350500-000-003-010 - Appendix E FlysheetS - Apr2014 · 2014-05-01 · DEVELOPER HAS TAKEN THEIR PLAN TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD! This has happened despite all of the work over

Future plans. A meeting on creating a new natural park around the G.E. Booth Wastewater Treatment Plant in Lakeview happens on April 3 at the Mississauga Seniors' Centre. Supplied photo

Meeting looks at future of Lakeview shorelineChris Clay March 15, 2013

MISSISSAUGA — A meeting on how to revitalize a derelict and inaccessible stretch of the Mississauga waterfront into an inviting public space will be held April 3 at the Mississauga Seniors' Centre. The meeting is the second public environmental assessment of the Lakeview Waterfront Connection project and follows the first meeting in January attended by about 100 residents. Officials behind the project will unveil their preferred choice for what's to be done with the shoreline stretching from Etobicoke Creek to the eastern edge of the Ontario Power Generation lands. The goal is to create a new natural park and close a large gap on the waterfront trail running across the city. Once completed, it will allow the trail to meander around the G.E. Booth Wastewater Treatment Plant. Five different designs were presented for public feedback. The Region of Peel, Credit Valley Conservation, City of Mississauga and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority are partners in the project. The meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. with an open house. At 7 p.m. the meeting will shift its focus on how each park design was compared and the preferred project will be revealed. The public will have a chance to provide feedback as well. For more, visit creditvalleyca.ca/lwc. [email protected]

This article is for personal use only courtesy of Mississauga.com - a division of Metroland Media Group Ltd.

Page 1 of 1Mississauga

4/3/2013http://www.mississauga.com/print/1593362

Mimico 20/20 goes to Community Council

Date: Tuesday, April 9th

Time: 7:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter

Place: Etobicoke Civic Centre, Council Chamber, 399 The West Mall

After 7 years of planning and consultation the Mimico 20/20 Offical Plan Amendment is going to Etobicoke Community Council on April 9th.

You can view the final report here, and the City of Toronto project page here. (Scroll down to get to the Sub-consultant reports.)

Click here for the full official notice of public meeting (pdf).

This message was sent to the CCFEW (Citizens Concerned About the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront) mailing list.

If you have received this message in error or wish to be removed from this list, click here to UNSUBSCRIBE.

If this message has been forwarded to you and you would like to be added to our mailing list, click here to SUBSCRIBE.

Please note that list management is a manual process. You will receive a confirmation message, but it won't be immediate.

2 IMPORTANT PUBLIC MEETINGS THIS WEEKLakeview Ratepayer 's to: berickson 04/01/2013 12:03 AMPlease respond to scottkletke

Lakeview Ratepayer's Association Early April Newsletter 2013

Dear LWC Group,

Two big things happening this week in the community...Firstly...

On Tuesday April 2nd @ 7:30 there will be a PUBLIC meeting at City Hall to hear the city's response to the 501 Lakeshore Road Big Box proposal. As you probably already know THE DEVELOPER HAS TAKEN THEIR PLAN TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD! This has happened despite all of the work over all of the years that our community has put into good planning concepts and community participation. The developer is planning to add 160,000 square feet of retail space to the community (which is equal to the ENTIRE RETAIL COMPONENT OF Port Credit today. This is a huge development and we feel that it could kill our existing businesses. Help stop this beastly development...

COME TO THE MEETING AND LET THE CITY HEAR HOW YOU FEEL

ALL ARE WELCOME

Secondly...

On Wednesday April 3rd from 4:30-7:00 pm @ the Senior's Centre, there will be a public meeting for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection...This is the new park on the waterfront that will begin to connect our waterfront from Marie Curtis Park (Etobicoke Creek) to the old Hydro Lands. There will be displays shiowcasing the new design for the park. There will be beaches, there will be islands. There will be trees and marshes. It will be great!If the previous day's meeting has made you frustrated with the lack of respect given to citizen participation and planning, then by all means come to this meeting so you can remember why we're working sohard to get the plan right. We can have a fantastic Lakeview, but in these early stages we've got to work hard and sometimes fight to keep the good dream alive, for our kids and the grandkids and keep our eyes on the next hundred years!

COME TO THE MEETING AND SEE WHAT YOUR NEW WATERFRONT WILL LOOK LIKE.... I'M REALLY EXCITED

ALL ARE WELCOME

...............................................................................................................................................

NEXT MONTH ON SATURDAY MAY 4TH, 2013

THE LAKEVIEW RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION WILL BE CO-HOSTING THIS YEAR'S

COMMUNITY PICNIC!!!COME ONE, COME ALL, IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT

MEET YOUR NEIGHBOURS AFTER THE LONG WINTER SEASONTHIS YEAR'S PICNIC WILL BE ON THE NORTH PARKING LOT OF

CAWTHRA PARK SECONDARY SCHOOL

THERE WILL BE ACTIVITIES FOR THE KIDS, MUSIC AND FOOD.............................................................................................................................................The LRA will continue to support the principles and the planning developed by the community including the Lakeview Legacy Project. This community dream has guided Mississauga's official policy through the concept and the community consultation phase known as Inspiration Lakeview, which calls for Smart Growth and good sound urban planning. Lakeview is the only major community in Mississauga without an historical develpomental core. The LRA will work to ensure that our new centre will be well planned and well located in the heart of our community, so that we may all walk to it in safety and enjoy the new businesses and services that are coming.

The LRA welcomes volunteers from the community. The more help we can get the more we can engage our community. If you have special skill from legal to writing, if you have connections that could help us or if you have some extra time on your hands and want to help out, we would appreciate it. This is a critical time for Lakeview and all the help you can offer would be appreciated. Also, volunteering with the LRA is suitable for your children's high school volunteer hours.Sincerely,

Scott Kletke

{In Archive} Lakeview Waterfront Connection Public Information CentreMichael Charendoff to: councillor_grimes 03/20/2013 04:26 PM

From: Michael Charendoff/TRCA

To: [email protected], Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

Good afternoon Councillor Grimes,

The Region of Peel and Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) appreciates your continued interest and participation in the planning of the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project Environmental Assessment (LWC Project EA), an exciting and important project that seeks to create a new natural waterfront park along the Lake Ontario shoreline in southeast Mississauga.

We would like to formally invite you to the second Public Information Centre (PIC) for the LWC Project EA which will be held on April 3, 2013. Please find attached the official notice for the upcoming Public Information Centre. Please circulate the notice flyer to your contact lists.

Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.

Best regards,

2013_PIC_2_FLYER.pdf

Michael Charendoff, MESCoordinator, Watershed ProjectsToronto and Region Conservation AuthorityOffice: 70 Canuck Ave, Parc Downsview ParkHead office: 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview ON M3N 1S4

[email protected] | 416 661-6600 ext 5280| web: www.trca.on.ca | twitter: @TRCA_DonRiver |

"*PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN DECIDING TO PRINT THIS MESSAGE*

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Confidentiality Notice:The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete it permanently from your computer system.Thank you."

Lakeview Waterfront Connection (LWC) Environmental Assessment

Public Information Centre (PIC) Meeting #2

April 3, 2013

Contact: Michael Charendoff, Coordinator, Watershed Projects, Toronto and Region Conservation [email protected], 416-661-6600 Ext. 5280, 70 Canuck Ave, Downsview ON, M3K 2C5

Lakeview Waterfront Connection Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre #2

AGENDA

Facilitator: Dave Hardy, Hardy Stevenson and Associates

Open House (4:30pm – 7:00pm) LWC Project Team

Presentation (7:00pm – 7:45pm)

Facilitator (Dave Hardy)

Welcome (MP Stella Ambler, Councillor Jim Tovey, Kate Hayes, CVC)

Presentation (Kenneth Dion, TRCA) o Meeting Purposeo EA Status Updateo Results of Comparative Evaluation of the Alternative Project Configurationso The Identification of a Preferred Alternativeo Next Steps

Question and Answer (7:45pm – 8:00pm)

Break-Out Discussion (8:00pm – 8:45pm)

Workbook Questions:

1) Do the results of the evaluation seem reasonable? Please elaborate.

2) Are we missing any important components that should be considered as part of therefinement of the preferred alternative?

3) Is there anything else you would like to add?

Collective Feedback (8:45pm – 8:55pm)

Wrap Up (9:00pm) - Janice Hatton, Region of Peel

Summary of Evaluation - Access

Summary of Evaluation - Naturalization

Summary of Evaluation - Coordination

Summary of Evaluation – Fiscal Viability

Summary of Evaluation

Preferred Alternative in Context of other Waterfront Parks

Treed-Swamp

Forest

Meadow

Beach

Cobble Beach & Islands

Elements of the Preferred that will be Refined Further

• For construction determine:• Construction plan• Access route(s) from QEW to Lakeshore• Site access route(s) from Lakeshore to construction area

• For ultimate design determine location, character and size of:• Stream channels through new park area• Wetlands• Measures to manage invasive species and climate change• Site topography• Shoreline stabilization works


Workbook Question #1

Do the results of the evaluation seem reasonable? Please elaborate.


Workbook Questions #2

Are we missing any important components that

should be considered as part of the refinement of

the preferred alternative?


Workbook Question #3 Is there anything else you would like to add?

If you would like more information, or would like to be on

the project contact list in order to receive notifications

(including PIC information), please contact:

Michael Charendoff, Coordinator, Watershed Projects

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

[email protected] / 416 661 6600 Ext. 5280

Visit our website at: http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/lwc

Next Steps

The next stage in the EA process is to further refine elements of the Preferred Alternative. With regards to construction, the following items must be refined:

Construction

Access Route (off- and on-site)

With regards to the ultimate design, refinements include determining the location, character and size of:

Stream Channels

Wetlands

Invasive Species

Climate Change

Topography

Shoreline

In addition, the following next steps will be taken:

Mitigation measures

Cost estimate and funding strategy

Draft EA for review (late June 2013)

Finalize EA for review (late 2013)

Region of Peel and CVC Boards: Reports (late 2013)

The Ministry of Environment review period will last approximately 6 months. After EA approval is received, detailed design activities can commence and will include:

Construction plan schedule: Refine

Trails, lookouts, passive recreation features: Design

Planting plan: Develop

Edition #4, April 2013

Important Dates

EA Notice of Commencement published January 2, 2013

Public Information Centre #1 – January 22, 2013

Public Information Centre #2 – April 3, 2013

Public Information Centre #3 – Week of May 20 or June 10, 2013

Target date for submission of Draft EA – June 28, 2013

Temporary Stockpile at G.E. Booth Wastewater Treatment Facility — Hanlan Water Project

The Region of Peel plans to create a temporary stockpile on an existing parking lot located to the north of the facility, to store clean fill generated by the Hanlan Water Project. The temporary stockpile will be designed to store approximately 100,000 m3 of fill. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures and construction fencing will be installed around the area to contain the fill. Operations are expected to occur between Monday to Friday during normal operating hours. Once the LWC EA is approved and detailed designs/permits are completed, fill in the stockpile will be reused along the Lake Ontario shoreline south of G.E. Booth to recreate new aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and establish a new publicly accessible natural waterfront park. To maximize cost efficiency for the project, it is important to reuse fill that will be generated close to the LWC Project site.

Shoreline circa 1945

Background

The Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project (LWC Project), led by the Region of Peel and Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), with assistance from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and The City of Mississauga, will create new park lands along the eastern Mississauga waterfront. New coastal wetlands will be established, nearshore and terrestrial habitats will be improved, and public access to the waterfront will be provided. The LWC Project will coordinate with other Region of Peel (and possibly other local government) infrastructure projects in order to maximize reuse of locally generated materials. The LWC Project is the first project arising through the City of Mississauga’s Inspiration Lakeview visioning process (2010/2011).

The LWC Project is currently going through the provincial Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The EA Terms of Reference (ToR) can be viewed along with the Comment Disposition Table, an Errata and the Notice of Approval at www.creditvalleyca.ca/lwc. The EA formally commenced on January 2nd, 2013 with the release of notifications to interested parties and local newspapers and was posted on the CVC project website.


What’s Inside Background

Project Location

Consultation to Date

Alternative Methods

Evaluation of Alternatives Summary


Next Steps

Temporary Stockpile at G.E. Booth Wastewater Treatment Facility — Hanlan Water Project

Project Location

Consultation to Date

The first Public Information Centre (PIC) for the LWC Project EA was held on January 22, 2013 at the Mississauga Seniors’ Centre. 83 members of the public were in attendance. Members of the public had an opportunity to visit displays and speak with staff during the open house portion of the event. A formal presentation was given, followed by facilitated round-table discussions on the proposed project alternatives as well as proposed evaluation criteria and indicators. The public was generally supportive of the project alternatives and approach.

Alternative Methods

The Project Goal is to create a new natural park that will establish ecological habitat and public linkages on the eastern Mississauga waterfront.

The LWC Project EA identified five different ‘Alternative Meth-ods’ that were measured against one another using the ‘Evaluation Criteria’ to identify which alternative best achieves the Project Goal and objectives.

http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/lwc


THE CONNECTION

Alternative Methods


THE CONNECTION


Treed-Swamp

Forest

Meadow

Beach

Evaluation of Alternatives Summary

The following table summarizes the evaluation of alternatives:

Objective Revetment Headland Beach Island Beach A Island Beach B Island Beach C

Naturalization Least

Preferred

Moderately

Preferred

Most

Preferred

Most

Preferred

Most

Preferred

Access Least

Preferred

Moderately

Preferred

Most

Preferred

Moderately

Preferred

Most

Preferred

Consistency Least

Preferred

Moderately

Preferred

Most

Preferred

Most

Preferred

Most

Preferred

Fiscal Viability Most

Preferred

Moderately

Preferred

Least

Preferred

Least

Preferred

Moderately

Preferred

OVERALL Least

Preferred

Moderately

Preferred

Moderately

Preferred

Moderately

Preferred

Most

Preferred

The Preferred Alternative is Island Beach C.


WELCOME

Lakeview Waterfront Connection EA

Public Information Centre #2 Evaluation and Selection of

Preferred Alternative April 3 2013

Meeting Purpose

To report back to the public on the evaluation of the LWC Project Alternative Configurations; the identification of a preferred alternative; to seek comment on the evaluation and the selection of a preferred alternative; and to discuss potential refinements to the preferred alternative.

EA Status and Schedule

EA ToR Approved (Dec. 5)

Notice of Commencement

Submitted (Jan. 2)

Dec

201

2

Jan

2013

Feb

201

3

Mar

201

3

Ap

r 20

13

May

201

3

June

201

3

July

201

3

PIC #1 (Jan. 22)

PIC #2 (Apr. 3)

PIC #3 (Early June)

Draft EA Submission

Rev

iew

Alternative 1: Revetment Landcover Area (ha)

Wetland 8.0

Forest 6.7

Meadow 16

Total 30.7

Alternative 2: Headland Beach

Landcover Area

Wetland 7.7

Forest 6.4

Meadow 17.0

Total 31.1

Alternative 3: Island Beach A Landcover Area

Wetland 7.8

Forest 6.7

Meadow 18.2

Total 32.7

Alternative 4: Island Beach B Landcover Area

Wetland 7.7

Forest 7.2

Meadow 18.5

Total 33.4

Alternative 5: Island Beach C Landcover Area

Wetland 7.8

Forest 6.7

Meadow 18.2

Total 32.7

How we dealt with suggested revisions to the alternatives

Consider a hybrid of the embayment and island alternatives with a break through option to alleviate algae growth concerns

Embayments typically produce conditions suitable for aquatic vegetation to establish, rather than algae A break could be design rather than functional considerations

Include more sand in the transition area between the terrestrial and beach area

Very rough wave climate area Sand too close to the beach will wash away Sand beyond the wave activity will vegetate and become terrestrial habitat.

Overall, general consensus that the range of options seemed reasonable

Comparative Evaluation: Criteria and Indicators

Measure ability of alternative to meet project objectives

Focused on measuring differences between alternatives

Reflect information presented for alternatives.

LWC Comparative Evaluation

For each indicator, each alternative

Objectives, criteria and indicators considered equally important no weighting

Public and agency input sought on comparative evaluation

Comparative Evaluation Assumptions

Same construction plan for all alternatives and use of standard construction mitigative measures

Outer berm of purchased material built first Placement of fill between berm and existing shore Grading or land creation area to establish stream connections Planting with native vegetation Provision of trails and other recreation attributes

Alternatives represent ultimate build out condition so connection to OPG eastern pier may be staged

Evaluation Criteria Used

OBJECTIVE CRITERIA

Naturalization Change in diversity of shoreline types

Ability to create functional habitat blocks

Ability of alternatives to be self-compensating with respect to fish habitat

Access Potential for lookout areas

Potential for effects on traditional uses of lands by First Nations and Metis

Coordination Consistency with the Visioning for Inspiration Lakeview

Consistency with LOISS

Consistency with Lake Ontario Biodiversity Strategy

Consistency with MNR Fish Community Goals and Objectives Lake Ontario

Fiscal Viability Estimated capital cost

Annual maintenance costs for naturalized area

Criteria Screened from Evaluation Criteria and indicators which were evaluated but for which there were no significant differences between the alternatives

Access Potential for changes to use of waterfront for recreation

Potential for displacement of built heritage resources due to construction

Potential effects from construction on marine and land based archaeological resources

Compatibility Potential for effects to existing WWTF outfalls

Changes to site security for WWTF

Coordination Consistency with City of Mississauga Waterfront Parks Strategy (2008)

Consistency with Marie Curtis Park and Arsenal Lands Master Plan

How we dealt with suggestions on Criteria and Evaluation Consider adding criteria to address following issues:

Transportation infrastructure Active and interpretive recreation opportunities Prevention of odours reaching park Attraction of undesirable species Provision of view corridors to lake and other vistas Universal accessibility Fiscal viability & cost of construction and maintenance Public safety with respect to recreational boating Flooding, water quality and water currents

Most issues already covered in evaluation criteria

evaluated


Objective Criteria Revetment Headland Beach Island A Island B Island C

Naturalization

Change in shoreline character Least

preferred Moderately preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred


Least preferred

Moderately preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Ability of alternative to be self- compensating with respect to fish habitat

Least preferred



Most preferred


SUMMARY

Least preferred


Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred



Access

Potential for lookout areas


Least preferred

Most preferred


Most preferred

Potential for public access to

Least preferred


Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Potential for effect from construction on traditional uses of lands by First Nations and Métis

Least preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Summary Least preferred


Most preferred


Most preferred

Summary of Evaluation - Coordination Objective Criteria Revetment Headland

Beach Island A Island B Island C

Coordination

Consistency with the Visioning for Inspiration Lakeview


Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Consistency with LOISS Least




Most preferred


Least preferred


Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Summary

Consistency with MNR Fish Community Goal & Objectives L. Ontario

Least preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Least preferred


Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Summary of Evaluation Fiscal Viability


Fiscal Viability

Estimated Capital Cost Most


Least preferred

Least preferred


Annual maintenance cost for naturalized area Most

preferred Least preferred

Least preferred

Least preferred

Least preferred

Summary Most preferred


Least preferred

Least preferred



Objective Revetment Headland Island A Island B Island C

Naturalization Least preferred


Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Access Least preferred


Most preferred


Most preferred

Coordination Least preferred


Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Fiscal Viability

Most preferred


Least preferred

Least preferred


OVERALL Least preferred




Most preferred

Preferred Alternative Island C in Context of Other Waterfront Parks


Meadow

Forest

Revetment

Treed-Swamp

Refinements to Preferred Alternative

For construction determine: Construction plan Access route(s) from QEW to Lakeshore Site access route(s) from Lakeshore to construction area

For ultimate design determine location, character and size of:

Stream channels through new park area Wetlands Measures to manage invasive species and climate change Site topography Shoreline stabilization works

Next Steps prior to Draft EA Submission

Refine preferred alternative to include: Construction plan Construction access from QEW to Lakeshore and from Lakeshore to shoreline Design details related to stream channels, shoreline works, etc.

Detailed assessment of preferred alternative focused on construction and establishment phases

Identification of mitigation measures to lessen negative effects and/or enhance positive effects

Develop detailed cost estimate and funding strategy to be reviewed against the initial cost and funding models developed at the Feasibility Study stage to confirm the financial viability of the LWC

EA Approval Process

Draft EA available for public and agency review late June 2013 Final EA available for public and agency review and approval late 2013 Report to Region of Peel Council late 2013 MOE review period approximately 6 months

Post EA Approval Steps

After EA approval is received detailed design activities can commence and will include:

Refinement of construction plan and construction schedule Design of trails, lookouts and other passive recreation features Development of planting plan and approach to planting

1

Lakeview Waterfront Connection EA

Public Information Centre #2 Evaluation and Selection of Preferred

AlternativeApril 3 2013

Meeting Purpose

To report back to the public on • the evaluation of the LWC Project Alternative

Configurations;• the identification of a preferred alternative; • to seek comment on the evaluation and the selection of a

preferred alternative; and • to discuss potential refinements to the preferred

alternative.

EA Status and Schedule

EA ToR Approved(Dec. 5)

Notice of Commencement

Submitted(Jan. 2)

Dec

20

12

Jan

2013

Feb

20

13

Mar

2013

Ap

r 20

13

May

20

13

June

2013

July

2013

PIC #1(Jan. 22)

PIC #2(Apr. 3)

PIC #3(Early June)

Draft EASubmission

Rev

iew

LWC Project Goal and ObjectivesGoal

To create a new natural waterfront park that will establish ecological habitat and public linkages on the eastern Mississauga waterfront

Objectives1) Naturalization2) Access3) Compatibility4) Coordination5) Fiscal Viability

Alternative LWC Project ConfigurationsRevetment Headland Beach

Alternative LWC Project Configurations

Island A Island B

2

Alternative LWC Project Configurations

Island C

How we dealt with suggested revisions to the alternatives• Consider a hybrid of the embayment and island alternatives with a

break through option to alleviate algae growth concerns• Embayments typically produce conditions suitable for aquatic

vegetation to establish, rather than algae • A break could be design rather than functional considerations

• Include more sand in the transition area between the terrestrial and beach area• Very rough wave climate area• Sand too close to the beach will wash away• Sand beyond the wave activity will vegetate and become

terrestrial habitat.• Overall, general consensus that the range of options seemed

reasonable

Comparative Evaluation Criteria

• Criteria and indicators measure ability of alternative tomeet LWC Project objectives

• All criteria and indicators focused on measuring thedifferences between alternatives

• Criteria and indicators reflect information presented forthe alternatives.

LWC Comparative Evaluation

• For each indicator, each alternative given qualitativescore (‘least preferred’, ‘moderately preferred’, ‘mostpreferred’)

• Objectives, criteria and indicators considered equallyimportant – no weighting

• Public and agency input sought on comparativeevaluation

Comparative Evaluation Assumptions

• Same construction plan for all alternatives and use ofstandard construction mitigative measures

• Outer berm of purchased material built first• Placement of fill between berm and existing shore• Grading or land creation area to establish stream connections • Planting with native vegetation• Provision of trails and other recreation attributes

• Alternatives represent ultimate build out condition soconnection to OPG eastern pier may be staged

Evaluation Criteria Used OBJECTIVE CRITERIA

Naturalization Change in diversity of shoreline types


Ability of alternatives to be self-compensating with respect to fish habitat

Access Potential for lookout areas

Potential for public access to water’s edge

Potential for effects on traditional uses of lands by First Nations and Metis

Coordination Consistency with the Visioning for Inspiration Lakeview



Consistency with MNR Fish Community Goals and Objectives – Lake Ontario

Fiscal Viability Estimated capital cost

Annual maintenance costs for naturalized area

3

Criteria Screened from Evaluation

Criteria and indicators which were evaluated but for which there were no significant differences between the alternatives

Access Potential for changes to use of waterfront for recreation

Potential for displacement of built heritage resources due to construction

Potential effects from construction on marine and land based archaeological resources

Compatibility Potential for effects to existing WWTF outfalls

Changes to site security for WWTF

Coordination Consistency with City of Mississauga Waterfront Parks Strategy (2008)

Consistency with Marie Curtis Park and Arsenal Lands Master Plan

How we dealt with suggestions on Criteria and EvaluationConsider adding criteria to address following issues:

• Transportation infrastructure• Active and interpretive recreation opportunities• Prevention of odours reaching park• Attraction of undesirable species• Provision of view corridors to lake and other vistas• Universal accessibility• Fiscal viability & cost of construction and maintenance• Public safety with respect to recreational boating• Flooding, water quality and water currents

Most issues already covered in evaluation criteria or can’t be measured given alternatives being evaluated



Naturalization

Change in shoreline character Least preferred Moderately

preferredMost

preferredMost

preferredMost

preferred


Least preferred Moderately preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred

Ability of alternative to be self- compensating with respect to fish habitat

Least preferred Moderately preferred


Most preferred


SUMMARY Least preferred


Most preferred

Most preferred

Most preferred



Access

Potential for lookout areas Moderatelypreferred

Leastpreferred

Mostpreferred

Moderatelypreferred

Mostpreferred

Potential for public access to water’s edge

Leastpreferred

Moderatelypreferred

Mostpreferred

Most preferred Mostpreferred

Potential for effect from construction on traditional uses of lands by First Nations and Métis

Leastpreferred

Mostpreferred

Mostpreferred Most preferred Most

preferred

Summary Leastpreferred

Moderatelypreferred

Mostpreferred

Moderatelypreferred

Mostpreferred

Summary of Evaluation - CoordinationObjective Criteria Revetment Headland

Beach Island A Island B Island C

Coordination

Consistency with the Visioning for Inspiration Lakeview

Moderatelypreferred

Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred


Leastpreferred

Moderatelypreferred

Moderatelypreferred

Moderatelypreferred

Most preferred


Leastpreferred

Moderatelypreferred

Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred

Summary

Consistency with MNR Fish Community Goal & Objectives – L. Ontario

Leastpreferred

Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred

Leastpreferred

Moderatelypreferred


Summary of Evaluation – Fiscal Viability


Fiscal Viability

Estimated Capital Cost

Mostpreferred

Moderatelypreferred

Leastpreferred

Least preferredModeratelypreferred

Annual maintenance cost for naturalized area Most

preferredLeastpreferred

Leastpreferred

Least preferred Least preferred

Summary Mostpreferred

Moderatelypreferred

Leastpreferred

Leastpreferred

Moderatelypreferred

4


Objective Revetment Headland Island A Island B Island C

Naturalization Least preferred Moderately preferred


Access Least preferred Moderately preferred

Most preferred Moderately preferred

Most preferred

Coordination Least preferred Moderately preferred


Fiscal Viability Most preferred Moderately preferred

Least preferred Least preferred Moderately preferred

OVERALL Least preferred Moderately preferred


Moderatelypreferred

Most preferred

Preferred Alternative –Island C

Sense of Scale to Other Waterfront ParksRefinements to Preferred Alternative

• For construction determine:• Construction plan• Access route(s) from QEW to Lakeshore• Site access route(s) from Lakeshore to construction area

• For ultimate design determine location, character andsize of:• Stream channels through new park area• Wetlands• Measures to manage invasive species and climate change• Site topography• Shoreline stabilization works

Public Input to Comparative Evaluation

• Review and comment on comparative evaluation• Do the results of the evaluation seem reasonable?

• Review and comment on potential refinements to thepreferred alternative• Do the potential refinements to the preferred alternative seem

reasonable?

Next Steps prior to Draft EA Submission

• Refine preferred alternative to include:• Construction plan• Construction access from QEW to Lakeshore and from Lakeshore to

shoreline• Design details related to stream channels, shoreline works, etc.

• Detailed assessment of preferred alternative focused onconstruction and establishment phases

• Identification of mitigation measures to lessen negative effects and/or enhance positive effects

• Develop detailed cost estimate and funding strategy to be reviewed against the initial cost and funding models developed at the Feasibility Study stage to confirm the financial viability of the LWC

5

EA Approval Process

• Draft EA available for public and agency review lateJune 2013

• Final EA available for public and agency review andapproval late 2013

• Report to Region of Peel Council late 2013• MOE review period approximately 6 months

Post EA Approval Steps

After EA approval is received detailed design activities can commence and will include:• Refinement of construction plan and construction

schedule• Design of trails, lookouts and other passive recreation

features• Development of planting plan and approach to planting

Public Information Centre #2 Meeting Summary Notes Environmental Assessment Phase

April 3, 2013 4:30 pm to 9:00 pm

Mississauga Senior Citizen’s Centre 1389 Cawthra Road, Mississauga

Lakeview Waterfront ConnectionCoordinated Environmental Assessment Project (LWC EA)

1 | P a g e

1. ATTENDANCEThe LWC Project PIC#2 was held at the Mississauga Senior’s Centre at 1389 Cawthra Road in Mississauga, Ontario. As participants arrived they signed‐in and were provided with a workbook that included an agenda, a summary of the evaluation of alternative project configurations, the Preferred Alternative illustration, and questions to be addressed in break‐out groups during the PIC. The LWC Project Newsletter Edition #4 was also made available to participants.

The total attendance at the LWC Project PIC#2 was approximately 87 members of the public.

Project team in attendance included:

Janice Hatton (The Region of Peel) Kate Hayes (Credit Valley Conservation) Jon Macmull (Credit Valley Conservation) Ken Dion (Toronto Region Conservation Authority) Michael Charendoff (Toronto Region Conservation Authority)

Project consultants included:

Simon Strauss (SENES Consultants) Dave Hardy (Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited) Andrzej Schreyer (Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited)

Political representatives in attendance included:

M.P. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South) Councillor Jim Tovey (Ward 1 Mississauga South)

2. OPEN HOUSEThe meeting began with an Open House starting at 4:30 pm where members of the public were invited to learn from information boards and discuss the project with the LWC Project team.

3. OPENING REMARKSThe presentation began at approximately 7:00 pm with Dave Hardy as facilitator. The facilitator welcomed everyone to PIC#2 and explained his role as an independent third party facilitator. He also noted this is an exciting moment in the life of the EA because this is the moment where the Preferred Alternative is revealed and the public is given an opportunity to share their input.

The facilitator introduced M.P. Stella Ambler to provide words of welcome.

2 | P a g e

M.P. Ambler welcomed everyone to PIC #2 and on behalf of the Federal government thanked PIC participants, as well as all of those individuals who have been involved in the LWC Project for their dedication to the project and the community.

M.P. Ambler also noted that as part of the Environmental Committee in Ottawa she appreciated the appearance of Councillor Tovey and Ken Dion who spoke about the LWC Project. She also noted that one of the tasks of the Environmental Committee was to implement a National Conservation Plan for Canada, and that an important component of the Plan was to include an urban element as most Canadians live in cities. Finally, M.P. Ambler indicated that the Environmental Committee responded very well to Councillor Tovey’s and Ken Dion’s presentation and wished everyone good luck moving forward.

The facilitator introduced Councillor Tovey to provide words of welcome.

Councillor Tovey welcomed participants to PIC #2. He expressed his excitement about the LWC Project moving closer to fruition stating that the LWC project represents building ‘heritage for the future’. He noted that construction is tentatively scheduled for the spring of 2014 with completion sometime in 2019. Councillor Tovey also highlighted the importance of ‘excellence’ when building cities, including parks and that he is delighted to have a highly competent project team led by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation Authority. He also thanked participants for taking the time out of their schedules to attend PIC #2 and contribute to the project.

The facilitator introduced Kate Hayes of Credit Valley Conservation Authority to provide words of welcome.

Kate Hayes provided PIC participants with a temporal perspective for the LWC Project. She pointed out that it has taken 200 years for the shoreline to become degraded to its present condition; that it will take six months to prepare the Environmental Assessment; five years to construct the LWC Project; and, that once completed, the LWC project will be timeless. Kate also pointed out that the LWC Project will heal the shoreline and reconnect people to the lake, and that it will be a reflection of the countless time and effort of the public. Kate concluded her opening remarks by thanking everyone for attending PIC #2.

The facilitator introduced the project team as well as Region of Peel and City of Mississauga staff in attendance. He also addressed a number of procedural matters, including reviewing the agenda, ensuring that everyone had a workbook, and that everyone has signed‐in.

Before turning the floor over to Ken Dion, the facilitator outlined ground rules for the meeting, including: (i) limiting the use of jargon; (ii) asking questions of clarification if someone doesn’t understand a term or concept; and, iii) remaining on topic as much as possible.

The facilitator turned the meeting over to Ken Dion.

3 | P a g e

4. PRESENTATIONKen Dion of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority gave a PowerPoint presentation that included an overview of:

1. Meeting purpose2. EA Status and schedule3. Alternative LWC Project configurations4. How we dealt with your suggested revisions to the alternatives5. Comparative evaluation criteria6. LWC Project comparative evaluation7. Comparative evaluation assumptions8. Evaluation criteria used9. Criteria screened from evaluation10. How we dealt with your suggestions on criteria and the evaluation11. Summary of evaluation:

i. Naturalizationii. Accessiii. Coordinationiv. Fiscal viabilityv. Summary of evaluation

12. Preferred Alternative Island C13. Refinements to Preferred Alternative14. CLC input to comparative evaluation15. Next steps prior to draft EA submission16. EA approval process17. Post EA approval steps

5. FACILITATED QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSIONFollowing the presentation, the Facilitator asked if there were any questions or clarifications required with respect to the presentation. The following questions were asked:

a) Could you please show us where the boundary of Toronto is located?

‐ Ken showed where the approximate city limit of Toronto is located relative tothe LWC Project.

b) Does the water current along the shoreline flow in a north‐south direction?

‐ Ken explained that the currents change depending on the season.

c) Why is it that Marie Curtis still has a sandy beach?

4 | P a g e

‐ This area is much closer to the shoreline and the waves are much smaller due to lower water depths thereby reducing wave energy.

d) Has a wave study been conducted?

‐ All of the proposed designs are based on coastal engineering studies.

e) Could you please identify the OPG property line? Isn’t there a risk of negotiatingwith neighbours? All five project alternatives are directly adjacent to the OPG landand the City of Toronto. Are they in agreement with this proposal?

‐ We have been in discussions with both the City of Toronto and OPG throughoutthe EA process. The City of Toronto is generally favorable of the Preferred Alternative and we are continuously meeting with the City as issues arise. OPG is also generally happy with the LWC Project and are supportive. However, the planning process for OPG’s water lots is on a slightly different timeline, therefore in the refinement stage of the EA process we will need to have a phased approach to ensure we remain flexible with respect to where the southern portion of the LWC Project ties off, with our preference being next to the OPG pier.

f) Will the waterfront trail be rooted though the proposed park?

‐ Yes. This is the ultimate intent.

g) Will there be landscaping put into place to screen the Lakeview Plant from publicview?

‐ As part of the EA process, we are taking viewscapes into consideration.

h) I am concerned about the accumulation of organic materials which have beenincreasing over the past 10 years. Will this proposal increase the accumulation oforganic materials along the shoreline?

‐ According to the coastal analysis thus far there will be no change in coastalcirculation. This will be a detailed component of the EA and it will take into consideration water circulation effects beyond the immediate LWC Project Study Area.

i) Is the access to the western edge of the park contingent upon the OPG lands?

‐ Yes.

j) Will the trails in the proposed park be able to accommodate multiple users?

5 | P a g e

‐ Yes. The trails will have the appropriate separations to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians.

k) How far into the lake will fill be added?

‐ The fill will extend approximately 200 m from the existing shoreline. The revetment area will extend approximately 300 m to 400 m into the lake.

l) Would it be possible to reduce the extent of this fill by half the distance?

‐ It is possible; however the reuse of materials generated from the Hanlan Water Project and other regional and City of Mississauga projects would be reduced. This material is the resource which makes the LWC project possible.

m) Where is the 2,000,000 m3 of fill coming from? ‐ The fill will primarily come from municipal and regional infrastructure projects.

The majority of the fill will consist of till and bedrock material. There will be strict controls on the sites from which the fill is generated to ensure that the quality of the fill meets applicable guidelines. The TRCA has experience doing this in other parts of the GTA and we will ensure that there is both source and end of delivery controls.

‐ This material would need to be moved and because we have the opportunity to reuse the fill locally it represents significant cost savings due to reduced travel distances and tipping fees.

6. BREAK‐OUT GROUP WORK Following the question and answer session, the facilitator gave instructions for the “facilitated break‐out group discussion”. Meeting participants broke‐out into groups to respond to, and discuss the following questions:

1) Do the results of the evaluation seem reasonable? Please elaborate.

2) Do the refinements to the Preferred Alternative seem reasonable? Would you like to add anything to the refinements?

Each group had a facilitator to assist group members to discuss and respond to their assigned question (either question #1 or question #2). The workbook provided space for meeting participants to provide answers to each question. Completed workbooks were submitted to the project team at the end of the session. Groups had approximately 45 minutes to respond to their assigned question and the remaining questions in the workbook. After the 45 minute period, groups reported on their answers to

6 | P a g e

the assigned question.

This is a summary of group responses provided during the report‐back portion of the PIC:

QUESTION #1:

Do the results of the evaluation seem reasonable? Please elaborate.

‐ In general, groups agreed with the evaluation outcomes and in particular the Preferred Alternative Island C.

‐ Elements of the Preferred Alternative Island C that were highlighted as positive included:

The abundance of natural linkages; The re‐naturalization of the shoreline; The creation of amenity space for the public; and, The aesthetics of the proposed configuration with the three

islands

QUESTION #2:

Do the refinements to the Preferred Alternative seem reasonable? Would you like toadd anything to the refinements?

‐ The preservation of existing beaches should be given more emphasis as well as screening the G.E. Booth wastewater treatment plant.

‐ Access to the area over the next several years and during construction should be given consideration.

‐ Access for small boats should be given consideration.

‐ Consider the human element (access) to the park in addition to naturalization.

‐ Consider mosquito proliferation due to proposed wetlands.

‐ Consider accessibility to the park to ensure everyone can enjoy it.

‐ Consider including more sand as part of the Preferred Alternative.

‐ Consider emergency services, accessibility and safety in the area, including good lighting.

7 | P a g e

‐ Consider opportunities for canoeing and kayaking, as well as the incorporation of a racing facility as a potential revenue stream.

‐ Consider parking access.

‐ Consider effect on roads and local area due to the transportation of the fill and

during construction.

‐ Consider the possibility of the G.E. Booth wastewater treatment plant overflowing during storm events.

‐ Consider a contingency plan in the event there isn’t sufficient fill generated so

that the configuration/land mass of the park can be adapted.

‐ Consider separating the fill into piles based on quality to ensure that low‐quality fill is not mixed with high‐quality fill.

The facilitator asked if there were any other comments or questions before the meeting comes to a close. The following comments were provided:

‐ When evaluating the Alternatives, because the criteria were given equal weight, this may represent a bias since the public might find some criteria more important than others.

The following questions were asked:

‐ Consider avoiding using the word ‘beach’ when describing the Alternatives because most people associate this word with sand and this is not being proposed in the majority of the Alternatives. I suggest using more appropriate terminology such as ‘rock face’, ‘pebbles’ or ‘small rocks’. This is more accurate and avoids false expectations.

‐ Will you be taking the suggestions you hear today into consideration and informing us if the recommendations were indeed applied?

o Response: We will be taking all of the comments into consideration and

indicate where we accepted the recommendations and where we did not and provide a rationale.

‐ Could you please identify the transition area between the cobbles and the sand

on the Preferred Alternative Island C display board?

o Response: The transition area was identified.

8 | P a g e

7. CLOSING REMARKSThe facilitator introduced Janice Hatton to provide closing remarks. Janice thanked everyone

for attending the PIC. She also reiterated the objective of PIC #2 as a moment to receive input

on the evaluation of the LWC Project Alternatives. Janice thanked everyone for the input and

hard work and concluded the meeting with a quote: “There is no one giant step that does it; it’s

a lot of small steps”. She also encouraged everyone to continue providing excellent feedback.

Meeting Adjourned: 9:00 pm

Facilitator: Dave Hardy, HSAL

Meeting summary notes prepared by: Andrzej Schreyer, HSAL

TRCA

Rectangle

Supplementary Newsletter, July 2013

The Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project (LWC Project),

led by the Region of Peel and Credit Valley Conservation

(CVC), with assistance from Toronto and Region Conservation

Authority (TRCA) and The City of Mississauga, will create new

park lands along the eastern Mississauga waterfront. New

coastal wetlands will be established, nearshore and terrestrial

habitats will be improved, and public access to the waterfront

will be provided. The LWC Project will coordinate with other

Region of Peel (and possibly other local government)

infrastructure projects in order to maximize reuse of locally

generated clean fill. The LWC Project is the first project arising

through the City of Mississauga’s Inspiration Lakeview

visioning process (2010/2011).

Project Location

The LWC Project will naturalize a degraded section of

Lake Ontario shoreline. Vibrant parkland will extend into the

waters of Lake Ontario, providing visitors with beautiful views

of the Toronto skyline.

Key Elements of the LWC Project

The naturalized park will connect sections of the Mississauga and

Toronto waterfront trails - providing a green corridor. With new

forests, meadows, and wetlands, wildlife will flock to the area.

The design calls for up to two million cubic metres of clean fill

material to build up an area extending south-east into the lake. In

the east, the new park will connect with Marie Curtis Park. The

most westerly portion of Marie Curtis Park’s sand beach (west of

Etobicoke Creek) will seamlessly transition westward from sands,

to pebbles, to small cobbles, then larger cobbles. Three rocky

islands will be built to absorb the heavy wave action from the lake

and allow for calmer waters along the new beach. The new beach

will be designed to allow beach materials to move around while

withstanding the strong waves that would occur during large

storm events.

Background

Supplementary Newsletter, July 2013

If you would like more information, or would like to be on the

project contact list in order to receive notifications (including

PIC information), please contact:

Michael Charendoff, Coordinator, Watershed Projects

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

[email protected] / 416 661 6600 Ext. 5280

Important Dates

Public Information Centre #3 – Week of October 7, 2013

Target date for submission of Draft EA – late October, 2013

Next Steps

Public Information Centre (PIC) #3 for the LWC Project EA is

anticipated to be held the week of October 7, 2013.

Following approval by Peel Region Council and the CVC Board

in the fall, the draft EA will be formally submitted to the

Ministry of Environment for review. Formal submission of the

final EA is anticipated in January 2014, with approvals

anticipated in July/August 2014. After EA approval is

received, detailed design activities can commence and will

include:

Refinement of the construction plan schedule;

Design of trails, lookouts, passive recreation features; and

Development of the planting plan.

In the west, the new park will connect with the eastern pier of

the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) property. Two creeks

currently discharge into Lake Ontario within the immediate

Project area:

Applewood Creek: is located between Marie Curtis Park

West Beach and the Region of Peel GE Booth Wastewater

Treatment Facility (WWTF); and

Serson Creek (has two outlets): the first outlet allows

baseflows to discharge from a perched culvert from

underneath the GE Booth WWTF; while the second outlet is

through a stormwater channel located between the GE

Booth WWTF and OPG’s property.

The design of the LWC Project will include the permanent

rerouting of low flows in Serson Creek down the stormwater

channel. The LWC Project will also direct flows from Serson and

Applewood Creeks along two new coastal wetlands before the

creeks enter Lake Ontario. These wetlands will provide essential

wildlife habitat, especially for migrating birds and fish.

Most of the new park will consist of rolling meadow habitat, with

pockets of forest and wooded wetland. A large mound will be

situated between the two wetlands and will provide

breathtaking views of both cities.

Key Elements of the LWC Project Cont’d

The park’s design and specific mix of features is the result of

extensive public consultation, including five public meetings

and the establishment of a Community Liaison Committee,

which informed all decisions related to the project.

Documents

350500-000-003-010 - Appendix E FlysheetS - Apr2014 · 2014-05-01 · DEVELOPER HAS TAKEN THEIR PLAN TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD! This has happened despite all of the work over