may include sites subject to erosion,
slope instability, unstable soils such as some
organic, and clay soils, areas of unstable bedrock
(Karst topography), natural geological formations
and flood plains.
HUMAN -MADE HAZARDOUS SITE
This means property or lands that for reasons of
public health, safety or potential property damage
are unsafe for use as the result of human -made
perils. They may include areas subject to changes
as a result of their previous use such as petroleum
operations and as a result become contaminated or
unsafe such as sites containing orphan wells,
suspended wells, copped wells, underground wells,
underground caverns, abandoned mines and waste
disposal sites.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
D49
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
FROM
TO
ONE HUNDRED YEAR EROSION LIMIT
(for lands adjacent to ravines, river valleys and
streams means the 100 year angle of stability for
the soil parent materials plus an allowance for
erosion - related hazards.
ONE HUNDRED YEAR EROSION LIMIT
(for lands adjacent to ravines, river valleys and
streams). The predicted movement of a
watercourse over a hundred year period.
REGULATORY EROSION STANDARD
(in reference to the Great Lakes and their
connecting channels and the St. Lawrence River
shoreline) means the approved standards involving
the combined influence of stable slope, recession
and /or erosion allowance to define the shoreline
erosion limits for regulatory purposes.
REGULATORY EROSION STANDARD
(in reference to the Great Lakes and their
connecting channels and the St. Lawrence River
shoreline) means the approved standards involving
the combined influence of stable slope, recession
and /or erosion allowance to define the shoreline
erosion limits for regulatory purposes. The
definition for river systems, inland lakes and other
bodies of standing waters which are given in the
Provincial F /ood Plain Planning Policy Statement
should be utilized.
REGULATORY FLOOD STANDARD
(in reference to the Great Lakes and their
connecting channels and the St. Lawrence River
shoreline) means the approved standards involving
the combined influence of lake levels, wave uprush
and other water related hazards used to define the
shoreline flood limits for regulatory purposes.
REGULATORY FLOOD STANDARD
(in reference to the Great Lakes and their
connecting channels and the St. Lawrence River
shoreline) means the approved standards involving
the combined influence of lake levels, wave uprush
and other water related hazards used to define the
shoreline flood limits for regulatory purposes. The
definition for river systems, inland lakes and other
bodies of standing waters which are given in the
Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement
should be utilized.
REGULATORY SHORELINE
(in reference to the Great Lakes and their
connecting channels and the St. Lawrence River
shoreline) means the land, including that covered
by water, between the international boundary,
where applicable, and the furthest landward limit of
the Regulatory flood Standard, Regulatory Erosion
Standard, or the Regulatory Dynamic Beach
standard.
REGULATORY SHORELINE
(in reference to the Great Lakes and their
connecting channels and the St. Lawrence River
shoreline) means the land, including that covered
by water, between the international boundary,
where applicable, and the furthest landward limit of
the Regulatory Flood Standard, Regulatory Erosion
Standard, or the Regulatory Dynamic Beach
standard. The definition for river systems, inland
lakes and bodies of standing waters which are
given in the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy
Statement should be utilized.
SIGNIFICANT
means, in regard to natural features and functions,
ecologically important to the natural environment in
terms of amount, content, representation, or effect
and contributing to the quality and integrity of an
identifiable ecological region or natural heritage
system; in regard to matters other than natural
features and functions, important in terms of
amount, content, representation, or effect.
SIGNIFICANT
means, in regard to natural /andform, features and
functions, ecologically important to the natural
environment in terms of amount, content,
representation, effect or contributing to the quality
and integrity of an identifiable ecological region or
natural heritage system; in regard to matters other
than natural features and function, important in
terms of amount, content, representation, or
effect.
D50 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING (CONTD.)
FROM
TO
STABLE SLOPE
means the angle a slope would achieve when toe
erosion is absent.
STABLE SLOPE
Long term stable slope is a term used to describe
the angle which a slope would achieve over the
long term due to the natural stabilizing process of
erosion and weathering when toe erosion is absent.
The long term stable slope is generally dependent
on the soil or soils shear strength, height of the
slope and level of the water table.
NEW TERMS TO BE ADDED
WATERCOURSE
means flowing water, though not necessarily continuous, within a defined channel and with a bed or
banks and usually discharges itself into some other stream or body of water.
RELATED LANDS
• To be defined or included as "adjacent lands ".
13. FIRST ANNUAL METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION BIG BIRDWATCH
KEY ISSUE
Staff have organized a bird watching event for the greater Metro area in order to update
information on breeding birds on Authority lands and raise money for greenspace through the
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto. The following report outlines the details of the event.
Res. #W14/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report dated February 21, 1994,
outlining the First Annual Metropolitan Toronto and Region Big Birdwatch be received for
information.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D51
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
13. FIRST ANNUAL METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION BIG BIRDWATCH (CONTD.)
BACKGROUND
At Management Committee Meeting #19/93 on November 18, 1993, staff presented a proposal to
organize and hold a Birdwatching event in the Greater Toronto Area. Based on Management
Committee's support, a steering committee, with representatives from the Education Section, Field
Operations Division, The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and Resource Management
Section, was established to plan and direct the event.
The goal of the activity is to gather information on resident breeding birds on Authority lands, raise
proceeds for the purchase and protection of greenspace, and offer a recreational activity that
demonstrates and highlights the role of the Authority and the Conservation Foundation as providers
and stewards of natural and recreational areas in the Greater Toronto Area. A similar annual event
held in New Jersey attracts teams on an international scale and raises hundreds of thousands of
dollars for conservation efforts in that state.
The event will take place as follows:
• The event will be a 24 hour breeding bird census on all MTRCA lands, including those
managed under agreement with local municipalities. The event will take place from 12:01
a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on Saturday June 4, 1994, with an awards ceremony to be held at
5 p.m. on Sunday June 5, 1994, at the Kortright Centre for Conservation. Light
refreshments will be served at the awards ceremony.
• Teams of four members or less will register and compete to record the highest number of
bird species during the 24 -hour period. Registration will be $40.00 per team.
• Registered Teams will be provided with a package that includes bird survey sheets, fact
sheets and instructions, a MTRCA watershed map, a Metro Parks and Property map and
vehicle identification cards.
• Prizes will be awarded to each member of the teams recording the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
highest number of bird species, and the team recording the highest number of provincially
rare breeding birds. Other draws and door prizes will be offered at the awards ceremony.
• Proceeds from the event will be donated to the Charles Sauriol Environmental Trust Fund,
that has been established by The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto for the
acquisition and basic management of environmental lands that form part of the approved
program of the Authority.
• In order to obtain direct community involvement, a different local naturalist club will be
invited to "co -host" the event each year. The role of the club will be to assist with data
compilation and verification, garner community support, promote the event through
affiliated clubs, and participate in the awards ceremony. The West Humber Naturalists will
be this year's host club.
• The event will be promoted through Authority news releases, articles in various magazines
and publications, and posters distributed to naturalist clubs, community groups, and
selected "birding related" retail outlets.
D52 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
13. FIRST ANNUAL METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION BIG BIRDWATCH (CONTD.)
• This year the major sponsor of the event will be Bausch and Lomb Sports Optics. They
have agreed to provide binoculars for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and rare breeding bird categories.
Other prizes have been donated for the activity by several sponsors including: The Backyard
Naturalist, the Canadian Society for Endangered Birds and Birds of the Wild Magazine.
BENEFITS
There are many benefits to the Authority in developing and coordinating this event. The most
significant and direct benefits are as follows:
• promotion of Authority lands and Conservation Areas as venues for bird - watching and other
passive recreational uses;
• compilation of a summer resident breeding bird list for the Greater Toronto Area, specifically
on Authority owned land;
• generate financial support for the acquisition and management of greenspace through the
Charles Sauriol Environmental Trust Fund, administered by the Conservation Foundation of
Greater Toronto;
• highlight the roles of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto in the provision and stewardship of greenspace
in the greater Metro area.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The costs to the Authority in developing and coordinating this activity are minimal and are far
outweighed by the expected benefits. Apart from staff planning and participation, other expenses
such as printing costs and the cost of the refreshments at the awards ceremony will be deducted
from the registration fee.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Most of the preparatory work for the event has been completed. Staff will continue to solicit
additional prizes and sponsors and focus on the promotion of the activity and the distribution of
registration information. The target deadline for registration by teams is May 15, 1994.
A survey /questionnaire will be prepared for distribution to the participants following the activity.
Information obtained through this survey will assist in the planning of the activity for 1995.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/94, MARCH 4, 1994 D53
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
NEW BUSINESS
OPEN AIR CONCERTS
Res. #W15/94 Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Ila Bossons
THAT staff explore the opportunity of "open air" concerts with the Toronto Symphony on MTRCA
lands.
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 11:00 a.m., March 4, 1994.
Lois Griffin J. Craig Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
CARRIED
c.
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
Qthe metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes
D54
APRIL 15, 1994 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met at Black Creek Pioneer Village in the
Visitors Centre on Friday, April 15, 1994. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at
10:10 a.m.
PRESENT
Chair Lois Griffin
Members Lorna Bissell
Ila Bossons
Victoria Carley
Lois Hancey
Joanna Kidd
Joan King
Paul Raina
Bev Salmon
Kip Van Kempen
ABSENT Members Maja Prentice
Frank Scarpitti
Joyce Trimmer
MINUTES
Res. #W16/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1194 be approved.
Bev Salmon
Kip Van Kempen
CARRIED
D55 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
DELEGATIONS
(a) Old Mill Restaurant (Item 1)
Mr. Barry Morrison of Barry J. Morrison and Associates Limited, Planning Consultant for the
Old Mill Restaurant, presented a brief history of the Old Mill and future restoration proposed
for the site. He also introduced Mr. Adrian Peel, Project Architect, and Mr. George Kalmar,
owner. Mr. Peel gave a slide presentation of the design for the site.
(b) Humber Watershed Strategy (item 8)
Mr. Luciano Martin, President, Action to Restore a Clean Humber (ARCH), thanked the
Authority for its attention to the Humber watershed. He distributed a letter written to Mr.
William A. McLean, (past CAO of the Authority) dated July 2, 1992 and a letter written to
Lois Griffin, Chair, Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board, dated April 15,
1994, from ARCH. The letter of April 15 outlined a recommendation, offer, and a request
to the Authority.
(c) Frenchman's Bay, West Rouge Canoe Club (item 12)
Mr. Hollands, West Rouge Canoe Club, spoke in support of this report and updated the
board on the opportunities for youth provided by the Club.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter to the Chair of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board from Belinda
Kirkwood, Development Committee Chairman, The York Mills Valley Association, dated April 14,
1994, re: Jolly Miller.
Pamela Spence, representative from The York Mills Valley Association, Eugene Boccia, owner of
the Jolly Miller, and Joanne Flint, Councillor, City of North York, were in attendance.
Res. #W17/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Bev Salmon
Joan King
THAT the letter from The York Mills Valley Association dated April 14, 1994, re: Jolly Miller, be
received.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D56
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. OLD MILL RESTAURANT
- Proposed Inn Addition
-City of Etobicoke
KEY ISSUE
Staff are in receipt of a preliminary proposal for the addition of an inn to the Old Mill Restaurant
which includes preservation of the historic Old Mill ruins, City of Etobicoke.
Res. #W18/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
IIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report concerning the proposed
addition to the OId Mill Restaurant and restoration of the historic mill ruins be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to work with the proponent and his consultants
to finalize a satisfactory proposal for consideration by the Executive Committee under Ontario
Regulation 158.
AMENDMENT #1
Res. #W19/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Lois Hancey
THAT another staff report on the final proposal for the Old Mill Restaurant be brought back to the
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board prior to going to the Executive Committee for
permit approval.
AMENDMENT #2
Res. #W20/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joanna Kidd
Victoria Carley
THAT staff comment in the future report on indemnification of the Authority by the proponent from
any claims for flood and erosion damage and loss of life associated with the development.
AMENDMENT #1 WAS CARRIED
AMENDMENT #2 WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In November 1993, staff received a preliminary proposal for a hotel addition to the OId Mill
Restaurant located on the bank of the Humber River north of Bloor Street West in the City of
Etobicoke. The proposal includes the preservation of the historic Old Mill ruins and the conversion
of these ruins into a six storey inn located within the fringe of the Regional Storm flood plain; the
D57 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. OLD MILL RESTAURANT (CONTD.)
- Proposed Inn Addition
-City of Etobicoke
construction of a new inn partially located on table land and partially below the crest of the valley
slope connecting to the preserved mill ruins; and the construction of a new flagstone driveway
within the Regional Storm flood plain. Staff met with the proponent and his consultant and
expressed a number of concerns relating to the proposal which can be summarized as follows:
(a) Flood Risk
The ruins are located entirely within the Regional Storm flood plain and approximately one quarter
of the proposed new hotel structure also encroaches into the Regional Storm flood plain.
Pursuant to the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy, the Authority has adopted a "One Zone"
approach to flood plain management whereby new development in the flood plain is to be
prohibited or restricted. The over - riding responsibility of the Authority is the reduction of flood
hazard. The Authority's current Flood Susceptible Sites Policy recognizes existing
buildings /structures within the flood plain and allows for minor additions and replacements subject
to the proponent providing a level of floodproofing. The policy is silent on the preservation of
historic ruins located in the flood plain that are associated with a redevelopment proposal.
The subject valleylands are also susceptible to annual flooding due to ice jams during the spring
thaw.
lb) Erosion Risk and Alteration to the Valley Feature
The proposed new hotel structure would extend below the top -of -bank of the modified valley. The
valley has been modified by past construction.
It is the goal of the Authority's Erosion Control Program:
To minimize the hazards to life and property that result from erosion of river banks,
valley walls and shorelines while recognizing the value of retaining the natural
attributes of the valley and lakefront settings.
For lands immediately adjacent to valleys, the Authority requires that buildings or structures
(including paved surfaces) be setback a minimum distance of 10 metres from the top -of -bank of
stable valley slopes unless studies by a competent professional shows that the structures will be
safe during their life and the buildings or structures will not aggravate or create erosion problems.
New development below the top -of -bank is generally prohibited; however, infilling and additions
have been approved.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D58
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. OLD MILL RESTAURANT (CONTD.)
- Proposed Inn Addition
-City of Etobicoke
(c) Safe Access
A new circular driveway is proposed within the Regional Storm flood plain and within the valley
corridor. Construction of the driveway will entail minor filling within the Regional Storm flood plain.
The Authority's current policy recognizes that roads /driveways will be required to cross valley and
stream corridors from time to time. Alterations to the flood plain and valley features must be kept
to a minimum. Access must also be safe pursuant to the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy
Statement.
RATIONALE
In January, 1994, the proponent submitted a revised concept plan which attempts to address
and /or minimize concerns expressed by staff. The revised proposal reduces the length of the new
hotel structure so that no habitable areas project within the Regional Storm flood plain. However,
the structure would still extend below the top -of -bank of the modified valley slope. A Zink will still
be provided between the new hotel structure and the Old Mill ruins. Rather than linking to the
ruins with a proposed hotel, this linkage has been replaced with a glazed bridge connection
between the existing ruins and the proposed hotel structure.
On February 24, 1994 a meeting was held at the City of Etobicoke offices to discuss the revised
concept plan (letter from the City of Etobicoke Planning Department dated March 1, 1994). It was
determined that the subject lands are presently designated commercial in the Etobicoke Official Plan
and a change in land use would not be required to accommodate the project. A site specific
amendment to the Official Plan may be required, in particular, Sections 6.1 and 6.3 of the Plan
which relate to environmental protection and development constraints within valley lands and flood
plains respectively. While the general Official Plan policies prohibit or restrict new development
within the regulatory flood plain, Policies 6.1.6 (Valleylands) and 6.3.3 (Flood Plains) recognize
existing development and allow for expansion, and /or redevelopment if the site can be floodproofed
subject to the regulations and criteria of the Authority.
While the intent of the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan is to maintain the major river valleys from
crest to crest, primarily in a natural state, Metro staff indicated that exceptions have been made in
the past to recognize unique situations. Representatives from the Etobicoke Historical Society and
the Etobicoke Historical Board expressed the opinion that because the ruins are the Old Mill, they
saw this project as a unique opportunity to preserve a landmark structure.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
•
While an amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan to change the land use will not be
required, further review of the Official Plan policies is required to determine whether a site
specific amendment is required.
D59 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. OLD MILL RESTAURANT (CONTD.)
- Proposed Inn Addition
-City of Etobicoke
•
•
The precise limits of the top -of -bank of the valley will need to be established by Authority
staff in consultation with staff of the City of Etobicoke and The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto.
The proponent will be required to submit for the approval of the Authority, a geotechnical
study by a competent professional to show that the buildings or structures will be safe
during their life and that the buildings or structures will not aggravate or create erosion
problems.
• The proponent will be required to submit detailed site and grading plans detailing how he
proposes to flood protect the site and structures.
•
A transportation study will be required by the City of Etobicoke to determine whether
additional parking will be required to accommodate the hotel addition or whether existing
parking is adequate.
• Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158 a permit will be required from the Authority to
construct and regrade within the Regional Storm flood plain.
BENEFIT /PROBLEMS
There appears to be wide support for the preservation of the Old Mill ruins; however, community
input has not been sought to -date. While it may be perceived that a precedent is being set by
allowing new development within the regulatory flood plain outside an existing built community,
staff are of the opinion that this site is unique in that it presently contains a significant historic
landmark and that this project will provide the opportunity for the preservation of this significant
heritage structure, subject to the resolution of the issues associated with Authority policies and
criteria.
2. JOLLY MILLER
KEY ISSUE
Status report on the potential acquisition of the Jolly Miller property.
Res. #W21/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Bev Salmon
Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report concerning the potential
acquisition of the Jolly Miller property be received;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D60
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. JOLLY MILLER (CONTD.)
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report to the Executive Committee as soon as possible on
the position of Metropolitan Toronto Council with respect to the potential acquisition of the site
and the possible sources of funding for the acquisition.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #12/93, January 28, 1994, Resolution #A236/93, as amended by Resolution
#A237/93, was adopted:
"THAT the City of North York be advised that the acquisition of the Jolly Miller
property continues to be an objective of the Authority;
THAT staff be directed to report to the Board again upon receipt of the responses
from the Province of Ontario and Metropolitan Toronto to the City of North York's
request to acquire the Jolly Miller property;
THAT the City of North York be requested to advise the Authority if the City is
prepared to participate in exploring the acquisition of the Jolly Miller property;
THAT the City of North York be requested to advise the Authority if the City of
North York will assume all rehabilitation, maintenance and management costs
associated with the operation of the existing Jolly Miller structure if the Authority
was to acquire the property;
THAT staff continue to work with the current property owner and the
representatives of the York Mills Valley Association, the City of North York and The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to review planning and regulatory solutions for
the valley corridor conservation and regeneration at this site and report not later
than April 15, 1994, on the status of development application and of the acquisition
issue.
THAT staff be directed to establish a comprehensive procedure, that includes the
York Mills Valley Association, to exp /ore and exhaust all avenues of funding the
acquisition and ongoing operation of this site;
THAT the City of North York be urged to consider the designation of the Jolly Miller
as an historic site;
AND FURTHER THAT the Province of Ontario, Metropolitan Toronto and the City of
North York be so advised."
The Province of Ontario has responded to the request by the City of North York in a letter dated
February 24, 1994 from the Honourable Howard Hampton, Minister of Natural Resources. The
Province has responded that funding is not available for the acquisition.
D61 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. JOLLY MILLER (CONTD.)
Authority staff met with representatives of the Planning Department and the Parks and Property
Department of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. A report has been prepared for
consideration by a joint meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Property Committee and the
Economic Development and Planning Committee scheduled for April 11, 1994. As reported
previously, there are no funding allocations available to the Authority through The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto to support this acquisition at this time. It is anticipated that the
recommendations to council from the joint committee meeting will be available at the Board
meeting on April 15, 1994.
Authority staff met with representatives of the City of North York and have been advised that there
are no funding allocations available from North York at this time to support acquisition of parkland
or heritage properties. The Authority is also in receipt of a communication from the Clerk, City of
North York, dated January 26, 1994. We are advised that no further staff report is anticipated at
this time on the matter of the potential acquisition but that a further investigation of the heritage
aspects of the Jolly Miller is underway.
We have been advised by representatives of The York Mills Valley Association that they met with
Mayor Lastman concerning the proposed acquisition and were advised that North York would
consider the possibility of a land exchange as a means of achieving the acquisition.
Authority staff also met on two occasions with representatives of The York Mills Valley Association
to discuss funding options for the potential acquisition and to review the appraisal process for the
property. Information concerning the work of The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto was
provided to the group to assist in local fund raising activities. The York Mill Valley Association
wrote recently to Councillor Moscoe requesting The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto support
for the acquisition (letter dated March 28, 1994).
A real estate appraisal of the property was commissioned and has been substantially completed.
Two meetings were also held with the owner of the Jolly Miller and his associates. An option for
the purchase of the property by the Authority has been obtained subject to resolution of funding
sources and a number of other conditions. The property could be purchased by the Authority at
the appraised value of $3,300,000. The owner is prepared to lease back the office space for a
period of one year from closing of the transaction to provide basic security and maintenance for the
structure while the prospects of further public and /or private sector investment in the restoration of
the structure are explored. The owner is prepared to give the Authority three months to secure the
necessary approvals for the acquisition. The owner expects that upon expiration of the three
months, if the Authority is unable to complete the acquisition, that a report would be brought
forward on the development application within approximately one month.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 112/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D62
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1994
-1994 Waterfront Monitoring Program
KEY ISSUE
Continuation of the Waterfront Monitoring Program in 1994.
Res. #W22/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Victoria Carley
Joanna Kidd
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue the
implementation of the Waterfront Monitoring Program at an estimated cost of $ 112,000 in 1994,
to be funded under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -1994.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Since 1975, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) has conducted
environmental monitoring programs to describe the physical and biological conditions associated
with selected waterfront parks.
The results of the various monitoring programs are included in technical reports, data summary
documents, and master plans.
The objectives of the program are as follows:
• augment the present state of knowledge of lake processes by further research, data
collection and analysis;
• ensure that Authority projects comply with the environmental standards of regulatory
agencies;
• generate waterfront development plans that integrate enhancement opportunities into the
design, and guarantee the environmental integrity of the site is maintained or improved;
• seek to integrate the monitoring efforts of various agencies to avoid duplication and provide
maximum benefit from collective efforts.
Within the scope of the MTRCA mandate, the Environmental Monitoring Program investigates as
many components of the Toronto waterfront ecosystem as possible. Special studies in the past
have been conducted to examine the sediment quality, water quality, sediment deposition rates,
fish habitat assessment, fish community assessment, and benthic invertebrate collections.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The 1994 Waterfront Monitoring Program will investigate environmental conditions at the following
locations:
• Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park;
• Tommy Thompson Park;
• Scarborough shoreline;
• coastal marshes.
D63 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1994 (CONTD.)
-1994 Waterfront Monitoring Program
Environmental monitoring at the Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park and along the Scarborough
shoreline is required to fulfil conditions of environmental assessment approval or to document
existing environmental conditions for inclusion into the Class E.A. process. Environmental
monitoring at various coastal marshes is designed to document existing conditions for use in the
planning process.
Environmental monitoring will be conducted within the coastal marshes found at the mouth of the
Humber River, Rouge River, Duffin Creek, and Carruthers Creek. Efforts will be directed at surveys
of the botanical communities, wildlife inventories, and documenting the fish community within each
area.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to implement the 1994 Waterfront Monitoring Program is $112,000, and is
comprised of the following components:
Labour $ 55,000
Vehicle and Equipment $ 20,000
Lab Analytical Services $ 37,000
TOTAL $ 112,000
The program is funded under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -1994,
Account #240 -01.
4. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1994
- Ashbridge's Bay Coatsworth Cut Dredging, City of Toronto
KEY ISSUE
To carry out maintenance dredging within the Coatsworth Cut navigation channel at Ashbridge's
Bay, City of Toronto.
Res. #W23/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ila Bossons
Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
maintenance dredging, and to commence the development of a plan for permanent shoreline
modifications at Coatsworth Cut, City of Toronto, under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration
Project 1992 -1994, at a total cost of $ 150,000 subject to receipt of Provincial funding approval.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D64
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1994 (CONTD.)
- Ashbridge's Bay Coatsworth Cut Dredging, City of Toronto
BACKGROUND
The Coatsworth Cut has been an on -going navigation problem due to unsafe water depths and
insufficient channel widths, all as a result of sediment deposition from various sources. Dredging
of Coatsworth Cut was last carried out by the Authority in 1992 to the extent of the available
funding. Approximately 4,200 cubic metres of material was dredged at a total cost of S100,000.
A water depth survey taken in May, 1993, showed that siltation has again reduced the navigable
waters and dredging would be required to maintain a safe channel entrance to the public boat
launching ramps and the service facilities of the boating clubs. Higher than normal lake levels in
1993, provided limited access through the channel. A meeting was held in January 1994 with the
local boating clubs who expressed concerns at that time about the safe passage through the
channel.
A Steering Committee comprising members of the Ashbridge's Bay Boating Federation, The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department and Authority staff has met to
review the short term requirements (dredging) and the long term requirements (shoreline
modifications).
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
To achieve minimum navigable standards, up to 6,000 cubic metres of material will need to be
dredged. All dredging must be carried out by marine equipment and since the quality of the
dredgeate does not meet the "open water" criteria, it is proposed that this material be transported
and disposed of in the endikement cells at Tommy Thompson Park.
Quotations from marine contractors will be received to carry out the dredging, transportation and
disposal of the dredged material.
A long term solution to the problem of sediment deposition and continuous dredging of the channel
entrance is the modification of the shoreline alignment on the west side of Coatsworth Cut to
retain future sediment accumulations. One of the alternatives over the long term includes land
creation south of the existing main Ashbridge's Bay sewage treatment plant which could
incorporate a modified channel entrance. An assessment of various shoreline configurations will be
undertaken to assist in the preparation of a plan including the necessary coastal and environmental
investigations for review with The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out the maintenance dredging and shoreline configuration review in 1994
is $150,000. Funding is subject to final approvarfrom The Province of Ontario.
This work will be carried out under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -1994,
approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Account #211-16.
D65 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1994
-Ajax Waterfront Area, 1994 Development Program
KEY ISSUE
Continuation of the development program along the Ajax Waterfront, Town of Ajax.
Res. #W24/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1994 development program at Ajax Waterfront Area, Town of Ajax, under the Lake Ontario
Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -1994, at a total cost of $75,000 subject to receipt of
Provincial funding approval.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
To date, substantial portions of the Authority owned waterfront areas have been improved to basic
park standards and transferred to the Town of Ajax for operation and maintenance. Some sections
of property such as those in the Pickering Beach area have been retained by the Authority for
interim management pending acceptance by the Town of Ajax for maintenance. The initial
upgrades for roadway and parking lot construction at Rotary Park were completed in 1987 with the
construction of the park access road and public parking lot. Final surfacing of the boat launch
parking lot and additional site lighting upgrades were completed in 1989. In 1990, approximately
500 metres of asphalt walkway was constructed from McClarnan Road to Pickering Beach Road.
Extensive tree and shrub plantings were completed in 1991 and 1993 near Rotary Park. The
Authority has also supplemented the tree plantings through the Town of Ajax Tree Donation
Program.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The major development activities proposed for the Ajax Waterfront for 1994 include, additional site
lighting and construction of a 48 car parking lot at Rotary Park, and continued interim management
of those Authority owned lands not yet transferred to the Town of Ajax for operation and
maintenance. The addition of the parking lot has been identified as a high priority by the Town of
Ajax Waterfront Advisory Committee based on existing demand and the desire to improve public
access to the waterfront.
A consultant will be retained by the Authority to prepare the design and specifications for
additional parking lot lighting at Rotary Park.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out the 1994 work is $ 75,000. The cost estimates for the various
components of the work are:
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D66
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1994 (CONTD.)
-Ajax Waterfront Area, 1994 Development Program
Parking Lot Construction and Lighting $62,500
Interim Management 12,500
TOTAL BUDGET $75,000
Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario.
This work will be carried out under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -1994,
approved at Authority Meeting #3191. Accounts #230 -05 and #230 -19.
6. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996
-South Marine Drive Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
KEY ISSUE
Completion of the erosion control remedial works along the South Marine Drive sector of the
Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough.
Res. #W25/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
completion of the erosion control and slope stabilization works for the South Marine Drive Erosion
Control Project under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration
Project 1992 - 1996" at a total cost of $50,000, subject to receipt of Provincial funding approval.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1984, the Authority received all approvals and funding to commence the initial stage of
construction of shoreline erosion control and slope stabilization for the South Marine Drive sector of
Scarborough Bluffs. To date, a total of 1,010 metres of offshore armoured revetment and partial
slope stabilization work has been completed, at a cost of $2.57 million.
D67 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996 (CONTD.)
-South Marine Drive Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
During 1994 staff propose to complete the final slope restoration work. A major portion of the
work will consist in bio- engineering and bluff planting to help control bluff erosion. Staff will
continue to document bluff erosion in this area through its monitoring program. Environmental
monitoring for the completed project will continue in 1994, comprising of water and sediment
quality analysis.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total estimated cost to carry out 1994 work is $50,000. The various components are:
Bluff Stabilization $30,000
Bluff Planting /Bio- engineering 10,000
Environmental Monitoring 10,000
TOTAL BUDGET $50,000
Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario.
This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project 1992- 1996 ", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Accounts #134 -14 and
#134-23.
7. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996
- Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
KEY ISSUE
Continuation of erosion control remedial works along the Guildwood Parkway sector of the
Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough.
Res. #W26/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1994 construction program for the Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project, City of
Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration
Project 1992- 1996" at a total cost of $50,000, subject to receipt of Provincial funding approval.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D68
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996 (CONTD.)
- Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
BACKGROUND
Construction of shoreline erosion control work along the Guildwood Parkway sector of the
Scarborough Bluffs has been on going since 1987. However, delays in finalizing property
agreements has resulted in no revetment construction since 1991. To date, 517m of offshore
revetment has been constructed. Approximately 200m of revetment construction is left, in order
to complete this section to the approved design length (717m) between the Guild Inn and
Morningside Avenue. This work is scheduled to be completed after agreements with the remaining
three property owners have been finalized.
During 1993, some bioengineering plantings on the lower part of the bluff slope were carried out.
Resource Management staff have also assisted with tree and shrub plantings to help stabilize the
bluffs. Environmental monitoring has been on going.
The total expenditure for the Guildwood Parkway erosion control project to date is $1.16 million.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
During 1994 property negotiations with homeowners at the east end of the site will continue so
that the agreements can be finalized. Bioengineering and bluff planting will be completed on the
backslope area. Some minor site maintenance and access road repairs are also required.
Environmental monitoring for the project will continue in 1994. This work will include fisheries
survey, benthos and substrate analysis to document any changes to the aquatic environment in the
vicinity of this project. Erosion monitoring of the bluffs will also be carried out.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out 1994 work is $50,000. The various components of the work are:
Legal, survey appraisal $10,000
Labour 15,000
Plantings - Bioengineering 10,000
Maintenance 10,000
Environmental Monitoring 5,000
TOTAL BUDGET $50,000
Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario.
This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996 ", approved at Authority Meeting #3191. Account #135 -03 and
#135 -23.
D69 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. HUMBER WATERSHED STRATEGY
KEY ISSUE
Staff response to report on the initiation of a Humber Watershed Strategy.
Res. #W27/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Kip Van Kempen
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with meetings
with community and interest group representatives, agency and municipal staff, and elected
representatives to identify technical and community interests within the Humber River watershed;
THAT an initial meeting be scheduled for Thursday, June 9, 1994, at the Black Creek Pioneer
Village to begin the process of identifying key issues;
THAT a watershed event be planned for October 1994 to mark the 40th anniversary of Hurricane
Hazel; the success of Authority programs in preventing similar loss of life and property damage;
and identify the benefits of a Humber River watershed strategy to address current watershed
issues;
THAT staff report by year end on the proposed process for the development of a Humber River
watershed strategy including such issues as the formation of a task force and its terms of
reference;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to apply for provincial funding to support the development of
the Humber River watershed strategy.
AMENDMENT #1
Res. #W28/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Kip Van Kempen
THAT the Action to Restore a Clean Humber (ARCH) recommendation as presented in their letter of
April 15, 1994 and quoted as follows be forwarded to staff for incorporation into the June 9, 1994
meeting agenda.
"ARCH recommends that the Authority use a true partnership approach and assume the key
role of coordinator in the planning and management of the Humber Ecosystem Management
Area (EMA, comprising Humber Bay and its watersheds of the Humber River and the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks), and that the Humber Strategy be considered part of the
implementation of the Toronto Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP)."
AMENDMENT #2
Res. #W29/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT staff investigate other potential funding partnerships and agencies.
Joanna Kidd
Ila Bossons
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D70
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. HUMBER WATERSHED STRATEGY (CONTD.)
AMENDMENT #1 WAS CARRIED
AMENDMENT #2 WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1989, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority recommended a Greenspace
Strategy to address the conservation of the Lake Ontario waterfront, the river valleys and the Oak
Ridges Moraine Complex. The Greenspace Strategy identified the need for greater cooperation to
achieve comprehensive natural resource management planning. The Strategy proposed that the
Authority:
• assume the coordinating role between the province and municipalities in
natural resource management; and
• establish planning task forces for each major river watershed.
In 1990, the first watershed management strategy, the Comprehensive Basin Management
Strategy for the Rouge River watershed, was adopted by the Authority.
In 1991, the Authority initiated the development of a Don River watershed management strategy
and appointed, in 1992, the 25 member Don Watershed Task Force. This Task Force has been
successful in developing a regeneration strategy that will be presented to the Authority in
May, 1994.
Given that the completion of the Don Watershed Regeneration Plan is imminent, staff was
requested by the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board to report on the process
and timing for the development of a similar plan /strategy for the Humber watershed.
RATIONALE
The development of the Don Watershed Regeneration Plan has provided an excellent vehicle for the
Authority to reestablish closer connections with the communities of the Don watershed, to further
the awareness and understanding that we all live in watersheds and to begin to address the field of
regeneration of the Authority's urban watersheds. It builds on past Authority programs, the
Authority's draft Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program and incorporates the particular
issues and concerns of the watershed's municipalities and its residents. It is also viewed as an
important model for the implementation of the Metropolitan Toronto Remedial Action Plan.
While experience has been gained through the preparation of the Don Watershed Regeneration
Plan, it is recognized that the development of a Humber strategy should be tailored to the needs
and interests of that watershed. Humber heritage groups have already begun to explore the
potential of its designation as a Heritage River through the federal government's program. There
are fishing, naturalist and other groups including ARCH (Action to Restore a Clean Humber) that
have been working for a number of years to improve the health of the watershed and protect
important areas from loss.
D71 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. HUMBER WATERSHED STRATEGY (CONTD.)
It is recommended that the staff initiate, on behalf of the Authority, a number of meetings to scope
out the key issues to be addressed in the development of a Humber strategy and to use this
information as the basis of a terms of reference for the development of the Humber strategy and
for projecting the staff and funding resources which may be required.
It is also recommended that an initial meeting be held with approximately 25 interest group and
agency representatives to initiate the issue scoping process. At that meeting, as well,
representatives from the Grand River Strategy group would be invited to share their recent
experience regarding the studies and process leading to the February 1994 designation of the
Grand as a Heritage River. Persons attending that meeting would be requested to provide short
statements identifying the key issues that should be addressed in the development of a Humber
strategy.
Using the information gained from that meeting, a watershed event would be held in October to
coincide with the 40th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. This event would be used not only to
reflect on the devastation of that time but to mark the substantial achievements of the Authority
and its partners in preventing similar Toss of life and property damage. The event program would
then turn and focus on the challenges now facing the residents and stewards of the watershed and
the potential issues to be addressed through the development of a watershed strategy.
The October event would be widely publicized and a first edition of a Humber newsletter would be
circulated recapping the events of Hurricane Hazel, the progress in flood plain management and
potential issues to be addressed as we enter the next century.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff has begun to develop a contact list of persons interested in the Humber watershed. It is
anticipated that summer staff /volunteers will continue this to enable an early September mailing
prompting this work. Authority members are requested to forward names of groups and individuals
to be added to both the Humber and Don contact lists.
Staff has tentatively arranged June 9, 1994, for the first meeting to begin scoping the issues and
enlist the support of community representatives to assist in promoting the October event.
The October event will be planned following the June 9th meeting.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding has been identified in the 1994 budget to begin this process.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D72
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
9. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE
- Minutes of Meeting #16/94 and #17/94
KEY ISSUE
The minutes of the Don Watershed Task Force from Meeting #16/94 and #17/94 are provided for
information.
Res. #W30/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Task
Force, Meeting #16/94 and #17/94 (Appendix WR.12/94), be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Task Force meetings are forwarded to the Authority
through the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the
formal record of the work of the Task Force, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of
the steps being undertaken in the development of the Don Watershed Strategy.
10. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT, 1995 -1999
-The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
There will be a staff presentation on this item at 9:30 a.m. in the Canada West Room, prior to the
Authority meeting.
KEY ISSUE
Approval of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 -1999 for the continuation of
waterfront regeneration activities within The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.
Res. #W31/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Victoria Carley
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration
Project, 1995 -1999, be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken:
(a) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be requested to approve the Project and
the annual levies set forward therein;
D73 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
10. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT, 1995 -1999 (CONTD.)
-The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
(b) The Minister of Natural Resources be requested to provide technical approval of the
project as required under Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act;
(c) Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the Ontario
Municipal Board be requested;
(d) The appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required
in connection with the project, including the execution of any documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Technical and funding approvals of the Authority's ongoing waterfront development activities have
been initiated through the adoption of multi -year development projects by the Authority, the
member municipalities and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Separate projects covering the
periods 1972 -1976, 1977 -1981, 1982 -1986, 1987 -1991 and 1992 -1994 have all been approved.
These projects reflected the initiatives outlined in the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development
Program which was based on the 1967 Waterfront Plan prepared by the Metropolitan Toronto
Planning Board.
The interim project for the period 1992 -1994 was prepared pending preparation of a new
Metropolitan Waterfront Plan.
In February 1994, the council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto adopted a new
Waterfront Plan and passed the following motion:
"1. the revised policies and schedules of the Draft Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, as set
out in Appendix I11, be adopted for the new Metropolitan Waterfront Plan which will
replace the 1967 Waterfront Plan;
2. the Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, as amended, be distributed to the agencies,
communities and individuals who participated in its development as well as to the
relevant provincial ministries, the Waterfront Trust, The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) and the Metropolitan Area Municipalities;
3. the relevant provisions of the Metropolitan Waterfront Plan be incorporated into the
revised draft Metropolitan Official Plan prior to its consideration by the Economic
Development and Planning Committee (EDPC) and its final review by the public;
4. the necessary steps be taken to ensure that an implementing agency of the
Metropolitan Waterfront Plan be The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority; and
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 074
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
10. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT, 1995 -1999 (CONTD.)
-The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
5. the appropriate Metropolitan Officials be authorized and directed to give effect
thereto."
The Metropolitan Waterfront Plan is a Metropolitan policy document of Council providing direction
to Metropolitan decision- making and assisting in area municipal, private sector and community
interpretation of those waterfront policies included in the new Metropolitan Official Plan. Further,
the Metropolitan Waterfront Plan provides the framework for the 1995 -1999 Project and
subsequent Waterfront Projects.
A key policy of the draft Metropolitan Official Plan currently under public review, is "to support the
MTRCA as a partner in the development of the Waterfront pursuant to the policies of the Plan. In
this regard, the Metropolitan Waterfront Plan (1994), as amended from time to time, shall guide
council in its decision- making regarding approval of the MTRCA Waterfront Projects ".
In 1992, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto undertook a review on the funding of the
MTRCA projects.
On July 2 and 3, 1992, the council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto adopted the
following relevant resolution respecting funding of MTRCA:
"(1) Metropolitan Council support the proposals for funding for the municipal levy of the
MTRCA, as detailed in Paragraph VII, and outlined in Recommendations Nos. (1)(a)
to (h) as follows:
(a) administration costs be apportioned to the participating municipalities, on
the basis of equalized assessment, as required by the Conservation
Authorities Act;
(b) maintenance costs for non - recreational lands be apportioned to the
participating municipalities, on the basis of equalized assessment, and
maintenance and development costs associated with the existing
conservation areas and recreation centres be apportioned to the participating
municipalities, on the basis of the existing recreation formula;
(c) the current formula for the acquisition of lands, both inside and outside
Metropolitan Toronto, under the Greenspace Protection and Acquisition
Project, be modified, as soon as possible, so that Metropolitan Toronto pays
a maximum of 50 percent of the municipal levy or 25 per cent of the total
costs;
(d) no later than the end of 1994, any lands to be acquired on Lake Ontario,
whether in Metropolitan Toronto or the Region of Durham, be funded as part
of the Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project under the formula
proposed above in subparagraph (1)(c);
D75 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
10. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT, 1995 -1999 (CONTD.)
-The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
(e) the Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project continue
to be funded on the basis of the sole benefitting municipality formula which
requires Metropolitan Toronto to pay 100 per cent of the municipal levy for
land within Metropolitan Toronto or 50 per cent of the total costs of these
lands;
(f) no later than the end of 1994, programs and costs associated with land
creation on the Lake Ontario waterfront, within the boundaries of
Metropolitan Toronto, be included in the Metropolitan Toronto Valley and
Shoreline Regeneration project, under the sole benefitting municipality;
(g) no later than the end of 1994, any program or costs associated with the
development of parkland throughout the MTRCA, including parkland on the
waterfront and parkland inside and outside of Metropolitan Toronto, be
funded on the basis of sole benefitting municipality; and
(h) in light of Recommendations Nos. (1)(d), (f), and (g) above, the programs
under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project would continue to
be funded under the present formula but, on completion of these programs,
the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration project, as presently described,
would become redundant, except for the parkland development part, which
would become a new, revised project funded as suggested in subparagraph
(1)(g), above."
The 1995-1999 Project has been reviewed with the Parks and Property Department and Planning
Department of Metropolitan Toronto and modified to reflect the Metropolitan interests.
RATIONALE
The Authority has prepared this 1995 -1999 Project for the Lake Ontario shoreline within The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in accordance with council's direction (July 1992) and the
new Metropolitan Waterfront Plan. Specifically, the draft Metropolitan Official Plan "supports the
MTRCA as a partner in the development of the Waterfront pursuant to the policies of the Plan."
The Project continues to maintain a land creation component for waterfront development which is
at variance to council's resolution 1(f) above. The master plan (Metropolitan Toronto)
environmental assessment (Ministry of Environment and Energy) and provincial funding (Ministry of
Natural Resources - outdoor recreation or waterfront recreation development) approvals include a
land creation component. It is therefore recommended that to maintain the integrity of waterfront
recreation development and funding commitments, a land creation component should be retained in
the waterfront project.
The Waterfront Project also maintains an acquisition component which is a deviation to Council's
resolution 1(d) noted above. However, the acquisition under this project would be Metro only, and
facilitate public access to new regional waterfront parks and provide key linkages between existing
waterfront parklands.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D76
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
10. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT, 1995 -1999 (CONTD.)
-The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Upon approval by the Authority, the Project will be forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources
and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for approval. Pursuant to Section 24 of the
Conservation Authorities Act approval of the Ontario Municipal Board will be requested.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The project proposes annual total expenditures of $4,000,000. Under this level of expenditure, the
annual funding schedule would be as follows:
Province of Ontario
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Total
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has included in its five -year Capital Works Program 1995-
1999, $2 million for waterfront development. This annual allocation is subject to annual budget
approval by council.
In recent years, the Ministry of Natural Resources has approved grants of approximately $750,000
per year. Staff continue to augment the funding levels as well as seek out new sources such as
jobsOntario. Occasionally, land sale revenues are available to help with the acquisition component
of this Project.
11. COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH WATERFRONT AREA
-1994 Development Program
KEY ISSUE
Response to a direction from the Authority for a detailed report on expenditures for the 1994
development program at Colonel Samuel Smith Park.
Res. #W32/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joanna Kidd
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1994 development program at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke, under the
Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -1994, at a total cost of $769,000 subject to
receipt of provincial funding approval;
D77 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 112/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
11. COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH WATERFRONT AREA (CONTD.)
-1994 Development Program
THAT staff be directed to complete the wetland creation at a total cost of $200,000 subject to
receipt of funding approval from Environment Canada;
THAT staff be directed to include in future development reports the context of the overall
expenditures on the project to date and anticipated costs to completion and some analysis to
demonstrate that the development proposals provide the best value;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to explore altemative site fumishings and report again on the
most economical approach to provide basic facilities of good quality.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/94, held on March 4, 1994,
Res. #W9/94 was adopted:
THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 1994 development program at Colonel
Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke, under the "Lake Ontario
Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992-1994", at a total cost of $769,000 subject
to receipt of provincial funding approval;
THAT staff be directed to complete the wet /and creation at a total cost of
$200,000 subject to receipt of funding approval from Environment Canada;
At Authority Meeting #2/94, held March 25, 1994, Res. #A36/94 was adopted:
"THAT this item be referred back to staff to report to the Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board with a detailed report on expenditures for the 1994
development program at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park."
The Authority members were concerned about the total cost of the development of the park, the
process of approval of the features of the park and the control of their respective costs. These
concerns were first raised at the Executive Committee Meeting #1 /94 held on March 4, 1994 when
quotations for park furnishings, including a 25 metre long custom -made, curved wood bench, were
considered and referred back to staff for consideration of less costly alternatives.
The report, which was before the members of the Board on March 4, 1994, identified the various
components of the 1994 development program in accordance with the approved 1994 Capital
Budget. Staff has reported annually to the Board in the same manner since the construction of the
project began in 1983. The concern was expressed by the members that the difficult economic
conditions require a more detailed review of proposed expenditures.
This report is intended to provide a general summary of the expenditures on this project to date and
the anticipated costs to completion, as well as to set out the cost framework for the public
promenade area which is the focal point of recent concerns by the members with respect to design
quality and costs.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D78
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
11. COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH WATERFRONT AREA (CONTD.)
-1994 Development Program
Colonel Samuel Smith Park Master Plan was approved in 1978 with a proposed total estimated
cost, at that time, of $5,825,000. The project was the subject of detailed review at the Authority,
Metropolitan Toronto and City of Etobicoke and was considered and approved as a result of the
first full hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act in 1980. The equivalent cost in 1993
dollars would be $13,600,000.
The total cost of the project construction to the end of 1993 was $6,079,185. The total
estimated cost for 1994 is $769,000 and to complete the project by 1998, an additional
expenditure of $3,000,000 is anticipated for a total project cost of approximately $9,850,000 by
1998. Approximately $2,000,000 of the balance to complete the project is for shoreline protection
of the lakefill.
The current focus of development activity is the public promenade which is expected to be the
main area of public activity across the north edge of the harbour and a critical link in the waterfront
trail system. It is proposed to have a relatively formal treatment to support a high level of use and
help to blend the new lakefill park with the beautifully landscaped grounds of the former hospital
property.
The design concept for the public promenade was approved by the Authority in 1992 as part of a
master plan revision to make the edge of the harbour a public place, instead of restricted to boat
club members as originally planned. While the plan approved by the Authority in 1992 established
the character of the area, there were no specific cost estimates approved for that area in 1992.
The estimates were prepared as part of the development reports for 1993, which were approved
by the Authority in two stages. The first stage of approval was given at Authority Meeting #2/93,
when $370,000 was approved for various projects including $210,000 for parts of the public
promenade. The second stage of approval occurred at Authority Meeting #3/93 when an additional
$400,000 expenditure for the promenade area was approved, based on receipt of a $200,000
jobs0ntario capital grant through the Ministry of Government Services. Based on a total allocation
for the promenade area in 1993 of approximately $600,000, a tender package was completed for
the initial phase of construction and following a public tender process, a contract was awarded to
Gateman Malloy Inc. at Authority Meeting #8/93 in the amount of approximately $400,000. This
work is now approximately 70% complete, with the balance to be completed early in 1994. The
landscaping component, including the furnishings, was delayed to 1994 and tenders have now
been received. Contract award is anticipated at Authority Meeting #3/94 on April 22, 1994. The
public promenade should be substantially complete by September, 1994.
The total estimated cost of the public promenade area, as prepared by our consultants in 1993,
was $671,000. The Authority authorized $600,000 of that work in 1993 but some had to be
delayed to 1994 due to the late receipt of provincial grants in 1993. We anticipate that the project
will be completed within the $671,000 estimated-cost.
We believe that the design proposals for the promenade provide good value in these difficult
economic times. For example, the paving materials for the area were carefully selected. The
cheapest treatment would be crushed stone but the maintenance costs are high and the
appearance would not suit the character of the area. Asphalt would be less expensive than other
paving materials but the appearance is not suitable for such a high traffic area that will be a focal
D79 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
11. COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH WATERFRONT AREA (CONTD.)
-1994 Development Program
point for the whole park. We chose a mid range concrete paver which will provide excellent
durability and a long life with low maintenance because of the care that has been taken in the
design and installation of the sub -base. The use of cast in place concrete details adds to the
durability of the installation and achieves a more polished look to the finished product without a lot
of additional cost. The raised planting beds which are integrated with the paving design provide
opportunities to achieve vigorous plant growth in the difficult growing conditions on the fill so that
we can have a small area of high quality landscape material in the most popular area of the site.
To achieve the best value for the landscape investment, the plantings have been concentrated in a
relatively small area with irrigation to achieve rapid growth, low maintenance and an area of quality
landscape and good shade protection for visitors. Most of the remainder of the site is being left for
natural regeneration.
Several expensive components of the original design for the park have been replaced by less
expensive features. For example, the swimming lake which would have a high capital and
operating cost has been replaced with a wetland feature which has attracted investment by the
federal and provincial government and provides an attractive area at a much lower cost. Sheet
piling of the harbour edge would have been more desirable from an aesthetic point of view but it
has been replaced by stone treatments at a lesser cost and a greater habitat value. Several areas
of intensive landscape treatment in the original design have been replaced by Tess expensive natural
regeneration treatments which provide better habitat.
The site lighting proposals which involve $200,000 in 1994 have been designed to provide a
minimum level of security in the parking areas and lighting to the promenade area to achieve one
area of comfortable and attractive evening use near the water.
SUMMARY
The members expressed concern about the cost of some of the design features, the relative priority
for the works proposed in 1994 and a concern for attention to real value in the park development.
Staff are conscious of the economic conditions and are seeking to provide the best overall quality
and value in the park development. The estimates for 1994 development are as set out in the
earlier report and summarized as follows:
1. Public Promenade - Walkway and Pedestrian bridge $140,000
2. Public Promenade - Landscaping $160,000
3. Pathways $ 50,000
4. Interim Site Management $ 20,000
5. Site Grading and Landscaping $ 73,000
6. Site Lighting $201,000
7. Roadway and Parking Lot Paving $ 125,000
8. Wetland Creation $200,000
9. Final Armouring of Hardpoint $300,000
We anticipate that the available funding will allow completion of items 1 to 7.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 112/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D80
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
11. COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH WATERFRONT AREA (CONTD.)
-1994 Development Program
The final armouring is being delayed because the initial shoreline protection has been achieved
through the use of free concrete rubble. Allowing the wave action to shape the rubble into a more
stable configuration, reduces the cost of final armouring. Also, there is no urgency to finish the
armouring and any available rubble supplies can be used to increase the thickness of the protection.
The design decisions which determined the cost of the public promenade were made in 1992 and
1993 and were approved by the Authority as noted above. The expenditures in 1994 are mainly to
complete the contract for the promenade which was awarded in 1993, as well as for the tree and
shrub planting and limited site lighting. In our view, this work is the minimum necessary to
complete the area in a satisfactory manner to provide for inviting and safe public use and
reasonable maintenance.
The members' concerns about the cost of the proposed furnishings are acknowledged and we are
assessing other less costly alternatives.
We will endeavour to provide a more comprehensive cost analysis in future reports.
12. FRENCHMAN'S BAY - WEST ROUGE CANOE CLUB
-Town of Pickering
KEY ISSUE
To establish a paddling facility on a temporary basis, April 23 to October 31, 1994 on the west spit
of Frenchman's Bay through agreement with the West Rouge Canoe Club.
Res. #W33/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the proposal from the West Rouge Canoe
Club, dated February 18, 1994, Appendix WR.25/94, to establish on a temporary basis from April
23 to October 31, 1994, a paddling facility on Frenchman's Bay, be received and approved;
THAT the paddling facility be accommodated in a trailer which will be removed no later than
October 31, 1994, and is located as shown on the site plan, Appendix WR.25/94;
THAT the West Rouge Canoe Club licence agreement fee be established on the general basis of the
property taxes, rental costs for a portable toilet and any other consideration deemed appropriate;
THAT the Council of the Town of Pickering be requested to concur with the proposal;
D81 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. FRENCHMAN'S BAY - WEST ROUGE CANOE CLUB (CONTD.)
-Town of Pickering
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to take
whatever action is required in connection with the establishment of the West Rouge Canoe Club
paddling facility, including the development and execution of appropriate documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #12 /93,January 28, 1994, Res. #238/93 was adopted:
"THAT staff be directed to review the interim and long term plans of the West
Rouge Canoe Club for a location on Frenchman's Bay as outlined in their request of
December 16, 1993;
THAT this review include consultation with the Town of Pickering and the
appropriate public having interest in Frenchman's Bay;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Pickering be so advised."
Further to discussions held between the West Rouge Canoe Club, the Town of Pickering Planning
Department and the MTRCA, the West Rouge Canoe Club confirmed their interest in an interim site
on Frenchman's Bay by letter dated February 18, 1994.
The proposal is to establish a paddling facility on Frenchman's Bay for 1994 to expand the services
of the club to the local community and provide proper training facilities for a number of national
level club athletes. The details of the proposal include the following:
• 50' x 10' trailer on wheels to store approximately 20 canoes and kayaks;
• parking - 3 to 5 cars in public parking areas on the spit;
• training - 20 to 25 high performance paddlers;
• training schedule - 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.;
• community programs - developmental programs for local community residents during the
daytime;
• floating dock adjacent to interim site for bay access.
Recent discussions with the West Rouge Canoe Club, the local councillor, the Pickering Planning
Department, a Westshore Community Association representative and MTRCA waterfront and
operations staff have resulted in the selection of a location for the trailer on a temporary basis in
1994. This site is located within an area zoned R4 (Residential Zone) which requires clarification
from the Town of Pickering as to the appropriateness of the trailer for the period April 23 to
October 31, 1994.
The Authority has had an association with the West Rouge Canoe Club at the Lower Rouge River in
the City of Scarborough since 1974. These lands and structures were formerly part of and owned
by the Township of Pickering.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994 D82
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
12. FRENCHMAN'S BAY - WEST ROUGE CANOE CLUB (CONTD.)
-Town of Pickering
RATIONALE
The paddling facility on the west spit of Frenchman's Bay at the West Rouge Canoe Club is being
approved for the 1994 season, April 23 to October 31, 1994. At the end of this period, the trailer
will be removed from the park.
The paddling facility will provide access to Frenchman's Bay which meets the criteria for training of
national level and olympic class paddlers, the majority of whom reside in the Town of Pickering.
The paddling activity is consistent with the environmentally - friendly recreation activities which are
suitable for the Bay and with the current park operations. The trailer and paddling activity will not
alter or impede public access to the west spit. In addition, the activity will not impact the
residential neighbourhood due to its location and is supported by the local residents' association.
This proposal will be reviewed with the Pickering Harbour Company to seek their approval of the
activity for 1994.
The proposal also has the concurrence of the Director of Finance and Administration and the
Director of Field Operations.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Authority staff have requested clarification of the Director of Planning, Town of Pickering, as to the
appropriateness of locating a trailer in the R4 zone on a temporary basis for a paddling facility. It is
expected that council direction on this matter will be received on April 18, 1994.
Approval of the Pickering Harbour Company for this activity is being requested.
Staff, upon approval by the Authority, will prepare and execute the necessary documents including
necessary provisions for liability, insurance, etc., to permit the West Rouge Canoe Club paddling
facility operation for 1994.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The West Rouge Canoe Club has also offered to cover the costs of one portable toilet which will be
accessible to the park users, and any additional costs deemed appropriate to cover Authority
property taxes for the site area.
The club has also agreed to assist the Authority in -site clean -up and assist in monitoring any
activities deemed detrimental to the public's enjoyment of this area.
D83 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/94, APRIL 15, 1994
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 11:50 a.m., April 15, 1994.
Lois Griffin Brian Denney
Chair Acting Secretary- Treasurer
bb.
c.
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes
D84
MAY 13, 1994 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek
Pioneer Village on Friday, May 13, 1994. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at
10:00 a.m. Vice Chair, Kip Van Kempen, assumed the chair at 12:00 noon for the remainder of
the meeting.
PRESENT
Chair Lois Griffin
Members Lorna Bissell
Lois Hancey
Joanna Kidd
Joan King
Maja Prentice
Paul Raina
Bev Salmon
Joyce Trimmer
Kip Van Kempen
Chair of the Authority William Granger
ABSENT Members Ila Bossons
Frank Scarpitti
Victoria Carley
MINUTES
Res. #W34/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/94 be approved.
DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
William Granger
Paul Raina
CARRIED
Joyce Trimmer declared a conflict in agenda item 1, Don Watershed Task Force Report - 40 Steps
to a New Don, and did not participate in discussion or vote on this matter as her daughter is a
home owner in the York Mills Valley.
D85 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
DELEGATIONS
(a) DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE (Agenda Item 1)
Lorna Krawchuk, Vice Chair, Don Watershed Task Force, thanked the Authority, municipalities and
consultants for their hard work. She reiterated the Task Force hopes that the Don Watershed Task
Force report would be an ongoing working document that would be used and followed up
throughout the watershed.
(b) OAK RIDGES MORAINE
Ron Christie, Chair, Technical Working Committee, Oak Ridges Moraine, thanked the Authority
staff for its help and support and provided an update on The Oak Ridges Moraine Area Strategy for
the Greater Toronto Area. He introduced Fred Johnson, Executive Secretary, Ministry of Natural
Resources, who outlined the basic philosophy and concepts of the strategies of the Oak Ridges
Moraine exercise. Comments on the document are requested in sixty days and should be made to
Ministry of Natural Resources, Greater Toronto Area District, Maple, 10401 Dufferin Street, Maple,
Ontario, L6A 1S9.
Res. #W35/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
William Granger
Lorna Bissell
THAT the presentation and draft report on The Oak Ridges Moraine Area Strategy for the Greater
Toronto Area be received and referred to staff for comment.
CARRIED
(c) THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1996 (Agenda Item 8)
Scott McCrae, Scarborough resident and member of To Save the Bluffs Society and Conservation
Council spoke in opposition to the proposed work along the shoreline adjacent to Sylvan Avenue
under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 -
1996
Mr. Glen Harrington, technical consultant to Mr. McCrae, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Jerry Quinn, resident of Sylvan Avenue and member of the Sylvan Avenue Steering
Committee, spoke on behalf of some of the residents of Sylvan Avenue. He expressed his approval
of this project and desire that it proceed as quickly as possible.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94, MAY 13, 1994 D86
CORRESPONDENCE
DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE (Agenda Item 1)
Letter from Mark Wilson, Chair, Don Watershed Task Force, dated May 4, 1994, re: Resolution
adopted by the Don Watershed Task Force at its final meeting, April 14, 1994.
Proclamation of Celebrate the Don Day
(a) Proclamation of Watersheds Week, May 14 to 20, 1994, by The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto.
(b) Letter from Christine Palmer, Deputy Clerk, Town of Markham, dated April 27, 1994, re:
"Celebrate the Don" in the Town of Markham.
(c) Letter from L.D. Leach, City Clerk, City of Vaughan, dated May 3, 1994, re: Proclamation
Celebrate the Don Day, May 15, 1994.
(d) Letter from Rita Stonehouse, Administrative Assistant, City of Scarborough, dated April 19,
1994, re: Celebrate the Don.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1992 - 1996 (Agenda Item 8)
(a) Letter to Councillor Lois Griffin from Councillor Brian Ashton, dated May 12, 1994, re:
Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project.
(b) Letter to Larry Field, MTRCA, from Dr. R. Frankford, MPP, dated May 12, 1994, re: Sylvan
Drive remedial works.
(c) Letter to Dr. R. Frankford, MPP, from The Honourable Howard Hampton, Minister, Ministry
of Natural Resources, dated April 5, 1994, re: Remedial Works, Sylvan Avenue,
Scarborough.
D87 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE REPORT - 40 STEPS TO A NEW DON
KEY ISSUE
Authority receipt and endorsement of the Don Watershed Task Force report.
Res. #W36/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Don Watershed Task Force report
entitled "40 Steps to a New Don" be received and endorsed;
THAT the Task Force members be thanked for their significant achievement;
THAT the staff be directed to publish the report for broad circulation;
THAT the report be circulated to federal departments, provincial ministries, watershed
municipalities, non - government organizations (NGO's), businesses and made available to the public;
THAT the appropriate federal and provincial ministries, and watershed municipalities, be requested
to endorse the Vision and Principles (Chapter 2 of the report);
THAT the federal departments, provincial ministries, and watershed municipalities be requested to
consider innovative, as well as traditional opportunities, for taking actions that will lead to the
implementation of the Task Force report and the development of a Don Watershed Accord based
on the 40 Steps to a New Don;
THAT other watershed residents and stewards be asked to endorse the direction of the report and
consider opportunities to implement it, as part of, or in addition to, their existing programs;
THAT the staff be directed to provide a terms of reference and membership proposal for a Don
Watershed Regeneration Council and Don Watershed Technical Unit (Step 32) for the Authority's
consideration in the fall of 1994;
THAT staff be directed to report on the Authority's role in implementation of "40 Steps to a New
Don ";
AND FURTHER THAT staff pursue the implementation of the concept sites in conjunction with the
appropriate agencies and the public; and complete draft implementation guidelines and reports
including the Fisheries Management Plan and the Don Stormwater Management Criteria.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94, MAY 13, 1994 D88
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE REPORT - 40 STEPS TO A NEW DON (CONTD.)
BACKGROUND
Terms of Reference
In 1992, the Authority approved the Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Task Force. The
Task Force was given a mandate to:
a) Develop a Don Watershed Management Plan Strategy which defines a sustainable healthy
watershed for the Don Watershed using an ecosystem based approach. This approach
recognizes the inter - relationships between the physical and biological processes, and the
integration of conservation, restoration, and economy that will ensure the continued health
of the watershed. The Don Watershed Strategy should detail, but not be limited to the
following:
• the specific management actions required to protect, link, and regenerate
greenspace resources within the watershed;
• the specific actions required throughout the watershed to address water and other
watershed based resource and environmental management issues;
• the development of conceptual management plans for each of the seven
subwatersheds;
• the agencies or others responsible for the implementation priorities and scheduling;
• the mechanisms and integration required to regenerate and sustain a healthy
watershed.
b) Assist and encourage communities, business, industry, and government and non -
government agencies in resource planning, stewardship, and management activities within
the watershed. These activities could include:
• pilot or demonstration management projects;
• community "Adopt a Stream" initiatives;
• watershed education.
c) The Task Force shall
• involve individuals, communities, business, industry, government and non -
government agencies in the development of the watershed strategy;
• report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA and other agencies through the
Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board;
• report to the public and watershed community on the development of the strategy,
the resources of the watershed, opportunities for involvement in regeneration
activities and on individual and community stewardship initiatives; follow the
Authority's Policies and Procedures with respect to purchasing, hiring consultants
and all other matters;
• provide a draft strategy document to the Authority by December 31, 1994.
In the fall of 1992, the Authority approved the membership of the Task Force and the first meeting
was held in late October.
D89 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE REPORT - 40 STEPS TO A NEW DON (CONTD.)
The work plan developed and followed by the Task Force, and the final report that was developed,
substantially addresses every element of the terms of reference.
40 Steps to a New Don
The final Task Force report is presented in four chapters.
Chapter 1: Past and Present provides a short history of the Don highlighting the changes that
have occurred to the river and watershed over the past 200 years.
Chapter 2: A New Don establishes a vision for a healthy urban watershed and three guiding
principles for its regeneration: protect what is healthy; regenerate what is degraded;
and take responsibility for the Don.
Chapter 3: 40 Steps to a New Don includes 40 positive steps that can to be taken to
regenerate the Don discussed under four sections: Caring for Water, Caring for
Nature, Caring for Community and Getting It Done!
Chapter 4: Subwatershed Regeneration Plans outlines a number of challenges for each of the
seven subwatersheds. Subwatershed maps identify specific actions to Zink major
greenspace and the "steps" required at the valley or stream corridor level.
Conceptual plans have been developed for six specific sites to demonstrate how
this watershed can be regenerated using an ecosystem approach and the application
of the 40 Steps. The six sites include:
• Rupert's Pond in Vaughan (Upper West Don);
• Harding Park stormwater management facility, Richmond Hill (German Mills
Creek);
• Pomona Park, Markham (Upper East Don);
• Terraview Willowfield corridor, Scarborough (Massey Taylor Creek);
• Cummer's Mills, North York (Lower East);
• G. Ross Lord Reservoir, North York (Lower West Don).
The final document will include reduced coloured maps. Minor edits will be required as the text,
supporting maps and illustrations are prepared for final publication.
Public Consultation
The Don Watershed Task Force held 21 full public meetings to heighten public and agency
awareness regarding the needs and opportunities for regenerating the Don, and to receive public
input on the development of the site concept plans. The meetings were held in the evenings
throughout the watershed to encourage involvement by as many watershed residents as possible.
Individual Task Force members spoke to many groups. Task Force members and staff of the
Authority have met with agency staff and community groups; provided displays on the Don for
various events; published 14 issues of "On the Don "; and circulated over 700 copies of the Draft
Regeneration Management Plan Part 1, received by the Authority in November. The draft Vision
and Principles released for comment last spring are being printed and referenced throughout the
watershed.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94, MAY 13, 1994 D90
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE REPORT - 40 STEPS TO A NEW DON (CONTD.)
Implementation
The Task Force has repeatedly stressed that the completion of this report is yet another beginning.
The final meeting held by the Task Force on April 14, 1994, was preceded by an opportunity for
Task Force members and Authority staff to hear comments from municipal commissioners and
senior provincial staff on the content of the Task Force report. Many municipalities are actively
undertaking or planning projects to implement the 40 Steps to a New Don and a number of
municipalities requested the support of the Task Force in their efforts. The meeting also served to
underscore that "We are all responsible for the Don ". The City of Vaughan has endorsed the
Vision and Principles (Chapter 2); has resolved to assign staff to consider methods of
implementation; and, to liaise with the recommended Don Watershed Regeneration Council.
The Task Force report does not assign specific responsibilities to any agency or department. It
challenges the departments at all levels to work collectively to add protection and regeneration
value to everyday decisions as well as to undertake major regeneration works.
The report does not assign a grand total cost for regenerating the watershed. That level of study
has been attempted in the past and often resulted in less work rather than more. Instead, the Task
Force has identified a level of effort required.
The Task Force report further stresses the opportunities for everyone to contribute through
individual actions and changes in personal lifestyles leading to the renewal of the Don and the
larger ecosystem of which it is a part.
The development of the Don strategy has provided a vehicle for the Authority and the Ministry of
Natural resources to begin to address apparent duplication in the area of plan input and review.
Included on this agenda is an item for the Board's consideration which will foster a streamlined
one - window approach to plan review resulting in more effective use of staff resources and
improved client service.
The Task Force, at its last meeting held on April 14, 1994, resolved in part:
"THAT the Don Watershed Task Force express its thanks to the Authority, the
municipalities and the many organizations and individua /s who have contributed;
THAT the Task Force forward, with great pleasure, the final report to the Authority for
consideration, with a request that the report be reviewed as quickly as possib /e in order
that immediate action plans can be brought forward;
THAT the Authority be requested to pursue partnerships for the implementation of the
concept sites at the earliest opportunity;
THAT the Authority make specific commitments to regenerating the Don and sign the Don
Accord;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority be requested to establish the "Don Watershed
Regeneration Council" as soon as possib /e to carry on this important work."
D91 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE REPORT - 40 STEPS TO A NEW DON (CONTD.)
RATIONALE
The preceding has outlined the development and products of the Don Watershed Task Force. It is
recommended that the Authority endorse the report, begin its implementation through a number of
specific actions and that staff be directed to complete a number of reports, and the guidelines
necessary to foster its implementation.
One of the most significant contributions the Authority can make to the implementation of "40
Steps to a New Don" is to ensure that there is a continuing focus on the Don. The establishment
of a Don Watershed Regeneration Council, charged with the responsibility, as quoted from Step 32:
"...to initiate regeneration and stewardship projects, lead fundraising, support local
community groups, act as the Don's advocate in large projects that cross municipal
boundaries, inform watershed communities about regeneration through public meetings,
publications, displays, and cultural events, and take on other tasks that will help implement
the forty regeneration steps"
should be acted on as soon as feasible.
The "Celebrate the Don" event planned for May 15 has brought together the municipal staff in a
new way, highlighting once again the energy available to renew this watershed. It is anticipated
that the Council would continue to have political representation and the formation of it should
coincide with the new term of municipal office. Therefore, it is recommended that staff report
back in the fall of 1994 with a proposed terms of reference.
It is further proposed in Step 32 that a Don Watershed Technical Unit coordinated by the
Conservation Authority be formed:
"...composed of technical staff from municipalities and provincial agencies. This unit shall
provide technical support to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, help carry out
community regeneration projects, and aid the Council in raising the public commitment and
government action necessary to regenerate the watershed."
It is recommended that the membership and relationship of the Don Watershed Technical Unit to
the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and Authority be reported on at the same time as the
terms of reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council.
The Authority's potential commitments with respect to the coordination of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council and its reporting relationship with the Authority would form the basis for a
potential Don Watershed Accord. The Task Force has requested the Authority to become a
signatory to this Accord. However, the development of that Accord requires sufficient time for all
parties to review the Task Force report and to consider opportunities to actively participate in the
regeneration of the Don.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94, MAY 13, 1994 D92
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE
- Minutes of Meeting #18/94, April 14, 1994
KEY ISSUE
Receipt of the minutes of the Don Watershed Task Force Meeting #18/94, held on April 14, 1994.
Res. #W37/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
William Granger
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Task
Force, Meeting #18/94, Appendix WR.29/94, be received.
CARRIED
RATIONALE
The Don Watershed Task Force minutes are forwarded to the Authority for their information. The
Task Force has completed its work and these minutes are the last to be forwarded to the Authority.
3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR THE DON RIVER WATERSHED
KEY ISSUE
Development of stormwater management criteria for the Don River Watershed as a means to guide
implementation of the Don Watershed Regeneration Plan and the Authority -MNR One Window
Approach.
Res. #W38/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
William Granger
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report, dated May 4, 1994, be
received for information;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to hold discussions with municipal and provincial staff to
finalize the Don Watershed Stormwater Management Criteria.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The current state of the Don River reflects the high proportion (80 %) of urban land use in its
watershed. Numerous tributaries of the Don River system have been channelized and Tined with
concrete, gabion baskets, or some other form of hard surface, as a means to protect against the
erosive flows of urban runoff or as a previously acceptable practice of managing floodwaters.
Stormwater is the primary source of pollution in the Don River, according to the findings of the
Toronto Area Watershed Management Studies. In its Don Watershed Regeneration Plan, the Don
Watershed Task Force has proposed a series of steps necessary for improved management of
D93 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR THE DON RIVER WATERSHED (CONTD.)
urban runoff. The Plan also calls for government agencies to reform themselves and seek new
ways to work cooperatively. These steps will be integral to achieving the Task Force's vision for a
regenerated Don Watershed, with clean waters and renaturalized streams.
In response to direction set by the Don Watershed Regeneration Plan, Authority staff have begun to
develop specific stormwater management requirements for the Don River Watershed in consultation
with municipal and provincial government staff. These criteria, while based on the current
requirements of all agencies, will be tailored to reflect conditions within the Don watershed.
The following outline presents the organizational format and nature of the proposed criteria:
(1) Subwatershed Planning - the process of subwatershed planning is generally promoted to
guide greenfields development, but can be similarly applied in the Don Watershed to guide
projects in already urbanized areas. Proposals, such as large redevelopment projects, a
number of small infill development projects, or a proposed rehabilitation project, represent
triggers for the initiation of a subwatershed planning exercise. Implementation guidelines
supporting this criterion will guide priority- setting for plan preparation.
(2) Stormwater Management
General - Stormwater management requirements set out in this document will apply, unless
superseded by a more detailed subwatershed study. The same stormwater management
requirements should be applied to all development projects, however the ability of very
small development projects to meet these requirements and the mechanisms by which they
are implemented will differ from large projects. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
criteria will allow for alternative provisions for small sites (e.g., stormwater management
fee in lieu of controls).
Flood Flow Management - Recommendations of the Don River Hydrology and Hydraulics
Update (1992) for flood flow management were adopted as Authority policy at Meeting
#11/92, and will remain valid.
Low Flow Management - The aim of low flow management is to maintain or re- establish a
stream's natural response to frequent storm events by maximizing evapotranspiration and
managing runoff. Associated with this objective, runoff from frequent storm events is
managed to reduce its pollutant load and erosion potential. Stormwater management
criteria will specify that a hierarchy of measures be used, including site planning
techniques, lot level controls (e.g., grading techniques, cisterns), end -of -pipe measures
(e.g., ponds, constructed wetlands), and specialty controls (e.g., oil -grit separators).
Stormwater volume storage requirements will be set according to fisheries
management objectives, as recommended by the Don River Fisheries Management
Plan (in preparation). Additional detention storage for the management of erosion
potential may be required, based on site specific conditions. To underscore the
importance of "source" control to Don watershed regeneration, a component of the
total storage volume will be required to be managed at the lot level. A specific
target will specify the volume of precipitation to be managed, prior to entering a
storm sewer system.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94, MAY 13, 1994 D94
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR THE DON RIVER WATERSHED (CONTD.)
(3) Infill, Single Lot Development - In the Don Watershed, many opportunities for addressing
urban runoff problems will be lost if stormwater management requirements are not applied
to infill developments. Since much of this type of development takes place in areas not
designated for site plan control, building applications are processed directly through the
municipal building departments. Therefore, simple, practical criteria will be established to
ensure consistency with requirements of larger development projects, yet implementability
for the small lot owner and building department reviewer.
(4) Other guidelines will be included under the headings of:
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Requirements
Siting of Stormwater Management Facilities
Maintenance and Monitoring
Non - development related SWM
Snow Management
Stormwater management criteria for the Don watershed will be set out in one document, which will
also serve as the operational basis for the proposed "One Window Approach" with the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
A preliminary draft of the proposed stormwater management criteria formed part of the focus of
discussion at a workshop involving municipal and provincial technical staff on September 23, 1993
and an MNR -MTRCA workshop on April 11, 1994. The criteria are being revised based on
comments received to date and as a result of further investigations. A second workshop is being
planned for late May, 1994 to seek additional input from municipal and provincial staff.
This set of criteria specific to the Don River Watershed will serve as a model for the development
of a similar criteria document for each of the other watersheds within the Authority's jurisdiction.
The complete set of watershed criteria documents will form the implementation component of the
Authority's Stormwater Management Program, which is currently being revised.
Staff will report back to the June 17, 1994 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
with the complete set of stormwater management criteria for the Don River watershed.
4. PROPOSED "ONE WINDOW" APPROACH TO PLAN REVIEW
-Pilot Project, Don River Watershed
KEY ISSUE
Implementation of a one year pilot project intended to streamline the plan review process in the
Don River Watershed through the transfer of certain Plan Review functions from the Ministry of
Natural Resources (MNR) to The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(MTRCA).
D95 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. PROPOSED "ONE WINDOW" APPROACH TO PLAN REVIEW (CONTD.)
-Pilot Project, Don River Watershed
Res. #W39L94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
William Granger
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Draft Memorandum of Agreement
(Appendix WR.41/94) concerning transfer of land use planning and development responsibilities
between the MTRCA and the MNR, G.T.A. District, be endorsed;
THAT a pilot project implementing the proposed "One Window" approach be commenced on the
Don River Watershed for a period of one year commencing July 1, 1994;
THAT Authority staff be authorized to finalize the draft agreement and appendices in order to give
effect to the project;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Board at the completion of the project
in July 1995 and recommend further action with regard to the streamlining process.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
"One Window" approvals provide an opportunity to strengthen the existing partnership between
the Authority and the MNR. "One Window" means that certain programs are presently delivered by
several agencies, should be combined, where the program objectives are similar, and delivered
through the most logical agency. The Plan Review process is one which lends itself quite easily to
this notion, especially among Conservation Authorities, the MNR and the Ministry of Environment
and Energy (MOEE).
The suggestion to use the Don River watershed as a pilot project to demonstrate the "One
Window" concept, came as a resolution from the Don Watershed Task Force. Based on this
direction, Authority staff met with staff from the MNR - GTA District in December 1993 to discuss
the possibility of transferring certain plan review functions from the Ministry to the Authority. The
idea behind these discussions was to simplify the approval process without sacrificing quality of
review or increasing Authority staff workload, while at the same time reducing the workload of
MNR staff. Utilization of the Don Watershed as the scope of this pilot project was proposed as it
would limit the complexity of implementation and also serve to promote the Don Strategy more
efficiently.
Staff from both agencies have been involved in subsequent discussions to identify program
interests which can be assumed relatively easily by MTRCA and types of development control
applications which would be affected by the change. Both agencies have adopted identical
technical criteria in some program areas (notably stormwater management and erosion and
sediment control). Staff have standardized the inventory of existing Environmentally Significant
Areas, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI's) and wetlands within the Don Watershed.
As further technical guidelines are adopted (such as the proposed stormwater management
guidelines for the Don), these will be incorporated as technical appendices to the memorandum of
agreement.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94, MAY 13, 1994 D96
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. PROPOSED "ONE WINDOW" APPROACH TO PLAN REVIEW (CONTD.)
-Pilot Project, Don River Watershed
Staff anticipate that the additional review requirements can be integrated into the existing review
procedure without lengthening the existing service delivery guideline of 60 days. No additional
funding is anticipated as being necessary to implement this project.
A copy of the draft memorandum of agreement is attached for reference as well as appendices
outlining the types of documents affected. One notable feature of the proposal is the appointment
of Authority staff as officials under the Public Lands Act which will allow the issuance of work
permits for certain types of works at the same time as permits are issued for Authority Section 28
permits for watercourse alterations.
Discussions have also been initiated with staff of the MOEE with regard to a similar approach for
streamlining approvals. The area of overlap between this Ministry and the Authority is not as
extensive; however, there does appear to be an opportunity for the Authority to assume
responsibility for issuance of certificates of approval pursuant to the Ontario Water Resources Act
as they pertain to stormwater quality ponds. Staff will be pursuing this initiative with the Ministry
and will advise the Board should it prove feasible to assume this responsibility.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
At this stage, the pilot project has been developed on the basis that there will not be any additional
costs to the Authority. This will have to be monitored over the life of the project. There should,
however, be a saving to the development industry in terms of reducing the time it takes to process
various municipal planning documents and permits.
5. PROPOSED EAST DON TRAIL EXTENSION
- Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department
KEY ISSUE
In accordance with the management agreement between the Authority and The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, Authority approvals must be obtained for development proposals prior to
implementation. Metro Parks and Property Department has proposed an extension to the East Don
Trail.
Res. #W40/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joan King
Joanna Kidd
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Master Plan for the East Don River
Trail Extension as proposed by The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property
Department be approved.
CARRIED
D97 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. PROPOSED EAST DON TRAIL EXTENSION (CONTD.)
- Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department
BACKGROUND
The Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department is proposing an extension to the East Don
Trail north of Cummer Avenue. A conceptual master plan has been prepared showing a trail
alignment between Cummer Avenue and Leslie Street to the northeast. This alignment is for
discussion purposes only. Upon approval of the master plan, detailed design would be completed
in consultation with Authority staff in preparation for an application pursuant to Ontario Regulation
158. The previous section of this trail, from Finch Avenue to Cummer Avenue, was approved at
Authority Meeting #2/93, March 26, 1993.
The area proposed for the trail is almost entirely owned by MTRCA. This reach of the East Don
River consists of a well defined valley with vegetated side slopes. There is currently an existing
weir structure on the river north of Cummer Avenue and a Canadian National Railways trestle
crossing the valley downstream of Leslie Street. Based on a preliminary investigation of the reach,
it appears feasible to construct the trail with a minimum of disturbance to existing vegetation,
remain outside the ten metre riparian zone adjacent to the river and avoid an area of re- engineered
slope on the south side of the valley. The trail will involve the construction of one crossing of the
Don, probably in the vicinity of the existing weir structure. One key design area to be determined
is the manner in which the trail will pass beneath the Canadian National Railways trestle west of
Leslie Street. This may be determined at a later date once C.N. has determined if a proposed
second commuter rail line will result in a redesign of the trestle. An archaeological investigation
will also be required in consultation with Authority staff at the detailed design phase.
6. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996
- Kingsbury Crescent Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
KEY ISSUE
Continuation of the construction of shoreline erosion control works along the Kingsbury Crescent
sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough.
Res. #W41/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
William Granger
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1994 construction program for the Kingsbury Crescent Erosion Control Project, City of
Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration
Project 1992- 1996" at a total cost of $225,000, subject to receipt of Provincial funding approval.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94, MAY 13, 1994 D98
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996 !CONTD.)
BACKGROUND
Construction of shoreline erosion control work along the Kingsbury Crescent sector of the
Scarborough Bluffs has been ongoing since 1980. However, delays in finalizing property
agreements resulted in no construction activity from 1982 to 1986. To date, approximately 700
meters of revetment has been constructed. However, only 85 percent (600 meters) of the
structure has been final armoured to the required design specifications. The total expenditure for
the Kingsbury Crescent erosion control project to date is S1,750,000. The remaining work is
scheduled to be completed in 1994.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
During 1994, the remaining final armouring of the existing revetment will be completed to the
design height.
Clean concrete rubble will be imported to raise the revetment core to the required final grade.
Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual
equipment supply contractor. The supply and delivery of quarry stone will be tendered in
accordance with the Authority's purchasing policy.
Environmental monitoring for the project will continue in 1994. This work will include fisheries
survey, benthos and substrate analysis to document any changes to the aquatic environment in the
vicinity of this project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out the 1994 work is $225,000. The various components of the work
are:
Labour $61,200
Materials 60,000
Equipment 98,800
Environmental Monitoring 5.000
TOTAL BUDGET $225.000
Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario.
This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996 ", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91.
Account Nos. 131 -03 and 131 -23 have been set up for this project.
D99 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1994
- Humber Bay West Waterfront Park, 1994 Development Program
KEY ISSUE
Continuation of the development program at Humber Bay West Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke.
Res. #W42/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
William Granger
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1994 development program at Humber Bay West Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke, under the
Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -1994, at a total cost of $50,000 subject to
receipt of Provincial funding approval.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The initial upgrades for pedestrian access to Humber Bay West Park included the construction of
approximately 260 metres of asphalt pathway and a total of 730 metres of granular base in 1984.
The remainder of asphalt pathway work completed in 1984 included the extension of the finished
surface treatment to immediately north of the Metro Police Marine Unit Station. General site
drainage and landscaping was completed as part of this contract.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The major development activity proposed for the Humber Bay West Waterfront Park for 1994
include, the construction of approximately 575 metres of 3.0 metre wide asphalt pathway which
extends from immediately north of the Metro Police Marine Unit Station to the existing turning
circle at the south west end of the park access road. Included in this work will be provision for site
drainage, installation of steel bollards, curb cuts and final site restoration.
RATIONALE
The proposed pedestrian trail extension is in conformity with the Master Plan for Humber Bay West
Park. The path will improve the pedestrian and park use and provide for safe access separate from
the existing park road.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out the 1994 work is 550,000.
Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario.
This work will be carried out under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -1994,
approved at Authority Meeting No. 3/91.
Account No. 205 -11 has been set up for this project.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94, MAY 13, 1994 D100
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996
- Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
KEY ISSUE
To proceed with the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Scarborough Bluffs, City of
Scarborough.
Res. #W43/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joyce Trimmer
Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control
Project, City of Scarborough, be approved at a total estimated cost of $3,717,000;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with the initial phase of work in 1994 under the
"Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996" at a
total budget of $375,000, subject to receipt of all necessary approvals and funding.
AMENDMENT
Res. #W44/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joyce Trimmer
William Granger
THAT staff report back to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board in consultation
with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on the comprehensive shoreline management program
status across all Lake Ontario Waterfront in our jurisdiction, and the cumulative effects and long
term implications of shoreline armouring completed to date.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The planning for this project has followed the procedures outlined in the Association of
Conservation Authorities document for the Class Environmental Assessment for Water
Management Structures (1986) and the new document Class Environmental Assessment for
Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (1993). Documentation of the studies completed, and
public consultation are summarized in the Environmental Study Report (ESR).
At the Authority Meeting #5/93, Resolution #A125/93 was adopted:
"THAT staff be directed to complete the necessary studies and approvals for the
Sy /van Avenue Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, under the
"Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project
1992 -1996" at a cost of up to $75,000, subject to the availability of funding."
D101 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996 (CONTD.)
- Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
Environmental inventory surveys were completed for fisheries, near shore substrate, offshore water
depths and terrestrial, as input to the coastal design study. MTRCA staff prepared in April, 1994
the "Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project - Terrestrial and Aquatic Resource Inventory Report ".
The consulting firm of F. J. Reinders and Associates, with sub - consultants W. F. Baird and
Associates (coastal engineering) and B.A.R. Environmental (aquatic and terrestrial) were retained to
complete the final study. To guide the consultants, a steering committee was set up with
representatives of the Authority, Waterfront Regeneration Trust and Sylvan Avenue residents. To
date, six committee meetings have been held. Two public meetings were held in 1993, and in
1994, an open house /public meeting was conducted on April 7, 1994 at which the consultants
presented an overview of their study findings and alternatives for remedial works. Public input
from this meeting, in addition to questionnaires that were returned by individuals who attended the
meeting, assisted the consultants in the assessment of the preferred option. Meetings were held
with representatives from some of the approval /commenting agencies as input to assessing the
alternatives. These included the Federal Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Natural Resources,
Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department and Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
At the public meeting held on April 7, 1994, a question was raised as to why the 39 homes should
be protected while destroying the natural eroding bluffs. In addition, the Authority received 24
questionnaires with 23 in support of the shoreline erosion control works and design and one in
favour of the "do nothing" option which would maintain the eroding bluffs.
Over the last four to five months, Authority staff have continued to monitor the severity of the
bluff erosion. A major slide occurred in early March which caused the residents to express serious
concerns that this project be funded and underway in 1994. Up to ten feet of tableland was lost
and the extent of the slide affected approximately six properties. This section of bluffs is now
oversteepened and it is expected that additional slope failures will occur and increase the number
of houses at eminent risk. Currently there are 13 of the 39 houses at risk.
RATIONALE
The Sylvan Avenue shoreline area has been identified in the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 -1996" as a priority based on an assessment of the
continuing monitoring of recent erosion activity.
The Authority's goal through this project is to:
"minimize the hazards to life and property that result from erosion of river banks,
valley walls and shoreline, and to protect and enhance the natural attributes of the
valley and lakefront settings."
Several of the key objectives outlined in the Authority's Erosion Control and Lake Ontario Shoreline
Program are:
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94, MAY 13, 1994 D102
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996 (CONTD.)
- Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
(1) To implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis to protect public and
private lands where public safety and property are endangered by erosion;
(2) To implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands to protect the
natural valleys and shoreline features and associated aquatic and terrestrial habitats
adversely affected by the erosion;
(3) To design remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of an ecosystem approach for
the entire watercourse or shoreline which will limit erosion, enable public access adjacent to
the water's edge wherever feasible, be conducive to maintenance, and enhance aquatic and
terrestrial resources;
(4) 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;
(5) To secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed and
where the lands are valuable additions to the greenspace systems;
(6) To protect and enhance the natural valley and shoreline features and associated terrestrial
and aquatic habitats.
The preferred option which is being recommended addresses and achieves many of the policies in
the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan, the regeneration principles of the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust and the Authority's Shoreline Erosion Program. These include: fisheries
(aquatic) and terrestrial enhancement, public access (waterfront trail), shoreline diversity and fill
quality while providing the necessary level of shoreline protection.
The Authority also received broad support from the community to proceed with the preferred
option with one objection from a member of the public.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The consultants have summarized the details of their study in the report entitled: "Sylvan Avenue
Study and Design Report".
The proposed remedial works (Figure 1, page D103) comprises the construction of revetment
sections of varying heights and profiles. Incorporated within the design are two embayment areas
which are designed to target cold water fisheries as part of the fisheries enhancement components.
The project will require Iakefilling using clean earth fill and broken concrete rubble and would create
a diverse shoreline configuration along the Scarborough Bluffs of approximately 750 metres within
the total project length of 1,050 metres below Sylvan Avenue.
D103 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996 (CONTD.)
- Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
No remedial work is proposed along 200 metres of shoreline fronting Sylvan Park (owned by the
MTRCA) with the existing shoreline beach remaining in its natural function to provide minimal toe
protection.
In summary, the proposed shoreline works as shown on Figure 1, page D103, include the
following:
• high revetment (Section A) - armour stone revetment (headlands);
• low stepped revetment (Section B) - naturalized shore zone in behind revetment;
• stepped revetment (Section C) - land side protection with rubble /stone core covered with
earth and vegetation;
• embayment revetment (Section D);
• embayment beach (Section E) - provide for public access to beach and water's edge;
• self adjusting, rubble revetment (Section F).
• low profile breakwater (Section G) - constructed as part of initial protection works /access
road;
• habitat works - embayments (spawning for forage fish, submerged reefs (lake trout
spawning), open shoreline, headland areas and terrestrial habitat;
• maintain the archaeological significance of the shipwreck - Alexandria;
• provision for the waterfront trail across 750 metres with the remaining 200 metres to
Bellamy Ravine providing a beach walk experience.
The project would be a multi -year project of six to seven years duration to complete, and the
consultants have provided a total cost estimate of $3,717,000 dollars which includes a
contingency of $485,100.
Authority staff have completed and filed the Environmental Study Report in accordance with the
Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario - Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial
Flood and Erosion Control Projects and are currently awaiting the completion of the 45 day public
review period ending on June 22, 1994. Subject-to public comments, receipt of approvals and
funding, and signed property agreements, construction can proceed on or before July 1, 1994.
Actual construction of the work would be undertaken by Authority field staff. Supply of quarry
stone will be tendered in accordance to the Authority's purchasing policy. Equipment will be
provided by the Authority's annual equipment contractor and specialized equipment will be
tendered as required.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94, MAY 13, 1994 D104
. ird & As oc. BAR Environmenta
D105 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/94 - MAY 13, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 -1996 (CONTD.)
- Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
Fill quality will be monitored in accordance to the procedures outlined in the Lakefill Quality Control
Program to ensure compliance with Ministry of Environment and Energy guidelines. Annual
monitoring will include sediment quality and fisheries inventories.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
F. J. Reinders and Associates have provided a cost estimate for each stage of project construction
which is also contained in the ESR. The total estimated project cost is $3,717,000 including the
contingency of $485,100.
The work in 1994 will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and
Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996 ", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91 at a cost of
$375,000.
Account No. 133 -03 has been set up for this project.
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 12:25 p.m., May 13, 1994.
Lois Griffin Craig Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
bb.
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes
D106
AUGUST 19, 1994 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek
Pioneer Village on Friday, August 19, 1994. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at
10:00 a.m.
PRESENT
Chair Lois Griffin
Members Lorna Bissell
Victoria Carley
Lois Hancey
Paul Raina
Bev Salmon
Joyce Trimmer
Kip Van Kempen
Chair of the Authority William Granger
ABSENT Members Ila Bossons
Joanna Kidd
Joan King
Frank Scarpitti
MINUTES
Res. #W45/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/94 be approved.
DELEGATIONS
William Granger
Kip Van Kempen
CARRIED
(a) Mr. Trevor D'Souza spoke on the erosion problem on his property at 42 Royal Rouge Trail,
Scarborough. A copy of his presentation was distributed to the Board members.
DELEGATIONS (contd.)
D107 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
DELEGATIONS (contd.)
(b) Mr. Peter McRorie spoke on the erosion problem on his property at 31 Cherryhill Avenue,
Scarborough.
(c) Mr. Ronald Pratt spoke as a representative of the Ravine Property Owners Association
(West Rouge), and submitted a letter from E.J. Cochrane, Chairman of the Ravine Property
Owners Association, dated August 15, 1994, re: Erosion Problems at 42 Royal Rouge Trail
and 31 Cherryhill Avenue.
(d) Mr. Robert Brown, President, York Mills Valley Association, spoke in support of the possible
acquisition of the Jolly Miller Site, item 8 of these minutes. His letter of August 17, 1994
was circulated with the agenda.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1996
-Slope instability at the rear of Nos. 42 -44 Royal Rouge Trail
Jim Tucker, Supervisor, Water Control Projects, gave a staff presentation on this matter.
KEY ISSUE
Report on the Deauville Developments, 55T -84001 (Royal Rouge Trail) and the status of Nos. 42-
44 Royal Rouge Trail site, within the Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration
Project 1992 -1996.
Res. #W46/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the Deauville Developments
and the status of Nos. 42-44 Royal Rouge Trail site, within the Metropolitan Toronto Valley and
Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 -1996 be received;
THAT staff continue to include Nos. 42-44 Royal Rouge Trail within the Metropolitan Toronto
Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 -1996 and consider it relative to established
priorities and availability of funding;
AND FURTHER THAT staff in the interim continue to work with Mr. D'Souza in an attempt to
control the erosion through plantings and minor drainage works.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D108
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1996 (CONTD.)
-Slope instability at the rear of Nos. 42 -44 Royal Rouge Trail
AMENDMENT Moved by: Lorna Bissell
Res. #W47/94 Seconded by: Kip Van Kempen
THAT should Mr. D'Souza wish to cut back his yard to create a safe environment at his own
expense, Authority staff be directed to assist with the design.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The following background information related to the erosion problem at Nos. 42 -44 Royal Rouge
Trail was circulated with the agenda:
• Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board report dated August 28,
1992;
• Letter from the Chair to Mr. and Mrs. D'Souza dated October 26, 1993;
• Authority report dated May 27, 1994.
Following is a summary of the Deauville Development approval process:
(1) Prior to circulation of the draft plan, the developer was requested to carry out a
number of studies including an environmental master servicing report and a soils
report. The request for these technical reports likely occurred as a result of a "top
of bank" site visit held in March 1983. The soils report completed in September,
1984 concluded that there was potential for shallow translation failures in the upper
slope because of a perched water table and recommended the following:
(a) vegetation, topsoil and slope in the valley should remain undisturbed;
(b) concentrated runoff should not be allowed to drain directly onto the bank
surface; and
(c) structures should be set back at (east 10 metres away from the top of bank.
(2) Draft Plan T -84001 was circulated for comment on October 24, 1984. MTRCA
staff recommended draft approval subject to a number of conditions.
Correspondence to The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto dated 1984.12.04,
was circulated with the agenda.
(3) In compliance with the conditions outlined in the Authority's letter dated
1984.12.04, Council at the City of Scarborough at its meeting on January 14,
1985, adopted Zoning By -Law Amendment Application Z2/84 which included the
following clause for Lots 1 -38 in 55T- 84001:
D109 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1996 (CONTD.)
-Slope instability at the rear of Nos. 42 -44 Royal Rouge Trail
"Minimum setback from rear lot line for all buildings and structures,
including pools, 10m (30 ft.)"
(4) Draft Plan 55T -84001 was approved by Metropolitan Planning in May, 1985.
The Authority's erosion and slope concerns were addressed through the development process by
ensuring:
(1) that no runoff was directed towards the slope (site grading);
(2) that no trees were removed from the slope;
(3) that storm water management including sediment control was to be practised;
(4) that development and /or construction not encroach beyond the crest of the slope
(temporary and permanent fencing); and
(5) that all primary structures be kept away from areas where there was potential for
erosion, through the implementation of structural setbacks.
Authority staff was made aware of the slope problems behind Nos. 42 -44 Royal Rouge Trail in the
summer of 1989. There is nothing in our files or in the Soils Report that indicates there was a
specific erosion problem on the slope behind Nos. 42 -44 Royal Rouge Trail prior to development.
The site was reviewed and ranked against our other valley land erosion sites within Metropolitan
Toronto. The Pool of Erosion Sites, for the valley land only sites, within Metropolitan Toronto, was
approved at Authority Meeting #9/93 on October 22, 1993. Royal Rouge Trail appears as No. 7
and reflects the review and ranking carried out in 1993. Our 1994 review is now complete.
Although the Etobicoke Creek Landfill site now appears as our No. 1 priority in the valley lands,
therefore shifting Royal Rouge to No. 8. Terraprobe Ltd., a geotechnical consultant, has confirmed
that the home is in no danger. The closest distance between the house and the crest of the
erosion scar was 15.9 metres on April 21, 1994. The closest distance when measurements were
first taken on April 25, 1990 was 16.9 metres.
The Ministry of Natural Resources continues to rank this site very low on their Provincial Priority
List. This year the Royal Rouge Trail site was not even assigned a priority. It was included in a
group below No. 83, the last site they ranked on their list.
Given that the Authority's and Provincial's priorities continue to be on the Scarborough shoreline, it
will be some time before we have funding under the erosion control project for this site.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D110
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. THE VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECTS IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF
METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1992 -1996
- Progress Report and Pool of Erosion Sites
KEY ISSUE
Staff has prepared a progress report and a pool of priorities list regarding proposed future works for
The Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Projects in Metropolitan Toronto.
Res. #W48/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Projects in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Attachment 1 (page D112 -117),
be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the pool of priorities for the Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Projects in The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, as shown in Attachment 2 (page D118 -1201, be approved.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Lois Hancey
Res. #W49/94 Seconded by: Paul Raina
THAT staff prepare an estimate on the cost of remedial work required at 31 Cherryhill Avenue,
Scarborough.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
Res. #W50/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Paul Raina
THAT the Chair of the Authority forward the 1995 Erosion Priority List to the Province of Ontario
with a request for additional funding.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/94, held May 27, 1994,-members requested a report on the ten highest
ranking projects on the Erosion Control Priority List to the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board. Staff has updated the priority list for 1994 based on the annual review of sites.
The goal of the erosion and sediment control projects is to minimize the hazards to life and property
that result from erosion of riverbanks, valley walls, and to protect and enhance the natural
attributes of the valleys. This report deals with the aspects of the program in areas where
development has already occurred.
D111 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. THE VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECTS IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF
METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1992 -1996 (CONTD.)
- Progress Report and Pool of Erosion Sites
The Authority has carried out erosion and sediment control works since the early 1970's. Since
the initiation of the programs, the Authority has carried out erosion and sediment control works at
a total of 116 sites and spent $7,450,000 carrying out these projects.
In the early stages of the programs, the erosion sites were extremely hazardous and, as noted in
Attachment 1, the Authority was able to secure appropriate levels of funding for a significant
number of remedial works projects.
Today, there are 14 sites on our priority list (Attachment 2, page D96), which include four multiple
dwellings, a sanitary landfill site, single dwellings, office building and roadways. The top two sites
identified on the priority list are in immediate need of attention. The other sites, however, are not
in immediate danger; therefore, rank very low on the provincial priority list. Funding for the
program is based on 50% provincial and 50% Metro funding for the Metro sites. A similar funding
arrangement exists with the Regions of Peel, York and Durham.
The number of extremely hazardous sites has been reduced over the years. This is due to the fact
that the Authority has used a priority ranking system to address the severe sites first. The other
key aspect to the Authority's success has been the preventative aspect of the program. Through
the Authority's plan input and review process and working with our member municipalities,
development adjacent to valley and stream corridors is reviewed to ensure hazardous situations do
not develop.
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 the number, size and type of structure(s) affected. Valley wall conditions
considered include: the height, slope angle, vegetative cover, ground water characteristics and the
soil type and composition. The river action as a factor, considers the present river alignment as well
as the potential cutting action.
The technical priorities are reassessed, at least once, during our annual exercise whereby all sites
on our inventory are visited and monitored. This review reflects the dynamics of the erosion
processes and the addition of any new sites and, therefore, ensures that the works we are
proposing for a given year are technically addressing the most hazardous sites within our area of
jurisdiction. These priority lists are used to determine what sites should be included with the
Project File submissions to the Ministry of Natural Resources and in helping to formulate the 1995
preliminary budget for the erosion control program. These sites would, subsequently, be ranked for
funding allocations against other erosion problem8 in Central Region which include nine other
Conservation Authorities.
The Authority continues to work closely with landowners in providing advice and assistance
wherever possible.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D112
ATTACHMENT 1
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
THE VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECTS
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
1992 -1996
PROGRESS REPORT AND POOL OF EROSION SITES
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
#4/94
August 19, 1994
D113 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
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 to the end of the 1987 -1991 Project for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization, and
for the first year of the Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project in the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, 1992 - 1996.
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS
90 Forestgrove Drive East Don River 1974
20 -30 Islay Court Humber River 1974
39 -41 Storer Drive Humber River 1974 -1975
99 -103 Burbank Drive Newtonbrook Ck. 1974 -1975
Hi Mount Drive 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 River 1975
45 Riverbank Drive and Vicinity Mimico Creek 1975
32 -38 Bonnyview Drive Mimico Creek 1975 -1976
37 -43 Lakeland Drive 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 Don 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 Don River 1978
Don Valley Drive Don River 1978
50 -58 Stanwood Crescent Humber River 1978 -1979
Enfield /Sunset /Jellicoe Vicinity Etobicoke Creek 1979
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D114
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS (Continued)
17 -53 Riverview Heights Humber River 1979
10 Codeco Court - Phase I Don River 1980
35 Canyon Avenue Don River 1979
31 -39 Rivercove Drive Mimico Creek 1980
25 -31 Alamosa Drive Don 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 Creekway I Development Newtonbrook 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 Beaucourt 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
Fairglen & Weston Road Humber River 1985
Duncan Mills Road Don River 1985 -1986
Riverside Crescent Humber River 1985 -1986
Rainbow Creekway 11 Newtonbrook Creek 1986
(East Don River)
14 Neilson Drive Etobicoke Creek 1986
Chipping Road Bridge East Don River 1986
6 Burnhamthorpe Crescent Mimico Creek 1986
Maple Creek Farms Highland Creek 1986
Warden Woods Park Massey Creek 1986
14 Forest Path Humber River 1987
P.U.C. Lands Highland Creek 1987
Scarborough College Highland Creek 1987
Lawrence Avenue Bridge Highland Creek 1987
D115 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS (Continued)
The Queensway + The West Mall Etobicoke Creek 1988
Highland Creek - Confluence Highland Creek 1988
10 Glenorchy Place West Don River 1988
Leslie Street & Steeles Avenue East Don River 1988
(German Mills Ck.)
5201 Dufferin Street West Don River 1989
6 -10 Saddletree East Don River 1991
(German Mills Ck.)
Carmel Court East Don River 1991 -1992
(German Mills Ck.)
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D116
LOCATION
MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS
WATERSHED WORK YEAR
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 Don 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
D117 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS (Continued)
Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1979
Beechgrove Drive - II Highland Creek 1980
Jason and Riverdale 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
West 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
55 & 73 Vandusen Blvd. Mimico Creek 1986
Royal York Road II Mimico Creek 1986
14 Brian Cliff Drive Wilket Creek 1987
Summary:
Major Works 63
Minor Works 53
Total Expenditure $7,450,000
METROPOLITAN TORONTO REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1995
PRIORITY
LOCATION
WATERSHED
MUNICIPALITY
COMMENTS
1
Etobicoke West
Mall Landfill Site
Etobicoke Creek
Etobicoke
Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structure Affected: Sanitary landfill
Height of Bank: 20m
Length of Bank: 400m
2
Burgundy Court
Humber River
North York
Problem: Slope failure
Structures Affected: 5 Homes
Height of Bank: 17m
Length of Bank: 80m
3
3030 -3068 Weston
Road
Humber River
North York
Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: 2 Homes
Height of Bank: 14m
Length of Bank: 210m
4
180 -188 Parkview
Hill Crescent
Don River
East York
Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: 4 residential house lots
Height of Bank: 35m
Length of Bank: 100m
5
Across from #74
Colonel Danforth
Trail
Highland Creek
Scarborough
Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: One roadway
Height of Bank: 33m
Length of Bank: 30m
6
31 -33 Cherryhill
Ave.
Centennial Crk.
Scarborough
Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: 2 Homes
Height of Bank: 9m
Length of Bank: 20m
7
1220 Access Road
at
Sheppard Avenue
East
East Don River
North York
Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: Office building
Height of Bank: 17m
Length of Bank: 50m
D
D
()
1
E
m
z
N
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4194, AUGUST 19, 1994
v
METROPOLITAN TORONTO REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1995
PRIORITY
LOCATION
WATERSHED
MUNICIPALITY
COMMENTS
8
42 -44 Royal Rouge
Trail
Rouge River
Scarborough
Problem: Valley wall failure
Structures Affected: One home & One pool
Height of Bank: 30m
Length of Bank: 20m
9
Burnhamthorpe Road
at Mattice Road (south
oflslington Golf Club)
Mimico Creek
Etobicoke
Problem: Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: Roadway
Height of Bank: 1 1m
Length of Bank: 50m
10
Sewell's Road at Finch
'
Rouge River
Scarborough
Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: One roadway
Height of Bank: 14m
Length of Bank: 88m
*11
93 -113 Weir Crescent
Highland Creek
Scarborough
Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: One residence, One pool
and 9 private properties
Height of Bank: 35m
Length of Bank: 105m
12
221 Martin Grove Rd.
Mimico Creek
Etobicoke
Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: One residence
Height of Bank: 12m
Length of Bank: 24m
13
91 Forest Grove Drive
Don River
North York
Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: One home
Height of Bank: 8m
Length of Bank: 23m
CO
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
METROPOLITAN TORONTO REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1995
PRIORITY
LOCATION
WATERSHED
MUNICIPALITY
COMMENTS
14
Humber Valley Yacht
Club
Humber River
Etobicoke
Problem: Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: Yacht Club, Gas Pumps,
Hydro & Water Services, Docks
Height of Bank: 1.5m
Length of Bank: 300m
* Site 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).
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994
v_
N
0
D121 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT
- Brimley Road Drainage Area - Water Quality Enhancement Strategy
Mr. Peter Cookson, Assistant Director, Environment, City of Scarborough Transportation and
Environment Department, gave a presentation on this matter. The Board thanked Mr. Cookson for
the very informative presentation on a very timely subject.
KEY ISSUE
Staff are in receipt of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) for the Brimley Road Drainage Area -
Water Quality Enhancement Strategy in the City of Scarborough.
Res. #W51/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
William Granger
Victoria Carley
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Environmental Study Report (ESR)
prepared for the Brimley Road Drainage Area - Water Quality Enhancement Strategy, dated March
15, 1994, be received;
THAT the concept of the Dunkers Flow Balancing System, outlined as one of the preferred
alternatives in the ESR, be endorsed;
THAT staff be directed to continue working with the City of Scarborough and The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto to finalize a satisfactory tri -party agreement for the operation and
maintenance of the Dunkers Flow Balancing System for approval by The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto and the Authority;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Scarborough and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be so
advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1986, the City of Scarborough undertook a Pollution Control Strategy Study in order to identify
major problems in areas served by combined sewers. The Pollution Control Strategy identified six
existing combined sewer overflows to Lake Ontario and recommended the construction of 14
underground concrete storage tanks to detain sanitary sewer overflows from entering Lake Ontario.
Because of the high costs associated with the underground storage tanks, the City of Scarborough
began investigating other alternatives to improve water quality.
In September 1987, the Ministry of the Environment announced the Toronto Area Waterfront
Water Quality Improvement Programme ( WWQIP). The Ministry of the Environment called upon
area municipalities to submit a list of projects which could be considered under the WWQIP. In
1987, the City of Scarborough responded with three projects, one of which included the Dunkers
Flow Balancing System (DFBS).
In 1988, the Ministry of the Environment and Energy agreed to support and provide funding for
further study of the DFBS.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D122
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT (CONTD.)
- Brimley Road Drainage Area - Water Quality Enhancement Strategy
In 1989, a Steering Committee was established with representatives from various public agencies,
including the MTRCA, to study the feasibility of applying the DFBS as a means of reducing the
pollution from one of the combined sewer overflows discharging into Lake Ontario.
The feasibility study addressed a number of technical criteria as well as a site selection process. It
was concluded from the study that the DFBS could be constructed at the storm sewer outfall
within the embayment area in Bluffers Park. The proposed DFBS would eliminate the need for one
or more storage tanks.
The objective of a DFBS is to store and treat polluted storm water or combined sewer runoff in a
series of floating cells. Each cell is comprised of pontoons and curtains which store the flows. As
polluted storm water or combined sewer overflow enter the DFBS, lake water is displaced through
an opening in the curtain. After the runoff ceases to enter the facility, a pump is activated which
conveys the flows to a sanitary sewer or directly to a treatment facility. Polluted water is gradually
replaced by the lake water and the system is ready for the next runoff event.
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT
In February 1992, Scarborough City Council adopted the "Feasibility Study of the Dunkers Flow
Balancing System - City of Scarborough 1991". Scarborough City Council endorsed staff's
recommendation that a Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Water and Waste Water
Projects be undertaken to look at cost effective solutions for the prevention and control of
stormwater from the Brimley Road drainage area. The result was the ESR for the Water Quality
Enhancement Strategy for the Brimley Road drainage area.
The Water Quality Enhancement Strategy outlines a combination of measures to reduce the effects
of both storm and combined sewer discharges into Lake Ontario for the Brimley Road drainage
area. These measures include the proposed DFBS as outlined above; a comprehensive roof
downspout disconnection program; a continuation of the existing sewer separation program; and a
number of pollution control measures.
The proposed DFBS will form part of a demonstration project under the Great Lakes Clean Up
Program. The DFBS will be monitored for its effectiveness in improving water quality along the
Lake Ontario shoreline as well as its ability to provide aquatic /fish habitat.
In March 1994, the Authority was circulated a copy of the E.S.R. for review and comment.
Authority staff, in conjunction with staff from The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, responded
to the City of Scarborough advising that we had no objections to the preferred alternative outlined
in the Water Quality Enhancement Strategy.
The Ministry of the Environment and Energy received a request from area residents to bump -up the
E.S.R. to an Individual Environmental Assessment. The Ministry of the Environment and Energy has
advised Authority staff that the City of Scarborough has requested them to defer commenting on
the bump -up request until such time as they have had an opportunity to try and resolve the
residents concerns.
The City of Scarborough Council recommended at its meeting on April 13, 1994:
D123 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT (CONTD.)
- Brimley Road Drainage Area - Water Quality Enhancement Strategy
(1) that Council endorse the ESR for the Brimley Road Water Quality Enhancement
Strategy and direct staff to take appropriate steps to satisfy the environmental
assessment requirements;
(2) that staff be further directed to negotiate with the provincial and federal
governments to pursue additional funding for Project No. 8481 Dunkers Flow
Balancing System.
RATIONALE
Staff support the preferred alternative outlined in the ESR including the proposed DFBS within the
embayment area of the Scarborough Bluffs. The recommended alternatives for the Water Quality
Enhancement Strategy are in keeping with the Authority's objectives for improving water quality as
outlined in the Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program.
It is staff's opinion that the design of the DFBS is in keeping with the park setting of Bluffers Park.
The proposed design of the DFBS will enhance both riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat within
the embayment area of the west area of Bluffers Park.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Authority staff will continue to work with the City of Scarborough and The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto in implementing the DFBS. Authority staff will continue to work with the City
of Scarborough on a number of issues which include:
• that the City of Scarborough satisfy all requirements of the Environmental
Assessment Act;
• a tri -party agreement being established between the City of Scarborough, The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority. This agreement is to deal with the operation and
maintenance of the proposed DFBS which is located on land owned by the MTRCA
and under the 1972 Waterfront Agreement with The Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto (operating agent being the Metro Parks and Property Department);
• further technical information at the detailed design stage which includes method of
construction; dredged material disposal; construction access route and its impacts
on public use and operations of Bluffers Park;
• a permit being obtained from the MTRCA under Ontario Regulation 158.
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
The project is to be partially funded by the City of Scarborough and Environment Canada (Great
Lakes Clean -Up Program). It is the responsibility of the proponent (the City of Scarborough) to
finance all restoration work that may be required in Bluffers Park as a result of the construction of
the DFBS. It is also the responsibility of the City of Scarborough to assume all on -going
maintenance costs associated with the DFBS.
The above project will have no impact on the Authority's budget.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D124
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. MALTON DISTRICT PROPOSED TWO -ZONE CONCEPT
-City of Mississauga
KEY ISSUE
Pursuant to the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement (1988), the City of Mississauga
has requested the application of a Two -Zone (floodway - flood fringe) concept for a portion of the
Malton District.
Res. #W52/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Victoria Carley
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the application of a Two -Zone concept for
a portion of the Malton District be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to advise the City of Mississauga of the Authority's
endorsement of the application of a Two -Zone concept for a portion of the Malton District.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1980, as part of its Watershed Plan, the Authority designated a portion of the Malton District
(Old Malton Village) as a Flood Damage Centre and adopted policies to allow infilling and
redevelopment to occur. A Flood Damage Centre was defined as a flood plain area on which there
is a concentration of development which forms an integral part of an existing community.
Following the approval of the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement, under Section 3 of
the Planning Act, the designation of a Flood Damage Centre and its associated flood plain planning
policies now have no recognized status.
At the request of Councillor Frank McKechnie, staff of the Authority investigated the feasibility of
applying either a Special Policy Area or Two -Zone concept, pursuant to the Provincial Policy
Statement, for the area previously designated as a Flood Damage Centre. With the demise of the
Flood Damage Centre designation, a One -Zone approach to flood plain management is in effect
whereby infill development is generally prohibited.
The Two -Zone (floodway - flood fringe) concept allows for development /redevelopment to occur
within the flood fringe where the depths and velocities are non -life threatening. The proponent is
required to provide regulatory flood protection for any new development. The Special Policy Area
concept allows for selective development /redevelopment to occur in the floodway and flood fringe
and the proponent would be required to provide an agreed upon level of flood proofing which can
be less than the regulatory.
Staff of the Authority, in consultation with staff of the City of Mississauga and Councillor Frank
McKechnie, carried out a review of the Malton District and came to the conclusion that while the
Two -Zone concept is more restrictive than the Special Policy Area concept, the Two -Zone concept
would provide sufficient development capability and still maintain the community viability.
D125 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. MALTON DISTRICT PROPOSED TWO -ZONE CONCEPT (CONTD.)
-City of Mississauga
RATIONALE
For portions of flood plains that could potentially be safely developed with no adverse impacts, the
Authority, in cooperation with the municipality, has the option of selective application of the Two -
Zone (floodway - flood fringe) concept.
New development would be prohibited within the floodway. The existing Malton channel works,
carried out by the Authority in 1972, contains the 100 year flood plain (floodway). The depths of
flooding within the flood fringe for the most part are Tess than .5 metres. Regional flood protection
can therefore be easily achieved.
IMPLEMENTATION
While it is the intent of the province that municipalities include policies in official plans regarding
the use or possible use of the Two -Zone concept to flood plain management, it is not mandatory
prior to its application. The City of Mississauga is currently updating its Official Plan and proposes
to undertake a Secondary Plan for the Malton District in the near future. The City has agreed to
incorporate policies regarding the use of a Two -Zone concept into these documents. In the interim,
staff has drafted a set of interim procedures for use in evaluating development applications
pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158 (Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation).
The City has approved the interim procedures.
5. DURHAM REGION WATERFRONT TRAIL
- jobsOntario Capital Projects
KEY ISSUE
In late 1993, the Authority submitted several trail development projects at the request of the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust for possible funding. The funding is now available from the Trust.
Field investigations and negotiations between the Authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources and
the local municipalities are in progress and it is anticipated that one or two project sites will be
ready for fall construction.
Res. #W53/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT waterfront trail projects be approved in
the area of the Duffins Creek river mouth and the Duffins Creek Water Pollution Control Plant;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to retain a consultant to prepare the detailed design of a
bridge and /or trail linkages in the Pickering and Ajax waterfront area and proceed with the work at
a total estimated cost of $600,000.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D126
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. DURHAM REGION WATERFRONT TRAIL (CONTD.)
- jobsOntario Capital Projects
BACKGROUND
In 1993, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust submitted a funding request to jobsOntario for
waterfront trail developments along the north shore of Lake Ontario. Authority staff identified four
possible sites including the Duffins Creek river mouth, the Petticoat Creek river mouth, the
Frenchman's Bay area and the Brimley Road area. All sites were submitted on the basis that
additional negotiations and field investigations would be required.
In the spring of 1994, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust was successful in obtaining the necessary
support funding and now requires confirmation of projects that can be completed prior to
March 31, 1995.
In subsequent discussions with municipal staff, the Duffins Creek river mouth crossing and trail and
a portion of the Pickering waterfront trail were considered possible project sites. The Town of Ajax
and the Ajax and Pickering Rotary Clubs have agreed to supply the necessary funding in support of
jobsOntario grants. Discussions with the Town of Pickering are ongoing with the possibility of
additional trail work in the area of the Durham Sewage Treatment plant. Ministry of Natural
Resources staff are currently reviewing trail connection alternatives in the Duffins Creek river
mouth to ensure that sensitive beach and marsh habitat is not adversely impacted by the proposed
trail improvements.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total cost of the project is estimated at $600,000. Financial partners in the project include:
Waterfront Regeneration Trust (committed) $380,000
Town of Ajax (committed) $140,000
Pickering /Ajax Rotary Clubs (committed) $ 15,000
Other Sources (pending) $ 65,000
TOTAL $600,000
The committed funds are sufficient to complete the bridge and a portion of trail. The pending
funds will permit additional trail construction in the project area. The Authority is acting as the
technical coordinator for the project and has contributed technical staff time and sundry support
costs from the Trail Management portion of the 1994 Capital Development budget.
D127 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. METROPOLITAN TORONTO WATERFRONT PLAN
Jane Welsh, Project Coordinator, Metropolitan Waterfront Trail, gave a presentation on this item.
The Chair thanked Ms. Welsh on behalf of the Board for the informative presentation.
KEY ISSUE
To support the recently adopted Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan and continue the mandate
as an implementing agency of the Waterfront Plan.
Res. #W54/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Kip Van Kempen
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the Metropolitan Toronto
Waterfront Plan, as adopted by Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, be received;
THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be commended for an extraordinary effort in
developing the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan within an extensive consultative process and
committed timeframe;
THAT the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan be endorsed as the framework for subsequent
MTRCA waterfront project initiatives;
THAT The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority advise The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto that it accepts the continuation of the mandate as an implementing agency
and partner in the regeneration of the waterfront pursuant to the policies of the Metropolitan
Toronto Waterfront Plan;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #7/91, held on October 18, 1991, Resolution #220 was adopted as follows:
"THAT the Authority advise the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto that it
supports the concepts outlined in the draft report entitled "Planning Directions for
the Metropolitan Waterfront" as the basis for the development of a new waterfront
plan and subsequent Official Plan Policies; since they are consistent with the
Authority's 1980 Watershed Plan and 1989 Greenspace Strategy; provided that the
final report be brought back to the Authority for review and comment and that the
concepts within the final report remain consistent with the Authority's 1980
Watershed Plan and Greenspace Strategy.
THAT the Authority continue to work with Metropolitan Toronto in the development
of a new Waterfront Plan and Official Plan Policies in an ecosystem context which
will provide the basis for the development of the Authority's continued role on the
waterfront as well as support for the Authority's watershed based Programs and
Projects;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D128
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. METROPOLITAN TORONTO WATERFRONT PLAN (CONTD.)
THAT copies of the staff report and recommendation be forwarded to the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Cities of Toronto, Scarborough and
Etobicoke for their information;
THAT the Authority recommend to Metropolitan Toronto that neighbouring
municipalities be inc /uded in discussions of the Waterfront P /an at an ear /y stage;
THAT the Authority recommend to Metropolitan Toronto that Marie Curtis Park and
vicinity be included as a Special Character Designation;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority recommend to Metropolitan Toronto that the
Planning Directions for the Metro Waterfront Draft Report recognize hazards
associated with flooding and erosion and that appropriate policies be developed to
support the Authority's responsibilities in these areas.
Authority staff have participated on the Metropolitan Waterfront Committee between 1991 and
1994 with substantial input to the final document to reflect Authority programs and policies.
On January 25, 1994, the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto adopted a new
Waterfront Plan and passed the following motion:
"1. the revised policies and schedules of the Draft Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, as set
out in Appendix III, be adopted for the new Metropolitan Waterfront Plan which will
replace the 1967 Waterfront Plan;
2. the Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, as amended, be distributed to the agencies,
communities and individuals who participated in its development as well as to the
relevant provincial ministries, the Waterfront Trust, The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) and the Metropolitan Area Municipalities;
3. the relevant provisions of the Metropolitan Waterfront Plan be incorporated into the
revised draft Metropolitan Official Plan prior to its consideration by the Economic
Development and Planning Committee (EDPC) and its final review by the public;
4. the necessary steps be taken to ensure that an implementing agency of the
Metropolitan Waterfront Plan be The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority; and
5. the appropriate Metropolitan Officials be authorized and directed to give effect
thereto."
The relevant provisions of the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan have also been incorporated
into the recently approved Metropolitan Official Plan (June, 1994).
The Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan provides the following key objectives:
D129 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. METROPOLITAN TORONTO WATERFRONT PLAN (CONTD.)
(A) Waterfront Greenspace System
To plan and manage the Waterfront Greenspace System in a way that restores, maintains,
and enhances ecosystem integrity, improves physical connections to other greenspaces and
meets the recreational and leisure needs of the Metropolitan Toronto population.
(B) Access and Movement
To protect and enhance inter - regional access to and through the Metropolitan Waterfront
and encourage increased reliance on transit, commuter rail and marine transportation while
achieving enhanced physical and visual access between the urban community and the
Metropolitan Waterfront and providing for continuous public access along the Metropolitan
Waterfront for public use and enjoyment.
(C) Development and Economic Vitality
To ensure a balanced use of Metropolitan Waterfront lands supporting residential,
employment and recreational activities in a manner which sustains the waterfront as an
accessible public resource.
(D) Waterfront Key Destinations
To promote the physical form and quality of the Metropolitan Waterfront to reflect its
importance to the identity and liveability of the metropolis.
The Implementation Section recognizes the Authority's role in implementing the policies through
acquisition, conservation, program and regeneration initiatives, park and trail development and
shoreline management.
The Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan is a Metropolitan policy document of Council providing
direction to Metropolitan decision- making and assisting in area municipal, private sector and
community interpretation of those waterfront policies included in the new Metropolitan Official
Plan. Further, the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan provides the framework for the Authority's
Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 -1999 and subsequent Waterfront Projects.
A key policy of the new Metropolitan Official Plan incorporating the Waterfront plan direction, is "to
support the MTRCA as a partner in the development of the Waterfront pursuant to the policies of
the Plan. In this regard, the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan (1994), as amended from time
to time, shall guide Council in its decision- making regarding approval of the MTRCA Waterfront
Projects".
RATIONALE
The Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan provides the new Metropolitan Council policy document
directing Metropolitan investment and operations -and MTRCA projects. This plan highlights many
of the Authority Greenspace Strategy and program initiatives. It is recommended this Plan be
endorsed by the Authority and utilized as a framework for MTRCA project initiatives and future
regeneration efforts along the Lake Ontario shoreline.
The Authority, as recognized in the Plan, should advise The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
that it accepts the continuation of the mandate as an implementing agency of the Metropolitan
Toronto Waterfront Plan (1994).
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D130
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. METROPOLITAN TORONTO WATERFRONT PLAN (CONTD.)
The Authority should also recognize the extraordinary effort by The Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto through the Planning Department in preparing a new Waterfront Plan within an extensive
public and agency consultation process while meeting set time commitments.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Authority is proceeding, as directed by MTRCA Meeting #2/94, to obtain approval of the Lake
Ontario Waterfront Regeneration project 1995 -1999 from The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
in accordance with the policies of the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan (1994).
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
- Master Plan /Environmental Assessment
KEY ISSUE
To receive a status report on the government review of the Tommy Thompson Park Master
Plan /Environmental Assessment and to accept the proposed Terms and Conditions set out in this
report.
Res. #W55/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report on the Tommy
Thompson Park Master Plan /Environmental Assessment, be received;
THAT the Terms and Conditions, attached as Schedule 1, page D114 -116 of these minutes,
developed through the public and government agency review process and proposed by the Ministry
of Environment and Energy, be accepted subject to the City of Toronto's concurrence and
withdrawal of their request for a hearing on this matter;
AND FURTHER THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto and the
Ministry of Environment and Energy (Environmental Assessment Branch) be so advised.
CARRIED
D131 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK (CONTD.)
- Master Plan /Environmental Assessment
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #6/92, held on July 24, 1992, Resolution #106 was adopted:
THAT the Tommy Thompson Park Revised Master Plan dated May, 1992, be
approved;
THAT staff be directed to prepare an addendum including documentation of the
public comments on the Revised Master Plan (May, 1992) and submit it along with
the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan/Environmental Assessment document (July,
1989) to the Minister of the Environment for approval under the Environmental
Assessment Act;
THAT the Revised Master Plan (May, 1992) be forwarded to The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto for approval in accordance with the provisions of the 1972
Waterfront Agreement.
THAT the Revised Master Plan (May, 1992) be forwarded to the Ministry of Natural
Resources;
THAT the Authority continue to utilize committees such as the Natural Areas
Advisory Committee, a physical planning committee with the Aquatic Park Sailing
Club and Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, and a working
committee with cycling experts to address the specific needs, in advisory capacities
during the detailed design and implementation stages of the Revised Master Plan;
AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural
Resources, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto, the
Toronto Harbour Commissioners, the Royal Commission on the Future of the
Toronto Waterfront, the Tommy Thompson Park Natural Areas Advisory Committee,
the Aquatic Park Sailing Club and the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation be so
advised.
Amendment #1 Res. #107
THAT the Master Plan for Tommy Thompson Park include a public transit
component to ensure access to the spit.
Amendment #2 Res. #108
That the words public transit component in Amendment # 1, be deleted, and
rep /aced by park transportation service.
An Addendum was prepared that included the approved Revised Master Plan (dated May, 1992),
documentation of the public process and comments, the revised capital costs, phasing, and
minutes of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board and Authority. Staff refiled
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D132
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK (CONTD.)
- Master Plan /Environmental Assessment
the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan /Environmental Assessment and the Addendum with the
Minister of the Environment and Energy in March, 1993 for approval under the Environmental
Assessment Act.
The MOEE has prepared a "review" document to assist the Minister in making a decision on the
acceptability of the Environmental Assessment document and approval of the project. The
Government Review (March 1994) addresses the quality of the environmental assessment. It also
provides an evaluation of the proponent's planning process and undertaking from the perspectives
of the government ministries and agencies. The review was based on input received from the
public and the Government Review Team comprised of provincial ministries and agencies as part of
a concurrent review process.
The Government Review summarizes comments received from other ministries and agencies
following the submission of the EA. The majority of the concerns expressed by the agencies have
been addressed through the proposed Terms and Conditions of approval.
A Notice of Submission was issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, on March 18,
1994 notifying all interested parties that the TTP Master Plan /Environmental Assessment was
proceeding through a formal review process under the Environmental Assessment Act. Comments
on the Master Plan /EA Document (1989) and Addendum (1993) were accepted by the Ministry of
the Environment and Energy for a 30 day review period up until April 25, 1994.
During this time, submissions regarding the EA and the review were received by the Minister of
Environment and Energy. The Minister must then make two decisions under the Act. First, the
Minister of Environment and Energy must decide whether the environmental assessment is
acceptable as a basis on which to make a decision on whether to approve the proposed
undertaking or not.
Second, the Minister, together with the Cabinet, must decide whether the undertakings should be
approved, approved with conditions, rejected or sent to the Environmental Assessment Board for a
determination on approval.
If members of the public request a hearing, the Minister will decide if a hearing is necessary for the
particular undertaking. The minister will normally agree to such a request and refer the matter to
the Environmental Assessment Board, unless in his discretion he considers the request to be
frivolous, vexatious or will cause undue delay.
When there is a hearing, the Environmental Assessment Board or a Joint Board, constituted under
the Consolidated Hearings Act, may make both decisions, or the decision on approval, if the
Minister has already accepted the EA.
At it's meeting, held on May 4, 1994, Metropolitan Toronto Council approved the Tommy
Thompson Park Master Plan /Environmental Assessment through the adoption of the Clause 10 of
Report 15 of Management Committee as follows:
D133 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK (CONTD.)
- Master Plan /Environmental Assessment
(1) the adoption of the report dated April 11, 1994, from the Commissioner of Parks
and Property; and
(2) that Metro Council request the Province of Ontario to amend the master plan for
Tommy Thompson Park to preclude the use of herbicides and pesticides.
The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee on April 18, 1994, had before it a report (April 11,
1994) from the Commissioner of Parks and Property recommending that:
(1) the Revised Master Plan (May, 1992) for Tommy thompson Park be approved,
subject to:
(a) the proposed Terms and Conditions for approval of the Tommy Thompson
Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment in the Review Under the
Environmental Assessment Act (dated March, 1994) not being substantially
revised by the Province of Ontario; and
(b) the concerns expressed in this report being addressed in more detailed
planning and implementation stages for the park;
(2) this report be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and Energy as
comments on the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and Environmental
Assessment;
(3) a copy of this report be forwarded to The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority; and
(4) the appropriate Metro Officia /s being authorized to take the necessary action to give
effect thereto.
In response to the Notice of Completion of Review pursuant to Section 711 of the Environmental
Assessment Act, the Council of the City of Toronto on April 18/19, 1994 adopted the following
resolution:
1. That the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Planning and Development discuss
with the Ministry of the Environment and Energy and the Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority solutions aimed at resolving the concerns of City
Council in respect of the approval of the Tommy Thompson Park Environmental
Assessment and undertaking as described in the draft letter attached to this report.
2. That the City solicitor request Mr. David Estrin, the City's outside counsel retained
in respect of the Tommy Thompson Park Environmental Assessment, to submit a
letter to the Minister of the Environment and Energy substantially in the form of the
draft letter attached to this report, requesting a hearing in respect of the Tommy
Thompson Park Environmental Assessment and undertaking.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4194, AUGUST 19, 1994 D134
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK (CONTD.)
- Master Plan /Environmental Assessment
By letter dated April 22, 1994, the City of Toronto formally requested the Minister of Environment
and Energy (MOEE) to refer the undertaking (Master Plan) to a hearing.
RATIONALE
Authority staff have been meeting with many of the agencies during the public review period
(March 18 -April 25, 1994) and subsequently with the MOEE (Environmental Assessment Branch),
Metropolitan Toronto and City of Toronto staff on the City's issues. The modifications based on
the discussions are reflected in the Terms and Conditions in the attached Schedule 2.
The following highlights some of the terms and conditions as well as reasons for acceptance.
•
Condition 2 resolves the technical differences between the two Environmental Assessments
- Keating Channel and Tommy Thompson Park, and allow the MTRCA to proceed with a
clean fill wetland cap for Cell 1.
With Condition 3, the MTRCA has resubmitted a letter dated April 25, 1994, on the
amending procedures to the MOEE. This letter described the procedures which will be
followed to accommodate any major or minor modifications to the Master Plan. These
modifications may change the design details within the Master Plan, but will not alter the
main Master Plan components for Tommy Thompson Park. This condition provides for
concurrence by the City of Toronto for any modifications.
• Conditions, 4, 5 and 6 expand and clarify the Authority's existing monitoring and
management programs for Tommy Thompson Park.
•
•
Condition 7 builds on the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Operating Plan for the Leslie
Street Spit which is currently submitted each year to the approval agencies including the
City of Toronto.
Public access to the site would be enhanced by the provision of a park transportation
service similar to that provided by the Authority as part of the 1994 Interim Management
Program. Many of the issues raised by the public and interest groups regarding the
provision for park transportation can be dealt with through discussions with the various
working committees and Metro Parks and Property Department that have been approved by
the Authority in Resolution #106 at its meeting #6/92 held on July 24, 1992, (ie. Natural
Areas advisory Committee, Physical Planning Committee and the Cycling Committee).
Condition 16 satisfies the City of Toronto's concerns on this matter and formalizes MNR's
intent to complete the transfer of the outer Leslie Street Spit area to the MTRCA at some
point in the future.
The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan (1992) has received broad support for approval subject to
resolution on the Terms and Conditions. The attached Terms and Conditions (Schedule 1) resolve
the major issues identified by the City of Toronto in their request for a hearing. The Terms and
D135 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK (CONTD.)
- Master Plan /Environmental Assessment
Conditions also clarify a technical difficulty with the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment
approval which has held up a major regeneration effort to cap Cell 1 with a wetland.
It is therefore recommended that the Authority accept the Terms and Conditions as outlined in
Schedule 1 subject to the City of Toronto's acceptance of the Terms and Conditions and
withdrawal of their hearing request of April 22, 1994.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Notice of Acceptance was forwarded to the Minister of Environment and Energy on July 26,
1994 and will be published during August 1994 with a further 15 day review period.
MTRCA staff will continue to work with the MOEE staff and agencies to address and resolve any
minor modifications to the Terms and Conditions.
This report will be forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Metropolitan Toronto
and the City of Toronto. The City of Toronto will prepare a report to Land Use Committee and
Council addressing resolution of their concerns through the proposed Terms and Conditions. It is
anticipated that this report, based on the proposed Terms and Conditions will also give direction to
withdraw their request for a hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board.
Staff anticipate approval of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan /Environmental Assessment
with Terms and Conditions by October, 1994.
Upon approval of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan /Environmental Assessment, MTRCA staff
will activate the Natural Areas Advisory Committee, and establish a working group to review the
needs of the public and to address detailed design considerations of the Master Plan.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Withdrawal of the City of Toronto's hearing request would avoid considerable costs before the
Environmental Assessment Board and shift the priority to implementing the Master Plan to enable
further public use of the site.
Upon approval of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan /Environmental Assessment, staff will
initiate Phase I of the Master Plan through the 1995 Ministry of Natural Resources project funding
request and Authority budget process under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project
1995 - 1999. Phase I includes:
• pedestrian trail and bicycle path (Part of the Metropolitan Waterfront Trail)
• public parking lot, 200 spaces (Park Visitors Centre)
• Cell 1 capping and wetland creation
• site services - sanitary, water, electrical, telephone to Park Visitor Centre area
• minimum service washrooms (2)
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D136
Schedule 1
Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan /Environmental Assessment
Proposed Terms and Conditions
Except as otherwise provided by these proposed conditions, the undertaking shall
be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Assessment
(EA) as amended and accepted, including any written commitments made by the
proponent to the EA Branch or review agencies which are incorporated herein by
reference.
2. The proponent will continue to comply with the conditions of approval issued under
the EA Act for the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment except for the
changes necessary to complete Cell 1 with a clean -fill wetland cap.
3. The amending procedure submitted by the proponent needs to be redrafted and
resubmitted before a decision is made on the acceptance of the EA.
Clean fill and Wetland Activities
4.(1) The MTRCA is to prepare detailed plans and schedule for the construction and
development of a clean -fill cap and wetland, including a schedule for
implementation and specific habitat design and components for Cell 1, design
criteria for clean -fill cap, procedures for placing clean -fill, and measures to control
dredgeate movement. The detailed plans will be submitted to the Central Region
office, MOEE, to the satisfaction of the Director prior to any construction on site.
4.12) The MTRCA is to prepare detailed plans and schedules for the construction and
development of a cap for Cells 2 and 3 respectively. The plans are to include a
schedule for implementation, procedures for constructing the cap, design criteria for
the cap, including any specific habitat components for each cell, design criteria for
the cap, and measures to control dredgeate movement. The plans and schedules
for these cells are to be developed in consideration of the monitoring results for the
Cell 1 wetland cap. The detailed plans will be submitted for approval, to the
Director, Central Region, MOEE prior to any construction within the CeII 2 and Cell
3 respectively. Plans will also be submitted to the City of Toronto for comment.
5.11) The MTRCA will prepare and submit a final report describing actions taken
throughout the construction period and the operation of the wetland, as well as a
description of a management plan for the wetland. This report will be submitted to
the Central Region office, MOEE, for approval by the Director, within three months
of completing the Cell 1 capping. A copy of this report will be forwarded to the
City of Toronto.
5.12) The management plan referred to in subcondition 5(1) shall be implemented with
such changes as the Director from time to time agrees in writing.
D137 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
6.11) The MTRCA will expand the existing monitoring program to assess the adequacy of
the cap over any of the cells to restrict biological uptake and contaminant mobility,
in conjunction with the Medical Officer of Health for the City of Toronto and submit
it for approval to the Director, Central Region of MOEE. The results of this
monitoring program shall be reported on a regular basis, to be determined as part of
the approval of this program.
6.(2) In addition, MTRCA will expand the existing monitoring program to include the caps
for Cell 2 and Cell 3 respectively. For each cell, the monitoring program will be
expanded to assess the adequacy of the cap to restrict biological uptake and
contaminant mobility, as well as the environmental conditions within Tommy
Thompson Park. The program will be expanded as applicable, in conjunction with
the Medical Officer of Health for the City of Toronto, and submitted for approval to
the Director, Central Region of MOEE. The results of the monitoring program shall
be reported on a regular basis, to be determined as part of the approval of this
program.
6.(3) The monitoring program referred to in subcondition 6(1) and 6(2) and the detailed
plans referred in subconditions 4(1) and 4(2) shall be implemented with such
changes as the Director from time to time agrees in writing.
7.(1) A similar monitoring and inspection program for shoreline protection and
stabilization will be carried out by the MTRCA following acquisition of the lands
currently owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources (See Condition 16). Any
programs to be carried out after that transfer will also be submitted to the MNR, the
Commissioner of Planning and Development for the City of Toronto and
Metropolitan Toronto.
7.■2) Subcondition (1) does not prevent the MTRCA from changing the configuration of
the shoreline provided that there is no substantial deviation from Figures 5.2 and
5.3 of the Master Plan, an appropriate opportunity for comment is provided to the
City of Toronto, and so long as the MTRCA obtains the necessary approvals and
maintains the stability of the changes shoreline.
8. MTRCA in conjunction with Metro Toronto will complete periodic reviews every five
to ten years on park activities and operations to ensure their compatibility with the
natural environment. These reviews shall be made available to the public or to any
agency for review that may request them.
9. Alteration and destruction of fish habitat will require approval under Section 35(1)
of the federal Fisheries Act. The staff of MTRCA will continue to review with MNR,
Department of Fisheries (DFO), and DOE, the fish compensation plan requirements
for Cell 1 capping and the documentation of the increased habitat and productivity
from a wetland cap.
10. As the proposed park is within eight kilometres of the Toronto Island Airport, the
MTRCA will forward the past results of their Gull Control Program to Transport
Canada (or that agency which is regulating airports) and will continue this practice
on an annual basis.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D138
11.
The MTRCA will obtain approval and satisfy the submitted concerns from the
Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and the City of Toronto Fire Department and any
other appropriate agency relating to public safety and security matters during the
detailed design stage of implementation of the Master Plan.
12. That the Emergency Plan for the Tommy Thompson Park be developed in
conjunction with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force prior to the implementation
of the Master Plan.
Accessibility
13. The MTRCA or the park operating agency will develop a public consultation process
for park users regarding the type and operation of the park transportation service.
The MTRCA is encouraged to involve representatives from special interest groups.
Public Transportation
14. The MTRCA will consult with the TTC prior to the completion of detailed design to
review the plan to include specific protection for a future bus routing and loop
facility near the Visitors Centre.
Recreation
15. The MTRCA will coordinate the implementation of the bicycle /pedestrian trails at
the park entrance with any improvements made to the Waterfront Trail in the
vicinity of the park.
Transfer of Land
16. The MTRCA should acquire from the Ministry of Natural Resources(MNR) (and the
MNR will transfer to the MTRCA) ownership of Lands /water lot areas that are
currently leased by the MNR to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (approximately
224 hectares in size). The acquisition of these lands is scheduled to occur by the
year 2003 or upon substantial completion of lakefilling and shoreline
stabilization /armouring. In the event that by 2003 substantial completion of the
lakefilling and shoreline stabilization /armouring has not occurred, the MNR shall be
responsible for shoreline stabilization until the lands /water areas have been
transferred to the MTRCA.
NOTE: Above Terms and Conditions reflect modifications in discussion with MOEE (E.A. Branch),
MOEE (Central Region), Metropolitan Toronto and the City of Toronto.
These Terms and Conditions have been checked by the Ministry of Environment and
Energy (E.A. Branch).
August 10, 1994
D139 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. ACQUISITION OF THE JOLLY MILLER PROPERTY
KEY ISSUE
The City of North York has confirmed conditional support for the acquisition of the Jolly Miller
property to a maximum of $800,000, the York Mills Valley Association has offered $100,000 and
the Authority is awaiting a response from Metropolitan Toronto on the acquisition of the property
at the estimated project cost of $3,300,000.
Res. #W56/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Bev Salmon
Joyce Trimmer
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
be requested to advise the Authority as soon as possible on the position of Metropolitan Toronto
Council with respect to financial support for the acquisition of the "Jolly Miller" property.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The potential acquisition of the Jolly Miller property has been before the Authority on two
occasions in 1994.
At Meeting #12/93 of the Authority on January 28, 1994, Res. #A236/93 as amended by
Resolution #A237/93 was adopted as follows:
"THAT the City of North York be advised that the acquisition of the Jolly Miller
property continues to be an objective of the Authority;
THAT staff be directed to report to the Board again upon receipt of the responses
from the Province of Ontario and Metropolitan Toronto to the City of North York's
request to acquire the Jolly Miller property;
THAT the City of North York be requested to advise the Authority if the City is
prepared to participate in exploring the acquisition of the Jolly Miller property;
THAT the City of North York be requested to advise the Authority if the City of
North York will assume all rehabilitation, maintenance and management costs
associated with the operation of the existing Jolly Miller structure if the Authority
was to acquire the property;
THAT staff continue to work with the current property owner and the
representatives of the York Mills Valley Association, the City of North York and The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to review planning and regulatory solutions for
valley corridor conservation and regeneration at this site and report not later than
April 15, 1994, on the status of development application and of the acquisition
issue.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4 /94,'AUGUST 19, 1994 D140
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. ACQUISITION OF THE JOLLY MILLER PROPERTY (CONTD.)
THAT staff be directed to establish a comprehensive procedure, that includes the
York Mills Valley Association, to explore and exhaust all avenues of funding the
acquisition and ongoing operation of this site;
THAT the City of North York be urged to consider the designation of the Jolly Miller
as an historic site.
AND FURTHER THAT the Province of Ontario, Metropolitan Toronto and the City of
North York be so advised."
Subsequently, a status report was before the Authority at Meeting #3/94 on April 22, 1994 at
which time Res. #A83/94 was adopted as follows:
"THAT the staff report, dated April 6, 1994, concerning the potential acquisition of
the Jolly Miller property be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report to the Executive Committee as
soon as possib /e on the position of Metropolitan Toronto Council with respect to the
potential acquisition of the site and the possible sources of funding for the
acquisition."
The matter was before a joint meeting of the Economic Development and Planning Committee and
the Parks, Recreation and Property Committee of Metropolitan Toronto on April 11, 1994 at which
time the following action was taken:
"(1) deferred consideration of the aforementioned report and communications for
four weeks in order to allow the Council of the Corporation of the City of
North York sufficient time to make a determination in regard to the Jolly
Miller site; and
(2) requested the Commissioner of Planning to ascertain whether or not the City
of North York is willing to participate in funding the acquisition of this site
and report back thereon to the further joint meeting of the Committees."
The matter was also before the Council of the City of North York on July 20, 1994 at which time
the following resolution was adopted:
"WHEREAS the Jolly Miller site is a well known heritage feature in the City of North
York and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto;
AND WHEREAS the majority of the site is-flood plain and accordingly should remain
open space in its entirety;
AND WHEREAS there is great interest in the immediate community and in the
community at large that this site come under public ownership and control;
AND WHEREAS the local ratepayer association is willing to contribute $100,000 of
its own money to help governments acquire this site;
D141 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. ACQUISITION OF THE JOLLY MILLER PROPERTY (CONTD.)
AND WHEREAS the present owner of the Jolly Miller property has indicated a
willingness to sell the property to The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority and /or other government body;
AND WHEREAS the Conservation Authority and the owner have now entered into
an option agreement whereby the owner agrees to sell the Jolly Miller site to the
Conservation Authority for $3.3 million, provided that the Conservation Authority
agrees to exercise such option during a 3 month period;
AND WHEREAS an appropriate funding agreement for this acquisition would be
50% Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 25% The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and 25% local Municipality (North York);
AND WHEREAS the North York portion of the cost would be $800,000 (after the
$100,000 from the ratepayer association is subtracted from the total);
AND WHEREAS the North York Heritage Committee and the North York
Development and Economic Growth Committee have recommended that the Jolly
Miller site be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act;
AND WHEREAS the flood plain land should properly be under public ownership;
AND WHEREAS the opportunity now exists to take action to acquire this site;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of North York advise The Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that the City is prepared to provide a
maximum of $800,000 of the $3.3 million purchase price for the Jolly Miller site
provided that:
(a) the York Milts Valley Association pays $100,000 of the total purchase price;
(b) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority provide the remainder of the purchase price
within the above - mentioned funding formula;
(c) the City of North York receive title to the tableland (including the site of the
Jolly Miller structure), and the remainder of the site be placed in the
ownership of either The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto or The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;
(d) the City of North York agrees to enter into a restrictive covenant agreement
whereby the tableland shall remain parkland save and except for the Jolly
Miller structure if a suitable and sustainable use can be found for it that
maintains its heritage integrity;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D142
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. ACQUISITION OF THE JOLLY MILLER PROPERTY (CONTD.)
(e) the Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer report back on the appropriate
account from which the funds should be paid and not be taken from regular
budget funds;
(f) City Departments be directed to do all things necessary to carry out
Council's instructions;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of North York request the other
funding partners commit to their respective funding shares prior to the expiry of the
agreement between The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
and the owner of the Jolly Miller;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this offer be valid for a period of 12 months."
The Province of Ontario, through the Minister of Natural Resources, has advised North York that
while the acquisition is supported, there is no funding available from the Province to assist with the
acquisition.
Authority staff have negotiated a conditional agreement to acquire the property at a purchase price
of $3,300,000 payable by way of $2,950,000 cash and $350,000 in the form of an income tax
receipt for a period of 90 days commencing on July 19, 1994. An environmental audit of the
property is underway to identify any contamination of the site or hazardous materials which would
need to be removed. It is estimated that ancillary costs in connection with this purchase for
G.S.T., land transfer tax, site securement, legal, etc. would be $350,000 for a total acquisition
cost of $3,300,000.
RATIONALE
The Authority has not adopted a formal project to acquire the property due to the uncertainty of
funding. Metropolitan Toronto would be a significant partner in the potential acquisition and
therefore the Authority needs to be advised about Metropolitan Toronto's willingness to participate
before any further action can be taken by the Authority.
Acquisition of the site continues to be the preferred solution for this site. The property is part of a
major valley feature and most of the site is flood plain. It does not appear that there is a
"development solution" which would not sacrifice flood plain planning principles and therefore if
the acquisition proposal fails, the stage is set for a lengthy and expensive debate about potential
development. It provides a "window ", from a major arterial road, into the valley system, and
therefore an important vantage and access point. The Jolly Miller is a significant heritage feature,
which the City of North York is expressing a desire to protect and enhance, and acquisition of the
site for primarily open space purposes allows an opportunity to seek investment in the restoration
of the structure. The site provides an opportunity to implement many of the objectives of the Don
Watershed Strategy by regenerating the site in a way which is sensitive and respectful of the
heritage of the Jolly Miller and surrounding lands.
D143 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. ACQUISITION OF THE JOLLY MILLER PROPERTY (CONTD.)
WORK TO BE DONE
Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department needs to report to a joint meeting of Economic
Development and Planning Committee and the Parks and Property Committee so that the proposal
by the City of North York can be considered by Metropolitan Toronto Council. If Metropolitan
Toronto Council supports the acquisition, then the Authority would need to adopt a project to
acquire the site. The Authority would need to determine the sources of any additional funding
required to complete the transaction. The Authority is still pursuing provincial support for the
acquisition but if that is not available, then the only alternative would be land sale revenues.
Negotiation with North York concerning the proposed conditions will be required. It would be
preferable from the Authority's perspective to have all title to the site resting with the Authority
and then provide for North York's interest in the site by a form of agreement. These negotiations
would need to be undertaken with Metropolitan Toronto as well, as part of establishing the overall
management responsibility for the site.
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
9. 1992 -1993 MTRCA FOREST ANNUAL REPORT
KEY ISSUE
Submission of the 1992 -1993 MTRCA Forest Annual Report by the Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR) which summarizes the current and proposed management activities as well as a financial
statement for the period ending March 31, 1993.
Res. #W57/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Victoria Carley
THAT the 1992 -1993 MTRCA Forest Annual Report, as prepared by the Ministry of Natural
Resources, be received for information;
AND FURTHER THAT staff forward the Agreement Forest Review to the Board when it becomes
available.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Forest properties were acquired by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
following the amalgamation of the original conservation authorities within the region. Since 1957,
the MTRCA has ratified a number of new agreements with the Ministry of Natural Resources
whereby selected Authority properties would be managed by the Ministry to optimize the forest
resource.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94, AUGUST 19, 1994 D144
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
9. 1992 -1993 MTRCA FOREST ANNUAL REPORT (CONTD.)
To date thirteen tracts, a total of 772 ha, have been included under the agreement. In doing so,
MNR has accepted a long term commitment of forest management to satisfy the objectives of both
agencies. The objectives include:
• prevention of erosion and sedimentation;
• flood control;
• maintenance of water yield and stream flow;
• wildlife habitat improvement;
• production of wood products;
• recreation;
• education and research.
The Ministry of Natural Resources is required to submit a report each year that informs the
Authority of management activities on MTRCA Forest properties. Included in the report is a
financial statement and a summary of the 1992 -1993 management activities as well as a
description of the 1993 -1994 projects and description of the proposed work for the 1994 -1995
fiscal year.
During the 1992 -1993 operating period, 56 ha of forest were thinned. A total of 1,925.9 cubic
metres of wood were produced including spruce pulpwood and pine boltwood. The sale of this
wood generated $7,363 in revenue which was credited to the MTRCA forest account to offset
management costs. Other activities include tree marking (31 ha) and tending (13.3 ha). The
forests were also used for a variety of passive recreational activities.
In the 1993 -1994 period, 25 ha were marked for thinning and improvement operations. Additional
tending is anticipated with funding from the jobsOntario forest renewal program.
Forest operations are conducted in accordance with approved management plans. Operating plans
are implemented on individual tracts as the need arises. Overall, the objectives of the Authority are
complemented as a result of the program.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Due to staffing and financial restraints, future management activities are hard to predict. MNR will
investigate special funding programs to support future management activities on MTRCA forests.
The Ministry is undertaking a review of the current agreement forest program at the request of the
Treasury Board. Staff has participated in the review process and has requested the opportunity to
remain involved in future discussions.
The Ministry is committed to developing a revised Agreement Forest program that will deal with
many issues. For example, a revised program may:
• encourage the owner to become more involved in the management of the forests;
• encourage partnerships and determine the broad roles of MNR, the owner and the
community;
• develop agreements that reflect the contribution of the partners;
D145 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/94 - AUGUST 19, 1994
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
9. 1992 -1993 MTRCA FOREST ANNUAL REPORT (CONTD.)
• develop better methods of financing the forest operation.
Staff is presently waiting for MNR to provide their draft recommendations based on the information
provided to them thus far.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Ministry of Natural Resources pays for all expenses related to the management of the MTRCA
Agreement Forests except for property taxes. Any revenues produced by the MTRCA Agreement
Forests are used to offset management costs. Presently, management costs exceed revenues.
NEW BUSINESS
10. VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN
Res. #W58/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Lois Hancey
THAT staff be requested to include a recommendation, when bringing forward the Valley and
Stream Corridor Management Program, concerning a request to all municipalities to ensure that
prior to the issuance of any permits for buildings or enclosures that set backs from top of bank be
adhered to and geotechnical reports be requested wherever the potential for future erosion exists.
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 1:30 p.m., August 19, 1994.
Lois Griffin Craig Mather
CARRIED
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
bb.
c■
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes
D146
OCTOBER 7, 1994 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek
Pioneer Village on Friday, October 7, 1994. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at
10:00 a.m.
PRESENT
Chair Lois Griffin
Members Lorna Bissell
Victoria Carley
Lois Hancey
Joanna Kidd
Joan King
Paul Raina
Bev Salmon
Joyce Trimmer
ABSENT Members Ila Bossons
Maja Prentice
Frank Scarpitti
Kip Van Kempen
MINUTES
Res. #W59/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/94 be approved.
DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
Joanna Kidd
Victoria Carley
CARRIED
Joanna Kidd, as a consultant for the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on the Rouge Park, declared a
conflict in the erosion problem being presented by delegations to the Board, and did not participate
or vote on this matter.
D147 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
1. DELEGATIONS
(a) Mrs. W. D'Souza spoke on the erosion problem on her property at 42 Royal Rouge Trail,
Scarborough. A copy of her presentation was distributed to the Board members.
(b) Mr. Ron Pratt spoke as a representative of the Ravine Property Owners Association (West
Rouge) on the erosion problem at 42 Royal Rouge Trail, Scarborough.
Res. #W60/94
THAT the delegations be received;
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joyce Trimmer
Lois Hancey
AND FURTHER THAT staff be requested to research other gabion wall construction that has taken
place on Royal Rouge Trail and inform Mr. and Mrs. D'Souza of same.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) Letter from Dr. Bob Frankford, MPP, Scarborough East to The Honourable Howard
Hampton, Minister of Natural Resources, dated August 30, 1994, re: Erosion Control
Projects, Royal Rouge Trail and Cherryhill Avenue in Scarborough East.
(b) Letter from Jane Ireland, Minister's Liaison Officer, Ministry of Natural Resources, dated
August 25, 1994, re: Erosion Control Capital Program.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. REGENERATION STRATEGY POTTERY ROAD - FORKS OF THE LOWER DON
-The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department
KEY ISSUE
Approval of the Regeneration Strategy (Master Plan) for the section of the Don Valley from Pottery
Road to the Forks of the Don River prepared by The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and
Property Department as per the 1992 request of the Authority.
Res. #W61/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joan King
Joanna Kidd
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Pottery Road - Forks of the Lower Don
Regeneration Strategy, dated October, 1994, be approved;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D148
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. REGENERATION STRATEGY POTTERY ROAD - FORKS OF THE LOWER DON (CONTD.)
-The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department
THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto consider opportunities to implement the strategies
and recommendations included in the plan;
THAT copies of the plan be made available to the Don Watershed Council, once established, for the
information of its members;
AND FURTHER THAT Authority staff consider opportunities for implementation of this report in
their ongoing activities.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Joan King
Res. #W62/94 Seconded by: Joanna Kidd
THAT copies of the plan also be made available to the Don Watershed Task Force members and the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In September of 1992, the Authority had before it the request from The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto to locate a Police Canine Facility at the former Polyresins site. As part of its
recommendations, following numerous delegations from the public at the Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board and at the Authority Meeting #8/92, the Authority adopted
Res. #136/92:
"THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department be
requested to proceed, as soon as possib /e, with the development and submission
for approval of a master plan for the section of the Don Valley from the Forks to the
Brickworks, in consultation with The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and the public, such plan to identify public uses and support facilities,
environmental enhancements, heritage resources and management practices."
The Authority also resolved, in part, Res. #137/92:
"THAT the proposal by The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property
Department to locate a Police Dog Services Facility at the former Domtar / Polyresins
in the Don Valley in the Borough of East York be approved subject to:
(a) redesign of the outdoor kennel area and preparation of a detailed
landscaping plan for the facility and adjacent valley lands to the
satisfaction of the staff of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority in consultation with the Borough of East
York and interested community members;
D149 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. REGENERATION STRATEGY POTTERY ROAD - FORKS OF THE LOWER DON (CONTD.)
-The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks.and Property Department
(bl the main vehicular access to the site being Beechwood Drive;
THAT consultation with The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and receipt of necessary approvals under Ontario Regulation 293/86 must
occur prior to construction;"
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department engaged the firm of
Terraplan Landscape Architects to develop the master plan. The firm was also responsible for the
development of the landscape plan for police canine facilities.
The Authority is in receipt of a draft report entitled: "Pottery Road - Forks of the Lower Don - A
Regeneration Strategy for The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property
Department ". Comments have been submitted regarding minor adjustments to the document
which in essence provides a framework and direction for regenerating the noted section of the
valley. The study identifies additional work which must be done.
The Regeneration Strategy
The Regeneration Strategy documents the study area in text, maps and figures in three sections:
(1) analysis and assessment including an inventory of heritage and cultural resources, biophysical
characteristics and human influences and activities; (2) strategies; and (3) implementation
recommendations.
The Strategies map identifies the range of needs and opportunities for the valley required to
achieve the stated objectives of the plan being:
• To conserve and enhance significant ecological forms and functions, and heritage and
cultural resources.
• To restore ecological integrity and health to the degraded parts of the landscape.
• To enhance the linear open space concept of the Don Watershed through improved area
linkages.
• To promote awareness and understanding of the area, and its natural and heritage
features.
The Strategies Section of the report adopts the approach used in the Don Watershed Task Force's
report: "Forty Steps to a New Don" endorsed by the Authority in May of 1994. Under "Caring for
Water ", the strategies include reducing excess point sources of nutrients, mitigation of non point
sources of nutrients, reduction of littering and dumping of garbage and reduction of soil erosion.
Under "Caring for Nature ", the strategies are to: preserve unique and sensitive habitats in the area,
improve aquatic habitat structure to provide the potential for greater biodiversity, enhance the
potential for terrestrial wildlife movement, create new habitats in the study area for selected
species and associations. In the section "Caring for Community ", the plan calls for the
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D150
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. REGENERATION STRATEGY POTTERY ROAD - FORKS OF THE LOWER DON (CONTD.)
-The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department
enhancement of formal access points and connections to off site trails, improvement of the
recreational trail system, mitigation of conflicts among trail users, opportunities to enhance the
awareness of natural, cultural and heritage features and learning opportunities through active
involvement in restoration and preservation activities, and the visual enhancement of the area.
Public Consultation
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department and the consultants
provided a number of opportunities for public input and comment ranging from attendance on walks
hosted by local groups, to a formally advertised public meeting held on September 21, 1994. The
public were appreciative of the approach and challenged the Municipality to proceed with the
actions and recommended studies to develop the detailed plans needed to implement the
recommendations and achieve the objectives of the strategy. Staff of the Authority has been
involved on numerous occasions and has provided additional comments on the draft which are
being incorporated into the final report. Full copies of the final report will be available at the Water
and Related Board meeting on October 7, 1994.
RATIONALE
It is recommended that the Regeneration Plan be approved by the Authority, that The Municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto be urged to carry out specific studies and works needed to address the
strategies and issues raised within the document and that the Authority staff consider opportunities
to implement this strategy in their normal plan input and review function and in terms of special
opportunities and projects.
The Municipality is also urged to continue to involve the local and highly motivated interest groups
dedicated to the care of the Don River system.
The Police Canine Facility landscape plan was also reviewed at the September 21, 1994 public
meeting. The public, now resigned to the Metro Council decision to locate the facility at the former
Polyresins site, again were generally pleased with the landscape plan, requesting minor changes to
address the entrance treatment, on site storm water management and informative signage of the
site. Authority staff are in receipt of that plan and are reviewing it to ensure compliance with
Authority policies and will process it appropriately should it be determined a permit is required prior
to construction.
D151 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
KEY ISSUE
Approval of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program subsequent to the completion of
the review of the draft Program document (April, 1992).
Res. #W63/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Valley and Stream Corridor
Management Program, dated October, 1994 (WR. 50/94), be approved;
THAT the program be forwarded for information to the Authority's member and local municipalities;
the Ministries of Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs, Environment and Energy, and Transportation;
and other interested agencies, organizations and individuals;
THAT the Authority's watershed management partners, both within the private and public sector,
be requested to support the implementation of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management
Program through their activities;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority's member and local municipalities be requested to update their
Official Plan and Comprehensive Zoning By -law documents as soon as possible to define and
identify valley and stream corridors within appropriate designations with consistent supporting
policies and criteria and, in particular, that the recommended development setbacks from valley and
stream corridors be adhered to and appropriate studies be requested, such as geotechnical
investigations, prior to any development approvals, especially for sites threatened by natural
hazards.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #4/92, the Authority adopted the following resolutions:
Res. #55
"THAT the Draft Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program - April 3, 1992, be
circulated to its member and local municipalities, the Minister of Natural Resources,
Environment, Municipal Affairs and Transportation, the Office of the Greater Toronto Area,
non - government organizations and interested professionals and residents within the
watershed for comment by July 31, 1992;
THAT the municipalities be requested to comment specifically on Section 8: Conserving
Valley and Stream Corridors through Municipal Planning;
THAT the Draft Program be provided to the Commission on Land Use Planning and
Development Reform for consideration in their review of the planning process;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D152
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CONTD.)
THAT staff be directed to develop and implement a public consultation process to facilitate
public review of the Draft Program;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board on the comments received regarding the proposed Program policies to
enab /e the finalization and adoption of the Program prior to the end of 1992."
Res. #56
"THAT the comments requested in paragraph one of the resolution be received by
September 30, 1992."
The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program is an important and timely Authority initiative
directly related to the direction contained within the 1989 MTRCA Greenspace Strategy.
Its purpose is to:
• integrate the Authority's public safety responsibilities with its commitment to ecosystem
planning and management;
• define and identify the valley and stream corridors within its jurisdiction to which Authority
policy and regulations will apply;
• consolidate, update and establish new Authority policies and procedures for valley and
stream corridor protection and rehabilitation; and
• foster recognition and commitment by provincial and municipal agencies and the private
sector for integrated valley and stream corridor management at the watershed,
subwatershed and local level.
The Program has taken longer than anticipated to complete; however, the consultation that has
occurred since the 1992 release of the draft program document has been invaluable. Briefly, this
consultation process included:
• wide circulation of the draft program document; .
• information meetings for municipal and provincial staff and non - government organizations;
• presentations, as requested, to Municipal Councils and Committees including a public 'open
house' in the Town of Markham;
• a presentation to the Urban Development Institute's Land Interest Group and on -going
liaison;
• a meeting with commissioners leading the Provincial Commission on Land Use Planning and
Development Reform;
• informal input and discussion with interested professionals, watershed residents and other
special planning committees, such as the Rouge Park Planning Committee;
• extensive review, evaluation and input by Authority staff.
Although numerous items within the Program have been refined and edited since the 1992 draft, in
general there were four recurring issues that arose from the consultation process.
D153 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CONTD.)
(1) Public ownership of the lands "10 metres inland" from top of valley bank and /or the
Regional storm flood plain.
These lands are inclusive in the MTRCA definition of valley and stream corridors and
the program reflects the Authority's advocacy that valleylands should be in public
ownership.
Many perceive these lands ("10 m inland ") to be buffers. Issues associated with
mechanisms for public ownership, maintenance costs and development implications
were raised.
This issue has been responded to by including the following policies within the
Program:
Section 4.1.1 - D
"Valley and stream corridors which form part of new urban development proposals
should be set aside for public ownership. " (Page 17)
Section 4.1.1 - E
"Alternatives to public ownership will be considered, where appropriate.
The Authority advocates that public ownership of valley and stream corridors
provides the best protection for these natural resources; however it is recognized
that public ownership of all valley and stream corridors may not be practical or
feasib /e, and that ownership should be a partnership decision with the municipality,
landowner and the Authority. The following mechanisms may provide a level of
protection for the valley or stream corridor, while still permitting a portion of the
valley or stream corridor to remain in private ownership:
1) zoning by -law or covenant on tit /e restricting use;
2) conservation easement /trust;
3) private land stewardship agreement.
However, the Authority will continue to request public ownership of lands
associated with flooding, erosion and slope instability." (Pages 17 -18).
This approach reflects current practice and is recommended for approval.
(2) The Protection of "Small" Watercourses
The protection of headwaters is critical to valleyland management; however,
concerns were expressed regarding the extent and "upstream" limit of headwater
areas, for example, when does a watercourse become a 'swale'.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D154
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CONTD.)
The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program continues to strongly
advocate the protection of headwater areas within an appropriate corridor width
(Section 3.3 - Pages 15 -16); but has included an additional statement that says:
"NOTE 1: Notwithstanding, the policy intent for the protection of stream corridors
draining less than 125 hectares or their associated watercourses and /or source
areas, minor variations may be permitted to allow for the efficient utilization of land
where its deemed to be appropriate for effective land and water management."
(Page 16)
This statement represents current practice and is recommended for approval.
(3) "Community Reach Planning ", advocated in the 1992 draft program, created confusion and
concern that another 'layer' of planning was being created.
The intent was to:
i) identify the need for management plans for reaches of valley and stream
corridors to give direction to community planning (linkages, etc.) and
valleyland management (protection, rehabilitation, etc.); and
ii) identify /formalize the need for detailed site information and analysis prior to
establishing the principle of use within valleylands so that informed
decisions can be made.
The policies and text associated with "Community Reach Planning ", now referred to
as "Corridor Reach Planning ", has been revised (Section 6.3, Pages 50 -52) to clarify
the above and is recommended for approval.
(4) Existing versus New Development
Concern was expressed that the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program did not
address or provide flexibility for existing versus new development.
Authority programs, including the draft Valley and Stream Corridor Management
Program, have consistently recognized existing development in the formation and
implementation of management strategies and policies; therefore, the response to
this concern has been to reorganize and retitle sections within the Valley and
Stream Corridor Management Program to facilitate client understanding - (Section
4.0). This has resulted in the increased use of "municipal planning" related
terminology; however, it is still recognized that municipalities and the province are
the legislated agencies for land use planning under the Planning Act.
There has been little change in Authority policy and criteria for existing development
in valleylands. Current policy and practice has been articulated, consolidated, and,
in some areas, updated. The updates are mostly related to existing development
beyond flood plain lands; e.g., on valley slopes and lands adjacent to valley slopes.
Briefly, these updates include:
D155 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CONTD.)
• the extension of "Special Policy Area" flood plain planning principles and
procedures to non - floodprone lands associated within floodprone
communities; and
• policies that may permit minor additions, replacement structures and
ancillary structures on and adjacent to valley slopes (Section 4.2.2).
Program Benefits
The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program has been well received. The program both
complements the current work of the Authority's watershed management partners and serves as a
catalyst for further innovation and improved watershed management. Many of the principles,
objectives and policies are already reflected in municipal and provincial policy and planning
documents and initiatives. For example, the program is reflected within and supported by:
(1) Recent Official Plan documents and environmental policy amendments in Metropolitan
Toronto, Peel, York, Durham, Markham, East York, Vaughan, Caledon, and others.
(2) Reports of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront.
(3) The Oak Ridges Moraine Strategy and Rouge Park Plan.
(4) Provincial Planning Reform initiatives including proposed provincial policies and
implementation procedures.
(5) The February 1994 decision of the Mining and Land Commissioner regarding the
interpretation of "conservation of land" pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act
(611428 Ontario Limited and MTRCA). This decision is currently under appeal as reported
through Authority Resolution #A103/94.
Summary
It is recommended that the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, dated October 1994,
be approved and implemented immediately. The program is an important document for the
protection and regeneration of the Authority's valleyland resources. It has been extensively
reviewed and is consistent with the objectives of the Authority's watershed management partners.
Further reports and reviews will occur on an on -going basis as resource management actions and
initiatives unfold; e.g., the "Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policies" scheduled to be finalized in
January 1995, through Bill 163, Planning Reform.
It is also recognized that there will be a transition - period as approved development proposals
proceed to construction, which will require site by site assessment to determine what opportunities
still exist to achieve the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program objectives. Reports to
the Authority will be prepared, as required.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D156
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
- Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference
KEY ISSUE
Approval of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms
of Reference.
Res. #W64/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joanna Kidd
Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Goals, Membership, Organization and
Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, as set out in the report, dated
October 1994, (pages D160 - D166) be approved;
THAT local and regional Don watershed municipal councils be requested to appoint one municipal
council member and one alternate to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council by December 31,
1994;
THAT applications be requested from Don watershed residents by December 15, 1994;
THAT other groups, as identified in the Terms of Reference be requested to appoint members and
alternates to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council by December 31, 1994;
AND FURTHER THAT a report be submitted to the Authority identifying the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council designates for formal approval by the Authority in January 1995.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Joan King
Res. #W65/94 Seconded by: Paul Raina
THAT point 2.8 of the Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference be amended to
"the Watershed Council Chair will report on a semi - annual basis" rather than a quarterly basis.
AND FURTHER THAT the Watershed Council develop the Don Accord for endorsement by stake
holders throughout the watershed. (Amended copy of Don Watershed Regeneration Council Goals
Membership, Organization and Terms of reference is attached as pages D160 - D166.)
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
D157 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL (CONTD.)
- Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference
BACKGROUND
The Don Watershed Task Force was established in 1992 to develop a regeneration strategy for the
Don watershed. In May of 1994, the Authority received the draft report and endorsed it. Staff
were directed to publish the report, Forty Steps to a New Don, for broad circulation and report
back on a number of items including:
"a terms of reference and membership proposal for a Don Watershed Regeneration Council
and Don Watershed Technical Unit (Step 32) for the Authority's consideration in the fall of
1994 ".
The Task Force had included in Chapter 3 a specific recommendation with respect to the
Watershed Council:
"Step 32
Form a Don Watershed Regeneration Council to integrate our efforts.
• Model the Council after the existing Don Watershed Task Force, with representation
from citizens and elected officials, to continue the partnership among all watershed
communities.
* While the mandate of the Task Force was to create a Don vision and an action plan
for regeneration, the Council shall carry that plan into action.
The Council may initiate regeneration and stewardship projects, lead fund
raising, support local community groups, act as the Don's advocate in large
projects that cross municipal boundaries, inform watershed communities
about regeneration through public meetings, publications, displays, and
cultural events, and take on other tasks that will help implement the forty
regeneration steps.
• Continue the relationship of reporting and accountability with MTRCA and through
MTRCA to the municipalities and the public.
Establish a Don Watershed Technical Unit, coordinated by the Conservation
Authority, composed of technical staff from municipalities and provincial
agencies. This Unit shall provide technical support to the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, help carry out community regeneration projects, and
aid the Council in raising the public commitment and government action
necessary to regenerate the watershed.
• The Council and Technical Unit will work closely with the Metro Toronto Remedial
Action P /an to ensure coordination and effective use of resources.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D158
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL (CONTD.)
- Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference
Membership of the Don Watershed Task Force
The original Don Watershed Task Force was composed of 25 members appointed as follows:
• the Chair of the Authority
• an appointee of the Task Force to Bring Back .the Don, City of Toronto
• an appointee of the Friends of the Don, York Region
• an appointee of the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan (PAC representative)
• an appointee of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust
• ten appointments from the local and regional municipalities
• ten appointments from local citizens based on applications and interviews.
Technical Unit
No formal technical unit was formed. MTRCA staff relied on technical staff review and input on
working committees, informal reviews and municipal staff involvement in concept site
recommendations. A number of agency meetings were held to keep the municipal staff informed
of progress and receive comments.
RATIONALE
The formation of the Don Watershed Council is an important step necessary to the regeneration of
the Don. This regeneration requires a pro- active approach which goes beyond the incorporation of
new direction in policy statements. The Don was developed prior to an adequate understanding of
the impacts of urbanization on the health of the watershed and the well being of its residents. The
formation of a three -year Watershed Council is designed to carry forward the direction established
by the former Task Force, and endorsed by the Authority.
The Watershed Council will provide a forum and focus for the regeneration of the Don on a
watershed basis.
The Task Force's Report indicated the need to set up a technical unit to support the work of the
Watershed Council. In place of that approach, a new mechanism has been developed that provides
for direct involvement of agency staff and others -as associate members of working committees of
the Watershed Council. The working committee approach will lead to detailed action plans.
Working committees will be dissolved when their work is substantially complete and new
committees struck to deal with specific implementation items as determined by the Watershed
Council and communicated to the Authority in quarterly reports.
D159 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL (CONTD.)
- Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Responsibility for the regeneration of the Don watershed is a shared responsibility. Based on
annual work plans, subject to available funding, the Authority will provide staff and other resources
to assist the Don Watershed Council in its goals. Staff support to the working committee will be
provided on an "as available" basis.
In -kind and other support from business, industry, educational institutions and others will be
sought. Funding partnerships with others, including government agencies, will continue to be
pursued to address the implementation of the "Forty Steps" as well as the Remedial Action Plan
initiatives.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will proceed with the communications necessary to request appointments by watershed
municipalities, groups and agencies with an interest in the Don and applications from residents set
out in the appended document.
Recommendations for the appointment of the selection committee will be made to the Authority at
its December 1994 meeting.
An information meeting is tentatively scheduled for the evening of December 1, 1994, for
watershed residents and others interested in the formation of the Watershed Council.
The initial meeting of the Watershed Council will be scheduled and planned for the first week of
February anticipating confirmation of its membership by the Authority at its January, 1995,
meeting.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D160
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
GOALS, MEMBERSHIP, ORGANIZATION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
October 1994
D161 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
GOALS, MEMBERSHIP, ORGANIZATION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.0 GOALS
The goals of the Don Watershed Council are to protect and regenerate the Don
watershed and, more specifically, to assist:
i) the Authority, other agencies, and the public with the implementation of the
Don Watershed Task Force's report, "Forty Steps to a New Don "; and
ii) in the implementation of the Recommendations of the Metro Toronto and
Region Remedial Action Plan contained in "Clean Waters, Clear Choices:
Recommendations for Action" as they pertain to the Don watershed.
2.0 WATERSHED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
2.1 The Watershed Council shall consist of twenty -six members including:
• the chair of the Authority or other Authority member;
• one member and alternate from each of the regional and local
municipalities within the watershed:
- Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
- Regional Municipality of York
-City of Toronto
- Borough of East York
- City of Scarborough
- City of York
- City of North York
-Town of Richmond Hill
-City of Vaughan
-Town of Markham;
• ten watershed residents;
• one representative and alternate from each of the following groups
which have a specific interest in the Don:
-the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, City of Toronto
- Friends of the Don East York
- Friends of the Don York Region
-the Waterfront Regeneration Trust
-Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D162
In the absence of the appointed member the alternate will have full voting
privileges.
2.2 Local and Regional Municipalities
Local and regional Don watershed municipalities will be requested, by the Authority,
to appoint one of their members as a member of the Watershed Council and a
second as an alternate. In the absence of the appointed member, the alternate will
have full voting status.
2.3 Community Membership
Applications for membership will be requested from persons resident within the
watershed. A committee of three persons comprised of 2 members of the Water
and Related Land Management Advisory Board and a member of senior staff will
select 10 persons to recommend as appointments to the Watershed Council. This
selection will take into consideration the following:
• demonstrated interest in the watershed /community;
• willingness of the applicant to meet the potential time and work
commitments;
• geographical representation of the watershed;
• professional expertise, and /or knowledge of the watershed in any
area which would assist in the implementation of the Forty Steps.
2.4 Term of Appointment
Appointments will generally be coincident with the three year term of municipal
councillors effective on confirmation by the Authority in January of 1995 until
November 1 5, 1997. Resignations may be filled by the Authority on the
recommendation of a selection committee as provided in 2.3.
2.5 Attendance
Members will be required to attend on a regular basis all Watershed Council
meetings. Members will prepare effectively for and participate in at least one
working committee.
Members unable to fulfil this commitment will be replaced on an annual basis.
2.6 Selection of Chair and Vice Chair of the Watershed Council
The chair and vice chair will be elected by the Watershed Council from amongst its
members. The Authority may appoint an interim chair until such time that an
election can take place. The chair and vice chair will also be ex- officio members of
all working committees.
D163 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
2.7 Working Committees
The Watershed Council will undertake its work and the implementation of the Forty
Steps to a New Don primarily through the active involvement of its members on at
least one committee.
These working committees, during the first year, will be structured to address such
items as the Don Watershed Accord, Community Outreach and Education, Projects
and Concept Site Development, Heritage Names and Trails, and the Watershed
Report Card. An initial statement on the work of each of these committees is
appended.
Working committees will be dissolved when their work is substantially complete
and new committees struck to deal with specific implementation items as
determined by the Watershed Council and communicated to the Authority in
quarterly reports.
Smaller committees can be added for specific projects but the Watershed Council
will generally be limited to 5 active /standing committees at any one time. This will
ensure the necessary focus and effort required and to limit, to a reasonable level,
the demands on the Watershed Council members and staff of the Authority and
other agencies.
2.7.1 Committee Membership and Associate Watershed Council Members
The Watershed Council committee members will enlist the assistance from
others interested in actively giving of their time and talents to the protection
and regeneration of the watershed. Additional committee members will also
be recruited from federal, provincial, regional and local agencies. These
persons will be appointed as "associate" Watershed Council members by the
Watershed Council upon recommendation of the working committees.
Associate members are not required to be residents of the watershed.
Associate members are welcome and encouraged to attend all Watershed
Council meetings and participate at the discretion of the Watershed Council
chair during committee reports and at other times as appropriate.
2.7.2 Committee Chair
The chair of each committee will be a Watershed Council member. The
chairs will be responsible for addressing and implementing the terms of
reference and reporting to the Watershed Council on a regular basis.
2.7.3 Terms of Reference for Working Committees
Initial Terms of Reference will be developed by Authority staff for
consideration by the Watershed Council prior to its first meeting. Terms of
Reference will be developed and approved by the Watershed Council for
each committee established.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D164
2.7.4 Work Plans
The committees will develop annual work plans. These work plans will
contain resource plans including budgets required to support the proposed
activities based on the terms of reference.
2.7.5 Resources
Funding may be available for projects and activities of working committees
based on approved work plans and available Authority funding. Working
committee members are encouraged to secure other resources and
partnerships for Watershed Council projects and activities whenever
possible. In -kind or other support for projects and activities will be welcome
from business, industries, other government agencies and private
foundations, educational institutions and others.
2.8 Reporting Relationship
The Don Watershed Council will be considered as a subcommittee of the Water and
Related Land Management Advisory Board. The Watershed Council chair will report
on a semi - annual basis on projects and progress. Annual work plans will be
developed and submitted prior to the end of the first quarter of each year.
The Watershed Council is not a formal commenting body; Authority staff will advise
the Watershed Council of Authority projects being planned or undertaken within the
Don watershed and of major planning initiatives or projects of others where the
Authority may be a commenting or permitting body.
The Watershed Council may provide comments or other information for the
consideration of staff and the Authority. On a project or application specific basis
the Authority or Authority staff may request comment by the Watershed Council.
These comments will be provided or sought within the time frame necessary to
maintain the Authority's service delivery standards.
2.9 The Work of the Watershed Council
The Watershed Council shall:
• initiate and recommend to the Authority and others regeneration and
stewardship projects and activities in consultation with the local and regional
municipalities Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan and other watershed
stakeholders that will lead to the realization of the vision for the Don and
implement the 40 Steps;
• develop the Don Accord (Step 31) and pursue its adoption by municipal
councils, agencies, businesses, community organizations and others
throughout the watershed.
• lead and assist in gaining financial and in kind resources;
D165 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
• support local community groups;
• act as the Don watershed advocate in large projects that cross municipal
boundaries and support major projects advocated by others which will
regenerate the Don;
• in conjunction with the Authority and others, host technical forums leading
to improvements in planning and practice, throughout the watershed;
• inform watershed communities about regeneration through public meetings,
publications, displays, and cultural events;
• provide a forum for watershed communication;
• establish indicators and report progress;
• consult and involve individuals, interest groups, communities, business,
industry and government agencies in the realization of the vision for the Don
watershed;
• adhere to the basic principles of sound ecosystem management that
recognizes the interrelationship between cultural heritage, physical, biological
and economic processes, and the integration of conservation, restoration and
economic activities necessary for the health of the watershed;
3.0 AUTHORITY SUPPORT
The Authority will provide staff support for the Watershed Council, including
technical project support and community outreach, based on available funding and
on a work plan developed by the Watershed Council and approved by the Authority.
4.0 COMPENSATION OF WATERSHED COUNCIL MEMBERS
At regular Watershed Council meetings, and working committee meetings,
members will be eligible for travel expenses according to Authority policy.
Associate members of working committees are also eligible for travel expenses
where these are not covered by their agency.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D166
ADDENDUM.
Working Committees - Goals
Five working committees are identified for the first year of the Watershed Council. The
establishment of these committees address specifically one or more of the "40 Steps ".
Detailed terms of reference, for each committee, will be developed for review, adjustment
and approval by Watershed Council members at its first meeting. Working committees will
be requested to recruit additional members and report back on a work plan within two
months of the first Watershed Council meeting.
The suggested work to be undertaken in year one for each committee should include, but
not be limited to the following descriptions. "Steps" refer to the steps as identified in
Chapter 3 of the "Forty Steps to a New Don ".
Community Outreach and Education Committee
This committee will focus on opportunities to raise watershed awareness and
understanding. Suggestions for printed materials include a watershed steward's manual,
specific publication for landowners adjacent to valley and stream corridors in the Don; and
an "Adopt the Don" program for schools within the watershed. Support of the Yellow Fish
Road Program and local community events may be included to increase direct public
involvement. Development of materials for electronic networks in association with the
Kortright Centre for Conservation initiative and others should also be explored.
Projects and Concept Sites Committee
The Task Force report identified six concept sites to demonstrate opportunities for
regeneration. Initial work has begun to implement these sites and additional demonstration
projects need to be developed. Projects development should include public consultation as
appropriate and include opportunities for public involvement in implementation. This
committee should work closely with senior and technical staff from municipalities and
agencies to generate sites and opportunities for regeneration. Major projects will be
identified that the Watershed Council can support. Demonstration projects should be
developed and showcased throughout the watershed.
This committee will require consistent and committed staff support by the Authority and
other agencies.
Heritage, Names and Trails Committee
Step 25 calls for the development of public awareness of the watershed.
Printed materials on the Don trails, including trail maps, access points, roads, parks,
amenities, names of tributaries and natural and cultural points of interest. Additional
research is required on tributary names. This committee and the Community Outreach and
Education will be careful to coordinate their work.
D167 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
Watershed Report Card Committee
This committee will address Step 39 - Publish a Don Report Card to mark and celebrate
progress in the Don's regeneration. This committee will consider options for reporting on
the watershed and the information to be gathered to support this work. This may be
coordinated with RAP. In addition, the committee may consider monitoring and other
evaluation requirements.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D168
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED STRATEGY
-Report on Membership Selection, Reporting Procedures and Terms of Reference for
a Humber Watershed Task Force
KEY ISSUE
Membership selection, reporting procedures and terms of reference for the formation and operation
of the Humber Watershed Task Force.
Res. #W66/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joan King
Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the membership selection, reporting
procedures and terms of reference for the Humber Watershed Task Force, as described in full in the
draft report, dated October 1994 (pages D173 - D179), be approved;
THAT the Authority direct staff to request local and regional municipalities within the Humber River
watershed to appoint a council member, and an alternate to the Task Force by December 31,
1994;
THAT the Authority direct staff to request selected federal and provincial agencies to appoint a
senior employee and an alternate to the Task Force by December 31, 1994;
THAT the Authority direct staff to invite applications to participate on the Task Force from
residents of the Humber River watershed;
THAT the Authority authorize staff to take all other necessary actions to form a Humber Watershed
Task Force for the purpose of preparing a Humber River Watershed Strategy;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the proposed membership of the Task
Force for endorsement and formal appointment.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #3/94, held on April 22, 1994, the following resolution was adopted:
Res. #A89/94
"THAT staff be directed to proceed with meetings with community and interest group
representatives, agency and municipal staff, and elected representatives to identify
technical and community interests within the Humber River watershed;
THAT an initial meeting be scheduled for Thursday, June 9, 1994, at the Black Creek
Pioneer Village to begin the process of identifying key issues;
D169 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 115/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED STRATEGY (CONTD.)
-Report on Membership Selection, Reporting Procedures and Terms of Reference for
a Humber Watershed Task Force
THAT the Action to Restore a Clean Humber (ARCH) recommendation, as presented in their
letter of April 15, 1994, (AM.29/94) and quoted as follows be forwarded to staff for
incorporation into the June 9, 1994, meeting agenda;
"ARCH recommends that the Authority use a true partnership approach and assume
the key role of coordinator in the planning and management of the Humber
Ecosystem Management Area (EMA, comprising Humber Bay and its watersheds of
the Humber River and the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks), and that the Humber
Strategy be considered part of the implementation of the Toronto Region Remedial
Action P /an (RAP.);
THAT a watershed event be planned for October 1994 to mark the 40th anniversary of
Hurricane Hazel; the success of Authority programs in preventing similar loss of life and
property damage; and identify the benefits of a Humber River watershed strategy to
address current watershed issues;
THAT staff report by year end on the proposed process for the development of a Humber
River watershed strategy including such issues as the formation of a task force and its
terms of reference;
THAT staff investigate other potential funding partnerships and agencies;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to apply for provincial funding to support the
development of the Humber River Watershed Strategy.
Authority staff has held three meetings (June 9/94, August 24/94 and September 15/94) with
community and interest group representatives to identify technical and community interests within
the Humber River watershed. The same participants have also had an opportunity to provide input
into the membership, reporting procedures and terms of reference for the Humber Watershed Task
Force.
The Humber Watershed Task Force will have a membership of approximately 44 people. Members
will include elected municipal representatives, provincial and federal agency staff, community group
representatives and citizens residing within the watershed. This cross section of interests,
background and expertise will provide a strong partnership.
The Chair and Vice Chair of the Task Force will be elected from among its members.
The Task Force will communicate to the Authority through the Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board. The Task Force Chair will be required to coordinate communications
to this Board with the assistance of MTRCA staff.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D170
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED STRATEGY (CONTD.)
-Report on Membership Selection, Reporting Procedures and Terms of Reference for
a Humber Watershed Task Force
The Humber River Watershed Strategy will not include the Mimico and Etobicoke Creeks. This
matter was discussed with agency and community group members at previous Humber issue
scoping sessions. In summary, it was considered important that the Humber River watershed be
dealt with separately to foster a unique identity for the river and provide a focus for opportunities
such as the Canadian Heritage Rivers designation. The Humber River watershed is large and by
itself will be challenging to financially support. Furthermore, the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks
deserve to be dealt with separately at the appropriate time to reflect their own uniqueness needs
and opportunities.
On October 15 and 16 the Kortright Centre for Conservation will host a public program and open
house on the 40th Anniversary of Hurricane Hazel to launch the development of the Humber River
Watershed Strategy.
Visitors will be greeted with the sounds of 1954 pop music and take a trip back in time through
films and audio tapes of radio newscasts of the Hurricane Hazel event. Interpretive hikes to the
banks of the Humber River will be held to inform people about some of the Authority's
achievements including the flood warning system. Groups and municipalities within the Humber
River watershed will be providing displays that illustrate their own initiatives. General information
will be provided to individuals interested in knowing more about the Authority or becoming a
Humber Watershed Task Force representative.
The mandate of the Humber Watershed Task Force is to:
(a) Develop a Humber River Watershed Strategy to achieve a sustainable, healthy watershed
for the Humber River watershed using an ecosystem based approach. This approach
recognizes the interrelationship between natural and cultural heritage, biological and
economic processes, and the integration of conservation, restoration and economic
activities to ensure the continued health of the watershed. The Humber River Watershed
Strategy should detail, but not be limited to the following:
• the specific management actions required to protect, link, and regenerate
greenspace resources within the watershed;
• the specific management actions required throughout the watershed to address
water and other watershed based resource and environmental management issues;
• the provision of controlled public access and recreational opportunities that are
compatible with environmental management objectives;
• an evaluation and report on the natural heritage, cultural heritage and recreational
qualities of the watershed that supports a recommendation to the Province of
Ontario that the watershed be nominated a Canadian Heritage River;
• the development of resource inventory and opportunity maps for each
subwatershed (as defined in the Humber River Atlas, in progress);
D171 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED STRATEGY (CONTD.)
-Report on Membership Selection, Reporting Procedures and Terms of Reference for
a Humber Watershed Task Force
• the development of a conceptual management plan(s) within each subwatershed (as
defined in the Humber River Atlas, in progress);
• the mechanisms and integration required to protect, regenerate and sustain a
healthy watershed.
(b) Assist and encourage individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry, and
government agencies in resource planning, stewardship, and management activities within
the watershed. These activities could include:
• pilot or demonstration management projects;
• community "Adopt a Stream" initiatives;
• water quality public awareness;
• revegetation projects;
• watershed education including natural and cultural heritage; and
• public information including displays, newspaper articles, television and radio
coverage and communications to municipal councils.
(c) The Task Force membership shall:
• consult and involve individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry,
and government agencies in the development of the watershed strategy;
• report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water
and Related Land Management Advisory Board;
• report progress to their respective agency, group or general public as required to
maintain effective communications between all partners;
• participate on technical working groups;
• review and comment on draft Task Force documents;
• assist with consultant selection; -
• host local meetings so members become familiar with all geographical areas;
• follow the Authority's Policies and Procedures with respect to purchasing, hiring of
consultants and all other matters; and
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D172
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED STRATEGY (CONTD.)
-Report on Membership Selection, Reporting Procedures and Terms of Reference for
a Humber Watershed Task Force
• provide a draft strategy document to the Authority by June 30, 1996.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
MTRCA will budget for and administer the Humber River Watershed Strategy project. Funding will
be allocated from the project budget for:
• Task Force strategy development and related initiatives;
• staff secretariat support; and
• Humber River watershed regeneration activities.
The development of the Humber River Watershed Strategy will be subject to available funding and
a work plan developed by the Task Force and approved by the Authority.
Staff will continue to investigate funding opportunities with federal and provincial agencies and
other sources to undertake components of the Humber River Watershed Strategy that relate to the
implementation of the Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Two members of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board are required, along with
one senior Authority staff, Water Resources, to form a selection committee to review citizen
applications.
A selection process will be developed, in consultation with the selection committee.
Applications and information kits will be prepared for distribution to those people interested in
applying to become a Task Force member.
Advertisements will be submitted to local papers inviting citizens residing within the watershed and
interested in serving on the Task Force to submit applications /resumes.
Organize an information meeting for individuals, interested in becoming a Task Force member.
Requests will be sent to the Humber River watershed local and regional municipalities for the
appointment of a Task Force member and alternate.
Requests will be sent to selected Humber interest groups and federal and provincial agencies for
the names of their Task Force representative.
A staff report will be prepared recommending to the Authority the membership of the Task Force
and subsequently, the persons selected to the positions of Chair and Vice Chair.
D173 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
DRAFT
THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MEMBERSHIP SELECTION
REPORTING PROCEDURES AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
i
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
October 1994
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D174
THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE
1.0 AUTHORITY DIRECTION
At Authority Meeting #3/94, held on April 22, 1994, the Authority approved Resolution
#A89/94 which states in part:
"THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to
proceed with meetings with community and interest group representatives, agency
and municipal staff, and elected representatives to identify technical and
community interests within the Humber River watershed;
THAT staff report by year end on the proposed process for the development of a
Humber River watershed strategy including such issues as the formation of a task
force and its terms of reference;
THAT staff investigate other potential funding partnerships and agencies;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to apply for provincial funding to support the
development of the Humber River watershed strategy."
2.0 TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP SELECTION
Members of the Task Force will be appointed by the Authority for a term ending June 30,
1996, subject to an annual review by the Authority.
2.1 Size of the Task Force
The Task Force shall consist of forty -four (44) members including:
• the Chair of the Authority or other Authority member as designated;
• one elected representative from each of the twelve local and three regional
municipalities within the Humber River watershed which include:
- Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
- Regional Municipality of York
- Regional Municipality of Peel
- City of Toronto
- City of Etobicoke
- City of North York
- City of York
- Town of Richmond Hill
- City of Vaughan
- Township of King
- City of Brampton
- Town of Caledon
- City of Mississauga
- Township of Mono
- Township of Adjala - Tosorontio;
D175 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
• five senior Federal and Provincial representatives;
• fifteen citizens residing within the Humber River watershed;
• one representative appointed from each of:
- the Metropolitan Toronto Remedial Action Plan
- the Waterfront Regeneration Trust
- Action to Restore a Clean Humber
- Black Creek Project
- Humber Heritage Committee
- Save the Oak Ridges Moraine
- Urban Development Institute
- Soil and Crop Improvement Association.
2.1.1 Local and Regional Municipality Representatives
The local and regional municipalities will be requested by the Authority to
appoint a council member, and an alternate to the Task Force. A
municipality may appoint a current Authority member. Alternate municipal
Task Force members will have voting privileges on all matters of business.
2.1.2 Federal and Provincial Representatives
Selected federal and provincial agencies will be requested by the Authority
to appoint a senior employee and an alternate to the Task Force. Alternate
members will have voting privileges on all matters of business.
2.1.3 Citizen Membership
An advertisement will be placed in local papers requesting interested
individuals residing within the Humber watershed to apply for appointment
to the Task Force.
The selection of fifteen citizens who reside within the watershed will be
carried out by a three person committee comprised of two members of the
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board, and one senior
Authority staff. Fifteen citizens will be recommended to the Authority for
approval.
2.2 Criteria for Citizens Membership Selection
In recommending citizens for appointment, the selection committee will take into
consideration the following:
• demonstrated interest and /or active participation in watershed management,
community and heritage issues;
• the ability of the applicant to meet the potential time commitments;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D176
• representation of rural, urban, environmental, recreation, education, heritage
and business interests.
2.3 Attendance by Task Force Members at Meetings
Members will be required to attend on a regular basis. It is anticipated that evening
meetings will be held once per month. Technical working groups may be required
to deal with specific issues. Additional meeting time will be required in these
cases. Members unable to fulfil this commitment will be replaced after missing
three consecutive meetings to ensure broad and effective representation on
watershed issues.
2.4 Selection of Chair and Vice Chair of the Task Force
The Chair and Vice Chair will be elected by the Task Force from amongst its
members.
2.5 Reporting Relationship
The Task Force will communicate through the Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board. The Task Force Chair will be required to
coordinate communications to this Board, with the assistance of the MTRCA
staff secretariat. Refer also to 6.1 (b)(c).
3.0 RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE TASK FORCE
3.1 MTRCA Secretariat
The secretariat will include:
• Project Manager;
• Environmental Technician;
• Secretary (part -time position);
• Writer (part -time position).
The secretariat's role will be to attend all meetings and to assist the Task Force in
all activities related to the development of the Humber River Watershed Strategy.
3.2 Technical Working Groups and Consultants
Technical specialists representing specific disciplines will be requested from
agencies, business and other sources to assist the Task Force in the development
of the strategy and to provide technical- advice or review of key reports. The
technical specialists will also provide a communications link to planning and
resource managers, within affected agencies and groups.
D177 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
Technical specialists may include one or more person(s) with expertise in:
• Water Quality
• Groundwater
• Hydrology /Hydraulics
• Terrestrial Ecology
• Land Use Planning
• Restoration Ecology
• Municipal Operations and Maintenance
• Local /Regional, Provincial and Federal Government Programs
• Fisheries Management
• Community Involvement /Public Consultation
• Data Management /GIS
• Tourism
• Recreation
• Cultural Heritage
• Education
• Services and Utilities
• Marketing /Communications.
The Technical Working Group(s) will be formed following the appointment of the
Task Force members as the need is identified.
3.3 Budget
MTRCA will budget for and administer the Humber River Watershed Strategy
project. Funding will be allocated from the project budget for:
• Task force strategy development and related initiatives;
• staff secretariat support; and
• Humber River watershed regeneration activities.
The development on the Humber River Watershed Strategy will be subject to
available funding and a work plan developed by the Task Force and approved by the
Authority.
4.0 COMPENSATION OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS
For regular Task Force meetings, members will be eligible for travel expenses, according to
Authority policy.
5.0 RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE ASK FORCE
The Task Force will follow the Rules of Conduct of the Authority (The Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority), as adopted by Resolution #3 of the Authority
Meeting #2/86, or as may be amended. A quorum will consist of a majority of the
members of the Task Force.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D178
6.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE
The goal of the Authority through the Humber Watershed Task Force is to develop a
management strategy for the Humber River watershed which will be adopted and
supported by municipal and agency politicians and staff; community groups; business
sectors; watershed residents; and the general public. The watershed strategy must also
empower everyone to become actively involved in watershed management, stewardship
activities and raise public awareness of environmentally sensitive planning and planning
issues.
6.1 Mandate of the Humber Watershed Task Force
The mandate of the Humber Watershed Task Force is to:
(a) Develop a Humber River Watershed Strategy to achieve a sustainable,
healthy watershed for the Humber River using an ecosystem based
approach. This approach recognizes the interrelationship between natural
and cultural heritage, physical, biological and economic processes, and the
integration of conservation, restoration and economic activities to ensure the
continued health of the watershed. The Humber River Watershed Strategy
should detail, but not be limited to the following:
• the specific management actions required to protect, Zink, and
regenerate greenspace resources within the watershed;
• the specific management actions required throughout the watershed
to address water and other watershed based resource and
environmental management issues;
• the provision of controlled public access and recreation opportunities
that are compatible with environmental management objectives;
• an evaluation and report on the natural heritage, cultural heritage and
recreational qualities of the watershed that supports a
recommendation to the Province of Ontario that the watershed be
nominated a Canadian Heritage River;
• the development of resource inventory and opportunity maps for each
subwatershed (as defined in the Humber Watershed Atlas);
• the development of a conceptual management plan(s) within each
subwatershed (as defined in the Humber Watershed Atlas); and
• the mechanisms and integration required to protect, regenerate and
sustain a healthy watershed.
D179 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
(b) Assist and encourage individuals, interest groups, communities, business,
industry, and government agencies in resource planning, stewardship, and
management activities within the watershed. These activities could include:
• pilot or demonstration management projects;
• community "Adopt a Stream" initiatives;
• water quality public awareness;
• revegetation projects;
• watershed education including natural and cultural heritage; and
• public information including displays, newspaper articles, television
and radio coverage and communications to municipal councils.
(c) The Task Force membership shall:
• consult and involve individuals, interest groups, communities,
business, industry, and government agencies in the development of
the watershed strategy;
• report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the
Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board;
• report progress to their respective agency, group or general public as
required to maintain effective communications between all partners;
• participate on technical working groups;
• review and comment on draft Task Force documents;
• assist with consultant selection;
• host local meetings so Task Force members become familiar with all
geographical areas;
• follow the Authority's Policies and Procedures with respect to
purchasing, hiring of consultants and all other matters; and
• provide a draft strategy document to the Authority by
June 30, 1996.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D180
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. AUTHORITY ADOPTION OF NEW OR UPDATED ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
KEY ISSUE
The approval of a process for Authority adoption of new or updated Environmentally Significant
Areas (ESAs) within the Authority's jurisdiction.
Res. #W67/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lorna Bissell
Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT "The Process for Authority Adoption of
New, Updated Environmentally Significant Areas," be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the "Guidelines for Identifying and Updating Environmentally Significant
Areas ", pages D182 - D188, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1982, the Authority approved its ESA Study, including designation of 126 ESAs. The Study
was undertaken out of a concern for the conservation and management of natural resources in Tight
of the increasing pressures of urbanization. It was felt that the identification of ESAs, by the
Authority, was a means of developing a more comprehensive approach to providing input into land
use planning and resource management in the Region.
One of the limitations of the 1982 Study was the need (due to time, staffing and funding
constraints) to limit the area of study to primary valleys (draining greater than 1300 hectares), the
waterfront, and the Oak Ridges Moraine. It was recognized that, to be complete, the study should
eventually look at the remainder of the Authority's jurisdiction including tableland.
It was also recognized that the 1982 Study was not a comprehensive review, and that the study
findings would require continual updating, for the following reasons:
(1) changes resulting from natural biological succession;
(2) changes in the "status" of various species and habitats in terms of range
and rarity; and
(3) changes resulting from the direct or indirect impacts of land use changes.
In 1993, as the first step in updating the ESA Study, new ESA designation criteria were approved
(Res. #A191/93). The new criteria reflect the increasing awareness of the sensitivity of natural
areas and the consequences of habitat fragmentation. This new understanding and criteria provide
further rationale for reinvestigating existing ESAs as well as looking at new candidate areas.
D181 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. AUTHORITY ADOPTION OF NEW OR UPDATED ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
It is anticipated that as field investigations for existing ESAs (to confirm their status and
boundaries) and new candj,,date areas are completed, there will be significant changes to the
Authority's existing inventory of ESAs. A formal process for designating new ESAs, deleting ESAs
that no longer meet the criteria, and recognizing changes in ESA boundaries is warranted.
Process for Authority Approval of New and Updated Environmentally Significant Areas
The objective is to prepare a report, on an annual basis, updating the Authority on the status of its
ESAs with a request that the Authority adopt any changes to its ESA inventory. The report will
include:
• Background on the work undertaken during the year.
• Maps showing the location of all the ne■•or updated ESAs.
• A summary description (including criteria met or reasons for deletion) and
boundary map for each ESA evaluated.
This annual report will also include several requests of the Authority as follows:
• That the Authority adopt the ESAs, as described, for inclusion in its inventory of
ESAs.
• That staff be directed to advocate the protection of the new ESAs through its plan
input and review activities.
• That the new information be circulated to the affected municipalities with a request
that they recognize the ESAs within protective land use designations within their
planning documents.
From time -to -time, it may be necessary to bring an ESA forward in advance of the annual report to
support Authority objectives or to assist a municipality relating to a specific land use proposal.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D182
GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING, UPDATING
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
September 27, 1994
D183 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
PURPOSE
In 1982 the Authority approved its Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA) Study,
including designation of 126 ESAs. The Study was undertaken out of a concern
for the conservation and management of natural resources in Tight of the increasing
pressures of urbanization. It was felt that the identification of ESAs, by the
Authority, was a means of developing a more comprehensive approach to
providing input into land use planning and resource management in the Region.
One of the limitations of the 1982 Study was the need (due to time, staffing and
funding constraints) to limit the area of study to primary valleys (draining greater
than 1300 hectares), the waterfront, and the Oak Ridges Moraine. It was
recognized that, to be complete, the study should eventually look at the remainder
of the Authority's jurisdiction including tableland.
It was also recognized that the 1982 Study was not a comprehensive review, and
that the study findings would require continual updating, for the following reasons:
1. Changes resulting from natural biological succession;
2. Changes in the "status" of various species and habitats in terms of
range and rarity; and
3. Changes resulting from the direct or indirect impacts of land use
changes.
In 1993, as the first step in updating the ESA Study, new ESA designation criteria
were approved (Res. #A191/93). The new criteria reflect the increasing
awareness of the sensitivity of natural areas and the consequences of habitat
fragmentation. This new knowledge provides further rational for investigating new
areas as well as re- evaluating existing ESAs.
It is anticipated that, as field investigations for existing ESAs (to confirm their
status and boundaries) and new candidate areas are completed, there will be
significant changes to the Authority's existing inventory of ESAs. A formal
process for adopting new ESAs, deleting ESAs that no longer meet the criteria, and
recognizing changes in ESA boundaries is warranted.
It is the purpose of this report to provide guidelines and a process for identifying,
updating and formally adopting ESAs. There are three main steps in this process:
Preparatory Work; Field Investigations and Field Reports; and Authority Adoption.
The objective is to prepare a report on an annual basis, to the Authority, updating
its inventory of ESAs.
In addition, a process for informing affected landowners and public has been
included. It is hoped that this contact could be used to foster stewardship
initiatives.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D184
PREPARATORY WORK
New ESAs and changes to existing ESAs come to the attention of staff through a
number of avenues, including:
• interested public with some knowledge of the site;
• municipalities through environmental, or 'natural features' studies
within their jurisdiction;
• other public agencies, through their identification of such (i.e. the
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) identifies Areas of Natural or
Scientific Interest (ANSIs) and wetlands);
• background reports completed for watershed strategies;
• Phase I, 'Existing Conditions' studies completed in support of
municipal and sub - watershed planning;
• the Authority's Plan Input and Review Process, through background
reports and Environmental Impact studies in support of applications
received under the Conservation Authorities Act, the Planning Act or
the Environmental Assessment Act; or,
• information from MTRCA staff.
Staff must confirm that each potential site meets at least one of the nine ESA
criteria.
PRIORITIZING FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
Field investigation of potential ESAs and existing ESAs that require updating should
be prioritized in the following manner:
1. Sites associated with an application received through the Authority's Plan
Input and Review Process, including:
• Permit Applications (Ontario Regulation);
• Planning Act Applications; or,-
• Environmental Assessment Act circulations.
It should be noted that for planning and permit applications, the proponent
will typically be required to provide an inventory of the natural
D185 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
features /functions for the area in question. Pursuant to staff verification of
this information, ESA identification may occur and subsequent Authority
adoption will be requested prior to any development approvals being given
by the Authority.
2. Sites within a watershed for which a watershed strategy is being undertaken
by the Authority. The effort should first be directed towards new potential
ESAs followed by existing ESAs that require updating.
3. Sites associated with a municipal /MTRCA planning initiative, including:
• Subwatershed Plans or Natural Feature Studies;
• Woodland Management Plans or Strategies; or,
• Recreation Master Plans.
4. Sites that are in private ownership, not related to any municipal planning
application or initiative.
5. Sites that are already in public ownership or that are already designated as
protection areas within municipal planning documents.
COLLECTION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Prior to the field investigation, some preparatory work is required and background
information for each site must be compiled, including:
• A map showing the approximate boundary of the study area.
This map will be used during the field investigation to delineate the boundary
of the significant area and the location of the significant features, if
applicable. The approximate ESA boundary should be delineated on the
Authority mapping that best depicts the topographic features of the area.
For areas within the watershed that are within valley or stream corridors that
have drainage areas greater than 1300 hectares, 1:2000 scale mapping is
available. For the valley and stream corridors draining less than 1300 ha,
and for all tableland sites, 1:10,000 scale mapping is available. Both scales
can be used in municipal planning documents.
• Aerial photography information - year, line and photograph numbers.
• Ownership information. (As detailed-under the section on Notification)
• Estimated size in hectares.
• Existing land use and zoning designations from municipal planning
documents;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D186
• Any current or outstanding applications made pursuant to the Conservation
Authorities Act, the Planning Act or the Environmental Assessment Act;
• Site inventories, if available, from previous studies by staff; local interest
groups; other public agencies; or a proponent, pursuant to a development
application;
• Any constraints in the time frame(s) required to conduct the field
investigation, as related to breeding, spawning, nesting, blooming etc.;
• Approximate time required to complete the field investigation; and,
• Approximate time required to complete the field report.
Using this information, a schedule for field investigations and field reports should
be completed. Modifications to this schedule may occur as a result of unforseen
circumstances.
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND FIELD REPORTS
Upon the completion of the field investigations a field report will be prepared.
These reports should include:
1. The Name and Status of the ESA and the Criteria Fulfilled.
2. Detailed Inventory Information for both the significant features and the site.
3. A Status Report, itemizing each significant feature and each of the criteria
fulfilled.
4. Any additional Comments that may relate to the site.
5. Photographs of the ESA and a general map showing the location of the ESA.
A Summary Field Report must also be prepared at this time, using information from
the Field Report. The boundary map should be completed and digitized and all
species information should be added to the Authority's data base. (Ultimately this
information will be part of the Authority's Geographic Information System (GIS))
ADOPTION OF THE NEW AND UPDATED ESAs
A report will be submitted on an annual basis updating the Authority on the status
of its ESAs. The report will include:
D187 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
• Background on the work undertaken during the year.
• Maps showing the location of all the new or updated ESAs.
• A summary description (including criteria met or reasons for deletion)
and boundary map for each ESA evaluated.
This annual report will include several requests to the Authority as follows:
1) That the Authority "adopt" the ESAs as described for inclusion in its
inventory of ESAs.
2) That staff be directed to advocate the protection of the new ESAs through
its plan input and review activities.
3) That the new information be circulated to the affected municipalities with a
request that they recognize the ESAs within protective land use designations
within their planning documents.
NOTIFICATION
There will be two approaches for notification depending on what triggered the
investigation of the site as a potential ESA.
A. If the site is being investigated as a result of a Plan Review application or a
proposed Authority capital works project, the Plans Analyst, Project
Manager, or File Manager would be responsible for providing the information
on land ownership. They would also be responsible for notifying the
owner /agent to arrange for access to undertake field investigations.
If it is determined that the site is an ESA, notification would occur as part of
our formal (via Plan Review) response to the owner /agent and Municipality.
If it is a new ESA (not already formally adopted) they would be informed
that the site is a "candidate ESA" and if it is an ESA that has been
previously adopted, they will be advised of its status and any boundary
changes. In both instances the owner /agent and Municipality would be
informed that this ESA information would be taken forward for "adoption"
by the Authority as part of the "ann-ual report on ESAs ".
Once the "annual report" has been adopted by the Authority, the
owner /agent and municipality would again be notified and provided a copy
of the pertinent ESA summary(ies).
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D188
B. If the site is being investigated as part of the ongoing ESA update program,
the ownership would be identified through the municipal assessment roles.
A letter would be sent to the listed owner with the following information:
a description of the Authority's ESA program;
- indication that staff would be undertaking site inventories in the
area that field season;
that Authority staff would endeavour to identify themselves (or
leave a business card and ESA brochure) prior to entering onto
the lands; and
a staff contact if they have any questions about the program.
It should be noted that if permission to enter is denied, staff may not be able
to enter the property.
A similar letter would be sent to the Municipality, which would also request
any assistance they could provide with respect to ownership or issues on
the lands in question.
If it is determined that the site is an ESA, the owner(as taken from the
assessment role) would be notified by mail and provided a copy of the
summary description(s). If it is a new ESA (not already formally adopted)
they would be informed that the site is a "candidate ESA" and if it is an ESA
that has been previously adopted, they would be advised of its status and
any boundary changes. In both instances the owner and Municipality would
be informed that this ESA information would be taken forward for
"adoption" by the Authority as part of the "annual report on ESAs ".
The updated ESA information could be made available to other interested parties
by including the annual report on ESAs in the appropriate Authority newsletter
such as "On the Don ". A copy of the report would also be forwarded to interested
public groups and individuals as identified (and included on the mailing Iist)during
the public review of the ESA Criteria. Additions to this list would be made upon
request.
D189 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. EROSION AT THE REAR OF 31 CHERRYHILL AVENUE
-City of Scarborough, Centennial Creek, Highland Creek Watershed
KEY ISSUE
Report and cost estimate of carrying out erosion control works at the rear of 31 Cherryhill Avenue,
in the City of Scarborough.
Res. #W68/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joyce Trimmer
Victoria Carley
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report from Terraprobe Limited
regarding the slope stability assessment at 31 Cherryhill Avenue be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to provide advice and direction to Mr. Peter McRorie owner of
#31 Cherryhill Avenue, City of Scarborough.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/94, members requested a
cost estimate of carrying out erosion control remedial work at the rear of #31 Cherryhill Avenue,
City of Scarborough. The slope stability assessment and cost estimate for remedial works prepared
by Terraprobe Limited follows as page D190 - D194.
Terraprobe Limited summarizes in the report that the existing dwelling is not in immediate danger,
however, to stabilize the slope for the long term, they recommend the placement of the erosion
protection at the toe of the slope and regrading and revegetating the oversteepened section of the
bank. The cost of this work is approximately between $10,000 and $20,000.
Staff will be forwarding this report to Mr. Peter McRorie and should Mr. McRorie decide to proceed
with this work on his own accord, staff will advise and direct him on procedures to receive the
proper permits and approvals.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D190
8
Terraproi c Li«1i ed
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers d Hvcirogeologlsts
2565 Stee,eS a, < L ,
8 ampton. Ontanr
LCT 4L6
(903) T03-2650
r\ '03 -7E53
September 6, 1994 Our File No. 94221
Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 1S4
Attention: Mr. James Tucker
r� r. -
SEP s 1994
M. T. R. C. A. I
RE: SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
31 CHERRYHILL AVE.
SCARBOROUGH (WEST HILL), ONTARIO
Dear Sir:
This letter reports on our site meeting and slope inspection at the above address on the small
creek valley which is a tributary to the Highland Creek. The purpose of the inspection was to
respond to a resident's report of loss of ground, at the rear of his property which backs onto the
tributary to the Highland Creek.
During the site visit on August 29, 1994 with Mr. Jim Tucker of MTRCA, the rear yard of
No. 31 Cherryhill Ave. in Scarborough (West Hill) was inspected, as was the adjacent valley land to
the east of this property. The house building (2 storey brick with basement) is set back about 20 m
from the existing rear yard fence line. A work shed is also located in the rear yard near the north
property line. The rear yard slopes gently towards the valley and consists of grassed lawn with some
mature tall trees, and some minor garden planting areas. With a tall trce canopy, the rear yard is
well shaded.
Branch Office: 230 Favv'tw Dr,vr, 115n • Barrie • Ontario • I aN 5F9 • Tel: (705) 739-8355 • Fay- 1705) 739-8369
D191 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
September G. 1094 '_ 31 Chemhill Ave
M.T.R.C.A Scarborouelt. Ontario
Along the rear fence line which is on the east side of the property. the existing slope crest
is situated just beyond the fence line within 0.3 to 0.6 m thereof. Inspection from the slope toe below
revealed that the slope crest is undermined by about 0.3 to 1 m but is being held in place by tree
roots. The slope is about 5.5 to 6 m high and the tributary creek is situated along the slope toe.
There is evidence of past and recent toe undercutting. At the time of our visit. the creek was about
1.5 to 2 m wide and about 0.1 m deep with very slow moving water. It is expected that storm events
would result in increased flows.
The slope face is generally bare of vegetation except for some recent regeneration of shrubs
on the lower slope. The exposed slope soil consists of a competent silty sand till with embedded
gravel, consistent with available geological mapping for the area. Some sandy alluvium was noted
in the creek bed. There was no seepage observed from the slope face itself.
The slope inclination varies from near - vertical at the slope crest (± 1 m height) and at the
slope toe (± 1 m height), to generally about 1 to 1 (horiz. to vert.) or slightly steeper for most of
the slope. The enclosed photographs show the site slope conditions on August 29, 1994.
Based on our inspection and review of the site conditions, it is our opinion that the ground
Toss near the slope crest and slope toe (and the loss of vegetation) is directly attributable to toe
erosion by the tributary creek flows after periods of rainfall or snowmelt. Thc toe erosion causes
over - steepening of the slope toe, which then triggers slumping and over - steepening of the upper
slope (accompanied by loss of vegetation on the slope). After several such cycles of erosion, it is
expected that the slope crest eventually becomes affected by the ground loss.
The current over - steepened slope condition is expected to experience flattening to a more
stable angle of about 11/4 to 1, to 11/2 to 1 within the competent silty sand till. This will likely result
in additional loss of land at the crest of about 2 to 3 m. Accordingly it is recommended that the
existing chain link fence along the rear property line be moved closer to the house, especially since
the slope crest is currently undermined.
Terraprobc
Our File No. 94221
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D1 92
September G. 1994 3 31 Cherryhill Ave.
Jv1.T.R.C.A Scarborough. Ontario
The existing dwelling and shed are in no danger of instability due to the ground loss on the
slope. In order to protect against continued toe erosion of the slope, it is recommended that erosion
protection be placed along the slope toe behind the property. The erosion protection should consist
of rip rap stone placed on a layer of 50 mm clear stone or filter fabric, and extending up the slope
to the design high water level in the creek (estimated at about 1 to 1.5 m height). The size of rip
rap stone should be selected on the basis of the design maximum flow velocity in the creek, but is
estimated to be in the range of 150 to 300 mm size stone.
Additional consideration must also be given to access for the supply and placement of the
erosion protection along the slope toe. It is understood the slope toe is on private property of other
property owners and their permission will be required. Access may also be difficult unless the
materials can be transported to the slope crest along the south property line of 31 Cherryhill Ave.
This will require removal (and reinstatement) of existing fencing and, top dumping. Placement of
the rip rap'may require manual handling if light equipment cannot also be lowered down the slope.
Alternatively, access would be required from Lawrence Ave. and across the valley and creek.
. After placement of the toe erosion protection, the steep upper slope and crest should be cut
back and re- graded to achieve a flatter and more stable slope face and crest area. Planting and
seeding with grasses, legumes, willows, or other small shrubs such a sumach is recommended for the
bare areas.
The construction cost is roughly estimated at $10,000 to $20,000, assuming access for
materials and equipment is possible from the slope crest in the rear yard of No.31 Cherryhill Ave.
This cost would be considerably higher if access must take place from Lawrence Ave. across the
valley. This cost also does not include any legal fees or purchase cost of easements on neighbouring
properties.
In summary, there is no immediate dangcr to the existing dwelling at the above property. The
creek erosion of the slope toe has caused some ground loss and over - steepening of the slope.
yI!f Terraprobc
Our Pile No. 94221
D193 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
September 6. 1994
M.T.RC.A.
4 Cherrvhill Ave.
Scarborou¢h. Ontario
Erosion protection of the slope toe is recommended. Some additional crest Toss is expected due to
flattening of the now over- steepened slope crest.
We trust the foregoing information is sufficient for your present requirements. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours truly,
TERRAPROBE LIMITED
/10 `aect.sto,.,
MICHAEL TANOS
Michael Tanos. P. Eng.
Tcrraprobe
Our File No. 94221
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D194
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. ST. BRENDAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL, 186 CENTENNIAL ROAD
-City of Scarborough, Centennial Creek, Highland Creek Watershed
KEY ISSUE
Report of erosion problem at the rear of St. Brendan Catholic School, 186 Centennial Road in the
City of Scarborough, Centennial Creek, Highland Creek Watershed.
Res. #W69/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report regarding the erosion problem
at the rear of St. Brendan Catholic School, 186 Centennial Road, Scarborough be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
St. Brendan's Catholic School is located on Centennial Road, north of Lawrence Avenue, in the City
of Scarborough adjacent to Centennial Creek which is a tributary of Highland Creek.
The Authority was requested by the Metropolitan Separate School Board to investigate the erosion
at the rear St. Brendan's School. A site meeting was held on January 19, 1993 and the attached
letter (page D196 - D197) was sent to the School Board February 23, 1993. The Authority was
again contacted and visited the site on June 6 and 30, 1994 with staff and Trustee Harold Adams
from the Metropolitan Separate School Board.
The Centennial Creek meanders through the Authority's property abutting the lands owned by the
Metropolitan Separate School Board. The Authority's lands are under management agreement with
the Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department.
The creek banks at this location vary from a half to one metre in height. The valley slopes are
relatively gently sloping to the school on the east bank of the creek and steeper to the residential
homes to the west side. The section of the valley on the Authority's property is well vegetated
with mature trees and shrubs while the lands owned by the school board are grassed and generally
maintained. For safety reasons, on request of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, the Parks
and Property Department trimmed the shrubs and trees on the property boundary.
Presently, the water flow of the Centennial Creek is eroding the riverbanks and has undermined
sections of the chain link property line fencing. Due to the proximity of the fence to the meander
belt of the watercourse the entire length of the fencing is in jeopardy of falling into the creek.
There are various approaches to the erosion problem at this location which include: channelling this
section of the watercourse; armouring the sections of the watercourse presently threatening the
sections of fence; or relocating the fence a safe distance from the watercourse.
The channelling of the watercourse would involve restricting the flow of the creek within its banks.
D195 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. ST. BRENDAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL, 186 CENTENNIAL ROAD (CONTD.)
-City of Scarborough, Centennial Creek, Highland Creek Watershed
A trapezoid channel could consist of rip rap stone, gabion baskets or a concrete block type lining.
This approach is very costly and would be damaging to the ecosystem of the creek.
The armouring of strategic sections of the creek to protect the fence is a "band -aid" approach to
the erosion problem. The placing of stone or other revetment will likely retard the erosion at that
location, however, since the fence is in such close proximity to the creek, other sections will likely
be affected and in the near future require further works.
Both the above works will require long term maintenance to ensure the integrity of the fence. To
construct both the above mentioned projects the fence will be required to be removed and
reconstructed.
The most economical and desirable approach is to relocate the high property boundary fence to the
top of the slope adjacent to the playing field (approximately 15 metres). This would remove the
fence a safe distance from the erosive banks and high flood flows of the watercourse. The valley
portion of the School Board's property could then be re- naturalized with trees and shrubs. This
would not only have environmental benefits to the ecosystem of the valley but would also assist in
retarding the erosive processes in the creek. Also, by removing the play ground area from the
flood plain of the Centennial Creek, it would also reduce the safety hazard to children during flood
events. The re- naturalization program on the property could form part of the education format at
the school.
As noted in the attached letter of July 7, 1994 (page D198 - D199), Authority staff have offered
to assist in the re- naturalization program on the school board's property.
WATER AND ELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D196
4*4L
4101rthe metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
5 shoreham drive, downsvrew, Ontario, m3n 1s4 (416) 661 -6600 FAX 661 -6898
1993 02 23
Metropolitan Separate School Board
970 Bellamy Road North
Scarborough, Ontario
M1H 1H1
Attention:
Dear Sir:
Re:
George Stahl
Supervisor of Maintenance
Scarborough /East York
Field Centre
Erosion Problem at the rear of
St. Brendan Catholic School /186 Centennial Rd.
West Hill, City of Scarborough, Centennial Creek
Highland Creek Watershed
CFN. (•0-7
Further to our site meeting of January 19, 1993, and your letter of
January 25, 1993, we would like to confirm our analysis of the
above noted problem.
The Centennial Creek meanders through the Authority's property
abutting the lands owned by the Metropolitan Separate School Board.
Extensive erosion is occurring on the outside bends of the
watercourse caused by the erosive action of the water flow in the
creek. At the present time, the chain link fence which separates
the properties is being undermined, creating a physical hazard to
the persons using this area. If left in its present state the
fence is in danger of falling over.
To adequately protect the fence in its present position, sections
of erosion control protection such as gabion baskets, armour stone
or rip rap protection would be necessary to stabilize the banks of
the watercourse. In the long terns, this work would not guarantee
that the other sections of the fence would not be effected by the
erosion, unless the banks in this entire stretch of the watercourse
were totally lined.
We feel the most cost effective long term solution would be to
relocate the fence to the top of the slope (approximately 15 metres
away from the riverbank). We would prefer this solution, as it
removes a structure from the floodplain, eliminates the need to
carry out expensive erosion control works and allows for a much
softer approach (revegetation) for rehabilitating the area.
D197 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
- 2 -
The Authority would assist by providing native trees and shrubs to
be planted adjacent to and on the banks of the watercourse. This
plant material could be utilized on both Authority and School Board
owned lands. This project would also assist in reestablishing the
riparian zone in the valley which has numerous environmental
benefits.
Please contact this office if you would like to proceed with these
works or have any further questions.
Yours truly,
vI 1 l ,C
J. Tucker, C.E.T.
Supervisor, Water Control Projects
Engineering and Development Section
Water Resource Division
JDT /gds
cc: Stephen J. Bouw, Metro Parks
Sonia Meek
(111‘... WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D198
"-the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
5 shoreham drive. downsview, onlario m3n 1s4 (416) 661 -6600 FAX 661-6898
July 7, 1994
CFN 00687
Trustee Harold W.J. Adams
Metropolitan Separate School Board
97 Railside Road
Don Mills, Ontario
M3A 182
Dear Trustee Adams:
Re:
Erosion Problem at the rear of St. Brandon's
School, Centennial Road, City of Scarborough
Centennial Creek, Highland Creek Watershed
Further to my site meeting of June 6, 1994 with Mr. Opacic of your office and our site meeting
of June 30, 1994, I would like to confirm our discussion regarding the erosion problem at the
rear of the above lands.
The above property abuts the edge of the banks of Centennial Creek and is adjacent to property
owned by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA). As marked
on the attached maps, parts of the property are within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Regulation
158, the Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration of Waterways regulation.
Presently the water flow of the Centennial Creek is eroding the riverbanks and has undermined
sections of the chain Zink property line fencing. Due to the proximity of the fence to the meander
belt of the watercourse the entire length of the fencing is in jeopardy of falling into the creek.
The section of the valley on the Authorities property is well vegetated with mature trees and
shrubbery, the lands owned by the school board is grassed and generally maintained.
There are various approaches to the erosion problem at this location which include: channelling
this section of the watercourse; armouring the sections of the watercourse presently threatening
the sections of fence; or relocating the fence a safe distance from the watercourse.
The channelling of the watercourse would involve "saddling" the flow of the creek within its
bank. A trapezoid channel could consist of rip rap stone, gabion basket or a concrete block type
lining. This approach is very costly and would be damaging to the ecosystem of the creek.
The armouring of strategic sections of the creek to protect the fence.is a "band -aid" approach to
erosion problem. The placing of'stone or other revetment will likely retard the erosion at that
location; however, since the fence is in such dose proximity to the creek, other sections will
likely be effected and in the near future require further works.
Both the above works will require Tong term maintenance to ensure the integrity of the fence. To
construct both the above mentioned projects the fence will be required to be removed and
reconstructed.
The most economical and desirable approach is to relocate the high property boundary fence to
the top of the slope adjacent to the playing field. This would remove the fence a safe distance
.../2
D199 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1.994
Trustee Adams
- 2 - July 7, 1994
from the erosive banks and high flood flows of the watercourse. The valley portion of the
School Board's property could then be re- naturalized with trees and shrubs. This would not only
have environmental benefits to the ecosystem of the valley but would also assist in retarding the
erosive processes in the creek.
Also by removing the play ground area from the flood plain of Centennial Creek it would also
reduce the safety hazard to children during flood events. The Catholic School would have to
finance the relocation of the fence; however, the Authority would assist by providing some plant
material to start the re- naturalization program.
As per our discussions, I have contacted Mr. Steve Bouw of the Metre, Parks Department
regarding the trimming of the vegetation for security reasons on our lands adjacent to the
Board's property. Mr. Bouw will be responding back to this request in the near future.
If you have, an questions plrase do not hesitate to contact this office.
Yours truly
J.D. Tucker
Supervisor of Water Control Projects
Resource Management Section
Water Resource Division
/jdt
cc:
Attach.
Mr. John Opacic - Metropolitan Separate School Board
Mr. Steve Bouw - Metro Parks Depart.
Ken Morrish - Metro Councillor
R.W. Dewell - MTRCA
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D200
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
9. JOLLY MILLER PROPERTY
- Acquisition
KEY ISSUE
Status report on the potential acquisition of the Jolly Miller.
Res. #W70/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Paul Raina
THAT the status report on the potential acquisition of the Jolly Miller be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The attached report (pages D201 - 0207) was considered at a special joint meeting of the
Economic Development and Planning Committee and Parks, Recreation and Property Committee
meeting of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on September 26, 1994. After a lengthy
debate, the report was simply received. It was considered again at Management Committee on
October 4, 1994, and their recommendations are attached as page D208.
D201 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
THE MUNICIPAUT( OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Clerk's Department
Economic Development and Planning Committee and
Parks, Recreation and Property Committee,
Committee Room "A" (Room No. 242).
2nd Floor, Metro Hall,
55 John Street, Toronto.
AGENDA
Monday, September 26, 1994.
3:00 p.m.
DEPUTATIONS.
Respecting Item No. (1) -
Possible Acquisition of Jolly Miller Site
- 3885 Yonge Street, North York:
Mr. Bob Brown, President. and Ms. Pamela Spence, Leader, Jolly Miller Task Force,
York Mills Valley Association.
COMMUNICATIONS.
1. POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF JOLLY MILLER SITE
- 3885 YONGE STREET, NORTH YORK.
Commissioner of Planning, and
Commissioner of Parks and Property.
September 19. 1994-
Advising that the City of North York has suggested a Joint funding
proposal to acquire the Jolly Miller site at 3885 Yonge Street: that
Metropolitan staff are not aware of the availability of Provincial funds
at this time; that the Metro Parks and Property Department does not
consider this site to be a high priority for acquisition for regional parks
purposes and has budgeted no funds for this specific project; that, in
the event that the Metropolitan Council supports the acquisition of the
site, a suggested funding mechanism should be identified to
appropriately integrate contributions from North York, the local
ratepayers and Provincial funds, as well as proceeds from the sale of
surplus lands to which Metro has already contributed the bulk of the
municipal share, rather than drawing MTRCA funding from the Metro
Parks Acquisition Fund; and recommending that Council advise the
City of North York and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority that:
(1) in the event that a decision is made to purchase the site, a
mechanism must be identified to involve appropriate
contributions from the City of North York, ratepayer and
Provincial funds as well as proceeds from sale of surplus land
to the purchase agreement; and
(2) acquisition of the Jolly Miller site to the satisfaction of
Metropolitan Toronto for flood control and
conservation purposes would be consistent with the
provisions of the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994
D202
la. Director of Council Services.
City of North York.
August 2. 1994 -
- 2 -
Submitting an extract from the Minutes of the meeting of the North
York Council held on July 20, 1994, headed 'Acquisition of Jolly Miller
Site, 3885 Yonge Street'; advising that the North York Council is
prepared to provide up to a maximum of 5800,000.00 of the
53.3 million purchase price for the Jolly Miller site, subject to the
following conditions:
(a) the York Mills Valley Association pays $100,000.00 of the total
purchase price:
(b) the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority provide the
remainder of the purchase price of $3.3 million, within the
following funding formula:
-50 per cent. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (51,600.000.00), 25 per cent. the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto ($800,000.00)';
(c) the City of North York receive title to the tableland (including
the site of the Jolly Miller structure), and the remainder of the
site be placed in the ownership of either the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto or the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority;
(d) the City of North York agrees to enter into a restrictive
covenant agreement whereby the tableland shall remain
parkland save and except for the Jolly Miller structure if a
suitable and sustainable use can be found for it that maintains
its heritage integrity,
(e) the Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer report back on
the appropriate account from which the funds should be paid
and not be taken from regular budget funds; and
(1) City Departments be directed to do all things necessary to
carry out Council's instructions;
and drawing attention to the request from North York that the funding
partners commit to their respective funding shares prior to the expiry
of the agreement between the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority and the owner of the Jolly Miller.
D203 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
lb. Commissioner of Planning, and (DEFERRED ITEM.)
Commissioner of Parks and Property.
March 16, 1994 -
Advising that several development applications have been submitted
over the past two years for the Jolly Miller site; that North York Council
on November. 1993. adopted resolutions requesting the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conversation Authority (MTRCA) to acquire the
site, Metropolitan Toronto (Metro) to endorse the request. and the
Province of Ontario to recognize the area as being significant and to
provide appropriate funding; that Provincial funding is not available for
acquisition of the Jolly Miller site; that no mutually agreeable funding
formula for acquisition exists amongst member municipalities in the
MTRCA; stating that the site would not provide significant regional
parks benefit; that there may be opportunities to secure. through the
development application process, valley corridor conservation and
regeneration at the site; that staff should be authorized to continue
discussions to achieve conservation and regeneration objectives
through the development process rather than by acquisition; and
recommending that:
(1) the Metropolitan Council advise the Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authoritythat the acquisition of the Jolly
Miller site cannot be endorsed as a Metropolitan priority; and
(2) staff be authorized to continue to discuss with the current
property owner, City of North York staff and staff of the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
possible solutions for valley corridor conservation and
regeneration through the development application process.
tc. Mr. R. W. Brown, P.Eng, (DEFERRED ITEM.)
President. York Mills Valley Association.
March 28. 1994 -
Advising that the York Mills Valley Association represents residents in
the area south of York Mills Road. east of Yonge Street in the
community historically known as Hoggs Hollow; that the Association's
interest in the Draft Metropolitan Official Plan Is to ensure that the
long -term future, stability and safety of the community from flood
disasters is maintained and supported in policy directions by the
Metropolitan Official Plan; urging the Metropolitan Council's adoption
of the acquisition of these lands; and requesting the Economic
Development and Planning Committee to advise the Metropolitan
Council that:
(1) the draft Metropolitan Official Plan supports the acquisition of
the Jolly Miller site and discourages the use of the site for
other than compatible recreational and cultural uses and
facilities, structures necessary for flood and erosion control
and essential utilities and public works;
(2) the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
be advised that the acquisition of the Jolly Miller site should
be endorsed as a Metropolitan priority; and
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D204
- 4 -
(3) staff be authorized to discuss with the current property owner,
City of North York staff, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, and representatives from the York
Mills Valley Association possible solutions for valley corridor
conservation and regeneration.
1d. The York Mills Valley Association.
North York, Ontario.
April 5, 1994
(DEFERRED ITEM.)
Urging Metropolitan Toronto to pursue the acquisition of all the lands
at 3885 Yonge Street. the Jolly Miller site: and requesting that the
Economic Development and Planning Committee and the Parks,
Recreation and Property Committee jointly reject the
recommendations contained in the joint report (March 16, 1994) from
the Commissioner of Planning and the Commissioner of Parks and
Property and adopt the following recommendations:
(1) that the Metropolitan Council advise The Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) that the
acquisition of the Jolly Miller site is endorsed as a
Metropolitan Toronto priority;
(2) that staff be authorized to discuss with the MTRCA, the City
of North York, The York Mills Valley Association and the
current property owner, the sale and purchase of the site at
3885 Yonge Street; and
(3)
that staff be directed to explore and exhaust all avenues of
funding the acquisition and ongoing operation of the site.
D205 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
METRO PLANNING
J. A. Gartner
D. Gunn
Ceoun t.. +:ur.;wn ur
55 John Street
Stn. 1220. 22nd Fl f.. Metro Hall
Toronto. ON, M5V 3C6
c.ix 1416) 392.3821
T.reonone l4 16) 392 9101
September 19. 1994
To.
From:
Subject:
The Economic Development and Planning Committee
The Parks. Recreation and Property Committee
Commissioner of Planning
Comissioner of Parks and Property
Possible Acquisition of Jolly Miller Site
Ward: North York Centre South
Councillor: Bev Salmon
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Council advise the City of North York and the Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority that:
(1) in the event a decision is made to purchase the site, that a mechanism must be identified to
involve appropriate contributions from North York, ratepayer and Provincial funds as well as
proceeds from sale of surplus land to the purchase agreement:
(2) acquisition of the Jolly Miller site to the satisfaction of Metropolitan Toronto for flood
control and conservation purposes would be consistent with the provisions of the Metro
Official Plan.
Origin:
A joint meeting of the Economic Development and Planning Committee and Parks, Recreation
and Property Committee considered a March 16. 1994 joint report (Schedule A) from the Commissioner
of Planning and Commissioner of Parks and Property conceming the possible acquisition of the Jolly
Miller site (the Miller).
The Committee deferred consideration of the report to allow North York to make a determination
respecting the designation of the Miller as an historic site. The Committee also requested the
Commissioner of Planning to ascertain whether North York is prepared to participate in funding the
purchase of the site and to report back thereon to the further joint meeting of the Committee.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D206
- 2 -
Discussion.
The North York Heritage Committee and the North York Development and Economic Growtn
Committee have recommended that the Miller site be designated under the Heritage Act. North York
Council has not yet undertaken the necessary steps to finalise the process.
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Authority) entered into an option
agreement with the Miller's owners for 3.3 million dollars. The option lapses in mid- October.
accordingly, decisions relative to possible acquisition should be made expeditiously.
North York Council on July 20, 1994 agreed to contribute 5800.000 of the 53.3 million purchase
price for the Miller. subject to a number of conditions, including:
(al the York Mills Valley Association pays 5100.000.00 of the total purchase price:
(b) the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority provide the remainder of the purchase price within the funding formula of 25 per cent.
Metro (800.000) and 50 per cent. Authority (1,600,000):
(c) the City of North York receive title to the tableland (including the site of the Jolly Miller building),
and the remainder of the site be placed in the ownership of either the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto or the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority:
(d) the City of North York agrees to enter into a restrictive covenant agreement whereby the
tableland shall remain parkland save and except for the Jolly Miller structure if a suitable and
sustainable use can be found for it that maintains its heritage integrity:
The City also requested that commitments to sharing funding be made by other partners before
the expiry of the Authority's option on the Miller. North York's offer is to be valid for twelve months.
The Water Resources and Land Management Board of the Authority recently considered a
communication from staff which reaffirmed a preference for purchase of the Miller using the following
rationale:
"Acquisition of the site continues to be the preferred solution for this site. The property
is part of a major valley feature and most of the site is flood plain. It does not appear that
there is a "development solution' which would not sacrifice flood plain planning principles
and therefore if the acquisition proposal fails, the stage is set for a lengthy and expensive
debate about potential development. It provides a window', from a major arterial road.
into the valley system. and therefore an important vantage and access point. The Jolly
Miller is a significant heritage feature. which the City of North York is expressing a desire
to protect and enhance, and acquisition of the site for primarily open space purposes
allows an opportunity to seek investment in the restoration of the structure. The site
provides an opportunity to implement many of the objectives of the Don Watershed
Strategy by regenerating the site in a way which is sensitive and respectful of the heritage
cf the Jolly Miller and surrounding lands." -
The communication advised that Metro Toronto would be a significant partner in the potential
acquisition and that the Authority needs to be advised about Metro's willingness to participate before
any further action could be taken. It was noted that should Metro Council support the acquisition
fiscally. the Authority would need to formally adopt a project to acquire the site. If Provincial funds
were not available. land sale would be required to raise the Authority share.
D207 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
- 3 -
If the Miller were to come into public ownership. the park function would likely be local in nature.
reducing the importance of its acquisition relative to other regional parkland priorities.
Given the short time frame and the complex fiscal and policy issues involved, a special meeting
of the Technical Advisory Committee on Parks and Conservation was convened.
A number of options for development of the site have been discussed with no clear solution
evident. An earlier report on the subject addressed the situation of development on this site relative
to the achievement of valley land objectives. Authority officials remain concerned that a precedent
would be set relative to building over the flood plain. Various development options. including restricting
development to non flood vulnerable areas. were determined to likely result in Ontario Municipal Board
hearings where current development permissions could be a factor in any Board Decision.
North York has suggested a joint funding proposal to acquire the site. Staff are not aware of
the availability of Provincial funds at this time. Metro Parks & Property do not consider this site to be
a high priority for acquisition for regional parks purposes and have budgetted no funds for this specific
project.
North York's resolution proposes that the City receive title to the tableland for park purposes.
save and except for the Miller structure. if suitable and sustainable usage could be found that preserves
the integrity of the heritage resource. The title to property then would be split, which is not usual
practice. Under these circumstances a situation could occur such that a profitable use for the Miller
could be found with North York recouping its investment but no provision being made for Metro or
Authority participation. Authority participation could be on the basis of sale of land to which Metro has
already contributed the bulk of the municipal share. Hence. Metro would contribute twice. once
directly and once indirectly. These aspects of the North York proposition would require rethinking in
the event Metro decides to participate formally in the acquisition.
Conclusion:
Under the circumstances, in the event Metro Council supports the acquisition of the site, a
suggested funding mechanism should be identified to appropriately integrate contributions from North
York, the local Ratepayers and Provincial funds, as well as proceeds from the sale of surplus lands to
which Metro has already contributed the bulk of the municipal share. rather than drawing M.T.R.C.A.
funding from the Metro Parks Acquisition Fund.
J.A. Gartner
Commissioner of Planning
=RH cf
f
V. Portelli
`Commissioner of Parks and Property
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5194, OCTOBER 7, 1994 D208
r w.UV4'mono
Municipally of Metropolitan Tororno
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 2e
For Consideration by
The Council of The Mt.*Ipapty of Metropolitan Toronto
on October 12, 1a.4.
cu
8
OTHER ITEMS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE.
(s) The Management Committee reports filming referred the following communications to the
Chit Administrative Officer with the request that he:
(I) evaluate the budget lmpacaliors of the uvqulapbn of the Joey Miller Site on the
Capital Works Program;
(II) meet with staff of the Works, TranepcAstfon, Perks and Property and the Planning
Departments and the Toronto Transit Comnmlesion to identity Metropolitan Toronto's
k'terest In the acquisition of this site and short and Tong -tent uses;
(90 analyze Provincial funding or revenue flows that could result from Mtertrn u.. of the
Jolly Meer parking lot for commuter purposes; and
negotiate an acceptable funding formula with al appropriate funding partners:
(w)
and to report back thereon to the appropriate Standing Committee for 4* first me.Urq bt
January, 1996, such report to also Include ways and mans this see will be used for
greertspece In the medium and tong - tenure:
(September 27.1994) from the Metropd4an perk advising that the Economic Development and
Planning Committee and the Parks, Recreation and Property Committee on September 26, 1994,
Io4W recommended receipt of the loin report dated September 19, 1994, from the
Commtalloner of Planning and the Correniss! ner of Parks end Property respecting the possible
acquisition of the Jolly Meer eke at 38aS Yonge Street, in the City of North York wherein they
recommended that Metropolitan Council advise the City of North York and the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that:
(1) Wile event that a decision is Trade to purchase the site, a mechanism must be ki ntiled
to krvotve appropriate oontdbunions from the C1ty of North York ratepayer and Provincial
funds as well as proceeds from the sale of surplus land to the purchase agreement; and
(2) acquisition of the Jolly Miler eke to the satisfaction of Metropolitan Toronto for flood
control and oonsn,vatlon purposes would be consistent with the provisions of the
Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan
(September 29, 1994) from the (chef General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission lorwrardnlg.
pursuant to the dkeehon d the Toronto Transit Commission at its meeting on September 27,
1994, 41. report dated September 29. 1994, with respect to the subject alter end recommending
that the Management Committee receive the report noting that there is currently a demand for
commuter parkhg et the York Mils subway station site that would support the cost of operating
• commuter parldng lot et the Jolly Miler see.
(September 30, 1994) from Mr. Steven icrkovnt, Solicitor, Borden & EJliot, advising that the
respective dieres having agreed to extend the Option period to February 28, 1995. as a fbred
data, that they have prepared an Addendum, and forwarded k to the Metropolitan Toronto
Region and Conservation Authority for execution: and requesting any Comments on the
document.
The following persons appeared before the Management Committee In
connection with the foregoing matter:
Councilor Joanne Finn. North York, Ward a:
Ms. Pamela Spence, representing the York Malls Valley Association; and
Councilor Bev Salmon. North York - Centre South
Councilor Peter Oyler, at the meeting of the Management Committee on
October 4 and 5,1994, declared his interest in the foregoing matter In that his
!army owlet property wRhln_250 metres ol the Jolly Meer tile.
** TOTAL PAGE. 002 **
D209 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/94 - OCTOBER 7, 1994
NEW BUSINESS
PROCESS FOR HEARING DELEGATIONS
Res. #W71/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joyce Trimmer
Bev Salmon
THAT the procedure for the hearing of delegations be referred to staff for review and report back.
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 11:30 a.m., October 7, 1994.
Lois Griffin Brian Denney
CARRIED
Chair Acting Secretary- Treasurer
bb.
c.
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
er the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes
D210
NOVEMBER 18, 1994 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board and the Conservation and Related Land
Management Advisory Board met jointly in the theatre of the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer
Village on Friday, November 18, 1994. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at
10:00 a.m.
PRESENT FOR COMBINED MEETING Chair Lois Griffin
Members Lorna Bissell
Ila Bossons
Victoria Carley
Lois Hancey
Lorna Jackson
Joan King
Paul Palleschi
Donna Patterson
Paul Raina
Deborah Sword
Joyce Trimmer
Kip Van Kempen
Richard Whitehead
ABSENT FOR COMBINED MEETING Members Maria Augimeri
Margaret Britnell
Joanna Kidd
Marie Muir
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Maja Prentice
Bev Salmon
Frank Scarpitti
DELEGATIONS
RE: BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD
Leslie Scott of McCormick Rankin, Consulting Engineers for the Region of York, gave a presentation
on the proposed Zink of Bayview Avenue between Stouffville Road and Besthesda Road. Ms. Scott
gave an overview of the Region of York's long range plan for the area, and the difficulties in
balancing all the components that come into play in this area.
D211 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD
Alyson Deans gave a staff presentation on this item.
KEY ISSUE
Review of the Environmental Study Report from the Region of York for the proposal to link Bayview
Avenue between Stouffville Road and Bethesda Road and to upgrade existing Bayview Avenue
north from Bethesda Road to Bloomington Road.
Res. #W72/94
Res. #C25/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lois Hancey
Kip Van Kempen
THE BOARDS RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report concerning the review of
the Environmental Study Report for Bayview Avenue, Stouffville Road to Bloomington Road,
prepared for the Region of York be received;
AND WHEREAS the proposed project was carried out under the Class Environmental Assessment
for Municipal Roads and whereas this project:
• has significant negative environmental impacts,
• will have significant impacts on the conservation education program at the Lake St. George
Conservation Field Centre,
• will have negative impacts on the Oak Ridges Moraine, an area of Authority and provincial
interest,
• will have significant negative impacts on an archaeological resource,
• should, therefore, consider "alternatives to" the project;
THAT, therefore, it is the opinion of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
that this project should be subject to the requirements of an individual environmental assessment;
AND FURTHER THAT the Minister of Environment and Energy be requested to "bump -up" the
proposed Bayview Avenue, Stouffville Road to Bloomington Road, project to an individual
Environmental Assessment.
AMENDMENT
Res. #W73/94
Res. #C26/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Victoria Carley
THAT the Authority confirm its request to the Region of York to consider abandoning the project to
upgrade Bayview Avenue from Stouffville Road to Bloomington Road.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D212
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD (CONTD.)
BACKGROUND
The road allowance for Bayview Avenue was established when the original survey for this part of
Ontario was carried out using the, then standard, grid system. This system was intended to ensure
a uniform road network, however, it did not recognize the physical or environmental characteristics
of the land on which it was imposed. While much of the Bayview Avenue has been built over time,
the section between Stouffville Road and Bethesda remains unopened. The Region of York
proposes to open this section of Bayview Avenue and to upgrade the section immediately north,
from Bethesda Road to Bloomington Road. The rationale for the project is:
"the need for additional capacity and network flexibility to meet existing and future travel
demands within the north -south corridor of development in York Region and thereby
support the overall goals of the Regional Official Plan."
At Authority Meeting #5/93, held June 25, 1993, the Authority considered a recommendation from
the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board, in connection with the Bayview
Avenue proposal and adopted the following:
Res. #A 108/93
"THAT the staff report regarding the proposal by The Region of York to upgrade Bayview
Avenue from Stouffville Road to Bloomington Road be received;
THAT the Region of York be advised of the requirement for restricting access to and
providing adequate natural buffering of the Lake St. George property and that relocation,
replacement and, where necessary, additions to existing plant materials should commence
prior to and be protected from construction;
THAT the Region of York be advised of the Authority's concerns for the loss of /or impact
on significant archaeological resources, the natural features and functions associated with
the Forester Marsh Environmentally Significant Area, the Snively Street Wetland, Lake
Wilcox and Lake St. George, as well as the valley and stream corridors which require
permits from the Authority under its regulation;
THAT this report and recommendations be forwarded to the Region of York as an
identification of the Authority's major concerns with respect to the Bayview Avenue
project;
AND FURTHER THAT due to its concerns, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority will object to this project unless it is subject to a full Environmental
Assessment."
AMENDMENT Res. #A 109/93
"THAT the Authority respectfully request the Region of York to consider abandoning the
project to upgrade Bayview Avenue from Stouffville Road to Bloomington Road."
D213 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD (CONTD.)
RELEVANT AUTHORITY POLICY AND PROGRAMS
The MTRCA was incorporated in 1957. Its area of jurisdiction is based on the watershed
boundaries of nine major river systems within the Regions of Peel, York and Durham and
Metropolitan Toronto. These river systems, from west to east, are: The Etobicoke Creek, the
Mimico Creek, the Humber River, the Don River, the Highland Creek, the Rouge River, the Petticoat
Creek, the Duffins Creek and the Carruthers Creek.
The general mandate of the Authority is described within Section 20, Chapter 27, R.S.O. 1990, of
the Conservation Authorities Act:
"The objects of an Authority are 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 other than gas, oil, coal and
minerals."
For the purposes of accomplishing its objects, an Authority has various powers pursuant to Section
21, Chapter 27, R.S.O. 1990 of the Conservation Authorities Act including:
"(a) to study and investigate the watershed and to determine a program whereby the
natural resources of the watershed may be conserved, restored, developed and
managed;"
The Authority has adopted several programs since its incorporation in 1957 outlining its approach
to the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources within its
jurisdiction. These programs have evolved and have been amended as the demands on the natural
resources increased; as land use within the watersheds changed; and as the Authority's knowledge
and experience increased. The natural resources of specific concern to the Authority have been
the river valleys, the Lake Ontario Waterfront, the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara
Escarpment.
The 1980 Watershed Plan addressed the Authority's interests in the Oak Ridges Moraine as part of
the Tributary Drainage Area and stated, in part:
• changes in natural drainage of tributary streams and intermittent watercourses
should be minimized. The elimination of such watercourses and of wetland areas
through piping, channelization, filling or draining should be discouraged;
• development should be set back from wetlands, lakes and streams in order to
ensure protection of water bodies from water quality damage;
• disturbance to natural vegetation should be minimized, particularly adjacent to
streams with cold water fishing potential;
• removal of existing tree cover or other stabilizing vegetation should be minimized on
all lands with potential for wind or water erosion. Re- vegetation will be encouraged
where existing erosion occurs.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D214
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD (CONTD.)
The 1982 Environmentally Significant Areas Study was initiated in 1978 and approved in 1982. It
responded to the need to identify and conserve significant natural resources within an increasingly,
urbanizing region. The study focused on the major river valleys, source areas and the Lake Ontario
Waterfront. The study identified and designated 126 sites as Environmentally Significant Areas
(ESA).
In approving the 1982 ESA Study, the Authority:
- recognized the concept of ESAs as being a component of its mandate;
recommended that the 1980 Watershed Plan be amended to incorporate ESAs
identified to date and the concept of ESA management;
- recommended the utilization of the ESA information within its municipal plan review
process and master drainage planning activities;
recommended that the 1982 information be maintained and refined;
provided direction to municipalities and other public agencies to achieve the
conservation of these resources;
adopted as a management strategy guide, that all ESAs be protected to the extent
possible and where site specific conditions and potential uses warrant, they be
preserved;
that proposed uses be evaluated against the unique features and functions of the
individual ESA.
It was recognized that the 1982 ESA Study was not a comprehensive review and that the Study
findings would require continual updating as funding permitted and additional information became
available.
From 1982 to current, the Authority has actively pursued the protection of ESAs:
In 1983, the Authority directed that each municipality be advised that the Authority
wished to cooperate with them in the protection of these valuable features and
offered assistance with the preparation of guidelines for compatible uses in or
adjacent to ESAs.
In 1987, the Authority directed that staff survey the municipalities to determine
what actions had been taken with respect to the ESA study;
In 1988, the Authority directed that local and regional municipalities be requested to
recognize ESAs within appropriate environmental designations, such as
Environmental Protection Zones, within any future planning documents;
D215 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD (CONTD.)
In January 1991, the Authority directed staff to cost out a study on ESAs and the
development of ESA policies;
In February 1991, the Executive Committee directed staff to prepare a report on the
existing procedures and guidelines related to the protection and management of
ESAs and received a report on the costing of a study to update the 1982 ESA
Study and develop management policies;
In May 1991, the Authority directed staff to continue to review ESAs as set out in
the "Existing Procedures and Guidelines for the Management of Environmentally
Significant Areas" report; to request all municipalities to designate ESAs as
Environmental Protection Zones within their Official Plans; to seek funding for the
ESA Study update; and to investigate the Authority's ability to initiate Official Plan
Amendments to designate ESAs.
In September 1991, the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
directed staff to prepare a status report on ESAs.
In November 1991, the Authority directed staff to review the 1982 ESA criteria, to
seek funding to begin applying the new criteria in 1992, to look at a process for the
ongoing monitoring of ESAs, to forward the status report to each municipality with
the suggestion that it be made available to all politicians, that the review identify
each ESA by municipality, and that municipalities and local citizen groups be
engaged in the monitoring of ESAs.
In October 1993, the Authority endorsed updated "Criteria for the Designation of
Environmentally Significant Areas within the MTRCA Jurisdiction "; directed staff to
use these criteria in a three year ESA Project; and that these criteria be provided to
provincial ministries, member municipalities, non - government organizations, all other
Conservation Authorities and the public for information;
In November 1994, the Authority approved a "Process for Authority Adoption of
New, Updated Environmentally Significant Areas" and "Guidelines for Identifying
and Updating Environmentally Significant Areas ".
In 1986, the Watershed Plan was updated resulting in revisions to the goals and objectives of the
1980 Watershed Plan. Specific statements regarding ESAs as recommended by the 1982 ESA
Study Report, were included. The remaining structure of the 1980 Watershed Plan remained as
background information to the 1986 Watershed Plan Update.
At Authority Meeting 3/86, Resolution #54 was passed:
"THAT a program to establish an archaeological heritage inventory on Authority lands,
comprising the following three components, be adopted;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D216
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD (CONTD.)
(11 The Archaeological Heritage Inventory would establish a format for gathering and
recording site data, compiling and confirming all data concerning known sites, and
developing a predictive model of site locations;
(21 The Archaeological Field Survey would verify known sites and define archaeological
sites previously unknown on Authority Lands. Lands to be surveyed have been
priorized;
(31 The Interpretation component would analyze the material and information collected
through the survey phase, and develop a comprehensive report. This report wou /d
describe the data in a format beneficial to both the Authority and the archaeo logical
community.
"AND FURTHER THAT the Minister of Citizenship and Culture be requested to provide a
Community Facilities Improvement Grant of $ 160,300 to implement this program."
The Archaeological Master Plan was completed in 1990 and in this connection, the Authority
adopted the following:
Res. #150
THAT the staff report, An Archaeological Master Plan For The Metropolitan Toronto And
Region Conservation Authority, Appendix CR. 1 16, be received;
THAT staff be directed to use data and information contained in this report in planning
Authority projects and when commenting on external projects impacting on Authority land;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to investigate alternatives for implementing the
required Archaeological Program and report on the costs and sources of funding.
AMENDMENT Res. #151
THAT the staff report on costs and sources of funding, also recommend policy guidelines
that will establish the priority for protecting sites.
In 1989, the Authority adopted its Greenspace Strategy. This strategy recognized the Authority's
successes with its watershed management programs; however, because of the tremendous
increase in urban development, the strategy advocated the need for stronger actions in greenspace
protection and conservation. The Greenspace Strategy is not in itself, a revised program and policy
document. It was anticipated that detailed programs and projects would be prepared by the
Authority and other public agencies that would operationalize its important strategic directions.
In its 1989 Greenspace Strategy, the Authority called for protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine as
both a significant Iandform and the source area of the majority of streams within Authority
jurisdiction. The Authority has worked with the province, its member and local municipalities and
the community since 1989 on a number of initiatives intended to manage growth within the
Greater Toronto Area and to protect and enhance its environmental resources.
D217 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD (CONTD.)
In June 1991, the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources announced a planning study to develop
a long term land use strategy for the Oak Ridges Moraine within the Greater Toronto Area. Two
committees were to be created to do this work. A Technical Working Committee (TWC) was
established in August, 1991. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority have each had a representative on the TWC.
The 1994 draft Strategy for the Oak Ridges Moraine proposes the long term protection and
management of the ecological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) through the protection
and management of three systems:
• the Natural Heritage System,
• the Water Resource System, and
• the Landform Conservation System.
The Strategy proposes that any proposed land use not negatively impact on any of these three
interrelated systems.
IMPACTS ON AUTHORITY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
To discuss the impacts of the Bayview Avenue proposal on Authority policies and programs, the
project has been divided into two sections: the relocation and upgrading of the road from Bethesda
Road to Bloomington Road and the relocation and opening of the road from Stouffville Road to
Bethesda Road. Although the road will initially be built as two lanes, it will be graded for the
ultimate, proposed four lanes. The configuration and grading proposed is to accommodate a 90
km /h design speed, posted for up to 80 km /h, which is the Region's standard criteria for major
arterial roads.
A. Bethesda Road to Bloomington Road
Within this section, the project proposes a relocation of Bayview Avenue, to the east, and that
existing Bayview, from North Lake Road to Snively Street, become a service road to buffer existing
residences from the impacts of the anticipated increased traffic.
This section of the Region's Preferred Alternative will impact a significant archaeological resource,
the natural features and functions associated with the Forester Marsh Environmentally Significant
Area, the Snively Street Wetland, Lake Wilcox and the operation of the Authority's Conservation
Field Centre within the Lake St. George Forest and Wildlife Area.
The rationale for relocating the road to the east, around Lake Wilcox, arose in the 1983 review and
was proposed to assist in the rehabilitation of Lake Wilcox by removing the existing Bayview
Avenue, south of North Lake Road and creating a-buffer area for replanting and to decrease the
potential for pollutants from the road entering the lake. In order to achieve improvements to water
quality in Lake Wilcox, the Authority agreed to consider a Toss of land in the south west corner of
the Lake St. George property.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D218
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD (CONTD.)
The introduction of the service road, in the early 1990s, and its additional land requirements and
environmental impacts was not supported by the Authority and is so noted in the ESR. The service
road scheme shifts the centre line of existing Bayview Avenue to the east approximately 28 metres
so that Bayview Avenue will be centred within a new 36 metre right -of -way increasing its impacts
on the natural environment and requiring additional Authority lands from the Lake St. George
property.
The Region's Preferred Alternative will result in the Toss of 5 ha of the Authority's Lake St. George
property as a result of adding the service road and the severance of an additional .5 ha in the south
west corner to provide a buffer to Lake Wilcox.
The Lake St. George Conservation Field Centre provides residential programs in conservation and
outdoor education, under agreement, with the Board of Education for the Region of York, the
Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the Metropolitan Separate School Board. The location of
the Centre and its natural setting, including the kettle lakes, contribute significantly to the
experience and the education of the participants. The impact of increasing traffic capacity,
lighting, the addition of a service road and the linking of Bayview will be significant, including noise
and air pollution, loss of natural buffering vegetation, and limiting access from Lake St. George to
Lake Wilcox.
The ESR states that the Authority developed its residential education facility and programs at Lake
St. George "with the knowledge of York Region's future proposals for Bayview Avenue ". It should
be clear that the Lake St. George Master Plan was completed in 1978, following the development
of an agreement with the participating school boards. The Centre was opened in October 1980.
While the Authority was aware that "improvements" to Bayview Avenue might occur at some
future time, plans to relocate the road as part of the upgrading were not discussed with the
Authority until 1983. The potential for further impacts associated with the provision of the service
road were not discussed until the early 1990s.
The Region has assessed the impacts its Preferred Alternative will have on noise levels on adjacent
residential properties based on human tolerance levels. Noise at levels far below that of human
tolerance can be traumatic to wildlife, to the point of preventing nesting and breeding, as well as
normal hunting, eating, and drinking. Wildlife have been encouraged within the Forest and Wildlife
Area and many of the educational programs rely on the quietness of the natural areas to detect
wildlife, hoot for owls, listen for spring peepers at the frog pond, or simply enjoy the peace and
quiet during a sensory walk in the woods.
The Region's Preferred Alternative will also have impacts on after dark programs at Lake St.
George. The programs that could be affected by increased road lighting and noise include
astronomy, owl prowls, bat hikes, spring peep hikes, and sensory night hikes where darkness and
quiet surroundings are essential components.
Two wetlands are adjacent to the proposed project in its northern section. The Snively Street
Wetland (Class 3), identified as a Natural Core Area by studies for the Oak Ridges Moraine
Technical Working Committee (ORMTWC), lies to the west of the existing roadway. This site was
not inventoried by the Authority in its 1982 study.
D219 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD (CONTD.)
The Forester Marsh Environmentally Significant Area was designated by the Authority, in 1982,
and has also been classified as a Class 7 Wetland. The construction of the existing section of
Bayview Avenue cut through the Marsh, separating it into two sections, east and west of Bayview.
It will be further impacted by the proposed project, particularly by the relocation of Bayview to the
east to create the Service Road. As a result of the project it is estimated that a total of 1.23 ha of
the existing 10.12 ha ESA will be removed.
Given the limited number of wetlands areas that remain within the greater Toronto region and their
significance within the water resource management and natural heritage systems, the Authority has
discouraged further loss of wetland resources. The Authority has acquired lands to protect these
resources and it has developed and implemented conservation education programs to provide
opportunities to learn about the significance and importance of natural heritage resources, including
wetlands. The loss of wetland areas from Authority property, is contrary to Authority objectives.
The ESR recognizes the importance of treating stormwater runoff into Lake Wilcox and associated
wetlands and states that a Stormwater Management Report will be prepared at the detailed design
stage to address water quality and quantity controls. This report will need to address not only
Lake Wilcox but also Lake St. George, adjacent wetland areas, and those areas with high
infiltration characteristics along the alignment. The Authority has carried out programs which have
substantially improved the water quality of Lake St. George over the last ten years. The
Bloomington Downs Golf Centre is located immediately north of the Lake St. George Field Centre.
The preferred alternative will result in the loss of part holes #13, 14, 15 and 17 of the golf course.
Any changes to the design of the golf course, such as alternation of drainage, contouring, enlarging
or moving of ponds, will impact Lake St. George. It is our opinion that stormwater management
requirements should be comprehensively assessed and evaluated as part of the consideration of
alternatives to and alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking.
A significant archaeological site has been identified on that portion of the property that will be
under the recommended alignment. Field investigations have confirmed this resource. Full salvage
excavation of the site has been identified prior to construction. While this is a requirement,
archaeological preference is to leave the resource in situ.
The Esox Site (A 1 Gu -99)
• located in southwest section of the Lake St. George Conservation Area
• registered in 1988 by MTRCA as part of an inventory of archaeological sites being
carried out by MTRCA
• artifacts found in the area are attributable to the Middle Woodland period and
Palaeo- Indian materials. The latter represents the earliest occupation in Ontario and
makes this site particularly important.
The archaeological assessment was carried out prior to the identification of the service road
scheme. The service road scheme results in a greater impact on Authority property in the vicinity
of the Forester Marsh and may affect other archaeological resources.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D220
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD (CONTD.)
Lake St. George and Lake Wilcox are connected by a stream corridor. This provides a Zink between
these areas and was, previously, altered by the construction of existing Bayview Avenue. In order
to accommodate the service road scheme, it is proposed to, again, relocate the watercourse and to
enclose it for 45 metres under the proposed roadway.
This watercourse has been identified in the draft Oak Ridges Moraine Strategy as a Natural Corridor
Area. The objective of this strategy is to maintain these features in a self sustaining vegetation
cover where natural forms, functions, and features predominate. We do not think a "compensation
package" will address the cumulative impacts of the relocation and piping of this watercourse.
The further enclosure of this watercourse is contrary to Authority objectives for stream corridors
and for areas identified as part of the Natural Heritage System on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The Authority is currently undertaking a Fill Line Extension Program. The objective of this program
is to identify the remaining valley and stream corridors, and wetland features located within our
jurisdiction. The criteria used in identifying these areas, are in keeping with the Provincial Wetlands
Policy Statement, the provincial initiatives on the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Authority's Valley
and Stream Corridor Management Program.
The preferred alternative will require permits under Ontario Regulation 158. The criteria for
evaluating applications made under Ontario Regulation 158, are whether the proposal affects the
control of flooding, conservation of land, and pollution.
It is our opinion that within this section the proposed project will have significant environmental
impacts and that these impacts will result in losses that cannot be mitigated. There will be
significant impacts on the natural environment, on archaeological resources and on the Authority's
operation of the Lake St. George Conservation Field Centre and Forest and Wildlife Area.
B. Stouffville Road to Bethesda Road
The new section of Bayview, between Stouffville Road and Bethesda Road, will cross the
headwaters of the Rouge River system and cut through a section of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The new section of Bayview will affect lands designated within the Natural Heritage System of the
Oak Ridges Moraine. The policies proposed in the Oak Ridges Moraine Strategy would prohibit
extensions to linear facilities, such as roads, and includes the construction of a road within an
unopened road allowance unless:
"if it can be demonstrated that:
• the expansion or upgrade is essential to the public well being,
• no reasonable alternative exists, and
• planning, siting, design and construction practices will be employed that
keep negative impact to an absolute minimum."
D221 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BAYVIEW AVENUE, STOUFFVILLE ROAD TO BLOOMINGTON ROAD (CONTD.)
The proposal for the new section of Bayview traverses a section of the Moraine with typical
undulating topography and in the southern portion will involve extensive cut and fill to meet the
"design standards" of the Region for an ultimate four lane road with a 90 km /h design speed.
Construction within this section will also result in the removal of a great deal of forest cover and
will impact a headwater stream for the Rouge River. It is identified, in the ESR, that the impacts
within this section of the study area will result in the Toss of forest cover and the fragmentation of
habitat linkages.
Forest cover and habitat linkages are important to the maintenance of the Natural Heritage System.
It is the opinion of staff that the impacts associated with the Toss of forest and habitat linkages will
be significant and are contrary to the Authority's policy and program objectives for the Oak Ridges
Moraine.
CONCLUSION
This project has been prepared under the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads.
"Class Environmental Assessments are a method of dealing with projects which display the
following important characteristics in common:
• recurring
• usually similar in nature
• usually limited in scale
• have a predictable range of environmental effects
• responsive to mitigating measures.
Projects which do not display these characteristics would not be able to use the planning
process set out in this Class EA and must undergo an individual environmental
assessment." (Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects, June 1993).
Having reviewed the completed Environmental Study Report, it is the opinion of staff that this
project:
• has significant negative environmental impacts;
• will have significant impacts on the conservation education program at the Lake St. George
Conservation Field Centre;
• will have negative impacts on the Oak Ridges Moraine, an area of Authority and provincial
interest;
• will have significant negative impacts on an archaeological resource; and
• should, therefore, consider "alternatives to" the project.
In considering "alternatives to" the project, the ESR largely addressed achieving the transportation
objectives of "network flexibility" and completing the "missing Zink" in the grid pattern. An
individual Environmental Assessment would require the environmental impacts of alternatives to the
Bayview Avenue alignment to be identified and would ensure that all considerations were weighed
for all alternatives.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D222
The Boards adjourned at 11:00 a.m. for a short recess. The Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board then reconvened in the theatre to address the remaining agenda items.
PRESENT
Chair Lois Griffin
Members Lorna Bissell
Ila Bossons
Victoria Carley
Lois Hancey
Joan King
Paul Raina
Joyce Trimmer
Kip Van Kempen
ABSENT Members Joanna Kidd
Maja Prentice
Bev Salmon
Frank Scarpitti
MINUTES
Res. #W74/94
• Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/94 be approved.
CORRESPONDENCE
Re: Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs)
Ila Bossons
Victoria Carley
CARRIED
(a) Letter from Bruno Artenosi, Develco Management Services Inc., dated November 9, 1994,
re: Baker's Farm Limited, 1145 Langstaff Road, Maple.
(b) Letter from Tina Schickedanz, Schickedanz Bros. Limited, dated November 16, 1994, re:
Proposed ESA Designation.
(c) Letter from Davis, Webb & Schulze, Barristers and Solicitors, dated November 17, 1994,
re: Schickedanz Bros. Limited.
D223 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
DELEGATIONS
The following delegates spoke to the Board regarding Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs).
(a) Bruno Artenosi of Develco Management Services Inc. requested a six month deferral of the
update on the status of ESAs. He represents the Baker Family who have interest in ESA
128.
(b) Tina Schickedanz of Schickedanz Bros. Limited requested a deferral of this item and also
that landowners be given understanding, notification and consideration on the designation
of ESAs. Her concern is with ESA 127.
(c) Ian Graham of Kentridge Johnson represented a landowner in the City of Vaughan with
interest in ESA 73.
(d) John Maletich represented landowners unable to attend the meeting with interest in
ESA 71.
(e) Lucia Milani, owner of land in the City of Vaughan with interest in ESA 73, requested a
deferral of this item.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAs)
- Annual Update on the Status of the Authority's Inventory
KEY ISSUE
The adoption of changes to the Authority's inventory as a result of recent field investigations/
evaluations.
MOTION TO DEFER
Res. #W75/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lorna Bissell
Kip Van Kempen
THAT the annual update on the status of the Authority's inventory on Environmentally Significant
Areas be deferred to Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/95 to be
held March 3, 1995.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D224
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ONTARIO PLANNING REFORM
KEY ISSUE
Planning reform initiatives and conservation authorities' interests and involvement to date.
Res. #W76/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on Provincial Planning Reform
initiatives be received for information;
THAT the Premier of Ontario and the Ministers of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs be
requested to have Watershed and Subwatershed Planning recognized within the Implementation
Guidelines being prepared to support the Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy Statements, under
Bill 163, as mechanisms for achieving an ecosystem approach to planning at the local level;
AND FURTHER THAT this report be forwarded to all conservation authorities and the Association of
Conservation Authorities of Ontario (ACAO) for information and action.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Provincial Planning Reform initiatives focus on empowering municipalities, protecting the •
environment and streamlining the planning process. This includes legislative changes, a new
Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy Statements and administrative changes.
On March 25, 1994, Resolution #A41/94, the Authority provided comments on the draft,
Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy Statements. Since this time, Bill 163 was released, as was
a "final" set of comprehensive Provincial Policy Statements, and draft Implementation and
Technical Guidelines which support these policies have, in part, been prepared. Authority staff and
the ACAO have been actively involved - or seeking involvement - in these Planning Reform
initiatives.
In August, 1994, Craig Mather, CAO of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (MTRCA) was elected to sit on the Planning Reform Technical Committee as the ACAO
representative. This is one of several committees struck by the province to assist in Planning
Reform Implementation. An ACAO working committee was established, consisting of staff from
various conservation authorities to assist in this endeavour. Renew Jarrett and Nick Saccone of
MTRCA are representatives.
To date, the committee has reviewed and provided comments on five Implementation Guidelines
prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and is currently responding to several others.
The Committee has also initiated discussions on how to assist in Planning Reform Implementation
through information and education.
D225 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ONTARIO PLANNING REFORM (CONTD.)
RATIONALE
For the most part, the work accomplished to date by the province has been supportive of
conservation authorities' programs and policies. There is, however, a disturbing trend towards
absenting the need for and the benefits of Watershed and Subwatershed Planning.
The'Commission on Land Use Planning and Development Reform in Ontario (chaired by Mr. John
Sewell) set out in its final recommendations, dated June 1993, the following:
"50. To incorporate watershed considerations into the planning process, the Planning Act
be amended to require that:
(a) In preparing plans with regard to development and change affecting water,
municipalities prepare and adopt policies based on watershed
considerations; and
(b) Watershed or sub - watershed studies be undertaken in cases where there are
changes in or concerns about levels of water quality or quantity and /or
where there are pressures for development and change.
(c) With the advice of conservation authorities, the upper tier identify which
studies need to be undertaken first. Where there is no upper -tier or it is not
planning, these decisions will be made by the affected lower tiers.
(d) Conservation authorities carry out such studies and provide inventory,
analysis, and recommendations to municipalities. Where no conservation
authority is in place, watershed studies will be undertaken by municipalities,
with the help of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
(e) Watershed studies focus on surface -water and groundwater quality and
quantity. They should generally address the following matters:
(i) quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater for developed
areas of the municipality and other areas likely to undergo change;
(ii) flooding and natural hazards;
(iii) shorelines, marinas, and lakefill ;•
(iv) tree cover;
(v) erosion control;
(vil drainage plans and storm water;
(vii) wetlands, recharge areas, and natural features;
(viii) remediation of water systems and natural features;
(ix) aquatic resources, including fisheries."
The first release of the Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy Statements, dated December 1993,
included not as policy, but under implementation, the following:
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D226
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ONTARIO PLANNING REFORM (CONTD.)
"Municipal plans should integrate all applicable policies, should apply appropriate land use
designations and policies, and should ...
• adopt policies and designations based on watershed considerations for matters of
development and change affecting water; and ... "
The May 1994 release of the Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy Statements excluded the
above -noted reference. These policies were released with other Provincial Planning Reform
initiatives, including Bill 163. The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority submitted comments to
the Standing Committee on the Administration of Justice regarding Bill 163 and noted:
"1. Planning on a Watershed Basis
We are concerned that there is no reference to watershed planning in Bill 163 or the
Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements.
The Commission on Planning and Development Reform made a number of recommendations
that would ensure that ecosystem planning would be done on a watershed basis. The
commission also made recommendations about the role of conservation authorities in
coordinating the preparation of watershed plans.
Watershed planning has been undertaken in a number of municipalities across Ontario, and
the benefits are well documented and accepted by municipalities and the public.
We believe that watershed planning is the best tool available to assist in achieving the
Natural Heritage, Environmental Protection and Hazard Policies, and should be recognized in
Bill 163."
The ACAO endorsed these comments with their Resolution #91/94.
Staff recognize that, based on the above, there is now no reference to Watershed and
Subwatershed Planning within Bill 163 and the Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy Statements;
however, it is important to ensure that these concepts do not get lost altogether. It is necessary
and appropriate to include a discussion on Watershed and Subwatershed Planning within the
Implementation Guidelines that support the policy statements.
The importance of land use planning and development decisions being made within the context of a
natural ecological unit, such as a watershed or subwatershed, has been recognized by conservation
authorities for many years. Watershed and subwatershed planning is one of several ecosystem -
based planning approaches that have proven to be successful vehicles in which Planning Reform
initiatives can be achieved; e.g., the Don Strategy. It does not compete with land use planning as
prescribed under the Planning Act, but rather, it complements this process. If Planning Reform
objectives are to achieved, ecosystem -based planning becomes even more important.
To this end, it is recommended that the province be advised as to the need to support Watershed
and Subwatershed planning practices as a mechanism to achieve Planning Reform objectives and
that these approaches to ecosystem -based planning be recognized and advocated within the
Implementation Guidelines currently being prepared to support proposed provincial policy.
D227 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN
-Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay
KEY ISSUE
To report on the specifics of the terms of reference, budget, funding and partnership arrangement
for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan, Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay.
Res. #W77/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the Integrated Shoreline
Management Plan - Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay, be received.
THAT the Terms of Reference (pages D231 - D245) be endorsed;
THAT staff be directed to take the necessary actions with the partners to initiate the planning
process in a timely manner;
AND FURTHER THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust,
the Ministry of Natural Resources, the City of Toronto and the City of Scarborough be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #5/93, held on June 25, 1993, the Authority adopted Res. #A128/93:
"THAT staff be directed to work with the regional and local waterfront
municipalities and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on the development of the
Terms of Reference, and details on costs, timing and funding alternatives for the
preparation of a Shoreline Regeneration P /an from Tommy Thompson Park (City of
Toronto) to Frenchman's Bay (Town of Pickering);
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board on the specifics of the Terms of Reference, budget, funding and
partnership arrangements."
As part of the approval of the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, the Authority at its meeting
#4/94, held on May 27, 1994, adopted Res. #A118/94:
"THAT the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, be
approved at a total estimated cost of $.3,717,000;
THAT staff be directed to proceed with the initial phase of work in 1994 under The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project
1992 - 1996, at a total budget of $375,000, subject to receipt of all necessary
approvals and funding.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D228
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.)
-Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board in consultation with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on the
comprehensive shoreline management program status across all Lake Ontario
Waterfront in our jurisdiction, and the cumulative effects and long term implications
of shoreline armouring completed to date."
The Authority staff in the intervening months has been working with the partners to secure
concurrence to terms of reference, the study budget and funding formula.
On September 7, 1994, the Council for the City of Scarborough adopted the following
recommendations:
"1. That Council approve of the Shoreline Management Plan Terms of Reference.
2. That Council approve $77,500.00 as Scarborough's contribution to the Shoreline
Management Plan Study.
3. That MTRCA be requested to investigate the feasibility of providing a lake edge
boardwalk from R. C. Harris Plant to Bluffer's Park, and the feasibility of
implementing the waterfront goals of the Centennial Secondary Plan as a first
priority of the study and provide recommendations of these matters prior to the
finalization of the Study.
4. That Council appoint its representative to the Steering Committee, such
appointment recommended to Council by the Commissioners of Works and
Environment and Planning and Buildings, and that City staff be canvassed for
qualifications and interest in the appointment."
At its meeting held September 26 and 27, 1994, Council for the City of Toronto adopted the
following recommendations:
"1. That approval be given for the City to participate in a joint study with the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, and the City of Scarborough to develop a Shoreline Management Plan for
the area from Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay, which will also address
the long term erosion problem at the Ashbridges Bay Waterfront Park and at the
Eastern Beaches in the City of Toronto, and that the City of Toronto contribute, to
the total study cost of $230,000.00, the amount of $37,500.00 (16.3 %);
2. That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is
necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills
that may be necessary; and
3. That the provision of the funds in the amount of $37,500 be by way of a grant to
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and that the grant be
deemed to be in the interests of the municipality."
D229 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.)
-Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay
The Terms of Reference represent the collective input from all the partners and the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust. The objectives for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (ISMP) are as
follows:
(1) To identify the features, functions and processes which comprise the shoreline
ecosystem.
(2) To develop an understanding of the dynamics of the shoreline ecosystem as a basis
for initiating and evaluating proposals and measuring changes.
(3) To minimize danger to life and damage to property from flooding, erosion and
associated hazards.
(4) To assess the health of the shoreline ecosystem and identify measures to monitor
system health on an ongoing basis.
(5) To identify the human and natural stressors and ways to reduce them.
(6) To establish criteria for assessing impacts of development and public use.
(7) To develop solutions to site specific issues within a broader shoreline context.
(8) To provide opportunities for wise public use and enjoyment.
(9) To identify roles and responsibilities of agencies with an interest and role in
shoreline management.
(10) To identify research and monitoring needs.
(1 1) To identify priorities for shoreline regeneration.
The ISMP - Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay will address "the long term implications of
shoreline armouring completed to date" as well as any future shoreline regeneration projects.
On the status of the comprehensive shoreline management program across the Lake Ontario
waterfront in our jurisdiction, the ISMP - Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay is the first
priority. The next priority to complete an ISMP is the shoreline sector from Marie Curtis Park
(Etobicoke) to the Toronto Islands (Toronto). An ISMP would then be completed for the remaining
shoreline in our jurisdiction - Pickering and Ajax (Carruthers Creek).
RATIONALE
All ISMP's within our jurisdiction will be consistent with the Lake Ontario Northshore Shoreline
Management Strategy (Burlington to the Trent River) being prepared by the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D230
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.)
-Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay
The ISMP will provide the necessary framework for the Authority and municipalities to pursue the
implementation of specific shoreline regeneration and public recreation opportunities.
This plan is supported by the policy directions in the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan, the City
of Scarborough Waterfront Policies, the Waterfront Policies of City Plan (City of Toronto) and the
pending Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy (Waterfront Regeneration Trust).
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Authority will be establishing a steering committee composed of the partners and key agencies
and obtaining agreement on a detailed work program and schedule including a public participation
process.
The work program will include technical staff commitments from all partners with assistance from
consultants in specific areas.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The cost to complete the ISMP is estimated at 8230,000.
Funding for this project has been agreed to on the following basis:
MTRCA (Province of Ontario 857,000
and The Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto 857,000)
City of Scarborough
City of Toronto
Total
Account No. 24 -301 has been set up for this project.
$115,000
877,500
837,500
8230,000
This work will be carried out under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 -1994
and the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 -1999 in the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto.
D231 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
TERMS OF REFERENCE
INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay Study Area
November 1, 1994
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Supported by:
Province of Ontario
Metropolitan Toronto
City of Scarborough
City of Toronto
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D232
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. STUDY AREA
3. GOALS OF THE INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN
4. OBJECTIVES
5. SCOPE OF STUDY
Page
1
2
2
3
3
6. COMPONENTS OF THE INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN 4
7. ISSUES 6
a) General
b) Site Specific
6
7
8. PROCESS 11
a) Steering Committee 11
b) Public Consultation 11
c) Timetable 11
9. PRODUCTS 12
10. FUNDING 12
a) Budget
b) Cost - Sharing Proposal
Appendices
a) Existing Information and Studies
b) Additional Studies Required
12
12
D233 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
TERMS OF REFERENCE
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay Study Area
1. INTRODUCTION
In June of 1987, the Minister of Natural Resources announced that Conservation
Authorities would be the lead implementing agencies for developing Shoreline
Management Plans for their areas of jurisdiction along the Lake Ontario shoreline.
Conservation Authorities were also designated as the agencies responsible for
implementing and administering shoreline policies of the Ministry of Natural
Resources.
The final report "Regeneration" of the Royal Commission on the Future of the
Toronto Waterfront ", indicated a general lack of a coordinated, ecosystem
approach to planning shoreline regeneration and the inability to consider cumulative
environmental effects of specific projects. The Commission recommended the
preparation of a Shoreline Regeneration Plan to protect and regenerate the
shoreline of the Greater Toronto Bioregion (GTB).
The "Regeneration" report indicated that this plan must contain the following three
elements:
a coordinating agency with the mandate, will and skill to involve all
responsible partners in planning and acting on shoreline regeneration;
positive goals and objectives for protecting and regenerating the
shoreline, as well as coordinated action to achieve these goals and
objectives; and
constraints on certain development activities in order to ensure a
healthy, resilient, productive shoreline with increased aesthetic, social
and economic value to the community."
As a result of these recommendations, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust has
begun, with the assistance of a working group, the formulation of a Shoreline
Management Strategy for the Lake Ontario Shoreline from Burlington Bay to the
Trent River. The Shoreline Management Strategy will be a component of the
overall Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy being coordinated by the Trust.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D234
To address the numerous shoreline issues along the easterly Metropolitan Toronto
and Pickering shoreline, the Trust has suggested that a Shoreline Management Plan
for Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay would contribute to fulfilling the
requirements of the recommendations in the "Regeneration" report. This initiative
is to serve as a pilot project in Integrated Shoreline Management Planning.
This plan would be an extension of the Authority's Shoreline Management Plan
mandate (June, 1987), which related primarily to flood and erosion related
hazards. The new approach considers the ecosystem and therefore includes other
broader issues such as fisheries habitat, public access, terrestrial habitat and the
cumulative impact of individual shoreline activities.
This shoreline plan will provide the necessary framework for the Authority and
municipalities to initiate and evaluate proposals for site specific shoreline erosion
works, protection of natural features, lakefilling, habitat protection and
regeneration, private development and public recreation activities.
Consulting teams are invited to develop proposals to address these terms of
reference.
2. STUDY AREA
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority intends to develop an
Integrated Shoreline Management Plan for its entire area of jurisdiction. However,
at this time the priority is to prepare a plan for that portion of the Lake Ontario
shoreline extending from Tommy Thompson Park in the City of Toronto to the east
side of Frenchman's Bay (Figure 1), or more specifically, the Ontario Hydro
Pickering Nuclear Station. This study area encompasses approximately 34.5
kilometres of Lake Ontario shoreline. The shoreline zone includes all public and
private lands, shoreline ravines and important geological features and ecological
units. The water component of the zone includes the littoral cell areas and aquatic
habitat features. The offshore limit is a minimum of the 10 m depth contour and
possibly further as determined by the study with respect to possible impacts. The
onshore limit is defined by the shoreline drainage divide or inland limit of a major
ecological feature.
3. GOALS OF THE INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN (ISMP)
The ISMP will ensure that this component of the north shore of Lake Ontario is
managed to achieve a healthy ecosystem by providing a framework for all human
actions to lead to continuous improvement.
D235 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
4. OBJECTIVES
There are a number of objectives for the ISMP.
1. To identify the features, functions and processes which comprise the
shoreline ecosystem.
2. To develop an understanding of the dynamics of the shoreline ecosystem as
a basis for initiating and evaluating proposals and measuring changes.
3. To minimize danger to life and damage to property from flooding, erosion
and associated hazards.
4. To assess the health of the shoreline ecosystem and identify measures to
monitor system health on an ongoing basis.
5. To identify the human and natural stressors and ways to reduce them.
6. To establish criteria for assessing impacts of development and public use.
7. To develop solutions to site specific issues within a broader shoreline
context.
8. To provide opportunities for wise public use and enjoyment.
9. To identify roles and responsibilities of agencies with an interest and role in
shoreline management.
10. To identify research and monitoring needs.
11. To identify priorities for shoreline regeneration.
5. SCOPE OF STUDY
It is the intent of this study to apply all of the latest thought and policy to this
critical section of shoreline and develop a comprehensive and integrated shoreline
management plan. The study must begin by compiling an accurate description of
the natural processes and environmental constraints and opportunities and then
suggest appropriate land uses based on public need and policy. This study must
build on the work already done by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Ministry of
Natural Resources, Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto, the City of
Scarborough and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to
produce a detailed plan to guide the activities of all parties.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D236
6. COMPONENTS
The Waterfront Regeneration Trust has developed 9 principles which can be used
to describe the components of an integrated shoreline management plan. It is the
intent of this study to provide the analysis necessary to complete the plan in a way
which provides the elements set out in the following table:
Waterfront
Principle
Elements of an ISMP
CLEAN
•
identification and detailed goals and strategies for water
quality, including consideration of location of water
quality modifiers, such as STP and storm sewer outfalls,
river mouths, etc.;
•
identification and detailed goals and strategies for
sediment quality, benthic invertebrates and fish;
GREEN
•
includes detailed information on natural processes and
associated "hazards ", as part of a description of the
shoreline unit in accordance with the MNR Great Lakes -
St. Lawrence River Shoreline Policy;
•
ensures appropriate land uses for the natural processes
and features of the shoreline;
•
includes goals and strategies for wildlife;
•
includes consideration of natural fluctuations such as
water level and climate;
•
includes goals and strategies for enhancement and
rehabilitation of natural features;
ACCESSIBLE
•
includes goals and strategies for access, both to the
water's edge by land and water and across the
shoreline;
D237 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
USEABLE
A useable plan:
•
an ISMP which fits within a larger lakewide vision and
north shore strategy;
•
includes a discussion of appropriate practices for
incorporation into site and project plans, including the
approval process;
•
includes data collection and data base standards
consistent with those used by other shoreline agencies;
•
includes strategies for implementation and monitoring
for evaluation purposes;
•
includes consideration of recent municipal planning
proposals and related municipal infrastructure;
A useable shoreline:
•
includes identification of recreation facilities and needs;
•
includes goals and strategies for hazard management;
•
identifies area best suited for development;
•
includes strategies for navigation;
DIVERSE
•
includes directives for detailed plans and studies for
specific sections of the shoreline, to ensure the diversity
and integrity of the shoreline;
•
includes directives which respect and celebrate cultural
history;
AFFORDABLE
•
includes commitment to full -cost accounting,
recommending shoreline protection only where it is cost
effective and includes value -added features;
•
includes consideration of the value of existing public
infrastructure;
•
includes assessment of maintenance costs versus initial
capital cost;
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D238
ATTRACTIVE
•
includes strategies to enhance and rehabilitate degraded
natural and community features, working with the
natural aesthetic quality of a healthy, functioning
ecosystem;
OPEN
•
includes goals and strategies for open and natural
spaces, including views from the land to the water and
from the water to the land;
CONNECTED
•
includes goals and strategies for natural system
linkages.
7. ISSUES
As a further guide to the consultants as to the requirements of the study, the
following section sets out certain issues to which the ISMP must present
recommended solutions.
a) General Issues
The following preliminary list of general issues are of concern along the
waterfront from Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay:
• identification of hazard lands
• existing development including any proposed modifications within
hazard lands
• erosion of bluffs and other shoreline features
• beach nourishment requirements
• dredging and disposal of contaminated dredge spoils
• lakefilling
• availability of public access, trails and recreation facilities
• impact of public access, trails and recreational facilities on coastal
processes
• aquatic habitat losses and degradation or gains
• terrestrial habitat losses and degradation or gains
D239 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
• extent of future shoreline protection works and the cumulative
impacts
• individual and cumulative effects of private development, public
recreation projects and erosion /flood control structures on coastal
processes
• water level fluctuations, wind setup and shoreline flooding
• impacts on water quality
• surface run off and groundwater impacts
• quality of terrestrial and aquatic habitat
b) Site Specific Issues
1. Tommy Thompson Park, City of Toronto
Assessment of the long term stability of the headland /beach
form of shoreline protection. Need to develop and evaluate
alternative designs for final armouring of headlands. Need to
evaluate requirements for ongoing beach maintenance.
Evaluate performance of endikement structure in protecting
cells and containing contaminated sediment.
Assessment of Cell 1 capping proposal and opportunity to
incorporate wetland to enhance aquatic habitat.
2. Metropolitan Toronto's Main Treatment Plant (WPCP), located
at Ashbridge's Bay
Area has become depositional zone for sediment, resulting in
ongoing dredging of WPCP outfall pipe and Coatsworth Cut
navigation channel. Sediment generally is not acceptable for
open water disposal. Modifications to channel entrance are
required to eliminate the need for ongoing maintenance
dredging. Ongoing siltation is narrowing the entrance to
boating basin. Future plans for WPCP expansion may include
option of lakefilling. If this is feasible, can terrestrial and
aquatic habitat regeneration projects and modification of
channel entrance be integrated as part of the lakefill plan?
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D240
3. Ashbridge's Bay Waterfront Park, City of Toronto
The outer exposed shorelines of this Iakefill park are protected
by the headland /beach system. This park has required the
highest expenditure of shoreline maintenance compared to the
other Iakefill parks maintained by the MTRCA. In particular, the
headlands are often overtopped, resulting in severe scouring
behind, and some settlement of the armour stone. One of two
beach sections require ongoing beach nourishment. Need to
evaluate if sediment bypassing is occurring. Ongoing
maintenance and management of Ashbridge's Bay beach
(Woodbine Beach). Assess alternatives for beach nourishment,
clean up, etc.
4. Eastern Beaches, City of Toronto
This section extends from Woodbine Avenue easterly to
Nursewood Road (R.C. Harris Water Treatment Plant). Issues
include recent erosion at east end, resulting in emergency
remedial shore protection. Need to investigate cause of beach
erosion including environmental impact of recreational facilities
and activities and requirements for long term protection. Five
new headlands and beach units are in place along the front of
the Storm Water Detention Tank II. Several existing storm
sewer outfalls are to be abandoned.
Need to review impact of access along shoreline on either side
of the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant for shoreline management
implications of waterfront trail.
5. "Bedrock Resources" Proposal for Long Term Extraction of
Offshore Deposits
Need to assess potential long term impacts on shoreline erosion
and shoreline structures. Assess impacts on fisheries habitat
the local residential community and sailing clubs such as noise
and dredging operation. A number of studies have been done
by the proponent.
D241 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
6. Scarborough Bluffs shoreline - west sector, R.C. Harris Plant to
Bluffers Park
Public access to this stretch of shoreline to be reviewed.
Shoreline protection requirements for remaining unprotected
sector of Fishleigh Drive. Need to assess impacts to Needles
Bluffs and ANSI. What is the appropriate balance between the
need for shoreline stabilization and the contrasting desire to
preserve the natural, scenic character of the bluffs.
7. Scarborough Bluffs shoreline - east sector, Bluffers Park to
Highland Creek
Need to evaluate performance of existing structures. Public
access to waterfront, along waterfront and to water's edge to
be reviewed including safety and security issues. Develop
management plan for Meadowcliffe sector. Recommend
appropriate balance between the need for shoreline stabilization
and the contrasting desire to preserve the natural shoreline
features.
Need to develop overall plan on enhancement opportunities for
fisheries habitat at Bluffers Park. City of Scarborough has
prepared a Class E.A. for stormwater management of existing
Brimley Road drainage area and proposes a water quality
treatment facility in the westerly bay.
8. Offshore Breakwater option for shoreline protection along
Scarborough Bluffs shoreline. Is this a feasible alternative?
What are the impacts on the coastal processes and navigation,
etc.
9. Stable Slope Assessment
Utilize the MNR - Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Shoreline Policy
and Guidelines to evaluate development of self - stabilized slopes
with protected shorelines. Determine stable crest positions and
compare with actual erosion information.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 0242
10. East Point Park
Re- evaluate proposed park master plan and lakefilling
requirements from an ecosystem perspective. Review need and
alternative locations for the recreational facilities proposed in
the master plan.
Are the original objectives and plan still valid and how does the
proposed master plan relate to the principles of "Regeneration"
and the objectives of the Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy.
11. Port Union /Centennial Secondary Plan Area
The following specific site issues will be addressed:
• the location of a regional access point over or under the
CN railway
• the scale of shoreline regeneration (eg. lakefilling) within
the coastal processes parameters
• the provision of a waterfront trail and passive recreation
opportunities
• review of the types of potential shoreline treatment
• identification of aquatic and terrestrial habitat
opportunities between the Rouge River and Highland
Creek
12. Pickering shoreline
Desire to maintain natural shoreline and monitor and evaluate
recession rates due to erosion. Ensure no impact of any
shoreline regeneration to the west on this section of the
shoreline.
D243 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
8. PROCESS
a) Steering Committee
The proposal is to establish a steering committee made up of representatives
from The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Scarborough, the
City of Toronto, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of Natural
Resources and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
The consultant will be required to report to the Steering Committee on a
regular basis and probably 6 times over the course of the study.
b) Public consultation
An important component of the Shoreline Management Plan is public
consultation.
It is proposed that the steering committee establish a public consultation
approach consistent with the local and regional municipalities' planning
documents and public awareness programs.
The consultant is asked to recommend a public consultation process. The
Steering Committee would make all arrangements for public meetings but
the consultant will be required to attend and make presentations.
Along this section of the waterfront, community organizations and special
interest groups provide an opportunity to develop an awareness and
understanding of the Shoreiine Management Plan. It is proposed that the
public consultation would not be initiated until the technical studies were
complete in 1995.
c) Timetable
In 1993, the Authority initiated the Shoreline Management Plan with the
compilation of existing information, background studies and a mapping
exercise.
The Authority is proceeding to set up the Steering Committee and plans to
have the consulting team selected early in 1995.
The proposed timetable is to complete the Shoreline Management Plan by
the end of 1995.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D244
9. PRODUCTS
The consultant is expected to produce periodic progress reports for discussion and
a comprehensive draft report for detailed review prior to the final report. The
Steering Committee requires 100 copies of the final report.
The consultant is to produce a set of plans to illustrate the Integrated Shoreline
Management Plan at a scale of 1:2000 or larger along with the accompanying text
in a report form. The report is to be provided in soft copy as well in a format
compatible with the Word Perfect.
10. FUNDING
a) Budget
The proposed budget for the Shoreline Management Plan is as follows:
(a) Project Management
Data Collection /Review /Compilation/
Computer Modelling and Analysis
55,000
(b) Mapping (1:2000 scale digitized
from existing WF mapsheet 15,000
(c) Consulting Studies 115,000
(d) Public Consultation 10,000
(e) Shoreline Management Plan Preparation 25,000
(f) Printing and Expenses 10,000
$230,000
Of the total budget, items (c), (d), (e), (f), are available to support the work of the
consulting team for a total of $165,000.
b) Cost - Sharing Proposal
The general cost - sharing proposal includes 50% of the total study funding
($115,000) by the City of Scarborough and City of Toronto and 50%
funding ($115,000) by the MTRCA (50% Province of Ontario /Waterfront
Regeneration Trust and 50% The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto).
D245 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
The contribution to the Shoreline Management Plan has been allocated for
the 1993 and 1994 fiscal years in the following manner:
Funding Schedule
1993/94 1995 Total
City of Scarborough (67 %)* $ 77,500 $ 77,500
City of Toronto (33 %)* 37,500 37,500
MTRCA (50% Province of Ontario/ 25.000 90.000 1 15,000
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
and 50% Metro Toronto
Total $25,000 $205,000 $230,000
* Municipalities contribution ($1 15,000) based on length of shoreline
* City of Scarborough Council Resolution - September 7, 1994
* City of Toronto Council Resolution - September 26/27, 1994
BD /md
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D246
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1996
- Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
KEY ISSUE
To report on the status of the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project along the Scarborough Bluffs
in the City of Scarborough.
Res. #W78/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report on the Sylvan Avenue
Erosion Control Project (City of Scarborough) and the Minister of the Environment and Energy's
decision to deny the "Bump -Up" request to a full Environmental Assessment be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority extend a commitment to the Conservation Council of Ontario to
continue their involvement in the shoreline management projects.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #4/94, held on May 27, 1994, the Authority adopted Res. #A118/94:
"THAT the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, be
approved at a total estimated cost of $3,717,000;
THAT staff be directed to proceed with the initial phase of work in 1994 under The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project
1992 - 1996, at a total budget of $375,000, subject to receipt of all necessary
approvals and funding.
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board in consultation with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on the
comprehensive shoreline management program status across all Lake Ontario
Waterfront in our jurisdiction, and the cumulative effects and long term implications
of shoreline armouring completed to date.
Authority staff completed and filed the Environmental Study Report in accordance with the
Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario - Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial
Flood and Erosion Control Projects and subject to_a 45 day public review period which ended on
June 22, 1994.
The Authority also received the following Council resolution from the City of Scarborough of its
July 18, 1994 meeting as follows:
"Council endorse the preferred design concept of the proposed Sylvan Avenue
Shoreline Regeneration Project as outlined in the ESR submitted by the MTRCA."
D247 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE
REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1996 (CONTD.)
- Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough
As part of the public review process, the Minister of the Environment and Energy received requests
from the Conservation Council of Ontario and Scott McCrae that the "Bump -Up" provision of the
Class Environmental Assessment document be exercised.
Staff requested the Minister to defer a decision on the "Bump -Up" request until discussions on the
issues had been held. A meeting and discussions with Scott McCrae and Glenn Harrington were
held during the public review period prior to the "Bump -Up" request. A meeting was also held with
the Conservation Council of Ontario Water Task Force during August 1994 and a presentation
made before the Council at its meeting held on September 28, 1994. The Council reaffirmed at the
meeting its earlier position to the Minister.
On September 29, 1994, Authority staff responded to the issues outlined in the two "Bump -Up"
requests and requested the Minister to proceed with a decision at the earliest possible date.
By letter dated November 8, 1994, the Honourable C. J. (Bud) Wildman, Minister of Environment
and Energy, decided that an individual environmental assessment is not warranted. The letters to
the Conservation Council of Ontario and Scott McCrae follow as page D248 - D252.
The Authority has received approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and authorization
pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. Notification of Project Approval under the Class
Environmental Assessment planning and design process has been sent to all interested parties.
The status of the comprehensive shoreline management plan is outlined in a separate report titled
Integrated Shoreline Management Plan - Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay, page D227
of these minutes.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
To implement the recommended design, the capital works have been initiated.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The work is being carried out under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project 1992 -1996 approved at Authority Meeting #3/91 and at a cost of $375,000
in 1994 which was approved at Authority Meeting #4/94.
• WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT •ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 1.8, 1994 D248
• . Miniotw • .
Minbtto'
Ministry of Mlnistere de
• Environment I'Environnement
and Energy 'et de I'Energle
•
•NOVember.9, 1994 ••.
• • • 135 St. Clak Avows Watt 135, woman St. Clair ouest'
' • Sults 100 • Pa/MU 100
Toronto ON M4V 1PS ' ' . Toronto ON M4V 1P3 • •
•
Glenn. Harrington, GALA, FCSLA
•• •- Chair; vtater .Task Farce's..
• ,Cdnseryatiori Council of .Ontario • -
Suite• 506, 489 College• Street ..
Toronto,.• Ontario . • .
M6G -1A5 . •
• Dear Mr.. Harrington: - •
• 'I:.:have •reviewed: your request to bump -up the proposed
.• Sylvan Avenue' Shoreline •Regeneration•Prb•ject and '
• decided 'that an..individu3l .environmental assessment is ••
• •• not• warranted 'for the following reasons.• •
-Your request •to bump -up this' undertaking focused
• primarily:.on the apparent ,lack of consideration of the ..
broader long term impact •of individual erosion control .
projects on the entire• shoreline,.MTRCA's examination •
' • ••of' management alternatives, the long-term financial
• , considerations' and. the•remediation of the project's • •
impacts•.' . ' • ..
The Metro Toronto and. Region 'Conservation Authority
•'.(MTRCA) ;has•indicated that the Sylvan, project. was
planned in keeping_with:the principles of • •
..-Regeneration" as. .outlined by the Royal'Comrnission ;
the: shoreline- regeneration. policy -objectives of the:
. Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront. •Plan and the • •
waterfront.policies of •the City of Scarborough.• MTRCA •••
. advised• that. a Shoreline, Management Plan is currently •
. being•planned according to- these•seine principles and
• • policy objectives and• that it' does. not: anticipate that.. '•
' the 'completion of the plan will change. the Sylvan- '
. project: ' As •such, .MTRCA maintains that the objectives
•and goals that embody the Shoreline-Management Plan
have already been incorporateh into the planning of •
•this"project. •Li :is ,recognized that the erosion .
• ... 2 •
•
•
. 45423 ••
•
1100%uen..n»o.ca:44•w. w sock•
•
D249 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6194, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
Hr. 'Glenn Harrington, .CALA, FCS.LA
Page 2 • • .
•
•control •project will— change the' character of • the •
Bluffs 'o'hich'have been..classified as .an Area of
Natural or Scientific. Interest "(ANSI) . However,• the ' • '
'•.kiithor ='ty. has.:advised that 11 ,homes are at ine.inerit "
risk• and •that :i„ri.•the•'past year,.:the erosion rate has •
• • ihcreas.ed significantly"causi.ng•'the situation 't'o • . • . .
. become very s.erious.• As • such, the decisi•on''to .proceed
• 'with the project is-based. on :a'. trade -off .between the .
protection of public• property and safety;' versus the' •. •
protecCion of an ANSI ..• •
'Although the chatacter••of • the B1•uf fs 'will change,. the •
• . •• proposed••project will help- improve both terrestrial..: '
"and 'aquatic habitat'•diversity the area.. • •• • '
• Specifically with.respect to the .aquatic •habitat,' the •
Mini,s'try of Natural Resource's• :(1•IIVR)• and. the: Federal • •
• ••:.Department: of. Fisheries" and .Oceans • (DFOr have • • •
• indicated that 'they are satisfied with .both" the.... •
• provisions' for on- site... fi'sheries enhancements.'Ana the'
provisions. foi minimizing the effect's on fistChabitats .
elsewhere 'in the lak'e... •The Regeneration Trust has
.. also indicated. .that: the 'Choice• Of .options. available. •to•• •
address the .erosion of •th'is' section .of•• the Bluffs
• ljmite¢... The Trust advise& that they do•hot • • •• • •
an'ti,Cipate that_' the integrated. Shoreline Management.•
• Plan'.would propose •a management•'. strategy for •'this ,
section of the .shoreline- that" would be inconsistent • '
orith the recommended ;proposal'_. . •
The Authority -has advised .that 'the examination. of .: ' •
stianageme_zt
-alternatives was - limited' to existing hard • •
enQineering'•works as•no evidence is available. that
. :natural design .optiors.suggested during the •public: •
•consultation 'process could' effectively'.deal• with •
erosion. problems • of this scale..: rTTRCA •indicated they •
had' met•.with•'.your organization to discuss - •
. incorporating some of these .options.'but could. not •
• justify, extensively: util :izing,untried.erosion -control ••
measures .in light of the. long term concerns •and• 'risk
to the Sylvan Avenue' community.
. In'. considering the •long -term maintenance •cost: of the •
project, rTTRCA compared the cost- of erosion. control .
versus the purchase of; the homes. At current market
rates, the purchase' of .the 39 properties' would be
• • about $15.2 (1994) .. The Authority has.• •
• • • .. 3
•
•
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D250
Mr. Glenn Harrington, °ALA, FCSLA
Page 3 '
indicated however that the erosion would continue,
threatening the roadway and possibly those homes • .
located on the northern side of Sylvan Avenue as well
as any subterranean municipal services. Alternatively,
the overall cost of the Sylvah project is estimated at.
$3.7 million. The Authority has also noted that '
maintenance costs•of the existing erosion control
works east of Sylvan Avenue•over the last ten years
have averaged $5000 per annum. • •
In the process•of planning the project, the Authority
has also considered the remediation of.the potential •
impacts-along the shoreline•and particularly those to
the west of.the proposed' project. • A coastal study
completed as part of the overall design study for the .
Sylvan project found that downdrift';impacts resulting
from further erosion control will be minimal;
especially when viewed within the context'of 'the :. '•
Scarborough shoreline as•a• whole. •Nevertheless,'the•
Authority is still :committed to monitoring the impacts
••of the erosion control along the shoreline'during the
pre - construction,. construction and post- construction .
stages. ..MTRCA.has'expressed its willingness to work
with the 'you and the 'Conservation ation Council •of Ontario
'during these three stages of monitoring,. • •
Thank you for bringing your concerns to.my attention
and for. your interest in the environment. This
Ministry.encourages - you to continue to work with the
'MTRCA to'ensure the protection and the long -term .
sustainability of the Bluffs. •Protecting the •
environment is everyone's responsibility.
Yours..sincerely,
•
C.J. •(Bud) "Wildman
Minister '
cc: 'MTRCA, N. Cowie
D251 •WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
Minister
Minbtre •
•
•
Ministry: of • • . • • Ministere de
-Environment I'Environnement •
• and Energy • . ' et de I'Energle • •
133 Si. Ch r Avenue West -. 136, avenue St'CWr meet
Suns 103 • Bureau 100. • • '
Toronto ON M4V 1P3 ' Toren* ON M4V 1P3 •
•
45480
November 8, 1994
• Mr.. Scott McCrae
• • 2 Treewood 'Street .
Scarborough', Ontario •
.M1P -3J3 •
•Dear.Mr'. . McCrae:' '
.1 have reviewed your.request to.bump- up,the proposed
'Sylvan Avenue Shoreline Regeneration Project :and:, • .
'decided that an individual environmental .assessment is
. not warranted•for the following' reasons'. '.' . " • •
. ,Your request,to bump- up•this undertaking focused.*
primari /Y,on.the apparent'.lack•of consideration• of. the
broader long .term impact of individual erosion' control
•projeOts on-,the entire .shoreline: : •
The Metro Toronto • and Region Conservation Authority'
(MTRCAI .•has indicated that the 'Sylvan project was
--planned in keeping with the principles of.
• "Regeneration" as outlined. by the Royal Commission,
the shoreline regeneration•policy objectives of the.
.'Metropolitan•Toronto Waterfront Plan'and the
.waterfront policies of the City. of Scarborough.'.,MTRCA
•advised that.the Shoreline .Management Plan is
• *currently being planned'accordingto these same .
'principles and. policy objectives and that'it does not
.antici•pate'that'completion of. the plan will change .the
.Sylvan project..' As such, MTRCA maintains that •the
objectives and goals.that embody•'the Shoreline: •
'Management'Plan have already been-incorporated into. •
the planning•of this project.
It is recognized that'the erosion'control•project will
change.'the character of the Bluffs'which have been
classified as an Area of Natural or Scientific • •
Interest'(ANSI). However,-the Authority•has advised • .
2
Cis onia (D1 I
W00% Umd..n»d PC 1 68~ Stag
. WATER AND RELATED LAND. MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D252
Mr . Scott McC_'ae
cage 2.
that '11 homes are .at imminent risk and that in•..the • •
past year the erosion. raze has increased significantly
causing the situation to become very serious: - 'As •
'such, the decision to.proceed with the project -is •
based on a trade -of 2 between the protection. of public •'
property ' and safety, .versus the protection of an ANSI.
'.. Although the character• of the Bluffs. will .change; the
proposed project will. alternately••help improve both.
• terrestrial and.aquatic habitat •diversity in the area.'
Specilically -with • respect tb the. aquatic habitat,.' the , :•'.
Ministry. of Natural.. Resources •.'(NNR)•• and the Federal .
. Department of Fisheries and Oceans •(i)FO)' • have I..
indicated 'that they are satisfied with. both the*.
• , provisions :for on -site' •fisheries enhancements and the.
provisions for tninimizing the effects on fish .habitats' • :
. .' ,elsewhere in the lake.• • • 2.
• • The .Regeneration 'Trust. has. also indicated that the • •
choice of. op.tibns available to address the erosion `of
• this. section of the• Bluffs. is •limited. ': The :Trust. ' .• • • •
advises.that they do not anticipate•that -the.
.% • integrated Shoreline Manafletnent ..Plan. would 'propose • a ••. .. -. '
management strategy ...for. this section of the .shoreline
•
• - that' would be 'inconsistent. with .the recommended ': '• . . . • proposal . _ . • • .. • . • _
• • . •
' Thank you for bringing your concerns to: my atteritS.on • •
• • and for your interest in the environment. ..:This - • '
' Ministry encourages you• to. continue to work with the ' .."
MTRCA. to ensure 'the-protection. and the long -term - •
•sustainzbility • of the Bluffs. •Protecting• the
•environment is everyone's responsibility.'•
•
.• Yours •sincerely,
C'.J. .(Bud) Wildman
Minister
•
cc : 11. Cowie, •MTRCA.
D253 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECTION COMMITTEES
- Humber Watershed Task Force and Don Watershed Regeneration Council
KEY ISSUE
Selection of members of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board to interview
watershed residents for appointment to the Humber Watershed Task Force and the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council.
Res. #W79/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT two members of the Water and Related
Land Management Advisory Board be appointed along with the Director, Water Resource Division
to form a selection committee to interview watershed residents for appointment to the Humber
Watershed Task Force;
THAT two members of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board be appointed
along with the Chief Administrative Officer to form a selection committee to interview watershed
residents for appointment to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the proposed membership of the
Humber Watershed Task Force and Don Watershed Regeneration Council for endorsement and
formal appointment.
CARRIED
Lois Griffin and Lorna Bissell volunteered to sit on the Selection Committee to interview watershed
residents for appointment to the Humber Watershed Task Force. Ila Bossons and Joan King
volunteered to sit on the Selection Committee to interview watershed residents for appointment to
the Don Watershed Regeneration Council.
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #9/94, held on October 28, 1994, two resolutions were adopted that state in
part:
Res. #A224/94
"THAT the Goa /s, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference for the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, as set out in the report, dated October 1994, (pages
D160 - 0166 of Water and Related Land Management Minutes of Meeting #5/94) be
approved;"
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D254
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECTION COMMITTEES (CONTD.)
- Humber Watershed Task Force and Don Watershed Regeneration Council
Res. #A225/94
"THAT the membership selection, reporting procedures and terms of reference for the
Humber Watershed Task Force, as described in full in the draft report, dated October 1994
(pages 0173 - 0179 of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Minutes
#5/94), be approved;"
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council will include ten citizens residing within the Don River
watershed. Applications to the Council will be accepted until December 15, 1994. The interview
process will take place in early January, 1995.
The Humber Watershed Task Force will include 15 citizens residing within the Humber River
watershed. Applications for the Task Force will be accepted until November 18, 1994. Applicants
will be interviewed in early December, 1994.
Two selection committees are required to review citizen applications, interview, and recommend
suitable candidates for appointment to Don Watershed Regeneration Council and Humber
Watershed Task Force.
Staff will make arrangements for brief interviews to be scheduled in the evening.
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
-1995 Interim Management Program
KEY ISSUE
As part of the ongoing Interim Management Program at Tommy Thompson Park, staff has
summarized the events and activities of 1994, and has outlined the proposed 1995 Interim
Management Program for the Park.
Res. #W80/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Paul Raina
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 1995 Interim Management Program
for Tommy Thompson Park be received;
THAT staff be directed to negotiate a 1995 licence agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club;
THAT staff be directed to negotiate a formal agreement with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners
regarding access and other such items deemed necessary for the 1995 program;
D255 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK (CONTD.)
-1995 Interim Management Program
AND FURTHER THAT 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
BACKGROUND
At the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #6/93, the 1994 Interim
Management Program for Tommy Thompson Park was received. The following briefly outlines the
regular activities and special events that have occurred during the 1994 season.
The park was open to the public Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
commencing January 2, 1994. To date a total of 53,279 visits have been recorded at the park.
This attendance at the park is higher than last year at this time and is being primarily attributed to
the improved weekend weather that we have experienced throughout the summer and fall of
1994.
Public transportation was provided by means of a single shuttle van operating during public hours
from May 7th until October 10th. This single shuttle van has replaced the TTC bus and van
combination used prior to 1992, and has allowed the Authority to maintain a sufficient level of
service to park users requiring transportation, while reducing the operating costs of the service by
approximately 50 %. Costs were further reduced in 1993 and 1994 by operating the service with
one of the MTRCA's existing motorpool vehicles and eliminating the need to rent the vehicle for
this purpose. The Aquatic Park Sailing Club helped defray the cost of the service by providing a
$1,000 contribution toward its operation.
The total usage for the service in 1994 was 6,569 rides, which represents a slight increase (3 %)
over 1993 ridership. During the period of operation, it was determined that approximately 14% of
the overall park visitors used the transportation service and, of this use, approximately 60% were
members of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club. Although the service provided the opportunity for
members of the public to access Tommy Thompson Park via the TTC, the majority of the visitors
using the van arrived by car and accessed the van at the main entrance /parking area.
A nature interpretation program was continued in 1994 and operated from June 4th to September
5th. Due to budget considerations this year's program was reduced to a single theme walk on
Sundays and Holidays focusing on different aspects of the park's natural history. In addition to the
regularly scheduled program, staff offered several bird banding demonstrations in the spring and
fall, and a bird display in August that proved to be very popular.
Wildlife Management Activities undertaken in 1994 included the annual ring - billed gull control
program, continuation of the tern nesting raft project with the Canadian Wildlife Service, control of
nesting Canada geese, and updates to the biophysical inventory and Environmentally Significant
Area Study for the site.
In the interest of safety, security and access, a staff member has been on duty at all times during
public hours. It is expected that this practice will continue for 1995.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D256
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK ICONTD.)
-1995 Interim Management Program
Special Activities
In addition to the regular park programs, other special events and activities have taken place at
Tommy Thompson Park during the 1994 season. The following is an outline of these various
events:
Lake Ontario Mid - Winter Waterfowl Inventory (January 9)
Aquatic Park Sailing Club Spit Clean -up day (June 4)
Lung Association Interpretive Bike Ride (June 25)
University of Toronto Field Course (July 27 & 29)
Running Room "5 Mile Classic and Teddy Bear Trot" (August 21)
Sri Chinmoy Marathon (October 2)
Annual Christmas Bird Count (Proposed)
Staff is of the opinion that the 1994 program was successful in providing year round access to the
park while maintaining a sufficient level of service for park visitors. In this respect, staff have
prepared the 1995 Interim Management Program on a similar basis as follows:
1995 Interim Management Program
The 1995 Interim Management Program will endeavour to maintain the basic components of the
previous year's program. These basic components include:
• year round access of the park to the public;
• a transportation service for use by the public during the spring, summer and fall
seasons;
• a resource management program (gull control, tern management and biophysical
inventories);
• a nature interpretation program offered during the summer season; and,
• a licence agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club for sailing activities.
Public Access: The park will be open year round on weekends and holidays (excluding Christmas
Day, Boxing Day, and New Years Day). The hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
during Eastern standard time and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. during daylight saving time commencing
January 7, 1995 . In the interest of public safety and security, staff will be on site at all times
during public hours. During the winter months, the park may close periodically due to unsafe
conditions created by inclement weather.
Public Transportation: will be provided by means of a single van in operation from April 22 through
October 9, 1995. As in 1994, the service will operate on a half hour schedule between the corner
of Leslie and Commissioners Streets and the pedestrian bridge within the park. The service will
stopover at the main entrance\parking area, and will be scheduled to connect with the TTC Jones
Bus at Commissioners Street. The use of a single van shuttle service in 1992 -94, demonstrated
that a sufficient level of service could be maintained while reducing operating costs by
approximately 50 %.
In 1995 staff will endeavour to maintain the same level of service by continuing to use vehicles
within the MTRCA's motorpool.
D257 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK (CONTD.)
-1995 Interim Management Program
Nature Interpretation: will be provided to the public from June 3 though September 4, 1995 and
will include theme walks presented by a park naturalist. Staff will prepare a brochure outlining the
summer schedule of nature walks for distribution to the public, and will make use of news releases
to announce the weekly program.
In order to expand the existing level of interpretation, and access a larger number of the park's
visitors, a mobile display or "cart" will be used in 1995 in addition to some regularly scheduled
nature walks. The objective is to provide a venue that will attract a greater diversity of park users
(i.e., walkers, cyclists, roller - bladers, etc.). The use of a "cart" style display will allow visitors to
stop and learn about various aspects of Tommy Thompson Park (nature, history, planning etc.) as
well as the Authority's role in watershed management. The past use of a table at Tommy
Thompson Park to display brochures, artifacts and equipment has shown that a much larger group
of visitors will participate and benefit. This type of display would also provide a greater
opportunity for children to learn about the park or aspects of the natural environment.
As in previous years, the objective will be to provide information to the public about the park's
natural features as well as the history, planning and construction of the site. The operation of this
program by MTRCA staff has allowed the integration of other information related to watershed
management, and highlight other Authority projects on the waterfront and in the river valleys.
Lessees: Staff will prepare a 1995 license agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club for sailing
activities at the Park. The conditions of the license will be the same as used in previous years.
Vehicle parking on -site and access during public hours will be limited to three (3) weekends in the
spring and three (3) weekends in the fall for necessary preparatory work. During public hours
outside the above, the Aquatic Park Sailing Club members must park their vehicles at the Leslie
Street parking area. During non - public hours, access to leased land will be granted upon proof of
membership and key privileges.
Wildlife and Resource Management Activities: will include a ring - billed gull control program,
common tern habitat management, Canada goose management, and a further monitoring and
documentation of the park's biophysical features.
The gull control program will be undertaken from March 27 through July 7, 1995 and will
encompass the same areas controlled in previous years. Control techniques will include staff
patrol, owl effigies, pyrotechnical devices, scarecrows and supplemental egg collection, with
control activities being undertaken on weekdays throughout the duration of the program. Control
activities will be extended to include weekends during the month of May. As in 1993 -94, falconry
will not be used in order to reduce operating costs of this program and further evaluate the success
of other control techniques on -site.
Further updates to the Aquatic Park Environmental Study will be undertaken using methodologies
similar to those used during the 1978 -82 study. Studies will focus on updating the information on
larger mammals, butterflies and skippers, reptiles and amphibians, birds and fish. Staff are also
proposing to initiate several pilot studies designed to assess the rate of natural regeneration of
vegetation in areas of poor soil quality and in areas where a soil supplement is provided.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D258
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK (CONTD.)
-1995 Interim Management Program
The common tern management program for 1995 will be similar to 1994 and will include the
delineation and monitoring of nesting areas, signage and patrol, maintenance and monitoring of
artificial nesting rafts in cooperation with the Canadian Wildlife Service, and monitoring overall tern
nesting success.
RATIONALE
The purpose of the Interim Management Program at Tommy Thompson Park is to maintain the
existing level of public use in accordance with the delegated responsibilities given by the province.
The proposed 1995 Interim Management Program is in keeping with the agreement with
Metropolitan Toronto for the Authority to operate the site without establishing any long -term
operating procedures.
The provision of a van shuttle service will facilitate access for members of the Aquatic Park Sailing
Club during the periods when vehicular access is restricted. In addition, this service has enhanced
the use of the site for other individuals and groups who could not otherwise enjoy the site because
of the distances to and within the site.
The use of an Authority operated transportation service augments the Authority's presence on -site
and increases the level of public safety at the park. The operation of a single van maintains a
greater degree of flexibility by allowing alteration of scheduling and frequency, if required, and
connection with the existing TTC Jones Bus at Commissioners Street.
The discontinuation of the falconry component from the gull control programs will allow staff to
evaluate the effectiveness of Tess cost intensive control techniques. Staff are proposing to redirect
the funding from this component to facilitate further updates of the biophysical inventories at the
park. The information obtained as a result of these updates will be required for site specific
planning and monitoring related to the Master Plan, habitat creation projects, and the ongoing
management of the park.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Costs associated with the 1995 Interim Management Program have been estimated at $135,000,
which reflects similar budget and program reductions in 1993 and 1994, and this represents a
three percent decrease from the 1994 budget.
D259 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
8. RULES OF CONDUCT
- Review of Provisions for Delegations
KEY ISSUE
This report reviews the Authority's Rules of Conduct as they relate to delegations.
Res. W81/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lorna Bissell
Kip Van Kempen
THAT the report of the Chief Administrative Officer dated November 11, 1994, on Rules of
Conduct delegations be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Rules of Conduct of the Authority deal with delegations in Section X, paragraphs 41 through
50.
At the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board, Meeting #5/94, held on October 7,
1994, Resolution #W71/94 was approved: "that the procedure for hearing of delegations be
referred to staff for a review and report back ". The Authority's Rules of Conduct are reviewed on
a regular basis and were last updated in 1992.
ANALYSIS
Of concern to the members is the possible abuse of the Authority's system of hearing delegations
by individuals who are not content with a decision of the Authority and who wish to press the
matter repeatedly, in spite of a clear decision on the part of the Authority. Taking time for
delegations on matters that are not before the Authority and which have been dealt with by the
Authority may use up valuable time which would be better put to the regular agenda of the
Authority, its Boards and Executive Committee.
The Authority's Rules of Conduct make provision for a situation where a delegation has not
properly represented itself or given appropriate notice. In such circumstances the Authority's Rules
of Conduct provide that the Chair of the Advisory Board and the Chair of the Authority may choose
to refuse to hear the delegation. The Board or the Authority is then in a position of supporting the
Chair or voting to hear the delegation. In other words, the Rules of Conducts are quite clear that
the Authority has the right to hear or not hear a delegation.
Further, the rules provide that a delegation shall b.e limited to five minutes, the extension of which
may only be granted by leave of the Chair or an appeal to the Board or the Authority. The rules go
on to make provision for situations in which large numbers of delegates are anticipated. This
ensures that delegates having a common interest are grouped and appoint one speaker to represent
the group. This provision ensures that meetings move along and that no one delegation can
completely dominate a meeting.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D260
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
8. RULES OF CONDUCT (CONTD.)
- Review of Provisions for Delegations
On the whole, the Rules of Conduct governing delegations are satisfactory and have performed
effectively. The Rules have been tested in a number of situations where a large number of
delegations wish to address the Authority or its Boards. While the five minute rule may still create
very lengthy meetings in matters that are of wide interest to the public, the Board and the
Authority have accepted that if the matter is of such importance, then surely the public has a right
to be heard.
A key concern is the right of the public to be heard by a public body. The Authority deals with
matters on "in camera" or "confidential" basis only in very extraordinary situations. The Authority
has determined that its activities shall be public and in recent years has ensured that the public is
well aware of the issues that are being dealt with. This includes a vigorous communication
program, holding of public meetings and circulation of documents to individuals and public interest
groups who have expressed an interest in the matter at hand.
While the provisions of the Rules of Conduct may be subject to abuse by a group or groups who
might seek to bog down the orderly conduct of the Authority's meetings, on the whole, this seems
a remote possibility and one which the Rules of Conduct can address through the Chair. In other
words, if an individual or group were to abuse their privileges in speaking to the Authority, the
Chair and the Authority are well within their rights to restrict the access of such individuals to the
public process.
The Authority is a public organization and the majority of its members are democratically elected
members of local councils. It would seem better for the Authority to err on the side of making
wide provision for the public to address the Boards, The Executive Committee and the Authority
rather than to err on the side of restricting access. To date there has been no flagrant abuse of
privilege and the Authority and its Boards have been generous in providing time for the public to
make presentations.
To facilitate matters, it may be useful to provide members of the public who wish to be delegations
with a summary of the Rules of Conduct of the Authority and a description of the meeting
procedures (pages D261 - D263) to enable them to better appreciate and understand the process
being followed.
In conclusion, staff is of the opinion that there is no simple way to amend the rules to eliminate
every possibility of abuse without unnecessarily limiting the rights of individuals to be heard by a
public body. Accordingly, no changes are recommended to the Rules of Conduct. Staff will
provide additional information to delegates regarding the procedures.
D261 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
8. RULES OF CONDUCT (CONTD.)
- Review of Provisions for Delegations
INFORMATION FOR DELEGATIONS
TO THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Members of the Authority wish to ensure that everyone who appears before the Authority is able
to make a meaningful contribution. It is important to ensure that everyone understands the process
and has a fair hearing before of the Authority, the Authority's Executive Committee and Advisory
Boards. Not every issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of every delegate. However, by
explaining the process and offering some suggestions for delegations, there can be effective
communication between delegations and the members of the Authority.
Rules of Conduct
The Authority has established the following Rules of Conduct:
• People or organizations wishing to address the Authority, the Executive Committee,
or an Advisory Board must make their request in writing to the Secretary- Treasurer
of the Authority at least eight days in advance of a meeting.
• The Secretary- Treasurer, in preparing the agenda will identify the delegation and
advise the organization or individual that they are listed as a delegation and inform
them of the date, time and location of the meeting.
• Where there are a large number of people or organizations wishing to speak to an
issue, the Authority may schedule a special meeting.
• Where a significant number of people wish to speak on the same issue, the Chair
may request that those individuals group together and select one spokesperson.
• Anyone showing up at a meeting of the Authority may ask to be a delegation and
the Chair of the meeting will ask for a vote of the members to determine if they
wish to hear the delegation.
• Each delegate is limited to five minutes.
The complete Rules of Conduct of the Authority are available to anyone wishing to receive them.
Information from Delegations
It is useful for members of the Authority to have as much information as possible from an individual
or group who wishes to be a delegation.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994 D262
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
8. RULES OF CONDUCT (CONTD.)
- Review of Provisions for Delegations
Basic information:
• name of the organization, and name of the person representing the organization
including their position with the organization, if applicable;
• a summary of the issue to which they intend to speak;
• a clear statement of their position on the issue.
In addition, it is helpful to members of the Authority to have as much background information as
possible about the organization and the organization's view of the issue. Some of the questions
that are frequently asked by members of the Authority are:
• how many people are represented by your organization?
• how long has the organization existed?
• has the organization approached other public bodies with respect to the issue?
• has the organization held public meetings to discuss the issue?
• is the organization open to the public?
• has the organization approached staff of the Authority to try to resolve the issue?
• has the organization or individual approached local members of a municipal council
for assistance in this matter?
The Authority members usually have the benefit of a staff report on the issue, but it is always
helpful to have supporting facts or other information from the delegation. If this can be provided at
least eight days before the meeting, then staff of the Authority will ensure that it is circulated to
members of the Authority and becomes part of the permanent record of the meeting.
Overview of Structure
The Authority is a body corporate whose administration of policy is determined by its mandate
under the Conservation Authorities Act and by regulations and rules which it has adopted. To
carry out its responsibilities, the Authority appoints three Advisory Boards and an Executive
Committee. The Boards are:
• Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
(meeting approximately 7 to 9 times a year)
• Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board
(meeting approximately 5 to 7 times a year)
D263 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/94, NOVEMBER 18, 1994
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
8. RULES OF CONDUCT (CONTD.)
- Review of Provisions for Delegations
• Finance and Administration Advisory Board
(meeting approximately 5 to 7 times a year)
The Advisory Boards consider matters assigned to them as provided for in the Rules of Conduct for
the Authority, and as described in the Terms of Reference which have been adopted. The
Executive Committee (meeting monthly) is responsible for overseeing some of the day to day
management decisions of the Authority and the administration of the Authority's Fill, Construction
and Alteration to Waterways Regulation. All decisions made by the Advisory Boards and the
Executive Committee automatically go to the full Authority for final approval and /or information.
For More Information
If you have questions or concerns regarding the procedures of the Authority, please contact either
Ms. Bonnie Brown, Executive Secretary at 416- 661 -6600, extension 210, or Ms. Gloria Booth,
Administrative Assistant, 416- 661 -6600, extension 234.
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 11:50 a.m., November 18, 1994.
Lois Griffin Craig Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
bb.
c.
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
Vir the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes
D264
JANUARY 20, 1995 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board and the Conservation and Related Land
Management Advisory Board met jointly in the Canada West Room of the Visitors Centre at Black
Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, January 20, 1995. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to
order at 10:00 a.m.
PRESENT FOR COMBINED MEETING Chair Lois Griffin
Members Maria Augimeri
Margaret Britnell
Ila Bossons
Victoria Carley
Lois Hancey
Joanna Kidd
Marie Muir
Donna Patterson
Maja Prentice
Paul Raina
Bev Salmon
Frank Scarpitti
Deborah Sword
Kip Van Kempen
Richard Whitehead
ABSENT FOR COMBINED MEETING Members Lorna Bissell
Lorna Jackson
Joan King
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Paul Palleschi
Joyce Trimmer
DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
Joanna Kidd, as a consultant for the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on the Rouge Park, declared a
conflict with respect to item 3, Rouge Park Management, and did not participate in discussion or
vote on this matter.
DIRECTOR, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS
Craig Mather introduced Ken Owen, newly appointed Director of Facilities and Operations. Lois
Griffin welcomed Mr. Owen on behalf of the Boards and wished him every success in his new
position.
D265 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BANNING OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
- Update
KEY ISSUE
Staff have been working with municipalities, other public agencies and various stakeholders to
resolve concerns related to the Authority's ban on the launching of personal watercraft from its
lands.
Res. #W82/94
Res. #C39/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Deborah Sword
Frank Scarpitti
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated January 10, 1995,
regarding efforts to resolve concerns stemming from the Authority's ban on the launching of
personal watercraft from its lands be received for information;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to consult with, and facilitate communication
between, individuals and groups concerned with this issue.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #6/94, Resolution #A167/94 directed staff to "take the necessary action to
ban the launching of jet skis from Authority owned land;" and sought the cooperation and support
of local municipalities in order to do this. At Authority Meeting #8/94, correspondence was
received from Bombardier Inc. expressing concern with the ban and requesting the opportunity to
discuss the issue further with the Authority. The Authority directed staff to reply to this
correspondence and to seek further input regarding the matter.
CONSULTATION TO DALE
In November, staff met with representatives of Bombardier Inc. Bombardier reiterated their
concerns and expressed a desire to meet with affected individuals and groups to see if a solution
which is satisfactory to all parties can be worked out. They also indicated a willingness to assist
Durham Region Police in dealing with problems related to personal watercraft, including the loan of
equipment.
Since the ban was put into effect, staff has also met with representatives of the Metro Parks and
Property Department, The Metropolitan Toronto Police Marine Unit, and the Ajax Parks and By -Law
Departments. In addition, informal discussions have also taken place with Durham Region Police
with regard to their assistance with enforcement..
Representatives from Metropolitan Toronto indicated that concerns with the control of personal
watercraft are being adequately handled by the Metro Marine Unit. Consequently, the only
locations where the ban is currently being enforced are at Frenchman's Bay and the mouth of
Duffin's Creek.
WORK TO BE DONE
Over the coming winter, staff plans to bring a variety of stakeholders to the table with the intention
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D266
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. BANNING OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT (CONTD.)
- Update
of reaching a solution which is acceptable to all parties. Prior to doing this, representatives of
affected groups and local residents need to be identified. In addition, a more formal follow -up with
Durham Region Police will be carried out.
In initial discussions, some concerns have been expressed with the wording of Authority Resolution
#A167/94. It is felt that resolution of specific problems may be better served by more precise
wording. Once consultation is complete and the concerns noted above have been resolved, a
recommendation for a revised resolution will be brought to the Conservation and Related Land
Management Advisory Board and the Authority.
For information contact: Andy Wickens (ext. 252)
2. THE STRATEGY FOR PUBLIC USE OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LANDS
KEY ISSUE
Approval of the Strategy and circulation of the final document to municipal and provincial agencies
and interest groups.
Res. #W83/94
Res. #C40/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Deborah Sword
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Strategy for Public Use of
Conservation Authority Lands be adopted;
AND FURTHER THAT the document be circulated to all municipalities and government agencies,
user and special interest groups in the watershed.
AMENDMENT
Res. #W84/94
Res. #C41/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Deborah Sword
Lois Hancey
THAT staff amend the Strategy for Public Use of Conservation Authority Lands to incorporate the
changes recommended by the Boards;
AND FURTHER THAT the document then be forward to the Authority on January 27, 1995 for
approval.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
D267 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. THE STRATEGY FOR PUBLIC USE OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LANDS (CONTD.)
BACKGROUND
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority prepared a Strategy for the Public
Use of Conservation Authority Lands in 1988. Concerns from some staff and outside agencies
arose regarding the heavy reliance on private enterprise funding partners, intensive recreation
activities and revenue production. A review of the Strategy was commissioned and a report
prepared in 1991.
The review report was received and circulated by the Authority in the summer of 1992. Comments
from member and local municipalities and a number of user groups were brought to the Board in
March, 1993. A recommendation from that meeting to hold a joint members and staff workshop
was implemented in June, 1993. The resulting Goals, Guiding Principles and Objectives developed
in the workshop were used in the redrafting of the Strategy.
By resolution #A173/93, staff were directed to prepare a draft Strategy and bring it before the
Board prior to circulation to all municipalities and representative agencies, user and special interest
groups in the watershed. In June 1994, the Authority approved the Draft Strategy for circulation
and comment. Comments from our watershed partners and groups have been received and,
wherever possible, incorporated into the final document.
Key elements of the strategy include the use of a screening process for all outdoor recreation and
education development proposals, the use of conservation zoning categories on Authority lands to
provide clear limits on where public uses will be considered, the use of concept and master plans to
focus resource analysis and public consultation.
For information contact: Ian Deslauriers (ext. 297)
3. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OF ROUGE PARK
- Status of Discussions
KEY ISSUE
Craig Mather updated the Boards on the status of the proposed management of the Rouge Park.
Res. #W85/94
Res. #C42/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a report on the status of discussions
regarding the structure of the Rouge Park be forwarded to Authority Meeting #12/94 to be held on
January 27, 1995.
CARRIED
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D268
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. FRENCHMAN'S BAY - WEST ROUGE CANOE CLUB
-Town of Pickering
KEY ISSUE
To extend the agreement with the West Rouge Canoe Club on a temporary basis from November 1,
1994 to October 31, 1995 for the existing location on the west spit of Frenchman's Bay.
Res. #W86/94
Res. #C43/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT subject to compliance with Authority
requirements for facility improvement and maintenance, the request to extend the temporary
licence agreement with the West Rouge Canoe Club for a paddling facility on Frenchman's Bay for
the period from November 1, 1994 to October 31, 1995, be approved;
THAT the Council of the Town of Pickering be requested to concur with the extension to the
temporary lease agreement;
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to take
whatever action is required in connection with the establishment of the West Rouge Canoe Club
paddling facility, including the development and execution of appropriate documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #3/94, the Authority adopted Res. #A93/94:
"THAT the proposal from the West Rouge Canoe Club, dated February 18, 1994,
Appendix WR.25/94, to establish on a temporary basis from April 23 to October 31,
1994, a paddling facility on Frenchman's Bay, be received and approved;
THAT the paddling facility be accommodated in a trailer which will be removed no
later than October 31, 1994, and is located as shown on the site plan, Appendix
WR. 25/94;
THAT the West Rouge Canoe Club licence agreement fee be established on the
general basis of the property taxes, rental costs for a portable toilet and any other
consideration deemed appropriate;
THAT the Council of the Town of Pickering be requested to concur with the
proposal;
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed
to take whatever action is required in connection with the establishment of the
West Rouge Canoe Club paddling facility, including the development and execution
of appropriate documents."
D269 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. FRENCHMAN'S BAY - WEST ROUGE CANOE CLUB (CONTD.)
-Town of Pickering
The Town of Pickering at its Council meeting of April 18, 1994, passed the following resolution:
"WHEREAS the West Rouge Canoe Club has requested permission from The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA), to establish a
paddling facility on Frenchman's Bay on a temporary basis, from April 23, 1994 to
October 31, 1994; and
WHEREAS this facility is proposed to be located on the north side of the west spit
of Frenchman's Bay adjacent to the existing fenced compound area, and to consist
of a 50 x 10 foot trailer on wheels to store approximately 20 canoes and kayaks,
and parking for three to five cars; and
WHEREAS the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board of the MTRCA
recommended approval of the proposal at its meeting of April 15, 1994 on the
grounds that the paddling activity is consistent with the environmentally - friendly
recreation activities which are suitable for the Bay and with the current park
operations, and will not impede public access to the west spit; and
WHEREAS the MTRCA has requested the Town's concurrence with the proposal,
prior to it being considered by the full Authority on April 22, 1994,
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Town of Pickering hereby resolves that it
concurs with the proposal of the West Rouge Canoe Club as outlined by the
MTRCA in its April 15, 1994 report to the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board, subject to the conditions that the use be for a temporary time
period only, being April 23 to October 31, 1994, and that a building permit be
obtained for the temporary trailer from the Town's Building Department."
The West Rouge Canoe Club operated between April 23 to October 31, 1994, in accordance with
the agreement conditions. For the period of the agreement, no objections from the residents and
users of the Frenchman's Bay West Park were received. The West Rouge Canoe Club have
requested an extension to this temporary agreement.
RATIONALE
The paddling facility is consistent with the environmentally - friendly recreation activities which are
suitable for the Bay and with the current park operations. This proved to be the case for the
operating season in 1994 with no objections from the residents and users of the park.
Discussions with the Town of Pickering Planning Department indicate support to extend the
agreement for a further temporary period based on the results of 1994 operation of the paddling
facility.
Any long term agreement would have to be consistent with the Frenchman "s Bay West Park Plan.
The proposal also has the concurrence of the Director of Finance and Administration and the
Director of Facilities and Operations.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D270
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. FRENCHMAN'S BAY - WEST ROUGE CANOE CLUB (CONTD.)
-Town of Pickering
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Approval of the Town of Pickering to extend the temporary agreement and securing a building
permit for the period November 1, 1994 to October 31, 1995 will be required.
Approval of the Pickering Harbour Company and local residents association is being requested.
Staff, upon approval by the Authority, will prepare and execute the necessary documents for the
period November 1, 1994 to October 31, 1995.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The club has also offered to cover the costs of one portable toilet which will be accessible to the
park users, and any additional costs deemed appropriate to cover Authority property taxes for the
site area.
The club has also agreed to assist the Authority in -site clean -up and assist in monitoring any
activities deemed detrimental to the public's enjoyment of this area.
The club will also maintain the trailer to the satisfaction of the Authority.
Report prepared by: Larry Field (ext. 243)
The Boards adjourned at 11:30 a.m. for a short recess.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board then reconvened in the Canada West
Room to address the remaining agenda items.
PRESENT
Chair Lois Griffin
Members Ila Bossons
Victoria Carley
Lois Hancey
Joanna Kidd
Maja Prentice
Paul Raina
Bev Salmon
Frank Scarpitti
Kip Van Kempen
ABSENT Members Lorna Bissell
Joan King
Joyce Trimmer
D271 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
MINUTES
Res. #W87/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/94 be approved.
DELEGATIONS
Res. #W88/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Kip Van Kempen
Maja Prentice
Lois Hancey
Paul Raina
THAT the agenda item on Comfort Living Housing Cooperative be brought forward;
AND FURTHER THAT delegations requesting to speak to this issue be heard.
CARRIED
CARRIED
(1) Luciano Martin, President, Action to Restore a Clean Humber, spoke in support of the report
presented to the Board. Further comments are included in his letter dated January 17,
1995 and attached as page D272.
(2) Joan O'Donnell, President, Toronto Field Naturalists, spoke in support of the report
presented to the Board.
Res. #W89/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT Mr. Millard's request to be the final speaker be approved.
Maja Prentice
Ila Bossons
CARRIED
(3) Mr. Andrew Paton, Q.C., Robins Appleby and Taub, representing Comfort Living spoke on
behalf of the project.
(4) Mr. Allan Millard, Barrister, Solicitor and Notary Public, spoke as a concerned citizen in
agreement with the report before the Board. His letter of January 19, 1995 with further
comments is attached as page D273.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D272
CT /QN To RESTOR —ARD`_ ► ,4 CLEAN HINIBEI „
17 January 1996
Councillor Lois Griffin, Chair
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
6 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ont. M3N 1S4
Re.: Comfort Living - Etobicoke
Proposed expansion proposal
Dear Mrs. Griffin:
I believe this matter is on your Board's agenda on January 20 1985.
I plan to be at that meeting of the Board and would appreciate the
opportunity of addressing it briefly.
In a letter of August 2,1995 I expressed serious concern and strong
opposition -both personally and on behalf of other members of
Action to Restore a Clean Humber- to the proposed expansion of this
development within the valley of the Humber.
It is regrettable that Etobicoke Council, disregarding the
recommendations for refusal by both MTRCA staff and Etobicoke's own
planners, has approved this application. It has also passed a By-
Law amending the Official Plan's valleyland Policies, which were
established after a very lengthy process involving several
government agencies and departments.
There are many compelling reasons to appeal Etobicoke's amendments
to both the Official Plan and the Zoning Code to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The Authority is strongly urged to take the lead in the appeal
process, thus providing much needed support for the many citizens
who deeply care for the region's valleylands in general, and of the
Humber in particular.
Sincerely,
Luciano Martin,
President
21 TAYSHAM CAES ETOBJCO%E ON. MW 1X1 TEL: (410)741 -6346 FAX (414)747.6664
JAN -18 -1995 `10 25 - - 10: 416 747 6654
P. 002
D273 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
J. ALAN MILLARD
RAMMER. SCU ITOR & NOTARY PUBLIC
AVOCAT ET NOTAMRE
19 January 1995
The Metropolitan Toronto
and Regional Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
North York, Ontario
M3N 184
Attention: Ms. Bonnie Brown
Executive Secretary
SURE 101
N4 AL ON ROAD
STOOICME. ORURIO MSV 1A7
TELJRMCF4 (410) 742.1233
FAX (410) 742.1237
VIA PAN-- 661 -6898
Please inform the Secretary- Treasurer of the Authority that I would
like to address the meeting of the Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board scheduled for January. 20, 1995. I
apologize for not giving the required eight days' notice, but I did
not hear of the meeting until January 13 or receive information
about the item on the Comfort Living Housing Co- operative until
January 16.
Is it possible for me to be on a list of people to be informed of
any future meetings of the Authority or its Advisory Boards when
matters touching Humber valley lands (in Etobicoke) are on the
agenda?
I do not represent an organization. I am a resident and
businessman in Etobicoke with a long - standing interest in
preserving valley lands and with a long record of representing my
community through the former Thistletown Regional. Residents
Association and in other ways. As a candidate in Etobicoke in the
most recent municipal elections I stated as one of my principal
platform planks that "not one inch" of Humber valley land should be
conceded to development, a euphemism for private exploitation of a
public resource. I received enthusiastic support from many people
on that very issue; I know I speak for many people, but I ask to
address the Authority as a private, concerned citizen,speaking only
for himself.
Yours truly,
•
6/J. ALLAN MILLARD
JAM /ar
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D274
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PLANNING
- Status
KEY ISSUE
An update on the status of municipal emergency planning related to flooding within the area of
jurisdiction of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Res. #W90/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the status of municipal
emergency plans be received for information;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority continue to promote and assist in the development of
emergency plans within those municipalities which currently do not have a plan.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In the Province of Ontario, emergency planning comes under the direction of the Office of the
Solicitor General. The Solicitor General's office facilitates and promotes the development of
emergency plans by all levels of government from provincial ministries to local municipalities. With
regard to types of emergencies, the lead Ministry concept has been adopted within Ontario. In the
case of planning for flood emergencies, the Ministry of Natural Resources has been designated as
the lead Ministry. The Ministry of Natural Resources has delegated the role of facilitating and
promoting flood emergency planning to conservation authorities where they exist.
Consistent within most of the upper tier provincial and regional emergency plans is the
understanding that for most types of emergencies, the initial response will be at the level of the
local municipality. With this fact in mind, the Solicitor General promotes the development of
emergency plans within all municipalities in the province. Flood emergencies will also follow the
above framework with the response to a flood being at the municipal level until its resources have
been committed. Once all resources have been committed at the local and regional levels of local
government, the province would become involved. The Authority's role with respect to a flooding
emergency is one of forecasting and advising the municipalities of a flood threat. We then operate
our flood control facilities and offer any advice we can to assist in municipal operations.
This Authority has successfully promoted emergency planning within our member municipalities
and has participated in the development of numerous plans to ensure that the aspects of flood
emergencies have been accommodated within the plan. In an effort to ensure that these plans are
prepared and updated in accordance with procedures adopted through the Solicitor General's
Office, the Authority periodically reviews the status of plans within our member municipalities. The
Authority recently undertook such a review and a report on the current status of these plans has
been prepared, based upon the responses received and is as follows.
D275 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PLANNING (CONTD.)
- Status
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PLANNING STATUS
MUNICIPALITY PLAN TYPE DATE BYLAW
Region of Peel Generic Apr /94 #38 -94
Town of Caledon Generic 1988 #88 -156
City of Brampton Generic 1992 #51 -92
City of Mississauga Generic Jan /94 #853 -85
Region of York Generic
City of Vaughan Generic 1989
Town of Richmond Hill Generic Jun /91 #238 -88
Town of Markham Generic
Whitchurch- Stouffville Generic Mar /93 #93 -41
Township of King None
Region of Durham Generic #214 -74
Town of Pickering Generic
Town of Ajax Generic Oct /92 -92
Town of Uxbridge Generic Nov /93 #91 -18
Metropolitan Toronto Generic Nov /94 #52 -84
(currently being updated)
City of Etobicoke Generic Jan /94 #108 -91
City of York Generic Aug /90 #2002 -90
City of North York None
City of Toronto Generic July /94, #734 -92
Borough of East York Generic
City of Scarborough Generic Jan /91 #230 -87
Township of Adjala - Tosorontio None
Township of Mono Generic Jan /94 #94 -1
Step 26 in the Don Watershed Strategy is: "Accept flooding as a natural process and respect its
dangers." One suggested action within Step 26 is: "Ensure proper emergency measures for
hazardous areas."
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D276
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PLANNING (CONTD.)
- Status
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The status report on emergency planning in our member municipalities will be used in identifying
those agencies where either the development of an emergency plan should be promoted or
updated.
Staff will be contacting the municipalities where no plan presently exists and will offer any
assistance available to encourage and facilitate an emergency planning initiative.
For information contact: Don Haley (ext. 226)
6. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
KEY ISSUE
The formal appointment of watershed residents, municipal nominees, interest group representatives
and the Authority's member to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council.
Res. #W91/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
Selection Committee report directly to the Authority at Meeting #12/94, regarding the
appointments of Don watershed residents to the Watershed Council;
AND FURTHER THAT the report include the Don Watershed municipal appointments; the
appointments of representatives from the Task Force to Bring Back the Don; Friends of the Don
York Region; Friends of the Don East York; the Waterfront Regeneration Trust; and the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan; and the Authority appointment.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Resolution #A224/94 was adopted at Authority Meeting #9/94 and stated in part:
THAT the Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, as set out in the report, dated October 1994, (pages 0160 - D166 of
Water and Related Land Management Minutes of Meeting #5/94) be approved;
D277 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
THAT local and regional Don watershed municipal councils be requested to appoint one
municipal council member and one alternate to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council by
December 31, 1994;
THAT applications be requested from Don watershed residents by December 15, 1994;
THAT other groups, as identified in the Terms of Reference be requested to appoint
members and alternates to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council by December 31,
1994; (and)
THAT a report be submitted to the Authority identifying the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council designates for formal approval by the Authority in January 1995.
Selection of Watershed Residents:
Advertisements were placed in local and daily newspapers; information packages were sent to
former Don Watershed Task Force members; and an information session was held on December 1,
1994 to review the accomplishments of the Don Watershed Task Force and Terms of Reference for
the Watershed Council.
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council selection committee is meeting during the week of
January 8, 1994 to select watershed residents from 35 applicants.
Municipal and Other Appointments:
Seven municipalities have responded with the names of their representatives, as well as a number
of groups /agencies. It is anticipated that all appointments and the selection of watershed residents
will be completed for the Authority meeting on January 27, 1995.
RATIONALE
There is no Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board scheduled for February 1995;
therefore, the recommendation is made that the report be submitted directly to the January
meeting of the Authority to enable the inaugural meeting of the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council to be scheduled in February.
For information contact: Adele Freeman (ext. 238)
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D278
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE
KEY ISSUE:
Progress report on the selection of residents and the appointment of municipal and other
representatives to the Humber Watershed Task Force.
Res. #W92/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the appointments to the Humber
Watershed Task Force be confirmed at Authority Meeting #12/94 following receipt of information
from all agencies, municipalities and interest groups.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #9/94, Resolution #A225/94 was approved:
THAT the membership selection, reporting procedures and terms of reference for the
Humber Watershed Task Force, as described in full in the draft report, dated October 1994
(pages 0173 - D179 of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Minutes
#5/94), be approved;
THAT the Authority direct staff to request local and regional municipalities within the
Humber River watershed to appoint a Council member, and an alternate to the Task Force
by December 31, 1994;
THAT the Authority direct staff to request selected federal and provincial agencies to
appoint a senior employee and an alternate to the Task Force by December 31, 1994;
THAT the Authority direct staff to invite applications to participate on the Task Force from
residents of the Humber River watershed;
THAT the Authority authorize staff to take all other necessary actions to form a Humber
Watershed Task Force for the purpose of preparing a Humber River Watershed Strategy;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the proposed membership of the
Task Force for endorsement and forma/ appointment.
BACKGROUND
The formation of the Humber Watershed Task Force was announced in conjunction with the
commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. Letters have been sent to the local
and regional municipalities, federal and provincial agencies and interest groups requesting they
appoint delegates to the Task Force. Advertisements for watershed resident positions were placed
in local and daily newspapers. Twenty -five applicants were interviewed by a selection committee
comprised of Lois Griffin, Chair of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board, Lorna
Bissell, Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board member and Brian Denney, Director
of the Watershed Management Division.
D279 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE (CONTD.)
Fifteen watershed residents have been chosen to be members of the Humber Watershed Task
Force.
Christine Tu
John McFall
John Thompson
Debra Kosemetzky
Kristin Geater
William Wilson
Fiona Cowles
lain Craig
Ray Stukas
Marjorie Mossman
Dan Weaver
Heather Broadbent
David Burnett
James Vermeulen
Mel Plewes
City of Toronto
Town of Caledon
City of Vaughan
City of Etobicoke
City of North York
Town of Caledon
King Township
City of Vaughan
City of North York
City of Etobicoke
Town of Caledon
Town of Caledon
King Township
Town of Richmond Hill
Town of Caledon
Local and regional municipalities, federal and provincial agencies and interest groups are in the
process of appointing their members to the Humber Watershed Task Force. It is anticipated that
these will be received to enable endorsement and approval of the full Task Force membership
shortly. Appointments that have been received to date are as follows:
Regional and Municipal Council Appointees:
Councillor Michael Dibiase
Mayor Margaret Black (Alternate)
Mayor Carol Seglins
Councillor Glenn Mason
Deputy Mayor Terry O'Brien (Alternate)
Councillor Hutcheon
Councillor Korwin- Kuczynski (Alternate)
Councillor Connie Micallef
Councillor Peter Milczyn (Alternate)
Councillor Vito Spatafora
Councillor Tony Carella
Councillor Bernie Di Vona (Alternate)
Councillor Alfred Budweth
Councillor Margaret Britnell (Alternate)
Federal and Provincial
Peter Carruthers
Michael Johnson (Alternate)
Brian Nixon
Brian Peterkin
The Regional Municipality of York
The Regional Municipality of York
The Regional Municipality of Peel
Township of Adjala - Tosorontio
Township of Adjala - Tosorontio
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Etobicoke
City of Etobicoke
Town of Richmond Hill
City of Vaughan
City of Vaughan
Township of King
Township of King
Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation
Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation
Ministry of Environment and Energy
Ministry of Natural Resources
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D280
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE (CONTD.)
Interest Groups
Edward Sato
Luciano Martin
David Kirkpatrick (Alternate)
Ken Coffey
RATIONALE
Metro Toronto & Region Rap
ARCH
ARCH
Soil and Crop Association
There is no Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board scheduled for February 1995;
therefore, the recommendation is made that the report be submitted directly to the January
meeting of the Authority to enable the inaugural meeting of the Humber Watershed Task Force to
be scheduled in February.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins (ext. 21 1)
8. COMFORT LIVING HOUSING COOPERATIVE
-2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke
KEY ISSUE
Approval of an official plan amendment and zoning application to permit an 82 unit addition and
amenity facilities to the existing building at 2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke on the
Humber River Valley south of Finch Avenue. Staff is seeking direction to refer this matter to the
Ontario Municipal Board and to prepare for this hearing.
Res. #W93/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Maja Prentice
Joanna Kidd
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff refer the approval of official plan and
zoning code amendments (File Z- 2134), Comfort Living Housing Cooperative Incorporated, 2745
Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke to the Ontario Municipal Board and seek party status;
THAT the firm of Gardiner, Roberts be retained to represent the Authority at the hearing;
THAT staff continue to discuss revisions to the current development applications with the
proponent in an attempt to resolve outstanding issues prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
providing a status update prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
CARRIED
D281 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. COMFORT LIVING HOUSING COOPERATIVE (CONTD.)
-2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Resolution #E109/94 adopted by the Executive Committee at its Meeting #6/94 on
August 12, 1994, Authority staff were to report back to the Executive Committee regarding the
decisions and actions of the City of Etobicoke with respect to this application.
The Comfort Living Housing Cooperative is a 125 unit, 12 storey apartment building sited along the
sideslope of the Humber River valley, extending from the top of the valley wall to the bottom of the
valley floor and terminating approximately 10 metres from the Regional Storm flood plain. Beyond
the limits of the existing building and parking lot area, the southern third of the property is wooded
with a watercourse flowing in an easterly direction from Islington Avenue. The entire property,
with the exception of a small piece of tableland, is fill regulated pursuant to Ontario Regulation
158, and a permit will be required from the Executive Committee in order to accommodate this
proposal.
The original Ontario Municipal Board approvals for this development allowed for the structure to
encroach within the valley feature without encroaching upon either the flood plain or the heavily
vegetated portion of the ravine at the south end of the property, as specified by means of a
building envelope. These approvals were granted prior to current MTRCA, Metro and Etobicoke
valleyland policies and would not be supported based on present day policies. Additionally the
Board dealt with the issue of density associated with this development.
The application filed with the City of Etobicoke Planning Department entails adding a second
apartment building, 10 storeys in height (15 storeys at the rear), consisting of 82 units in addition
to amenity space and parking. This proposal would almost double the building footprint of the
existing apartment (excluding the existing parking garage) and increase the gross floor area by
more than 80 %. It would result in a 17% expansion of the existing "built area footprint"
(apartment, parking deck, paved surfaces) on site.
The application was considered at the City of Etobicoke Planning and Development Committee
meeting of September 27, 1994, where it was approved subject to the applicant receiving a fill
permit from the Authority. However, council at its meeting of October 3, 1994, further amended
the resolution deleting the requirement to have the applicant receive the fill permit, and approved
the application, contrary to the recommendation of refusal by Etobicoke Planning staff, the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the MTRCA. This resulted in the need for an Official Plan
Amendment to address the Valleyland and Definitions provisions of the City of Etobicoke Official
Plan.
Planning staff at the City of Etobicoke were directed to prepare conditions of approval and brought
a report back to council on November 21, 1994 for approval. Pursuant to Section 34 (19) of the
Planning Act, RSO 1990, written notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by -law and
reasons in support of the objection must be filed with the Ontario Municipal Board not later than
the twentieth day after the giving of written notice as required pursuant to subsection (19). To
date the conditions of the zoning by -law have not been fulfilled, therefore this zoning by -law
amendment has not been adopted by council. When it is approved the Authority will have 20 days
within which to appeal the application. Staff are seeking Authority direction in this regard.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D282
SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. COMFORT LIVING HOUSING COOPERATIVE (CONTD.)
-2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke
Additionally, Amendment Number 19 -94 to the Official Plan of the City of Etobicoke was approved
by council on December 19, 1994. As of yet, the amendment has not been circulated by the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs for comment.
MTRCA PROGRAM ISSUES
Further to the report brought forward to the Executive Committee Meeting #6/94 on August 12,
1994, Authority staff received correspondence from the proponent in addition to a copy of a Tree
Inventory report addressing this proposal. Additionally, staff met with representatives for the
proponent to further discuss the program and policy concerns of the Authority.
The proponent has argued that it is their belief that this development will not significantly impact
the valleylands of the Humber River, based on the following:
(a) The building expansion is proposed only in flat to gently sloping areas on site, not on steep
valley wall or within the Regional Storm flood plain.
This is true. The majority of the development is proposed on relatively flat lands on the
floor of the Humber Valley, with the exception of some development proposed on gently
sloping areas at the base of the southern ravine. The entire expansion is however within
the Humber River valleylands.
(b) The drainage feature flowing through the property in an easterly direction is proposed to be
relocated and stabilized rather than enclosed.
This is true. The original proposal called for the piping of the watercourse, which now is
proposed to be altered and relocated further south.
(c) The removal of vegetation to accommodate this development consists primarily of common
species which are short-lived and currently in poor condition, and would be replaced with
long lived native species which would enhance species diversity and wildlife habitat
potential.
While it is true that these species are common, they are considered to be very successful at
reproducing, and one would expect that they would rebound and persist on the site should
conditions permit. Additionally, the fact that these species are considered common does
not detract from their current functions within the valley nor support their removal to
accommodate development.
(d) Wildlife habitat which would be removed from the site is not unique, but rather is common
and widespread throughout the valley and can be absorbed by adjacent habitat.
D283 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. COMFORT LIVING HOUSING COOPERATIVE (CONTD.)
-2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke
This may occur, but there would still be a Toss of habitat. Commonality is not a
sound reason to support further Toss of habitat functions within the valley; this
argument could be made for the majority of habitat within valleylands.
(e) Loss of open space perceived from any off -site location will be the same whether the
development is contained within the existing building footprint or as proposed.
This statement applies to visual impact only; however, by containing any further
development to the existing building footprint, you avoid further encroachment and loss of
the valley features and functions.
(f) From a loss of potential for reinstating and restoring a natural environment, opportunities
exist elsewhere on the site;
The other areas which could be restored also form part of the valley feature and would not
compensate or act as a trade -off for this area. By allowing further encroachment you lose
the potential for reinstating and restoring this specific portion of the valley feature.
(g) The area of the proposed addition is not a significant recharge or discharge area.
While the area is not considered a significant recharge or discharge area, it still plays a role
in providing storage, conveyance, recharge and discharge functions.
Within the Authority's jurisdiction many valley and stream corridors have been substantially altered
as a result of both urban and rural use. These alterations have included the removal of forest
vegetation, the filling and loss of valley stream corridor features, and the piping, straightening and
channelization of watercourses. Such changes have resulted in the degradation and loss of these
resources. This proposal looks to further encroach on the valleyland resources on the basis of
commonality and negligible site impacts.
The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (October, 1994) recognizes that while the
need for risk management related to flooding, erosion and slope stability continues, there is also a
need to ensure that future environmental degradation is prevented and damaged areas are
rehabilitated /regenerated. To accomplish this, decisions on land use activities must address valley
and stream corridor concerns through the planning process which considers natural resources,
conservation, restoration, protection and management values.
To this end, Section 4.2.2 sets out the policies, criteria and implementation procedures which
apply to areas of existing development within valley and stream corridors that have not been
designated as Special Policy Areas or Two Zone Concept areas. Specifically, subsection (B) notes
that major additions to existing buildings or structures that exceed 50 percent of the total area of
the existing building or structure shall not be permitted. Based on Authority staff's review of this
proposal it is a major addition.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D284
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
8. COMFORT LIVING HOUSING COOPERATIVE (CONTD.)
-2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke
Recognizing the ongoing nature of this proposal and the fact that the applications were made prior
to the approval of the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, staff advised
the proponent that they should be prepared to bring forward a proposal for Authority consideration
which contained all development within the existing "built area footprint ". This would result in no
further encroachments beyond that which is already developed. Although a major addition would
be constructed, staff is of the opinion that this approach may be a reasonable option given the
existing development pattern on this site. The proponent noted however that it is not possible for
them to do this in light of interim parking requirements and the displacement of the existing parking
during construction. Staff will continue to pursue the possible resolution of this matter with the
applicant and will report as required.
For information contact: Luch Ognibene (ext. 284)
9. GLEN EAGLES SITE
- Proposal from the City of Scarborough to Acquire 10,000 Sheppard Avenue
KEY ISSUE
Report on staff review of the request from City of Scarborough to assist with the acquisition of the
Glen Eagles Site (10,000 Sheppard Avenue).
Res. #W94/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated January 11, 1995,
be received;
THAT MTRCA not assist with the purchase of the Glen Eagles site (10,000 Sheppard Avenue, City
of Scarborough);
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to advise the City of Scarborough accordingly.
CARRIED
D285 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
9. GLEN EAGLES SITE (CONTD.)
- Proposal from the City of Scarborough to Acquire 10,000 Sheppard Avenue
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #11/94, held on December 16, 1994, the members of the Authority adopted the
following resolution:
Res. #A265/94
THAT the letter from the City of Scarborough regarding a proposal to acquire the Glen
Eagles Site, be received and referred to staff to report to the Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board.
The City of Scarborough's letter is attached as page D287.
Currently the Glen Eagles site has a development proposal consisting of two four - storey buildings
and one thirteen- storey building. The Official Plan designation and zoning have been approved with
certain provision through a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The provisions that
assist in meeting Authority policies are:
(a) Establishment of a 10 metre buffer from stable top of valley bank; and
(b) Public ownership of the valleylands plus the 10 metre buffer for a nominal sum by
the Authority. This agreement was brought before the Authority on June 24, 1994.
An additional appeal is still before the OMB concerning the site plan application for this
development. Specifically the issue concerns whether the developer should still be required to pay
cash in lieu of the 5 percent parkland dedication, or whether the agreement to provide the
valleylands and buffer for a nominal fee should represent the parkland dedication. The OMB met to
resolve the issue but adjourned pending the completion of a more complete site plan submission.
Further to these planning issues concerning the Glen Eagles site, staff reviewed the Rouge Park
Management Plan and any recommendations or objectives for this site.
This review indicated that there is no specific recommendation /purpose for the site. The Rouge
Plan does define the park boundary in undeveloped areas to be 30 metres from the stable top -of-
bank to the extent possible. In addition to this, the Rouge Plan indicates an objective of finding
appropriate ways and means of ensuring park scenic values are protected. In terms of the Glen
Eagles site, the proposed development may interfere with scenic vistas in the location and did not
include the 30 metre park boundary.
Upon the release of the Rouge Park Management Plan, the provincial government appointed the
Commissioner of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, David Crombie, to work with the park partners
to resolve the outstanding issues, particularly the final management structure and funding
arrangements for the Rouge Park. As part of this initiative, two working groups were established
to deal with funding, taxation, and securement; and the second group with how to develop an
Interpretive Centre for the Rouge Park. In terms of this latter working group, the partners agreed
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D286
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
9. GLEN EAGLES SITE (CONTD.)
- Proposal from the City of Scarborough to Acquire 10,000 Sheppard Avenue
on a process to develop an Interpretive Centre, explored possible sites and decided that an interim
Interpretive Centre should be developed for the opening of the Rouge Park on April 1, 1995.
The process for developing an Interpretive Centre was agreed by the partners to be coordinated by
Parks Canada. The development of the Interpretive Centre would take the following steps:
(1) visitor or market survey to determine the markets to be served and the objectives of
the Centre;
(2) visitor experience concept is developed which will assist in developing a final
design, and therefore location, for the Interpretive Centre;
(3) site planning.
In reviewing potential sites for the Interpretive Centre, the working group toured five of a potential
seven sites (which included the Glen Eagles site) and developed advantages and disadvantages for
all seven sites. The Interpretive Centre Working Group believed that it could not continue any
further with reviewing potential locations until the visitor experience concept has been developed.
RATIONALE
The acquisition of the Glen Eagles site would:
(a) not meet any additional Authority goals or objectives; and
(b) achieve only minor objectives of the Rouge Park.
In addition, as the final selection of the site for the Rouge Park Interpretive Centre will take at least
six months before its completion; and further, since the City of Scarborough has made direct
submissions to the Authority's usual partners, MNR and Metropolitan Toronto, for financial
contributions, it is staff's recommendation that the Authority not assist with the purchase of the
Glen Eagles site.
Report prepared by: Peter Wigham (ext. 273)
For information contact: Brian Denney (ext. 242)
D287 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
DEC 9 1994
Corporate Services Department
Real Estate Division
December 7, 1994
Metro Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 1S4
Attention: Mr. Craig Mather
Re: Proposal to Acquire Glen Eagles Site
10,000 Sheppard Avenue, Scarborough
CITY OF SCARBOROUGH
300 Consilium Place
Suite 1 102
Scarborough, Ontario
Canada M I H 3G2
Telephone (416) 396 -4930
Fax No. (416) 396-4241
In October of this year Scarborough Council authorized the purchase of the "Glen Eagles" site
at Sheppard Avenue and Twyn Rivers Drive for inclusion with the Rouge Park, subject to
receiving an adequate level of funding from the senior levels of government. To date we have
not received a firm commitment from the other levels governments, however, I have also not
been refused. Our negotiations with the current owners have been fruitful in terms of arriving
at an agreement; however, Scarborough is not prepared to got it alone or upfront the purchase.
We have therefore approached the owners on the basis of acquiring only part of the site. Again
the owners are co- operative but will not remain so indefinitely. Given the significance of the
site and the impact the proposed development may have on the vista from the valley we feel
strongly that a partial acquisition is worthwhile and ask that the Authority contribute
5500,000.00 to the purchase price.
Your early response is required if we are to be successful in concluding even a partial
acquisition.
Should you have any questions please call me at (416) 396 -4930.
Yours truly,
Ki✓
R. Mayr, A
Director
Real Estate Services
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
RM:ss
c.c. Ann Rexe, Planning Dept.
\TTp �lr °R �� Tl:\l',.,'� {: '. 'IERI iIC! FE`FII•R:• r� /'
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D288
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
10. ADDENDUM TO PROJECT FOR FLOOD PROTECTION, DIXIE /DUNDAS MAJOR FLOOD
CENTRE - LITTLE ETOBICOKE CREEK
- Regional Municipality of Peel
KEY ISSUE
Approval of an Addendum to the Project for Flood Protection for the Major Flood Centre (former
Damage Centre) at Dixie /Dundas on the Little Etobicoke Creek, City of Mississauga, Regional
Municipality of Peel.
Res. #W95/94
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joanna Kidd
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Addendum to the Project for Flood
Protection, Dixie /Dundas Major Flood Centre - Little Etobicoke Creek, The Regional Municipality of
Peel (pages D290 -D296) be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken:
(a) the Regional Municipality of Peel be designated as the benefitting municipality on
the basis set forth within the project;
(b) the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the Addendum to the Project and a
grant of 50 percent of the cost thereof;
(c) the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required
in connection with the project, including the execution of any documents.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Joanna Kidd
Res. #W96/94 Seconded by: Ila Bossons
THAT staff be directed to bring the final design back to the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board for approval.
THE AMENDMENT WAS
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS
BACKGROUND
The initial project was approved by the Authority at Meeting #2/88, under Resolution #40.
CARRIED
CARRIED
The project involves providing flood protection to the Dixie /Dundas area in the City of Mississauga,
along the Little Etobicoke Creek. The remedial works are to take the form of an enlargement of the
channel and the Dixie Road bridge opening to improve the level of flood protection within the area.
The project has been delayed by property issues and is only partially completed. A total of 500
metres of flood control channel east of Dixie Road has been completed with the bridge works and
approximately 500 metres of channel west of Dixie Road remaining.
D289 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD !7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
10. ADDENDUM TO PROJECT FOR FLOOD PROTECTION, DIXIE /DUNDAS MAJOR FLOOD
CENTRE - LITTLE ETOBICOKE CREEK
- Regional Municipality of Peel
An addendum has been prepared (D290), outlining the current status of the project and the
reasoning behind the need for an update to the project, including financial details related to
increased Project costs.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
As a consequence of the delays related to property issues, costs associated with design and
construction have escalated from the initial estimates. The project cost has risen from an initial
estimate of $1,100,000 to a revised total estimate of $1 ,600,000. Increases in the project cost
are related to legal and survey costs, property costs, design changes, additional engineering,
inflationary costs, and increases due to the GST.
The Authority's financial partner in this project, the Regional Municipality of Peel, originally
designated the project as locally benefitting and apportioned their costs to the City of Mississauga.
In anticipation of the same dispensation, the City of Mississauga has been kept up -to -date on the
progress of this project and has carried the municipal portion of the project cost forward in its
budget including the anticipated additional costs. The provincial share of the project costs are
expected to be available as regular flood control capital grant to the Authority in 1995.
Details on the costing and financing is included within the following Addendum to the Project.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Completion of the project will involve the construction of approximately 500 metres of flood
protection channel and associated works at the Dixie Road bridge to provide protection along the
Little Etobicoke Creek east and west of Dixie Road, north of Dundas Street in the City of
Mississauga.
Details on the remaining works are included within the following Addendum to the Project.
For information contact: Don Haley (ext. 226)
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D290
ADDENDUM TO PROJECT FOR
FLOOD PROTECTION - LITTLE ETOBICOKE CREEK
DIXIE / DUNDAS STREETS- MAJOR FLOOD CENTRE
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL
NOVEMBER 1994
D291 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
DIXIE / DUNDAS FLOOD PROTECTION
INTRODUCTION
The original Project for Flood Protection at Dixie /Dundas, on the Little Etobicoke Creek in
Mississauga was to provide flood protection through the construction of a channel from
approximately 500 metres upstream (west) to approximately 500 Metres downstream (East) of
Dixie Road. The channel was to be constructed to provide a minimum of protection to a 50
percemt risk over a 100 year life as defined within the Authority's 1980 Flood Control Program.
The project was initially intended to be undertaken in two phases with a one to two year
construction period. The first phase being works to provide an immediate increase in the level of
flood protection from existing conditions west of Dixie Road. The second phase was to build upon
the works undertaken in the initial phase and construct the principal flood control channel works.
Inherent in the original project was the presumption that all properties required to undertake the
works were already in public ownership.
Difficulties with implementing the project as originally designed were discovered when detailed
property surveys were undertaken in preparation for construction. The property west of Dixie Road
which was believed to be in public ownership, turned out to in fact, be owned by two separate
private interests. The consequences of which was a need to alter the original phasing, so that
some portion of the Flood Protection works could be initiated. In addition to the property issues,
some alterations to the proposed design was implemented to reduce the potential impacts on
existing vegetation both east and west of Dixie Road. Among these changes were the reduction in
channel size west of Dixie Road and the change from a rip -rap channel to one of armourstone east
of Dixie Road.
While property negotiations were being initiated, the project was initiated with the construction of
an armour stone Tined channel east of Dixie Road. The extent of works terminated on the
downstream side of the Dixie Road bridge and a temporary drop structure constructed. The
channel works east of Dixie were initiated in 1989 and completed in 1990. Since that time, the
project has been on hold pending the resolution of property issues which have only recently been
completed.
LOCATION
The flood control remedial works proposed are along a stretch of the Little Etobicoke creek in the
City of Mississauga. The remedial works will be located along a reach of the creek from
approximately 500 metres east of Dixie Road, north of Dundas Street to approximately 500 metres
west of Dixie Road.
The extent of the channel works completed to date and the remainder of works are noted on the
attached map. (see fig 1.1 )
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D292
D293 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
FLOOD PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
In the Authority's 1980 Watershed Plan, the need for the Authority to continue its program of
Structural Flood Protection was integrated within the Flood Control Program component. The
Dixie /Dundas site on the Little Etobicoke Creek was identified at that time as the number 20
priority site for remedial works. Following a review of the remedial works priorities in 1987 as a
consequence of severe flooding in 1986 and 1987, the site was updated to number 10 on the list
to reflect its vulnerability to flooding.
The area experienced severe flooding in July of 1987 due to an extreme localized thunderstorm
which caused the river to exceed its valley system and flow south along Queen Frederica Drive to
Dundas Street. This event served to initiate the development of the original project in an attempt
to reduce the flood threat along this reach of the Little Etobicoke Creek.
The current level of flood protection has been slightly improved through the works already
undertaken, however the site still remains highly flood vulnerable.
The completion of the flood protection scheme for the Dixie /Dundas area will involve principally the
extension of the armour stone chancel west of Dixie Road upstream to just north of the second
footbridge.(see fig. 1.1) The channel size and alignment have been altered to reduce the Toss of
existing vegetation and the level of overall flood protection subsequently reduced from a 50
percent risk over a 100 year period to a 62 percent level of risk. In addition works under the Dixie
Road bridge are required by the Region of Peel to protect the bridge footings and new abutments
required to facilitate the northern footbridge replacement.
Puroose
The purpose of the Addendum to the Project is to outline changes both from a design and a cost
perspective which have taken place with the Dixie /Dundas Flood Protection Project since it was
first approved by the Authority through resolution #40 at Authority Meeting #2/88.
At meeting #2/88, the Authority adopted the following resolution:
Res. #40
"That the Project for Flood Protection, Dixie /Dundas Damage Centre, Little Etobicoke Creek,
City of Mississauga, Regional Municipality of Peel, (Appendix WR.1 -10), at a total
estimated cost of $1,100,000, be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken:
al the Regional Municipality of Pee/ be designated as the benefitting municipality on
the basis set forth within the project;
b) the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the project and a grant of 55
percemt of the cost thereof;
c) pursuant to section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the Ontario
Municipal Board be requested;
d) the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required
in connection with the Project, including the execution of any documents."
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D294
PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS
The original project anticipated that no property issues existed due to an understanding that all
required lands were already within public ownership.
The lands west of Dixie Road were in fact in private ownership and as a consequence, the phasing,
type, location and extent of flood protection works needed to be revised. Negotiations with the
affected landowners and their agents began as soon as the misconception was discovered,
however, these negotiations have been difficult and protracted by the owners to the point that only
recently after six years have agreements been finalized.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Approval under the Environmental Assessment Act was obtained for this project prior to its
initiation in 1989. As an ongoing project, it is understood that the approval remains valid and no
further approvals under the Act are required.
While no formal requirements for environmental approvals are necessary, a review will be
completed to ensure that our proposed works will reflect the Authority's goals and objectives
defined within our current program's. This review will be undertaken in concert with City of
Mississauga staff.
COSTS AND FINANCING
The original cost breakdown of the project adopted in 1988 was as noted, split into two phases
with a cost breakdown as shown below.
Phase I (west of Dixie)
Site preparation and restoration $ 13,000.
Initial remedial works $42,000.
Engineering and contingencies (Phases I & II) $95,000.
Total $ 150,000
Phase II (east of Dixie and Channel)
Site preparation and restoration $33,000.
Remedial works east of Dixie $477,000.
Remedial works west of Dixie $440,000.
Total $950,000.
The total cost allocated to the project in 1988 was $ 1,100,000.
The property difficulties experienced required a change in the phasing of remedial works and in the
first year of construction in 1989, channel works were initiated on the east side of Dixie Road.
The costs incurred to this project to date are as shown below.
D295 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995
East of Dixie
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Legal /survey $16,000. $1,000. $200. $6,500
Engineering $31,000. $ 18,000. $6,400. $3,400.
Construction $204,000. $401,000. $28,400.
Totals $251,000. $420,000. $35,000. $3,400. $6,500.
Overall cost to date: $715,900.
The anticipated costs required to complete the works west of Dixie
Road are as follows;
Legal /survey $15,100.
Engineering $30,000.
Construction $774,000.
Property $65,000.
Total $884,100.
The anticipated overall project cost has now been revised to $1,600,000.
The overall increase in project costs of $500,000. are apportioned in the following manner.
Additional legal and survey costs $25,000.
Property acquisition and easements $65,000.
Design changes to Dixie Road bridge $65,000.
Design changes to channel $146,000.
Additional engineering $30,000.
Inflationary costs $136,000.
GST $33,000..
Total $ 500,000.
FINANCING
The works undertaken to date with respect to this project were funded in the following manner;
Province of Ontario
Regional Municipality of Peel
$393,745.
$322,155.
Total $ 715,900.
These costs were apportioned on a cost sharing basis of 55 percent provincial funding to 45
percent municipal. The Regional Municipality of Peel, as the designated benefiting municipality,
defined the project as locally benefitting and raised its portion through the City of Mississauga.
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/94, JANUARY 20, 1995 D296
The remaining portion of funds required to complete this project will be funded as follows:
Province of Ontario $442,050.
Regional Municipality of Peel $442,050.
Total $ 884,100.
The remaining project costs will be apportioned on a cost sharing basis of 50 per cent provincial
and 50 per cent municipal based on revised provincial funding guidelines. The Regional Municipality
of Peel is anticipated to define the remaining portion of funding as a local priority. The City of
Mississauga has allocated the appropriate funding within its 1995 budget.
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 12:45 p.m., January 20, 1995.
Lois Griffin Craig Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
bb.