Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWaterfront Advisory Board 1977 ~~ H-1 (fj' the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD THURSDAY-MARCH-17-1977 #1/77 -- ---------------- The Waterfront Advisory Board met at the Authority Office, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, on Thursday, March 17, 1977, commencing at 1:30 p.m. PRESENT WERE Chairman M.J. Breen Vice Chairman Mrs. S. Martin Members G. Ashe Mrs. J.A. Gardner C.A. Mackie J. Morton G. Norton A.E. 01 Donohue P.B. Pickett, Q.C. Mrs. N. Pownall G.B. Sinclair Mrs. J. Trimmer Chairman of the Authority R.G. Henderson Vice Chairman of the Authority Mrs. F. Ge11 Secretary-Treasurer K.G. Higgs Dir.-P1anning & Policy W.A. McLean Adm.-Water Resource Division M.R. Garrett Head-W/F Section, W.R. Divln. B.E. Denney Project Planner, W.R. Div'n. T.E. Farrell projeet Biologist-W.R. Divln. I.D. Macnab ABSENT WAS Member T.W. Butt Mr. M.J. Breen introduced and welcomed the new members of the Board. MINUTES The Minutes of Meeting #4/76 were presented. Res. #1 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: G. Ashe RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of Meeting #4/76, as presented, be adopted. CARRIED; DELEGATION - BOROUGH OF SCARBOROUGH Alderman Bill Be1fontaine, Ward 1, Borough of Scarborough, appeared before the Board regarding erosion control in the Crescentwood Road area of the Scarborough Bluffs. He outlined the history of the proposed Shoreline Management Programme, the proposal of the Borough of Scarborough to carry out certain improvements and the negotiations that he has had with the affected residents. He urged the Board to approve the Shoreline Management Programme in 1977 and to give high priority to the Crescentwood Road area. . Res. #2 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: G. Ashe RESOLVED THAT: the Board receive the report presented by Alderman Be1fontaine; and H-2 -2- THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The Cresccntwood Road area of the Scarborough Bluffs be given high priority in the 1977 Shoreline Management Programme. CARRIED; PROGRESS REPORT The staff presented a detailed report on the present status and proposed works in various sections of the Waterfront. Res. #3 Moved by: Mrs. N. Pownall Seconded by: G. Norton RESOLVED THAT: The Staff Progress Report, as presented, be received. CARRIED; 1977 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME The staff presented the proposed 1977 Development Programme for the Waterfront Project 1977-1981. Res. #4 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: A.E. O'Donohue RESOLVED THAT: The 1977 Waterfront Development Programme be received and appended as Schedule "A" of these Minutes; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: Copies of the Development Programme be forwarded to the Province of Ontario for approval. CARRIED; 1977 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME The staff presented a report and recommendations on the 1977 Shoreline Management Programme. Res. #5 Moved by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner Seconded by: P.B. Pickett, Q.C. RESOLVED THAT: The staff report and recommendations on the 1977 Shoreline Management Progra~me be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The staff, with the assistance of consultants, carry out a comprehensive priority study for shoreline management along the entire area under the Authority's jurisdiction, including the outer shore of the Toronto Islands; and further THAT the priority for 1977 shore protection be the Crescentwood Design Block and the staff be directed to proceed with design and implementation subject to the private property owners contributing the required land, as per approved Authority waterfront policy. CARRIED; SHORELINE MANAGEMENT, AJAX WATERFRONT The staff presented a report, including a resolution from the Town of Ajax, regarding shoreline management in the Town of Ajax. Res. #6 Moved by: G. Norton Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The staff report and resolution of the Town of Ajax be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The staff evaluate the Ajax Waterfront as part of the current Shoreline Management Priority Study and bring recommendations back to the Waterfront Advisory Board at its fall meeting. CARRIED; .-3- H-3 GREAT LAKES AWARENESS The Executive Committee referred to the Waterfront Advisory Board a communication from Dr. Walter Tove11, Chairman of the Information & Education Advisory Board, regarding the Great Lakes Awareness Programme. The staff outlined for the Board the details of the report and the activities of the Authority regarding shoreline management. Res. #7 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: G. Norton RESOLVED THAT: The communication from Dr. Walter Tove11, Chairman of the Information & Education Advisory Board, as referred by the Executive Committee, be received: and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The Authority proceed with its current information programme with respect to the Authority's waterfront regulations: and further THAT the Authority study the ways and means of protecting the shore- line within its area of jurisdiction against the impact of flooding and erosion, as part of its Shoreline Management Priority Study. WATERFRONT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME CARRIED: The staff presented a comprehensive report on the Waterfront Environ- mental Monitoring Programme. The report was presented in the form of a summary of the findings and recommendations of the Waterfront monitoring studies undertaken during :976, and compared 1975 and 1976 data. Res. #8 Moved by: G.B. Sinclai.r Seconded by: Mrs. N. Pownall RESOLVED THAT: The Report dated 1977 "Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program Lake Ontario" be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The st~ff.be directed to act on recommendations contained in the report, specifically: '(a) review of water quality parameters to eliminate redundancy in this section of the programme: (b) reduce the frequency of groundwater sampling at Humber Bay East to twice a year: (c) examine the use of temperature-conductivity profiles as a means of providing information on water movement and quality in embayments and set up a recording programme of these parameters where feasible: (d) develop a more complete data management system which includes sediment quality and biological data; and further THAT the Report dated 1977 "Circulation and Modelling Studies at Water- front Recreational Development Sites - 1976" be received: and further THAT the staff incorporate the recommendations made in the Report into the waterfront development plans where appropriate: and further THAT the programme for 1977 as outlined in the report dated 1977 ' "Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program Lake Ontario" be approved; and further TII}'\.T the staff be requested to publicize the results of the Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Programme. CARRIED: H-4 -4- OPERl\TION DOORSTEP l\Nr,LING The staff presented a report on Oper,1tion ~oorstep l\ngling. The report had been considered by the Ex,'cutive Committee and was referr~d to the Waterfront Advisory Board for consideration and recommendations. Res. #9 l-10ved by: G. Norton Seconded by: P.B. Picket, Q.C. HESOLVED THAT: The report entitled "0peration Doorstep l\ngling" dated 1976 be received for information; and THl\T the staff communication and brief entitled "Waterfront Fishery Management and Angling, 1977-1981" be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The following development proposals be approved: (a) Marsh development, fish habitat enhancement and the construction of an angling/observation pier at the Humber Bay East Waterfront Area. (b) Fish habitat enhancement and the construction of an angling/observation pier at Bluffers Waterfront Area. . (c) Fish habitat enhancement and the construction of an angling/observation catwalk at the Lower Rouge Waterfront Area; - (d) Mi)~or habitat enhancement at the Duffin Creek Water- front Area. CARRIED; METROPOLITAN TORONTO REGION BOATING STUDY, 1976 The staff presented a report on the Metropolitan Toronto Region Boating Study, 1~76. The report had been considered by the Executive Committee and reierred to the Waterfront Advisory Board, for information. Res. #10 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: J. Morton RESOLVED THAT: The Metropolitan Toronto Region Boating Study, 1976, be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The Study be amended to show that the completion date for the Harwood Avenue Marina in Ajax will be as soon as possible; and THAT the Waterfront Advisory Board concur in the recommendations of the Executive Committee regarding the Metropolitan Toronto Region Boating Study, 1976. CARRIED; AQUATIC PARI< Mrs. s. Martin submitted a report regarding the deve1ppment of Aquatic Park. Res. #11 l-10ved by: Mrs. S. Martin Seconded by: Mrs. J. Trimmer RESOLVED THl\T: The Report on Aquatic Park, dated March 17, 1977, prepared by Mrs. S. Martin, Vice Chairman of the Waterfront Advisory Board, be received and appended as Schedule "B"of the l-Hnutes; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The report be referred to the staff for consideration in the preparation of an implementation plan if the Authority is designated as the implementing agency for Aquatic Park. CARRIED; - --5- H-5 NEW BUSINESS PROPOSAL OF' THE WESTERLY PORT BOAT J\ND YACU']' CT,UB Mrs. Alice Elwell outlined u proposal of the Westerly Port Boat and Yacht Club to establish boat mooring facilities in the Humber Day East Waterfront area. Mrs. Elwell described the proposed location. The Board was advised that the Westerly Port Boat and Yacht Club has applied for a charter and for incorporation and, at the present time, has a membership of about 200 persons. At the request of the Board, the staff advised that no provisions had been made for boat mooring facilities in the Humber Bay East Waterfront Area, and that the Master Plan had been approved by the Authority, the Borough of Etobicoke, Metropolitan Toronto and the Province of Ontario. The staff advised the Board that boating in this sector of the Waterfront is to be included in Humber Bay West. Res. #12 Moved by: P.B. Pickett, Q.C. Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: the proposal of the Westerly Port Boat and Yacht Club to establish. mooring facilities in the Humber Bay . East Waterfront Area not be approved. CARRIED; - ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m., March 17. M.J. Breen K.G. Higgs Chairman Secretary-Treasurer . (f- H-6 SClmDUT.E "A" -- TO: TIlE: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF 'rUE WA'rERFRONT ADVISOny BOARD Meeting #1/77 RE: 1977 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME The total approved budget for waterfront development in 1977 is $3,280,000. The following is a summary of the proposed 1977 capital wor](s as well as the support costs which are required to implement the 1977-1981 Project. Proposed Works and Support Costs Estimated Costs $ 1. Lonq Branch Park 5,000.00 - a permanent easement and access road will be established to facilitate maintenance of the shore protection. 2. Humber Bay West Phase II 200,000.00 . the 1andfi11ing programme will con~inue - under the direction of the Toronto - Harbour Commission and the design of all aspects of the surface development will proceed. 3. Humber Bay East 1,600,000.00 - major site development works including the following will be carried out by contract: - armouring - servicing - pond and waterway construction - washroom and shelters - roads and parking - grading - interior shoreline treatment - dock walls - In addition, Authority forces will undertake topsoi1ing operations and turf establishment as well as construction of paths and service ro ad s . 4. Western Beaches 375,000.00 - dredging and construction of dock walls will be carried out by contract through the Toronto Harbour Commission and in addition detailed design work will proceed on the other aspects of the proposed redevelopment of the area. 5. Ashbridqe's Bay 95,000.00 - the final landscaping and completion of pathways will be accomplished prior to the official opening in June. , '0 H-7 To: ~1e Waterfront Advisory Board - Meeting ~~1/77 PAGE 2 Re: 1977 Development Programme 6. Bluff~rs 310,000.00 - the land filling programme will continue under the direction of the Toronto Harbour Commission and in addition contracts will be awarded for the construction of a sidewalk parallel to Brim1ey Road and for minor improvements to the temporary boat launching facilities. 7. East Point Par~ 55,000.00 - initial development of the pond and water- way system may be undertaken to keep pace with the development of the Easterly Filtration Plant Site and detailed design of the park will proceed. 8. Environmental Monitorinq 100,000.00 - the environmental monitoring programme as described in detail in another item on the agenda will be continued. 9. Mappinq 30,000.00 - some mapping of actively eroding areas will be required for the shoreline management programme and in addition property plans' are required for some sections of the waterfront. 10. Shoreline Manaqement _SO,OOO.OO - a comprehensive priority study will be undertaken and work will proceed at Crescentwood Park as described elsewhere on the agenda. 11. Staff Salaries 60,000.00 12. Property 200,000.00 - the programme of land acquisition within the areas designated in the 1977-1981 Project will be continued and the existing Authority lands will be maintained. roT~ &~~~Q~200~00 . All contract drawings and specifications as well as recommendations for tender awards will be presented to the Executive Committee and the Province of Ontario for approval. H-8 To: The Waterfront Advisory Boaru - Meeting #1/77 PAGE 3 Re: 1977 Development Programme RECOMMENDATION IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: The 1977 Waterfront Development Programme be approved and forwarded to the Executive Committee and the Province of Ontario for approval. M. R. Garrett Administrator Water Resource Division . March 9, 1977 BED/md , l \ SCllEOULg "B" H-9 To: The Chairman and Members, Waterfront Advisory Board - Meeting #1/77 - Thur-Mar-17/77 Re: Aquatic Park It is recognized that the Conceptual Plan for Aquatic Park was arrived at in March-1976 after considerable input from all interested parties. The study Terms of Reference required the Consultants to produce active and passive water-oriented concepts, recognizing the site capability for wildlife observation, and to investigate alter- natives based on an analysis of the site's natural resources. Since the Conceptual Plan was finalized, however, two unforeseen conditions have arisen; one - the continuing financial restraints imposed by the prevailing economic climate, causing delays in funding and approvals; the other - a unique ecological and recreational resource evolving on the Eastern Headland. It is commonly accepted that loss of habitat has been the largest single factor in the drastic diminution of this continent's plant and animal life. The reverse appears to be true. Replace a suit- able habitat and compatible life will return. At the headland, by accident of constructiop .sequence and method, viable ecosystems have . been created and flora and fauna are moving in - a fascinating and rare opportunity to study the phenomenon of plant succession and the return of bird life not seen in the central waterfront in such numDers since Ashbridge's Bay was a cattail marsh. In fact, such an area d~es not exist elsewhere on the Great Lakes. By sheer good luck, this is happening now on the doorstep of Metro Toronto. What this brief proposes is for those concerned to take the opportunity which presents itself due to delays in funding and approvals, to review the situation in the light of these two unfore- seen conditions. Consideration should be given to amending the plan so that an accommodation may be reached between the intensive boating use and the realization of the full potential of the area as a unique natural environment. Interim management should be carefully controlled to permit this accommodation. The intensive use component has basic requirements of services, dry sail ramps, vehicle access and parking, with adequate water and land base for summer operating facilities and winter storage. The natural and passive use component requires, besides swimming - hiking and picnicking areas, sufficient and appropriate territory which must include mudflats, sand and shallow and protected water. The conceptual plan unfortunately has disadvantages for both these components. The boating facilities are located in the western segment of the 2~ mile spit requiring a much higher capital expenditure for roads and services than is desirable, necessary, or perhaps possible. The passive use area does not include the type of variety of terrain which makes the headland unique at this time. The wildlife sector is restricted to the most westerly tip and bay which is productive only as a gull and tern breeding colony, whereas the adjoining mudflats and dunes, which produce a great variety of flora and fauna, are to be dredged for boating harbours. These disadvantages could be overcome by relocating the intensive boating use to the eastern segment where there already exists a large land base and graded beach. The western segment of the spit would be set aside for passive park users such as picnickers, swimmers, photographers, fishermen, hikers and naturalists of all ages. With reasonable management of small sections during specific breeding periods, there can be full use made of the passive area without disrupting or destroying the natural environment. . . H-10 Aquatic Park - Meeting #1/77 Waterf~ont puge 2 -- For the immediate future when no funds at all are available, the only action required is to ensure that no filliIlg, dredging or private motorizc~ traffic, other th~n for emergency purposes, be permitted beyond a line which could be drilwn at approximately the weather station. A couple of Johnnies on the Spot and a pay telephone (line already laid) would be welcome amenities, but not essential. For the period of time when and if limited funds become available, temporary dry sail areas could be developed at the eastern end of the Outer Harbour near the base gate where beach grade is suitable. As more funds are approved, docks and wet moorings could be constructed within this eastern segment, using the existing large land base as access, parking and storage. This area, apart from being nearest the entrance and existing services and, consequently, least expensive to develop, has the added benefit of being considerably safer for con~unity and sail clubs. With this phased approach, a further review should be made when major funding is imminent to assess the validity of this position with respect to boating and ecological potentials. If it is decided at that time that the enlarged passive and wildlife area is not justified, the development can continue with less regard to this aspect, subject to the economics of the period. If, on the other hand, it is seen as having a uniqueness of permanent value, it will be a feather in the cap of all concerned to have allowed it to happen. Plans can then go forward to accommodate the boating facilities on a permanent basis in their new eastern location. Sheila Martin, Vice-chairman, Waterfront Advisory Board 7.3.77. ~ B-11 cT the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes ------ -------------- ---------- ----- WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD THURSDAY-MAY-26-l977 #2/77 - - -------- ---- ------- - The Waterfront Advisory Board met at the Authority Office, 4 Shoreham Drive, Downs view, on Thursday, May 26, 1977, commencing at 1:30 p.m. PRESENT WERE Chairman M.J. Breen Vice Chairman Mrs. S. Martin Members C.A. Mackie J. Morton P. B. Pickett, Q.C. Mrs. N. Pownall G.B. Sinclair Mrs. J. Trimmer Chairman of the Authority R. Grant Henderson Dir. - Planning & Policy W.A. McLean Adm. - Water Resource Division M.R. Garrett Head-W/F Section, WRD B.E. Denney Project Planner, WRD T.E. Farrell ABSENT WERE Members G. Ashe T.W. Butt Mrs. J.A. Gardner G. Norton A.E. O'Donohue MINUTES The Minutes of Meeting #1/77 were presented. . . Res. #13 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: P.B. Pickett, Q.C. RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of Meeting #1/77, as presented, be adopted. CARRIED; . STAFF PROGRESS REPORT The staff presented a Progress Report covering the period January 1 to April 30, 1977. Res. #14 Moved by: P.B. Pickett, Q.C. Seconded by: Mrs. N. Pownall RESOLVED THAT: The Staff Progress Report for the period January 1 to April 30, 1977, be received. CARRIED; . H-12 -2- PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATES - 1978 -and- 1979-1982 MULTI-YEAR FORECAST The staff presented the 1978 Preliminary Budget Estimates, together with the 1979-1982 Multi-Year Forecast for Waterfront Development. Res. #=15 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: J. Morton RESOLVED THAT: The 1978 Preliminary Budget Estimates and the 1979-1982 Multi-Year Forecast for Waterfront Development, Water Resource Division, be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS ~mT: The 1978 Preliminary Budget Estimates for the Waterfront Development, Water Resource Division, dated May 17, 1977, as appended as Schedule "A" of these Minutes, be included in the 1978 Preliminary Budget Estimates of the Authority; and further THAT the 1979-1982 Multi-Year Forecast for the Waterfront Development, Water Resource Division, dated May 17, 1977, as appended as Schedule "B" of the~e Minutes, be included in the 1979-1982 Multi-Year Forecast of the Authority. CARRIED; SHORELINE HANAGEMENT Pursuant to Res. #=33/76, the staff presented a report having regard to shoreline management alternatives. Res. #=16 Moved by: Mrs. J. Trimmer Seconded by: G.B. Sinclair RESOLVED THAT: The staff report and presentation having regard to shoreline management alternatives be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: In the short term, the following action be taken with regard to shoreline management: ~ ( a) The Authority acquire properties as they become endangered and that this be the priority for the allocation of shoreline management funds; (b) The Authority implement shore protective works along endangered areas of the shoreline based on their technical priority and as funds permi t; (c) The Authority arrange with affected municipalities for the monitoring of those inhabited areas which may become endangered as a result of erosion, in order that appropriate and timely notification can be given to the occupants; and THAT for the longer term: (d) A shoreline management plan be prepared outlining policies and priorities for hazard land acquisition and protection along the entire Lake ontario shoreline in the jurisdiction of the Authority, for presentation to the shoreline nmnicipalities, based on the following premises: -3- B-13 (i) existing Authority policies for shoreline management be incorporated; (ii) the Authority acquire shoreline property only as it becomes endangered; (iii) the Authority undertake a comprehensive programme of shore protective works in accordance with defined priorities as approved by the Authority; (iv) properties acquired should be protected since acquisition alone can only be considered a delaying action; (v) the Needles Bluffs and the Cathedral Bluffs west and east of Bluffers Park respectively be preserved in their natural state; (vi) that nmnicipalities be requested to administer develop- ment set back zones and that municipal Official Plans and re-zoning and building code amendments reflect this; (vii) that long term potential for acquired and/or protected areas be investigated; (viii) that an appropriate balance for the protection of residential/commercial waterfront property versus parks and open space be achieved in the plan; and further THAT the shoreline municipalities be advised of this action. CARRIED; ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m., May 26. M.J. Breen W.A. McLean, Dir. Planninq & Policy Chairman Acting Secretary-Treasurer to') - - 0 I .- ..... ..... ~ ,.. 0 1978 CURRENT BUDGET ESTIMATES c t'1 t=3 PROGRAM Waterfront Plan :>' PAGE 1978 BUDGET SOURCES OF FIN&~CING 1977 ACTUALS 1977 BUDGET Net Provincial Municipal Activitv Exoenditures Revenues Exoenditures Grant Levy Other Expenditcres Revenues Expenditures Reve~ues Staff Salaries 55,804 55,804 27,902 27,902 I 52,645 . 1: r II l! II II l,lr I I' II 1 i I ,I I! 55,804 ! 55,804 27,902 27,902 52,645 ! .1 : 1 1978 CAPITAL BUDGET ESTIMATES PROGRAM WATERFRONT PLAN PAGE PURPOSE: The purpose of the Waterfront Plan is to create, on the Lake Ontario shoreline within the area of the Authority's jurisdiction, a handsome waterfront balanced in its land uses which will complement adjacent areas, taking cognizance of existing residential .- development and making available, wherever possible, features which warrant public use. 1978 OBJECTIVES - the continuation of the landfill project at Humber Bay West Phase II - the continuation of the landfill project at Bluffer's Phase II and start on construction of permanent boating facilities - the completion of Humber Bay East for opening to the public - the continuation of development of the Western Beaches - the development of the toplands at Bluffer's Park - the initiation of development at East Point Park - the continuation of environmental monitoring programme FUNDING: This is a shared program; a grant of 50\ of costs is available from the Province of Ontario, the balance being funded by the Waterfront Capital Levy on all participating municipalities. The Government of Canada is constructing shore protection at the Small Craft Harbour at Bluffer's Park at an estimated cost of $325,000. FINANCIAL COMMENTS 1978 is the second year of the second five-year project for waterfront development and the estimates given assume that no 1977 under-expenditure resulted from the delay in approval of the Project by the Ontario Municipal Board :t I ..... U1 1978 CAPIT AL BUDGET ESTIMATES :x: I ..... C'\ PROGRAM WATERFRONT PLAN PAGE 1978 BUDGET SOURCES OF FINANCING 1977 ACTUALS 1977 BUDGET Provincial ~lunicipal Activity Expenditures Revenues Expenditures Grant Levy Other Expenditures Revenues Expenditures Revenues Lc~g Branch Fark -- -- 5,000 H-.:..-r:ber Bay \o;e:st 312,000 312,000 156,000 156,000 200,000 H\:..-::ber Bay East 200,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 1,600,000 Western Beaches 1,075,000 1,075,000 537,500 537,000 375,000 hshbridge's Bay -- -- 95,000 El~ffers Toplands 350,000 350,000 175,000 175,000 -- B1~=fers Phase II 727,000 727,000 363,500 363,500 310,000 East Point 400,000 400,000 200,000 200,000 55,000 ?:::-ope:::-~y 200,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 S~oreline }~~agement 500,000 500,000 250,000 250,000 280,000 ~~virc~mental ~on~toring 150,000 150,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 S~aff Salaries & Travel 86,000 86,000 43,000 43,000 60,000 '1 ( I I l, f? CICIO ClCII~1 I ? OClCl, I'lI'')I' '1'1 'If "l1,')i~n,I'nn ~I ' :1 ~, II'II~II~I '"II~II~I t, II'II"II~I CI ~I('I :1 53. 00 1979-1982 MULTI-YEAR FORECAST n :t ~ 0 c PROGRAM: Water & Related Land Management - Waterfront Programs (W9) ~ = ~ PURPOSE: To provide administrative, planning and engineering staff necessary for implementing the Waterfront Project. FUNDING: This is a shared program~ 50% of the funds being available from the Province of Ontario and 50% raised from the general levy on all participating municipalities. = I ~ ~ MULTI-YEAR FORECAST 54. :: I ..... PROGRAH: Water and Related Land Management Waterfront Programs (W9) Support CD Current Year FIN A N C I N G (1977) 1979 1980 1981 1982 Expenditures . .... ............... .................. 56,495 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 Revenues .... ................ ........ ........... ... I Nee Expenditures 56,495 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 Grants . ... ........ ... ...... ........... ............ 28,248 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 Donations .. ....... ......... ....................... Levy .............................................. 28,247 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 . 56,495 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 EXPENDITURES Staff Salaries 52,645 53,000 53,000 53,000 53,000 Staff Travel and Expenses . 3,850 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 56,495 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 1979 - 1982 CAPITAL BUDGET ESTIMATES 87. PROGRAM : WATERFRONT PLAN PURPOSE: The purpose of the Waterfront Plan is to create, on the Lake Ontario shoreline within the area of the Authority's jurisdiction, a handsome waterfront balanced . in its land uses which will complement adjacent areas, taking cognizance of existing residential development and rr.aking available, wherever possible, features which warrant publ~c use. 1979 - 1982 OBJECTIVES: - the provision of improved facilities at Marie Curtis Park - the start of development i~cluding landfilling at Colonel Sam Smith Park - the completion of the boat harbour at Humber Bay West Phase II - the completio~ of Humber Bay East Waterfront Area. - the completion of the Western Beaches Development - the completion of the Ashbridges Bay Development - the iniation of development of Bluffers West - the completion of the boat harbour at Bluffers Phase II - the"continuation of development of East Point Park including landfilling - the initiation of developttent of the Ajax waterfront - the continuation of land acquisition to complete the link from Petticoat Creek to Frenchman's Bay - the continuation of the shoreline management program - the continuation of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment programs FUNDING: This is a shared program; a grant of 50\ of costs is available from the Province of Ontario, the balance being funded by the Waterfront Capital Levy on all participating municipalities. The Government of Canada is constructing shore protection at the Small Craft Harbour at Bluffers Park and a similar application == has been made for Humber Bay West Phase II. I ~ \D FINANCIAL COMMENTS: 1981 is the last year of th~ second five-year Project for Waterfront Development and it has been assumed that th~ waterfront development program would be continued for a third five-year term ~t a similar level of funding. - MULTI-YEAR FORECAST 88. PROGRP_~ : Waterfront Plan - .- Special Project I N 0 Current Year FIN A N C I N G (1977) 1979 1980 1981 1982 Expendit:ures ..... ........... .... ...... ............ 3,280,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Revenues .. ........ .... .......... .... .............. I Net Expenditures 3,280,000 4,000,000 I 4,000,000 4,000,000 I 4,000,000 I Gr an t s ....... ......... ............................ 1,640,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Donations ... ........ .... .... ....... ... ............ 1,640,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 I Levy . ..... ... ....... .......... ..... ............... 2,000,00"0 2,000,000 3,280,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 I 4,000,000 EXPE!\~I'!'UF.ES :-'.arie Curtis -- 10,000 140,000 -- -- Long Eranch Park 5,000 -- -- -- -- Sam Smith -- 500,000 250,000 250,000 500,000 Hur.~er Bay West II 200,000 327,000 327,000 1,350,000 500,000 H-.::r.ber Bay East 1,600,000 100,000 -- -- -- Western Beaches 375,000 1,000,000 I,SOO,OOO 300,000 -- MULTI-YEAR FORECAST 89. - 2 - PROGRAM: Waterfront Plan Special Project Current . EXPENDITURES (continued) Year (1977) 1979 1980 1981 1982 Ashbridge's Bay 95,000 155,000 -- -- Bluffers West -- -- 100,000 -- 300,000 Bluffers Toplands -- -- -- -- -- Bluffers II 310,000 627,000 427,000 . 964, 000 4 ~4 # n()!') _ East Point 55,000 145,000 -- -- 500,000 Lower Rouge -- -- -- 50,000 -- Frenchman's Bay -- -- -- 50,000 250,000 Petticoat Creek -- 25,000 -- -- -- Duffin Creek -- -- 150,000 -- -- Ajax Waterfront -- 50,000 45,000 80,000 200,.000 Property 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 500,000 Shoreline Management 280,000 600,000 600,000 520,000 500,000 Staff Salaries & Travel 60,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 :t I IV Environmental Monitoring 100,000 175,000 175,000 150,000 200,000 ..... Aquatic Park -- -- -- -- -- 3,280,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 TOTALS ~ H-22 , ", the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority mh1utes WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD THURSDAY-SEPTEMBER-8-l977 f:l:3/77 The Waterfront Advisory Board met at the offices of TransCanada Pipe- lines, 55th Floor, Management Conference Room, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Building, King and Bay Streets, Toronto, on Thursday, September 8, 1977, commencing with lunch at 12:30 p.m., the meeting at 1:30 p.m. PRESENT WERE Chairman M.J. Breen Vice Chairman Mrs. S. Martin Members Mrs. J.A. Gardner C.A. Mackie J. Morton G. Norton A.E. O'Donohue P.B. Pickett, Q.C. Mrs. N. Pownall Mrs. J. Trimmer Chairman of the Authority R. Grant Henderson Vice Chairman of the Authority Mrs. F. Ge1l Secretary-Treasurer K.G. Higgs Adm. - Water Resource Division M.R. Garrett Head-W/F Section, WRD B.E. Denney Project Planner, WRD T.E. Farrell Project Biologist, WRD I. D. Macnab Executive Secretary Mrs. M. Elliott ABSENT WERE Members G. Ashe T.W. Butt G.B. Sinclair MINUTES The Minutes of Meeting #=2/77 were presented. Res. #=17 Moved by: C.A. Mackie Seconded by: P.B. Pickett, Q.C. RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of Meeting t:f:2/77, as presented, be adopted. CARRIED; STAFF PROGRESS REPORT The staff presented a Progress Report covering the periOd to date, followed by a slide presentation on waterfront development. Res. #=18 Moved by: Mrs. F. Gell Seconded by: J. Morton RESOLVED THAT: The Progress Report and slide presentation provided by staff be received. CARRIED; B-23 -2- BUDGETARY FORECAST 1977-1978 . A staff communication was presented having regard to the budget for waterfront development in 1977-1978. Res. #=19 Moved by: P.B. Pickett, Q.C. Seconded by: G. Norton RESOLVED THAT: The staff comnmnication regarding the budgetary fore- c~st for waterfront development for 1977-1978 be received. CARRIED; AQUATIC PARK A staff communication, togetiler with letters from the Minister of Natural Resources and the Mayor of The City of Toronto having regard to Aquatic Park were presented. Res. #=20 Moved by: Mrs. N. Pownall Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The staff communication and letters from the Minister of Natural Resources, The Honourable Frank S. Miller, dated July 14, 1977 and the Mayor of The City of Toronto, Mr. D. Crombie, dated August 18, 1977, having regard to Aquatic Park, be received; and ~lAT in concurrence with Resolution ~292/77 of the Executive Committee, staff be directed to prepare a report regarding the planning and development of Aquatic Park as the interim implementing agency and to consider the suggestions outlined in Mayor Crombie's letter and any other suggestions received with regard to this matter. CARRIED; LOWER ROUGE WATERFRONT AREA BOROUGH OF SCARBOROUGH PREPARATION OF A MASTER PLAN A staff communication and correspondence from the Borough of Scarborough having regard to the Lower Rouge waterfront area were presented. A letter dated September 7, 1977 from Mrs. J. Trimmer, Controller, Borough of Scarborough was read by the Chairman. Res. #=21 Moved by: G. Norton Seconded by: J. Morton RESOLVED THAT: The staff communication and correspondence from the Borough of Scarborough having regard to the Lower Rouge waterfront area be received; and THE BOARD REC~NDS THAT: Staff be directed to prepare a Master Plan for the Lower Rouge waterfront area in light of the approved concepts for this area, and, the site constraints; and THAT the Borough of Scarborough be advised that the creation of fishing pier(s) at the Lower Rouge waterfront area is an approved concept for this area and that the Authority is presently undertaking the preparat- ion of a Master Plan for the Lower Rouge waterfront area. CARRIED; REQUEST FOR USE OF THE BLUEBELL HULL QUEEN CITY YACHT CLUB ALGONQUIN ISLAND A staff communication and letter of request from the Queen City Yacht Club for use of the Bluebell Hull for breakwater purposes were presented. -3- B-24 Res. #=22 Moved by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner Seconded by: R. Grant Henderson RESOLVED THAT: The Queen City Yacht Club be advised that the Authority intends to utilize the Bluebell Hull within its own waterfront develop- ment. CARRIED; APPRECIATION TO HOSTS Res. #=23 Moved by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner Seconded by: G. Norton RESOLVED THAT: Mr. J.G.C. Weir and TransCanada Pipelines be thanked for their gracious invitation to hold this meeting in their board room, providing an outstanding view of the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront, also for the luncheon and other facilities. ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the Meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m., September 8. M.J. Breen K.G. Hiqqs Chairman Secretary-Treasurer ~ H-25 , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD THURSDAY-FEBRUARY-2-1978 #4/77 ------ The Waterfront Advisory Board met at the Authority Office, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, on Thursday, February 2, 1978, commencing at 1.30 p.m. PRESENT WERE Chairman M. J. Breen Vice-Chairman C. A. Mackie Members Mrs. J.A. Gardner Mrs. S. Martin J. Morton G. Norton A. E. OIDonohue Mrs. N. Pownall G. B. Sinclair Mrs. J. Trimmer Chairman of the Authority R. G. Henderson Vice Chairman of the Authority Mrs. F. Gell Secretary-Treasurer K. G. Higgs Dir.-Planning & Policy W. A. McLean Adm.-Water Resource Division M. R. Garrett Head-W/F Section, W.R. Divln. B. E. Denney Project Planner, W.R. Divln. T. E. Farrell Project Biologist-W.R. Divln. I. D. Macnab Member of the Authority D. Kitchen Representatives from the S. White Ministry of Natural Resources G. Schnarr A number of persons representing various delegations ABSENT WERE Members To W. Butt P. B. Pickett, Q.C. MINUTES The Minutes of Meeting #3/77 were presented. Res.#24 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of Meeting #3/77, as presented, be adopted. CARRIED ; DELEGATION - AQUATIC PARK The Chai~an resolved that it was in order for the delegation from the Friends of the Spit to be heard. Res.#25 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: Mrs. S. Martin RESOLVED THAT: Delegations from the Ontario Sailing Association, Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Toronto Field Naturalists be heard. CARRIED; H-26 , -2- Mr. Hollett presented a written brief on behalf of the Friends of the Spit regarding the preparation of an Implementation Plan for Aquatic Park. Mr. Jenkins presented a written brief on behalf of the Ontario Sailing Association regarding the preparation of an Implementation Plan for Aquatic Park. Mr. Kovacsi presented a written brief on behalf of the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto regarding the preparation of an Implementation Plan for Aquatic Park. Ms. Mary Smith presented a written brief on behalf of the Toronto Field Naturalists regarding the preparation of an Implementation Plan for Aquatic Park. Ms. Smith also indicated that she was representing the Federation of the Ontario Field Naturalists. Res.#26 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The briefs presented by the delegations be referred to the staff; and further THAT the recommendations of the delegations be given consideration by the Board in the process of finalizing an Implementation Plan for Aquatic Park. CARRIED; The Board considered a letter from Mr. Bruce Kidd, the President of the University of Toronto Track Club, regarding the Implementation Plan for Aquatic Park. Res.#27 Moved by: Mrs. F. Gell Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The letter from the President of the University of Toronto Track Club regarding proposals for Aquatic Park be referred to the staff; and further THAT the recommendations be given consideration by the Board in the process of finalizing an Implementation Plan for Aquatic Park. CARRIED; AQUATIC PARK IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The staff presented a report on the Implementation Procedure for the Aquatic Park. Res.#28 Moved by: Mrs. JoAo Gardner Seconded by: G. Norton RESOLVED THAT: The staff report on the Implementation Procedures for Aquatic Park be received and appended as Schedule IIAII of these Minutes; and further THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 1. The Authority, together with Metropolitan Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Province of Ontario, initiate dis01ssions with the Government of Canada in order to obtain f~~ding or works in lieu, for the exterior shore protection of the Outer :i~arbour headland; and ... " '-. ' ~ -3- B-27 2. The staff be directed to prepare property plans and other documents as requ~red for the transfer of land and water required for the development of Aquatic Park, and that the staff work closply with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Province of Ontario in this regard; and 3. The preparat~on uf an Implementation Plan be carried out in accordance with Authority policy for processing plans of this type and ~lgnificance, and further; that the Plan preparation ~nrorporate the approved concepts of the Master Plan, and the following: (a) additional ldndfill for Marineland and its associated Hotel be not now approved; (b) the provl~ion for boating facilities in the Outer Harbour be In accord with the report entitled "Allocatlon and Phasing of Boating Facilities; Metropolltd.Jl Waterfront Planll; (c) the westptn tip and most westerly bay be considered a wildllfp preserve, and that no interim use of this area nf any other nature be permitted; (d) a suitable balance be determined between boating needs and w11dlife preserves recognizing the bird life concentrations in the area for the remainder of the site; ( e) artificial swimming facilities be provided if Lake water quality does not permit swimming use; ( f) that every effort be made to provide regular Toronto Transit Commission bus service to the heart of the area: (g) provision be made for regional automobile access in all phases of the development: and further 4. WHEREAS the Authority is not i.n a position to become legally or financially involved in the development of Aquatic Park until the armouring and land transfer conditions have been resolved; THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT interim uses will be considered on the basis that the Authority, as the Province's agent for interim management, and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto approve of such uses on the understanding that there is no cost to the Authority. AMENDMENT Moved by: Mrs. J. Trimmer Seconded by: A.E. O'Donohue RESOLVED THAT: The recommendations be numbered; and further THAT following completion of recommendations No. 1 and 2, recommendation No. 3 be reconsidered by the Authority and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. CARRIED; H-28 -4- AMENDMENT TO Moved by: Mrs. S. Martin AMENDMENT Seconded by: G. Norton THAT: The amendment to the Motion be amended and recommendation No. 4 be amended by deleting the word basis and substituting the word condition. NOT CARRIED; RES.#28 AS AMENDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED; STAFF PROGRESS REPORT The staff submitted a Progress Report on the activities of the Waterfront Section of the Water Resource Division for the year 1977. Res .# 29 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The Staff Progress Report be received. CARRIED; 1978 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME ~he staff submitted a proposed 1978 Development Programme for the Waterfront Project 1977-1981. Res.#30 Moved by: A.E. O'Donohue Seconded by: R.G. Henderson RESOLVED THAT: The staff report having regard to the proposed 1978 Development Programme for the Waterfront Project 1977-1981 at an estimated cost of $2,076,000 be received and approved. CARRI ED; SCARBOROUGH SECTOR BLUFFERS PHASE II BOAT HARBOUR CHANGE IN INTERIOR SHORELINE CONFIGURATION The staff submitted a report and recommendations on the proposed changes in the interior shoreline configuration for the Bluffers Phase II Boat Harbour. Res.#31 Moved by: Mrs. F. Gell Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The staff report having regard to the alterations to the shoreline configuration of Bluffers Phase II, be received for information. CARRIED; -5- H-29 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN Staff submitted a communication on Shoreline Management and a Shoreline Management Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Res.#32 Moved hy: A.E. O'Donohue Seconded by: G. Norton RESOLVED THAT: The ~taff communication on the Shoreline Management Plan be received, and appended as Schedule "B" of these Minutes; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS I'HAT: The Shoreline Management Plan be adopted and the following al tlon be taken: (a) The priorit~es for 1978 shore protective works be approved, (b) The staff be .11tected to evaluate in detail the landfill alternative and other promising alternatives for shore protection and report back to the Board, and (c) The staff evaluate the type and quantity of plant materials which would be appropriate for bank stabilization projects and report back to the Board. CARRI EO; MASTER PLAN FOR THE wESTERN BEACHES WATERFRONT AREA Staff submitted a ('u[Thllunication with regard to the Master Plan for the Western Beaches Waterfront Area. Res.#33 Moved by: A.E. O'Donohue Seconded by: G.B. Sinclair RESOLVED THAT: The staff communication having regard to the Master Plan for the Western Beaches Waterfront Area be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The Council of the City of Toronto be advised of the concern of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the delays in finalizing a Master Plan for the Western Beaches Waterfront Area. CARRIED; SHORELINE PROTECTION. EASTERN BEACHES Staff submitted a report and recommendations on Shoreline Protection, Eastern Beaches. Res.#34 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair S~conded by: Mrs. S. Martin RESOLVED THAT: The staff report and recommendations on Shoreline Protection, Eastern Beaches be received; and THAT The City of Toronto be advised that the Authority has currently scheduled the protection of the portion of the Eastern Beaches between the Summerville Pool and the Kew Beach breakwater for at least partial protection in 1978, subject to any unforeseen complications. CARR! EO: H-30 -6- THE ROLE OF VEGETATION IN SHORELINE MANAGEMENT The staff submitted a report on The Role of Vegetation in Shoreline Management together with a copy of the new brochure on the Authority's Waterfront Regulations. Res.#35 Moved by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner Seconded by: G.B. Sinclair RESOLVED THAT: The staff report on The Role of Vegetation in Shoreline Management together with a copy of the new brochure on the Authority's Waterfront Regulations be received; and THAT staff prepare a ~ackage of information regarding potential hazards of shoreline property ownership, and solutions; for distribution to each waterfront owner. This package to include material on: Authority regulations, the role of vegetation in shoreline stabilization and emergency shore protective measures. Res.#36 Moved by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner Seconded by: Mrs. N. Pownall RESOLVED THAT: The staff be directed to investigate the availability of a Federal Work Programme to assist in the d~stribution of the information package to shoreline property owners. CARRIED; ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS 1977 Staff submitted a report on the Environmental Surveys at Colonel Samuel Bois Smith, Western Beaches and East Point Waterfront Areas. Res .#37 Moved by: Mrs. N. Pownall Seconded by: G.B. Sinclair RESOLVED THAT: The reports entitled "An Environmental Survey of the Colonel Samuel Bois Smith Waterfront Areall, IIAn Environmental Survey of the Western Beaches Waterfront Area", and IIAn Environmental Survey of the East Point Waterfront Areall, dated 1977, be received; and further THAT the information contained within the reports be considered as input into the planning and development of the Areas involved. CARRI ED; 1978 WATERFRONT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME Staff submitted a report and proposals for the 1978 Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Programme. Res.#38 Moved by: Mrs. S. Martin Seconded by: G.B. Sinclair RESOLVED THAT: The staff communication having regard to the 1978 Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Programme be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The 1978 Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Programme involving a total estimated expenditure of $100,000 be approved subject to the approval of the Province of Ontario; and further THAT the firm of Proctor and Redfern be retained as the programme consultant. CARRIED; -7- H-3l roRONTO BRIGANTINE, USE OF THE BLUEBELL HULL Staff submitted a report and proposals of the Toronto Brigantine regarding the use of the Bluebell hull at the Humber Bay West development. Res.#39 Moved by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner Seconded by: Mrs. F. Gell RESOLVED THAT: The staff communication having regard to the use of the Bluebell hull by the Toronto Brigantine be received; and THAT the Bluebell hull be made available to the Toronto Brigantine Inc. subject to agreement being reached on a suitable location at Humber Bay West and appropriate plans for refurbishing the Bluebell being approved by the Authority. CARRIED; ROTARY PARK EAST SIDE OF DUFFINS CREEK MOUTH TOWN OF AJ J:tJ{ Staff submitted a report and proposal from the Ajax Rotary Club regarding the development of the waterfront at the mouth of the Duffins Creek in the Town of Ajax. Res.#40 Moved by: C.A. Mackie Seconded by: G.B. Sinclair RESOLVED THAT: The staff report and proposal from the Ajax Rotary Club be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: Approval, in principle, be given to the Ajax Rotary Club for their continued operation of the Rotary Park campground on Authority lands within the period of the Waterfront Project, 1977-1981, subject to lease arrangements, boundary area, and any other arrangements being worked out to the satisfaction of the Authority. CARRIED; ACCESS, EAST POINT WATERFRONT AREA Staff submitted a communication regarding the recommendations of the Executive Committee for access to the East Point Waterfront Area. Res.#41 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: G. Norton RESOLVED THAT: The staff communication having regard to access to the East Point Waterfront Area be received; and THAT the Waterfront Advisory Board concur in the recommendations of the Executive Committee regarding access to the East Point Waterfront Area. CARRIED; ... - . 8-32 -8- NEW BUSINESS Mr. Sinclair congratulated the staff and the members for the excellent public hearing that was held in the Borough of Etobicoke regarding the planning for the Colonel Samuel Bois Smith Waterfront Area. ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m., February 2. M.J. Breen K.G. Hiqqs Chairman Secretary-Treasurer . - -- SCHEDULE .. A" H-33 TO: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD M.T.RoC.A. - Meeting #4/77 RE: AQUATIC PARK, IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE .- - - --- ---~-- ------- BACKGROUND On August 2nd, 197 ~, the Minister of Natural Resources advised the Authority that the Ontario Government had given the Authority the mandate to co-ordinate recreation planning in the Central Waterfront Sector and the responsibility of being the province's agent with regard to the proposed Aquatic Park. The Ontario Governm\.mt requested the Authority to prepare a plan for the pr()p()~E"d Aquatic Park and to work with the Toronto Harbour Commiss1duprs who were the proponents of the profect. The Authority agrepn to accept this responsibility, subject to approval of the M\lrl1ripality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Province and Metropolitan Toronto providing the necessary funds to carry out the planning responsibilities in the Central Sector. The approval of Metropolitan Toronto was received and the planning fundc:;, as requested, were provided. In preparing a pJan for the proposed Aquatic Park, the Authority took the following steps: 1. Met with the Aquatic Park Steering Committee established by the Central Waterfront Planning Committee of the City of Toronto. 2. Participated in a public meeting sponsored by the Aquatic Park Steering Committee to discuss Aquatic Park proposals and receive briefs from the public. 3. Consolidated base information gathered by Authority staff, by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and from the Aquatic Park Steering Committee and the submissions from the public meeting into a report for the Authority's Waterfront Advisory Board which recommended: (a) A bas~c format for the park. (b) Engaging consultants to assist in the planning process. 4. A client team of the Authority, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and Metropol~tan Toronto Parks Department guided the consultants throughout their work on behalf of the Authority. The conceptual Master Plan for Aquatic Park is the result of a long and detailed planning process that began with the Toronto Harbour Commissionerf in their original concepts for the outer harbour and the propcsed Aquatic Park. This culminated in detailed examination by the consultant together with the client committee of all of the proposals which had been made for Aquatic Park, with particular emphasis on the land form, access and environmental implications of the various proposals. The Authority's planning work on the proposed Aquatic Park has been funded by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Province of Ontario. The purpose of the planning process has been to develop a plan for Aquatic Park which fulfills the potential of the site and meets demonstrated needs of the Metropolitan H-34 To: The Waterfront Advisory Board - Meeting #4/77 Re: Aquatic Park, Implementation Procedure PAGE 2 Toronto region and which is acceptable to the principal agencies involved in the Aquatic Park, these being the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and its constituent municipalities, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Province of Ontario. The terms of reference for the consultant and the client committee did not include consj~eration of the details of how the plan could be implementeQ. The conceptual Master Plan has been prepared to facilitate incremental development over a period of years; substantial participation by the private sector; and substantial use by the public of the land base prior to full s~te development. The conceptual Master Plan for Aquatic Park was presented to the Board at ~t~ Meeting #1/76; where it was received and sent to Metropolitan Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the City for comment and approval. The Board received the comments of these agencies at its Meeting #3/76 and recommended approval as follows: "The Master Plan for Aquatic Park be approved in principle and forwarded to The Province of Ontario for approval; THAT The provi.nce of Ontario jointly with The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto designate The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as the implementing agency for Aquatic Park; and SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO: THAT the development of Aquatic Park be funded as part of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Waterfront project 1977-1981; THAT the staff be directed to prepare an implementation plan, taking into consideration the comments of all interested agencies for Aquatic Park which sets out those items of development which can reasonably be included within the Waterfront Project 1977-1981, and their phasing; and those items which can be funded by other levels of Government and other agencies, including the private sector; THAT in accordance with the direction of the Ministry of Natural Resources and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be requested to assume responsibility for the armouring of the outer shoreline, and that the Authority support the Toronto Harbour Commissioners in any submission for funding to The Government of Canada in this connection; THAT the Authority obtain, for a nominal sum, those land and water areas required for the development and operation of the Park; THAT the Authority place the park lands under the existing agreement with The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for management and operation; and further THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto enter into such tri-party agreements as may be necessary for the management of specific elements within the Park." /3... ~ 8-35 To: The Waterfront Advisory Board - Meeting #4/77 Re: Aquatic Park, Implementation Procedure PAGE 3 ... Subsequently this recommendation was approved by the full Authority on November 26, 1976. The Plan was then forwarded to the Province of Ontario for their approval. By letter dated July 14, 1977 the Province approved of the general concept for Aquatic Park and in his letter of November 29, 1977, the Minister of Natural Resources, Frank Miller, relayed that Cabinet had approved of lithe designation of your Authority as the province's agent in regard to planning, interim management and development II and furthermore "that the development of this park should be considered an integral component of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Waterfront Plan.1I (Letter attached for the information of the Board.) IMPLEMENTATION Main Conditions As part of the Authority's approval of participation in the Aquatic Park development it directed that the development of Aquatic Park be incorporated within the planning and development proposed within the Waterfront Plan generally, and specifically that any development be carried out as part of the Waterfront Project 1977-1981. In other words, Aquatic Park should be thought of as part of the whole waterfront and not developed as an entity in isolation. It is also important to recognize that planning and development of Aquatic Park as well as the rest of the waterfront, can only occur on the basis of approved Authority municipal levies and provincial cash flow allotments. Both Metropolitan Toronto and the Province agreed with the Authority's recommendation that two key conditions must be resolved before development can proceed. These are, in order of priority: i) armouring of the exterior shoreline by a Federal Department or agency; ii) obtaining title to the lands required for development purposes for a nominal sum. Subsequently, Metropolitan Toronto directed the inclusion of another condition: iii) that an Implementation Plan be prepared which details more specifically, the type and location of the park component s, and the phasing for various facets of the development based on the following criteria: (a) additional landfill for Marineland and its associated Hotel be not now approved; /4... H-36 To: The Waterfront Advisory Board - Meeting #4/77 Re: Aquatic Park, Implementation Procedure PAGE 4 (b) the provision for boating facilities in the Outer Harbour be in accord with the report entitled "Allocation and Phasing of Boating Facilities; Metropolitan Waterfront Plan" ; (c) the western tip and most westerly bay be considered a wildlife preserve, and that no interim use of this area of any other nature be permitted; (d) a suitable balance be determined between boating needs and wildlife preserves recognizing the bird life concentrations in the area for the remainder of the site; (e) art~fic.Lal swimming facilities be provided if lake water quality does not permit swimming use; ( f) that every effort be made to provide regular Toronto Transit Commission bus service to the heart of the area; (g> provision be made for regional automobile access in all phases of the development. Resolvinq the Main Conditions It is apparent that the development of Aquatic Park will not be a simple task. The implementation will occur in stages and will take several years. Certainly many particular development issues will be raised and solved as the months and years go by; but in order to take the first step with respect to on-site development, the two key issues raised earlier must be resolved. Therefore it is proposed that: i) The Authority join with Metropolitan Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Province of Ontario in order to determine how best Federal funds or works can be obtained for the protection of the exterior shoreline. Armouring will be required no matter what specific form the park development t~kes and is essential to the continued stability of the site. The Authority along with representativf s from the aforementioned agencies must determint to whom approaches should be made to, and what leve~s of funding/works are required. ii) Once this armourin~ has been resolved, and subject to provincial agreement; the Authority requires title to those lan and water areas necessary for the Park developmer.~. The Authority should proceed with obtaining the surveys and title searches required for this transfer in parallel with resolving the armouring issue, so that a minimum of delay will occur later on. This will require extensive staff discussion particularly with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Province of Ontario. /5... B-37 To: The Waterfront Advisory Board - Meeting #4/77 Re: Aquatic Park, Implementation Procedure PIsGE 5 I iii) Inasmuch as the timing of i) and ii) is inderminate; the preparation of an Implementation Plan should not precede their resolution by an extensive period of time. The main reasons for this are twofold: (a) the Authority cannot be involved in the development of the park until the armouring and land conditions are satisfactorily resolved, and; (b) the preparation of a Plan too far in advance of actual development could be a fruitless exercise because of changing conditions during this period. The preparation and approval of the Implementation Plan, when it occurs should be done in accordance with Authority policy: IIIn accordance with procedures adopted by the Authority with respect to waterfront development; it is the policy of the Authority, before commencing work, to submit a site Master Plan, indicating the properties required and the development proposed, to the municipality in which works are to be located, for approval. The Authority will co-operate with municipalities convening public meetings for the purpose of involving those affected by the proposed Waterfront Project or Master Plans.1I These procedures are those used for processing the conceptual Master Plan. Implementation planning will adhere to the approved concept for Aquatic Park and the criteria indicated earlier. Throughout this process the staff will report on progress at regular intervals for the information and suggestions of the Board. RECOMMENDATIONS THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The Authority, together with Metropolitan Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Province of Ontario, initiate discussions with the Government of Canada in order to obtain funding or works in lieu, for the exterior shore protection of the Outer Harbour headland; and The staff be directed to prepare property plans and other documents as required for the transfer of land and water required for the development of Aquatic Park, and that the staff work closely with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Province of Ontario in this regard; and /6. . . 8-38 To: The Waterfront Advisory Board - Meeting #4/77 Re: Aquatic Park, Implementation Procedure PAGE 6 The preparation of an nmplementation Plan be carried out in accordance with Authority policy for processing plans of this type and significance, and further: that the Plan preparation incorporate the approved concepts of the Master Plan, and the following: (a) additional landfill for Marineland and its associated Hotel be not now approved; (b) the provision for boating facilities in the OUter Harbour be in accord with the report entitled IIAllocation and Phasing or Boating Facilities; Metropolitan Waterfront Planll; (c) the western tip and most westerly bay be considered a wildlife preserve, and that no interim use of this area of any other nature be permitted; (d) a suitable balance be determined between boating needs and wildlife preserves recognizing the bird life concentrations in the area for the remainder of the site; (e) artificial swimming facilities be provided if Lake water quality does not permit swimming use; (f) that every effort be made to provide regular Toronto Transit commission bus service to the heart of the area; (g) provision be made for regional automobile access in all phases of the development; and further WHEREAS the Authority is not in a position to become legally or financially involved in the development of Aquatic Park until the armouring and land transfer conditions have been resolved; THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT interim uses will be considered on the basis that the Authority, as the province's agent for interim management, and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto approve of such uses on the understanding that there is no cost to the Authority. M. R. Garrett Administrator Water Resource Division Attachments: 1978.01.19 MaG/rod ... - -------- - t~i ! ro 'f' rp "", I . . 1i . " 39 ~i~ DEe 6 1977 "llll1i::D" " ..' .. c,;". ;:i;Oj'~ Ontario I "'" .. C A. I I . -----. ----- . ...--~ e nf lhe Ministry of 416/965.1301 Whitney Block ~Ier Natural Queen's Park Resources Toronto Ontario November 29, 1977 Mr. R. G. Henderson, Chairman Metropo 1 itan Toronto and Region Conserva ti on Author.i ty 5 5horeham Dri ve Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 Dear Mr. Henderson: In my letter of July 14, 1977 I indicated my intention to seek Cabinet approval on several matters related to the Aquati c Park". This has been done. I am pleased to inform you that the Cabinet has approved the designation of your authority as the Province's agent in regard to the planning, interim management and development. I understand that it is your intention to eventually transfer this property for management to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto under your existing agreement with them. Furthermore, the Cabinet has agreed that the development of this park should be considered as an integral component of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Waterfront Plan. Approval was also given to transfer to the Authority title of the lands and waters areas required for the Aquatic Park. This will take place as soon as your Authority and this ministry can resolve the matter of armouring the external shoreline with the federal government. The task now presented will not be an easy one. However, I am confident that the Authority's ability and credibility with the various agencies will ensure success. Towards this end I can assure you of the support of my ministry and its staff. 1Jj:;lY' I 0 , - Frank 5. Mi 11 er RECEIVED Minister MTRCA DATE (\.c. , )/7''1 I ., I / I . BY ,L H-40 SCHEDULE liB" SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN POLICIES AND PRIORITIES METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION The potential hazard to lives and properties due to shoreline erosion in the Metropolitan Toronto region has been apparent for a number of years. The condition of the shoreline in the various sectors of the waterfront under the Authority's jurisdiction has been clearly defined in previous reports. The intent of this Plan is to provide overall objectives and to document the criteria for implementation and to set forth the current estimate of the priorities for establishing shoreline protection. The shoreline management plan is to be considered a component of the overall Waterfront Plan and accordingly is subject to the approved funding allocations outlined within the Five Year Projects of the Waterfront Plan. OBJECTIVES The objective of the Shoreline Management Plan is to define a strategy which will ensure that the Shoreline Management principles set forth in the Authority's 1977 - 1981 Waterfront Development Project will be fulfilled. That Project established the following Principles: liThe Authority recognizes the need for a comprehensive shoreline management programme directed to reducing shoreline erosion and diminishing the need for emergency programmes which, in the past, have been necessary at the extreme of lake level fluctuations. This Project provides for a shoreline management programme that will regulate development within the defined hazard zone, bring into public ownership those waterfront lands which are hazardous, and limit erosion at the land/water interface." In this regard the Project confirmed the Authority's intent to administer Ontario Regulation 735/73 which was established under the Conservation Authorities Act. Authority Regulations under the Act allow the Authority to regulate development and filling within a defined area along the waterfront. Any development proceeding within this regulated zone must first undergo review by the Authority. In addition the Project set forth the following principles governing the acquisition and shore protection aspects of the program. II Acquisition The management programme recognizes certain waterfront hazard areas which, due to their physical characteristics, are most undesirable for development (low lying beach and marsh areas and other areas subject to rapid erosion and flooding). The public acquisition of such areas is part of the long term shoreline management programme. Shore Protection Subject to the Authority obtaining title to required shoreline areas, and subject to the areas being of sufficient size so as to make shoreline protection physically and economically feasible, the Authority will, where appropriate, carry out shoreline protective works of a type and design which can form a part of an integrated management system for the entire shore- line, provide for safe public use and access along the water's edge, and be conducive to shoreline maintenance. II H-4l -2- A. CRITERIA FOR IMPLEMENTATION The plan will be implemented in accordance with the priorities established and in accordance with the following criteria: (i) Regulation 1. All future development and re-development proposals should provide for adequate shoreline protection and/or set back in order that no public funds be required for their protection in the future. (ii) Acquisition 1. The first priority for the annual allocation of shoreline management funds will be for the acquisition of endangered dwellings as determined by the Authority. 2. priorities for acquisition will be reviewed and approved by the Authority on an annual basis. 3. Toplands acquired for shoreline management purposes on a lot by lot basis should be maintained by the local municipality as local open space with a hazard land designation. 4. Lands acquired under the shoreline management program be designated as hazard lands and will not be developed for any other purpose unless approved in a specific master plan by all local, regional and provincial governments. S. The Authority will continue to monitor endangered properties and keep the local municipalities informed of those properties which are becoming hazardous. The local municipality will be responsible for evacuating the dwelling. (iii ) Protection 1. The major emphasis in the undertaking of protective works will be to control erosion due to wave action 2. Shore protection will be carried out on a design block basis. Design blocks are shoreline segments with physical characteristics which permit the segment to be protected as a unit. 3. Shoreline protection will be installed on a technical priority basis related to the safety of property and structures within the limitations of funding and approvals. 4. Priorities for protection will be reviewed and approved by the Authority on an annual basis. S. Existing waterfront public lands provide valuable recreational opportunities and in many cases serve as buffer zones between the shoreline and private lands. Therefore the balance between funding allocated for protection of public and private lands is an important relationship which should be approved annually by the Authority. 6. In cases where private property is involved in preventative or corrective measures, the owner will be required to deed the necessary land for a nominal sum to the Authority. In addition, the owner may be required to provide an easement for construct1GP and maintenance, or provide a suitable cash contribution, or some combination of these that is considered acceptable to the Authority. H-42 -3- 7~ ~enever ~ plan is prepared for protective measures along a g1ven des1gn block the local municipality will be requested to conduct a public meeting for the purpose of explaining the proposal to all interested parties and providing an opportunity for comments to be received. 8. ~e Auth~rity ~ill assist in developing technology and distributing 1nfo:mat10n wh1ch will aid property owners in limiting the erOS10n of the bank after the toe protection is installed. 9. The Authority's nursery will grow and sell plant material which is particularly well suited to bank stabilization and is not readily available from commercial suppliers. IO. The protection and shoreline maintenance of all future park developments should be considered as part of the capttal development cost and not be funded from the shoreline manage- ment allocation. Similarly, the maintenance of existing Authority waterfront recreational lands should be funded separately from the shoreline management program. B. PRIORITIES The entire length of the shoreline under the jurisdiction of the Authority has been examined in terms of the present hazard due to erosion and relative priorities for protection have been assigned. The results of the priority analysis are documented on the Oattached plans. The priority ra~1ng system is based on a scale of 1 to 5 detailed below. (1) Work will have to be undertaken immediately in order to save homes or services. In effect, this means that a stretch of shoreline in this category has receded to the point that, upon stabilization, the top of the slope would be at, or very close to an existing road or stretch of dwellings. A 2:1 slope was used to approximate the slope at which recession would be slow enough to be neglected. This is a conservative estimate with respect to average readings taken in Scarborough. This. rating also applies to an area where development is required to provide access to adjacent shoreline 0 for management purposes. (2) Work will be required within the next five-year project to save homes or services in the long run. Shoreline stretches in this category can be expected to recede in about five years to the point at which homes or services will be imperilled in the long run unless a'control program is implemented. Some leeway is used in applying this rating by considering a home to inclu~e a reasonable backyard. This may only be a short, fairly level patch between the back door and the stabilized sl~pe of wave uprush line. (3) Existing structures require maintenance or work will be ~equired in the long run. Unprotected shoreline within this category is unstable but there is no danger for houses or services if it is unprotected for the nextOfive years. Where protection exists in a shoreline with this rating, it was originally adequate but is beginnin~ to show signs of becoming unsatisfactory. H-43 -4- (4) The existing protection is adequate or there is vacant land which will require protection in the long run. If the vacant land is between some development and the shorelin~, it is probably desireable to retain such open space and t~us erosion protection will be required. For obvious reasons, it can not be considered as high a pr~ority as a developed area. Or\ the other, hand, it should be kept in mind for consideration if a feasible method of protection is available. By the same token, existinq protection must be watched for signs of deterioration or inadequacy so that extensive repairs can be avoided. (5) Land in this category is to be left unprotected for aesthetic reasons or in order to maintain the natural situation existent in certain areas. This will be applicable to some of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority water- front areas which are passive use areas and significant wild- life habitats. It is important to note that the relatively recent addition of the outer shorel~ne of Toronto Islands has added considerable lenqths of second and third priority sites. Since the erosive forces that determine the extent of the hazard are dynamic it is reasonable to assume that the priorities will chanqe over time. In addition, considerable flexibility is required in determining the annual priorities for four main reasons: 1. delays in construction must be expected from time to time due to the levels of approvals required before works could proceed 2. the ability of the Authority to proceed with works is directly dependent upon the Provincial cash flow and municipal levies which may vary. 3. the requirement for private property owners to agree to the details of the scheme and more importantly to agree to conveyinq land will no doubt lead to delays in proceedinq with works in high priority areas. If expropriation is required the delays will be excessive. 4. some of the highest priority areas are localized and could not be protected economically unless adjacent shorelines at sliqhtly lower priority are protected at the same time.