APPENDIX A - Lakeview Waterfront Connection

Transcription

APPENDIX A
Mandatory Notices
LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT CONNECTION
OPEN HOUSE AND PUBLIC MEETING - NOVEMBER 16
Region of Peel and Credit Valley Conservation
The Region of Peel and Credit Valley Conservation plan to create a
beautiful and naturalized conservation area that will transform
Mississauga’s Lakeview neighbourhood into a hotspot for wildlife
migration and a green oasis in the heart of the city.
PURPOSE:
• To present updates to the
conservation area detailed
design
• To present a new
construction access route and
proposed amendment to the
Environmental Assessment
MISSISSAUGA
TORONTO
G.E. BOOTH
WASTE WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
D
APPLEWOO
CREEK
SERSON CR
OPG
LANDS
EEK
ARSENAL
LANDS
MARIE CURTIS
PARK WEST
ETOBIC
KE
CREEO
K
Monday, November 16, 2015
• Open House: 6:30 - 7 p.m.
• Presentation: 7 - 7:30 p.m.
• Discussion: 7:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Clarke Memorial Hall,
161 Lakeshore Road West,
Mississauga, ON L5H 1G3
Accessible via public transit on
the MiWay #23 Bus
(Lakeshore Rd East/West service)
LAKE ONTARIO
If you are unable to attend, but would like to learn more and/or provide
comments, please visit http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca
beginning November 16, 2015. For project-related questions or to be
added to the project mailing list, contact:
Jon MacMull
Credit Valley Conservation
1255 Old Derry Road, Mississauga, ON, L5N 6R4
Phone: 905-670-1615 ext 385, Fax: 905-670-2210,
Email: [email protected]
On May 27, 2015, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change
approved the Environmental Assessment for the Lakeview Waterfront
Connection Project. The Environmental Assessment is available online
for review at http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca.
OPEN HOUSE AND PUBLIC MEETING
Region of Peel and Credit Valley Conservation
MISSISSAUGA
TORONTO
G.E. BOOTH
WASTE WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
D
APPLEWOO
CREEK
SERSON CR
OPG
LANDS
EEK
ARSENAL
LANDS
MARIE CURTIS
PARK WEST
ETOBIC
KE
CREEO
K
The Region of Peel and Credit Valley Conservation plan to create a beautiful and naturalized conservation
area that will transform the Lakeview neighbourhood into a hotspot for wildlife migration and a green
oasis in the heart of the city.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2015
Open House: 6:30 - 7 p.m.
Presentation: 7 - 7:30 p.m.
Discussion: 7:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Clarke Memorial Hall
161 Lakeshore Road West,
Mississauga, ON L5H 1G3
Accessible via public transit on the MiWay
#23 Bus (Lakeshore Road East and West
service)
LAKE ONTARIO
MEETING PURPOSE:
• To present updates to the
conservation area detailed design
• To present a new construction access
route and proposed amendment to
the Environmental Assessment
If you are unable to attend, but would like to learn more and/or provide comments, please visit
http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca beginning November 16, 2015.
To be added to the project mailing list or if you have project-related questions, contact:
Jon MacMull
Phone: 905-670-1615 ext 385, Fax: 905-670-2210,
On May 27, 2015, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change approved the Environmental
Assessment for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project. The Environmental Assessment is available
online for review at http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca.
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Public Meeting for Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project
November 5, 2015 –Mississauga and Etobicoke residents are encouraged to attend a public meeting and
open house for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection project on Monday, November 16 at Clarke Memorial
Hall, 161 Lakeshore Rd W, Mississauga.
The meeting will focus on updates to the conservation area design, as well as a new construction access
route and the related proposed amendment to the project’s Environmental Assessment.
The meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. with display panels for review and project team members available to answer
questions. A formal presentation starts at 7 p.m. A discussion session runs from 7:30-8:30 p.m. Clarke
Memorial Hall is accessible via public transit on the MiWay No. 23 Bus (Lakeshore Rd East/West service).
The Lakeview Waterfront Connection project will result in a beautiful and naturalized conservation area
constructed in Mississauga’s Lakeview neighbourhood. The project is a joint undertaking of the Region of
Peel, Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to add green space where it
is significantly lacking. The project is supported by the cities of Mississauga and Toronto and is in keeping
with the sustainable principles of the Inspiration Lakeview Master Plan.
Those unable to attend, but would like to learn more or provide comments, may visit
http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca beginning November 16, 2015.
For project-related questions or to be added to the project mailing list, contact:
Jon MacMull
Phone: 905-670-1615 ext 385, Fax: 905-670-2210,
On May 27, 2015, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change approved the Environmental
Assessment for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection project. On October 22, Peel Regional Council voiced
their continued support for the project and endorsed moving forward to implementation.
-30Conservation authorities are a provincial/municipal partnership. For 60 years, Credit Valley Conservation has
worked with its partners to support a thriving environment that protects, connects and sustains us. Credit
Valley Conservation gratefully acknowledges financial support from our member municipalities for facilities,
programs and services: the Regions of Peel and Halton; the Cities of Mississauga and Brampton; the Towns
of Caledon, Erin, Halton Hills, Mono, Oakville and Orangeville; and the Townships of Amaranth and East
Garafraxa. CVC is a member of Conservation Ontario.
Conservation area plan:
http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/LWC-plan.jpg
Artist renderings of the future conservation area:
Credit Valley Conservation 1255 Old Derry Road, Mississauga, ON L5N 6R4
Phone: 905-670-1615 Fax:905-670-2210 www.creditvalleyca.ca
Looking east over the mouth of Serson creek.
http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/LWC-View-1.jpg
Looking east, atop the main lookout, facing Toronto.
http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/View-3_rev_beach_rev.jpg
Looking south at the new Serson Creek Wetland.
http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/View-2_rev_rev-ducks-v2.jpg
Looking west from the mouth of Etobicoke creek.
http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/View-4_rev.jpg
Media Contact
Jon MacMull
Supervisor, Marketing and Communications
905-670-1615 ext. 385
[email protected]
News release available online:
http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/news/story/public-meeting-for-lakeview-waterfront-connection-project/
Subscribe
Share
Past Issues
Important public meeting on November 16, 2015.
Translate
View this email in your browser
Open House and Public Meeting
For the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project
Monday, November 16, 2015
Open House: 6:30 – 7 p.m.
Presentation: 7 – 7:30 p.m.
Discussion: 7:30 – 8:30 p.m.
Clarke Memorial Hall, 161 Lakeshore Road West, Mississauga, ON L5H 1G3
Accessible via public transit on the MiWay #23 Bus
(Lakeshore Road East and West service)
MEETING PURPOSE:
To present updates to the conservation area detailed design
To present a new construction access route and proposed amendment to
If you are unable to attend, but would like to learn more and/or provide comments,
please visit http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca beginning November 16, 2015.
If you have project-related questions, please contact:
Jon MacMull
Phone: 905-670-1615 ext 385, Fax: 905-670-2210,
On May 27, 2015, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change approved the
Environmental Assessment for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project. The
Environmental Assessment is available online for review
at http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca.
Copyright © 2015 Credit Valley Conservation, All rights reserved.
unsubscribe from this list
update subscription preferences
Subscribe
Share
Past Issues
Important public meeting tonight.
Translate
For the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project
TONIGHT - Monday, November 16, 2015 - 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Clarke Memorial Hall, 161 Lakeshore Road West, Mississauga, ON L5H 1G3
Accessible via public transit on the MiWay #23 Bus
(Lakeshore Road East and West service)
MEETING PURPOSE:
To present updates to the conservation area detailed design
To present a new construction access route and proposed amendment to
If you are unable to attend, but would like to learn more and/or provide comments,
please visit http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca beginning November 16, 2015.
If you have project-related questions, please contact:
Jon MacMull
Phone: 905-670-1615 ext 385, Fax: 905-670-2210,
On May 27, 2015, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change approved the
Environmental Assessment for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project. The
Environmental Assessment is available online for review
at http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca.
Subscribe
Share
Past Issues
Important update on the Lakeview Waterfront Connection project.
Translate
Meeting Summary and Display Materials
On behalf of the Lakeview Waterfront Connection (LWC) project team, thank you to
those who attended the public meeting and open house on Monday, November 16,
2015 at Clarke Memorial Hall in Port Credit. In total, 75 residents were on hand to share
their ideas for the new naturalized conservation area that will transform Mississauga's
Lakeview neighbourhood into a hub for passive waterfront recreation, a hotspot for
wildlife migration and a green oasis in the heart of the city.
Attendees learned about a proposed update to the project's construction access route
and saw an updated conservation area detailed design.
Review the meeting summary and display materials
On behalf of the LWC project team, thank you for your continued interest and support!
Details of the EA amendment are available for review in hard copy at the
following locations during normal business hours:
WETLAND
INE
REL
MARIE CURTIS
PARK WEST
FOREST
WETLAND
EX
IST
ING
SHO
ET
O
CRBICO
EE KE
K
G.E. BOOTH
WASTE WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
APP
LE
CREWOOD
EK
ON
RS
SE
OPG
LANDS
ARSENAL
LANDS
MISS
ISSA
UGA
TOR
ONT
O
Credit Valley Conservation and the Region of Peel plan to create a beautiful
and naturalized conservation area that will transform Mississauga’s
Lakeview neighbourhood into a hub for passive waterfront recreation, a
hotspot for wildlife migration and a green oasis in the heart of the city. The
Lakeview Waterfront Connection (LWC) Project Environmental Assessment
(EA) was approved on May 27, 2015. The project team has progressed with
the detailed design of the new conservation area and plan to start
construction in 2016. The project team is proposing a modification to the
construction access route, which will involve an amendment to the approved
LWC EA as per the amending procedures (Chapter 9 of the LWC EA).
CO CU
AC NST RRE
CE RU NT
SS CT
RO ION
UT
E
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Proposed New Construction Access Route
PR
CO OPO
AC NSTRSED N
CR CESS UCT EW
EE
RO ION
K
UT
E
MEADOW
FOREST
COBBLE
BEACH
REVETMENT
MEADOW
Details of the EA amendment can be accessed online at
http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca.
LAKE ONTARIO
The review period for the EA amendment
begins Friday, November 27,
2015 at Noon and ends January 4, 2016. Comments about the proposed
new construction access route must be submitted in writing, on or before
January 4, 2016. To submit comments via an easy online form, visit
http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca/contact.
Comments can also be submitted in writing to:
Jon MacMull, Credit Valley Conservation
Tel: 905-670-1615 / 1-800-668-5557 Fax: 905-670-2210
Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor
Toronto, ON M4V 1P5
Phone: 416-314-8360
Climate Change
Halton-Peel District Office
4145 North Service Road, Suite
300 Burlington, ON L7L 6A3
Phone: 905-319-3847
Alderwood Branch - Toronto Public
Library
2 Orianna Drive
Toronto, ON M8W 4Y1
Phone: 416-394-5310
Long Branch - Toronto Public
Library
3500 Lake Shore Boulevard
West
Toronto, ON M8W 1N6
Phone: 416-394-5320
Region of Peel Clerk’s
Department
10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A
Brampton, ON L6T 4B9
Phone: 905-791-7800 ext 4465
Lakeview Library
1110 Atwater Avenue
Mississauga, ON L5E 1M9
Phone: 905-615-4805
Toronto City Clerk’s Office
Toronto City Hall, 13th floor, West
100 Queen Street West
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Phone: 416-392-8016
Mississauga Office of the City Clerk
Mississauga City Hall, 2nd floor
300 City Centre Drive
Mississauga, ON L5B 3C1
Phone: 905-615-4311
Administration Office
1255 Old Derry Road
Mississauga, ON L5N 6R4
Phone: 905-670-1615
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental
Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information
such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in a
submission will become part of the public record files for this matter and will be released,
if requested, to any person.
Published Thursday, November 26, 2015
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Proposed New Construction Access Route
MISS
ISSA
UGA
TOR
ONT
O
ET
O
CRBICO
EE KE
K
CO CU
AC NST RRE
CE RU NT
SS CT
RO ION
UT
E
APP
LE
CREWOOD
EK
EX
IST
ING
PR
SE
CO OPO
RS
AC NSTRSED N
ON
CR CESS UCT EW
EE
RO ION
K
UT
E
Credit Valley Conservation and the
Region of Peel plan to create a
beautiful
and
naturalized
conservation area that will
ARSENAL
transform Mississauga’s Lakeview
LANDS
neighbourhood into a hub for
passive waterfront recreation, a
G.E. BOOTH
MARIE CURTIS
WASTE WATER
hotspot for wildlife migration and a
PARK WEST
TREATMENT FACILITY
OPG
green oasis in the heart of the city.
LANDS
The
Lakeview
Waterfront
Connection (LWC) Project
WETLAND
INE
REL
Environmental Assessment (EA)
SHO
was approved on May 27, 2015.
FOREST
WETLAND
The project team has progressed
COBBLE
MEADOW
BEACH
FOREST
with the detailed design of the new
conservation area and plan to start
REVETMENT
construction in 2016. The project
MEADOW
team is proposing a modification to
the construction access route,
which will involve an amendment
to the approved LWC EA as per
the amending procedures (Chapter 9 of the LWC EA). Details of the EA amendment can be accessed online at
http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca.
LAKE ONTARIO
The review period for the EA amendment begins Friday, November 27, 2015 at Noon and ends January 4, 2016.
Comments about the proposed new construction access route must be submitted in writing, on or before January
4, 2016. To submit comments via an easy online form, visit http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca/contact.
Comments can also be submitted in writing to: Jon MacMull, Credit Valley Conservation, 1255 Old Derry Road,
Mississauga, ON, L5N 6R4, Tel: 905-670-1615 / 1-800-668-5557 Fax: 905-670-2210
EA amendment details are available for review in hard copy at the following locations during normal business hours:
Climate Change
Toronto, ON M4V 1P5
Phone: 416-314-8360
Climate Change
4145 North Service Road, Suite
300 Burlington, ON L7L 6A3
Phone: 905-319-3847
Alderwood Branch - Toronto Public
Library
2 Orianna Drive
Toronto, ON M8W 4Y1
Phone: 416-394-5310
Long Branch - Toronto Public Library
3500 Lake Shore Boulevard West
Toronto, ON M8W 1N6
Phone: 416-394-5320
Lakeview Library
1110 Atwater Avenue
Phone: 905-615-4805
Administration Office
1255 Old Derry Road
Phone: 905-670-1615
Region of Peel Clerk’s Department
Phone: 905-791-7800 ext 4465
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Phone: 416-392-8016
Mississauga Office of the City Clerk
Mississauga City Hall, 2nd floor
Phone: 905-615-4311
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission,
any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in a submission will become part of the public
record files for this matter and will be released, if requested, to any person.
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Better construction route identified for Lakeview Waterfront Connection
November 27, 2015 – Construction of a new waterfront conservation area in Mississauga’s Lakeview
community, called the Lakeview Waterfront Connection (LWC) project, is scheduled to start in 2016. The
project team (Credit Valley Conservation, the Region of Peel and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority)
have identified a new construction access route that will result in a more streamlined construction process
with fewer impacts to the public.
The new route is subject to an amendment to the project’s environmental assessment (EA), which was
approved on May 27, 2015. The route identified in the EA ran through the Arsenal Lands in the southeast
corner of Mississauga, and a portion of Etobicoke’s Marie Curtis Park. The proposed new route will run along
the eastern boundary of the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) lands, where the Lakeview Power Generating
Station once stood.
Agencies and individuals are encouraged to comment on the proposed new construction access route.
Details of the EA amendment can be accessed online at http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca.
The review period begins Friday, November 27, 2015 at noon and ends January 4, 2016. Comments must be
submitted in writing only, on or before January 4, 2016. To submit comments via an easy online form, visit
http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca/contact.
Comments can also be submitted in writing to:
Jon MacMull, Credit Valley Conservation
Tel: 905-670-1615 / 1-800-668-5557
Fax: 905-670-2210
Details of the EA amendment are available for review in hard copy at the following locations during normal
business hours:
Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change
Change
4145 North Service Road, Suite 300
Toronto, ON M4V 1P5
Burlington, ON L7L 6A3
Phone: 416-314-8360
Phone: 905-319-3847 / 1-800-335-5906
Alderwood Branch - Toronto Public Library
Lakeview Library
2 Orianna Drive
1110 Atwater Avenue
Toronto, ON M8W 4Y1
Phone: 416-394-5310
Phone: 905-615-4805
Long Branch - Toronto Public Library
3500 Lake Shore Boulevard West
Toronto, ON M8W 1N6
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Phone: 416-394-5320
Phone: 416-392-8016
Region of Peel Clerk’s Department
Phone: 905-791-7800 x4465
Mississauga City Clerk’s Office
Phone: 905-615-4311
Administrative Office
1255 Old Derry Road
Phone: 905-670-1615
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act,
unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone
number and property location included in a submission will become part of the public record files for this
matter and will be released, if requested, to any person.
-30Conservation authorities are a provincial/municipal partnership. For 60 years, Credit Valley Conservation has
worked with its partners to support a thriving environment that protects, connects and sustains us. Credit
Valley Conservation gratefully acknowledges financial support from our member municipalities for facilities,
programs and services: the Regions of Peel and Halton; the Cities of Mississauga and Brampton; the Towns
of Caledon, Erin, Halton Hills, Mono, Oakville and Orangeville; and the Townships of Amaranth and East
Garafraxa. CVC is a member of Conservation Ontario.
Media Contact
Jon MacMull
Supervisor, Marketing and Communications
905-670-1615 ext. 385
[email protected]
November 27, 2015
Dear
,
Further to the correspondence sent to you in May 2014 notifying you of the completion of the Lakeview
Waterfront Connection (LWC) environmental assessment (EA), we are now writing to provide the following
updates:

Additional background information on the LWC is found here: www.lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca

The project received support by Peel Regional Council on October 22nd, 2015 to proceed to
construction, with an anticipated 7 to 10 year timeline for completion.

LWC EA Amendment: The construction access route proposed in the LWC EA necessitated some
alterations that would have negatively affected users of the Waterfront Trail and Marie Curtis Park
Beach, mature vegetation on the Arsenal Lands, and built cultural heritage features. Since that time,
we have pursued discussions with Ontario Power Generation to gain access through their property, a
route that will translate to fewer negative impacts (i.e. Route 1C).
The amendment to the EA includes a 30-day review (November 27th 2015 – January 4th 2016) process
for the proposed new construction access route as summarized in the draft report:

http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca/ea-amendment

Detailed designs for the LWC have now been drafted and reflect feedback received from interested
organizations during the EA process:
o
o
http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/LWC-PIC-NOV16-2015Presentation.pdf
http://lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/LWC-PIC-NOV16-2015Posters-Web.pdf
We welcome your input on the amendment to the EA and the detailed design. On behalf of the Lakeview
Waterfront Connection project team, thank you for your support.
Janice Hatton
Program Support Analyst
Public Works
Region of Peel
Kate Hayes
Manager, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Please direct any additional comments or questions to:
Jon MacMull
(905) 670-1615 ext. 385
[email protected]
1255 Old Derry Road,
Mississauga, ON, L5N 6R4
Bell Canada
5115 Creekbank Road 3 West
Mississauga, ON, L4W 5R1
November 27, 2015
Dear
,
Further to the correspondence sent to you in May 2014 notifying you of the completion of the Lakeview
Waterfront Connection (LWC) environmental assessment (EA), we are now writing to provide the following
updates:

Additional background information on the LWC is found here: www.lakeviewwaterfrontconnection.ca


we have pursued discussions with Ontario Power Generation to gain access through their property, a
route that will translate to fewer negative impacts (i.e. Route 1C).
The amendment to the EA includes a 30-day review (November 27th 2015 – January 4th 2016) process
for the proposed new construction access route as summarized in the draft report:


o
o
We welcome your input on the amendment to the EA and the detailed design. On behalf of the Lakeview
Waterfront Connection project team, thank you for your support.
Janice Hatton
Program Support Analyst
Public Works
Region of Peel
Kate Hayes
Manager, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Jon MacMull
(905) 670-1615 ext. 385
[email protected]
APPENDIX B
Materials from November 16, 2015 LWC Public Meeting & Open House
Public Meeting and Open House
Monday November 16, 2015 – 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Clarke Memorial Hall, 161 Lakeshore Road West, Mississauga, ON
Meeting Purpose:

Presentation of updated conservation area detailed design

Presentation of new construction access route
Agenda:
Discussion Guide:
Reviewing the proposed revised construction access route:
1. Do you agree with the evaluation outcomes for the proposed construction access route? (see included
handout)
Reviewing the revised detailed design for the conservation area:
2. Do you have any questions or comments about the structural elements of the conservation area? (e.g.
shorelines, islands, river channels, wetland function, etc.)
3. How do you like the layout and form of trails at the naturalized conservation area?
4. How do you like the layout and form of the various look-outs (including the seating nodes, informal
seating areas, the interpretative boardwalk into the hemi-marsh and the stepped armourstone at the Serson
Creek outlet to encourage an informal fishing node at the creek mouth?
5. The tie-off groyne between LWC and Marie Curtis Park beach is intended to be as non-descript as
possible (buried in the beach material further up and low-lying further out into the water). The groyne is
intended to play a role in beach stability and for fish habitat rather than encouraging public access out into
the water at this point. Do you concur?
6. It is not part of the Lakeview Waterfront Connection; however, what would you like to see done with
the eastern pier (fenced off until a more permanent use is defined)?
7. Additional comments, questions or concerns?
LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT
CONNECTION
Public Information Centre
November 16, 2015
Agenda
•
•
•
•
Opening Remarks
Status Update
Proposed new construction access route
Updated conservation area detailed design
Status Update
• Final EA submitted May 2 2014
• MOECC Approval May 27 2015
Design
• Design work by team underway
• Input from public and through
permitting process in next few
months
• EA Amendment for Preferred
Construction Access Route
Preferred Alternative:
1.5M m3 Footprint
LWC Gains to the Mississauga Waterfront
Existing Habitat
(ha)
% Habitat
Lakeview Waterfront
Connection
% increase in habitat
from LWC
225.47
6.0%
11.8 ha
4.97%
1.7
0.0005%
1.0 ha
58.5%
485.26
12.9%
4.6 ha
1.02%
Wetlands
18.4
0.5%
6.2 ha
20.2%
Swamp
12.07
0.3%
1.5 ha
11.05%
Rocky islands
0 ha
0
0.8 ha
Total
742.9
Meadow
Cobble beach
Forest
LOISS Study Area = 3764.97 ha
26 ha
Project Costs
LWC Cost Components
2013
2015
-
$1,200,000
Property Acquisition and Access
Road Construction
$1,289,000
$2,908,000
Construction
$34,111,000
$42,952,000
*Design
*TRCA/CVC Project Management
Cost
Contingency
$6,300,000
$7,200,000
$12,500,000
$5,432,000
Recovery
-$23,600,000
-$23,600,000
Total
$30,600,000
$36,100,000
New Construction Access Route
Interim Channel and Construction Route
Benefits and Impacts of New Route 1c
Main benefits
• Phases project from west away from users of WT, Marie Curtis Park & Arsenal Lands
• Allows for earlier establishment of terrestrial and wetland habitats
• If required, possibly provide western trail link in event Inspiration Lakeview not sufficiently
underway
• Does not impede Arsenal Lands Master Planning and built-heritage features
• Avoids temporary relocation of Waterfront Trail
• Goes through less functional habitat and potentially impacts less rare plants
• Further soil studies and treatment are not required
Main Impacts
• Requires temporary stream crossing
• Located within potential Bobolink habitat
• Requires removal of ~30 trees largely non-native/invasive with two locally rare plants
• Passes through City of Mississauga Natural Areas System LV2 (poor quality habitat)
• Cost
• Pinch point north of WWTF and absence of traffic lights at Lakeview and WWTF driveway
CONCLUSION – Preferred
POST AMENDMENT DOCUMENT ON WEBSITE & WITH MOECC
DISCUSSION ON EA AMENDMENT
CONFIRMING COASTAL DESIGN
Physical Model Outcomes
Key Outcomes of the Physical Modeling:
Able to test shoreline function and habitat stability over wide range of lake
levels and wave sizes to account for normal cycles and Climate Change
Reduced volume of purchased aggregate materials in the order of $2-$3M
Identified design changes to ensure beach stability
Explored beach sediment transport patterns and circulation behind the
islands
Examined ability of Applewood Creek to clear cobbles from outlets and
directed design to reduce formation of large cobble plugs
Refined Design
Refined Design – Depicting Terrain
Design Features
9. Seating Node (Typical)
Sample Cross-sections
OUTLOOKS
3 – Interpretative
Boardwalk
4 – Serson
Wetland
2 – Seating Node
1 - Promontory
5 - Seawall
Promontory
Key Features:
Cobble beach with islands
Toronto Skyline
Revetment Trail
Seating Node
Key Features:
Three tiers of armourstone seating
Grass between tiers and natural
viewscape
Cross-Section of Seating Node & Trail
Seating Node
Seating Node
Eastern Tie-off Area
Key Features:
Groyne:
• Large Stone
• 30-40m long
• Emergent to Elevation 7776msl
• Top end can be buried by
beach material
Trail Connection to WT:
• Straight connection
through woods
• Curved connection along
woods edge
Constructed Island
Key Features:
Curvilinear Armourstone
Island
Navigation Lights
Operations and Maintenance
Key Features:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Passive use conservation area (walking, running, cycling, fishing, etc.)
CVC management and enforcement
Daylight hours of operation
Dogs on leash enforced; no boating or skating
Accessibility features (Built environment standards)
Natural park aesthetic
CPTED design principles (no lighting, site lines maintained, access point
control, etc).
Minimal infrastructure; vandalism resistant features
Visitor monitoring (visitation numbers, visitor flow, impacts, etc)
Educational programming and research opportunities (in combination with
Arsenal dev)
Self-guided interpretive signage
Special event spaces and opportunities (First Nations ceremonial, etc.)
Construction Phasing
Construction Phase vs Completion Phase
AERIAL TOUR OF LAKEVIEW
Schedule
Task
Date
Region of Peel receives design proposal and
supports Project Construction
October 22 2015
Initiate construction of access road (assuming EA
Amendment Approved by end of December)
Early 2016
Start building rubble cell (Fisheries window
guidelines allows work from July 1st to March 30th )
July 2016
Anticipated rubble Cell 1 completion
Fall 2016
Fill material can be accepted at LWC
Fall 2016
Construction from west to east
Until 2023-2026
Thank you!
LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT CONNECTION PROJECT
Index
Ap
p
rs
o
Se
OPG
Lands
nC
re
ek
le
w
oo
d
GE Booth WWTF
Lakeview Waterfront Connection
LAKE ONTARIO
C
re
ek
L-00
TITLE SHEET
L-01
TRAIL LAYOUT & GRADING PLAN
L-02
WETLAND GRADING DETAILS & CUT/FILL
L-03
SERSON CHANNEL GRADING DETAILS
L-04
RESTORATION PLAN
L-05
OVERALL PLANTING PLAN
L-06
SERSON CHANNEL & WETLANDS
PLANTING PLAN DETAILS
L-07
CROSS SECTIONS
L-08
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L-09
EXAMPLE PHOTOS
L-10
MASTER PLAN
Date: November 2015
95
FOREST
RIPARIAN
ZONE
MEADOW
WETLAND (WEST)
95
CHANNEL
(SERSON
CREEK
DIVERTED)
RIPARIAN
ZONE
90
RIPARIAN
ZONE
EMERGENT
ZONE
SUBMERGENT
ZONE
EMERGENT
ZONE
RIPARIAN
ZONE
MEADOW
ARMOURSTONE
LOOKOUT
MEADOW
90
85
85
PROPOSED
PIKE SPAWNING
CHANNEL
LOG / ROOT WAD
WITH STONE PILE
PLANTED
ROCK SHOAL
75
80
HWL: 75.8
ASWL: 75.0
AWL: 74.2
1:1
ELEVATION (m)
80
70
70
EXISTING
ARMOURSTONE WALL
TO REMOVE
65
PROPOSED
GRADE
0 DISTANCE (m)
PROPOSED
PIKE SPAWNING
CHANNEL
EXISTING
GRADE
IMPORTED
EARTH FILL
STONE /
PEA GRAVEL PIT
PROPOSED
LEVEE
HABITAT PILE
(STUMP/ LOG / STONE)
STUMP FIELD
65
50
100
150
200
SECTION A - A'
D
95
MOWN GRASS
ARMOURSTONE
LOOKOUT
MEADOW
SEATING NODE
95
TRAIL
A
90
D
C
90
'
CALIPER SIZE
TREE PLANTING
85
80
PROPOSED
GRADE
ARMOURED
REVETMENT
SEATING
STONE
75
LAKE ONTARIO
4.5m WIDE
GRANULAR
PAVING
2±
HWL: 75.8
ASWL: 75.0
AWL: 74.2
1
B
ELEVATION (m)
A'
80
85
70
70
ENGINEERED FILL
EXISTING
GRADE
65
65
0 DISTANCE (m)
50
100
SECTION B - B'
100
FOREST
WET FOREST
FOREST
MEADOW
AMPHI-THEATRE /
SEATING NODE
100
TRAIL
95
95
90
90
CALIPER SIZE
TREE PLANTING
PLANT WITH FAST GROWING & EARLY SUCCESSIONAL PIONEER SPECIES
WITH BERRY PRODUCING NATIVE UNDERSTORY PLANTS.
85
ELEVATION (m)
80
85
SEATING
STONE
PLANT WITH WET TOLERANT SPECIES
75
EXISTING
ARMOURSTONE WALL
TO REMOVE
70
80
COBBLE
BEACH
PROPOSED
GRADE
HWL: 75.8
ASWL: 75.0
AWL: 74.2
70
ENGINEERED FILL
IMPORTED
EARTH FILL
EXISTING
GRADE
LAKE ONTARIO
4.5m WIDE
ASPHALT
PAVING
65
65
0 DISTANCE (m)
50
100
150
200
SECTION C - C'
90
FOREST
RIPARIAN
SHRUB
EMERGENT
ZONE
SUBMERGENT
ZONE
EMERGENT
ZONE
RIPARIAN ZONE
MEADOW
BRIDGE
CROSSING
SAND FILL
ROCK SHOAL /
WOODY DEBRIS
90
ARMOURSTONE ISLAND
85
85
ELEVATION (m)
80
80
ARMOURED
REVETMENT
76.5±
LAKE ONTARIO
75
1
EXISTING
ARMOURSTONE WALL
TO REMOVE
70
EXISTING
GRADE
STONE PILE
4±
2±
HWL: 75.8
ASWL: 75.0
AWL: 74.2
1
ENGINEERED FILL
70
PROPOSED
GRADE
ENGINEERED FILL
65
65
0 DISTANCE (m)
50
100
150
200
NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
SECTION D - D'
PROJECT TITLE:
REVISIONS
NO.
PRINTING DATE: 2015-11-12
FILE: J:\CorpAutoCAD\CVC\LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT\L07-L09.dwg
DRAWING TITLE
DESCRIPTION
APP'D.
CROSS SECTIONS
SCALE: BAR SCALE
DESIGN
C COPYRIGHT TORONTO & REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
DATE
DRAWN
CHECKED
DWG.NO
L07
FILE NAME: L07-L09.dwg
REV.
DATE
2015-11-12
SOD
150mm TOPSOIL
A'
EDGE AT 45° ANGLE, WELL
TAMPED, UNIFORM SMOOTH,
CLEAN EDGE
SOD
150mm TOPSOIL
100mm 3/4" CRUSHED
LIMESTONE
EDGE AT 45° ANGLE, WELL TAMPED,
UNIFORM SMOOTH, CLEAN EDGE
SLOPE TO DRAIN CROSSFALL
OR CROWN AT 2%
40mm HL3 ASPHALT
100
LIMESTONE SCREENING
SURFACE
10m
0m
150
R2
m
R24
225
150
150
75 min
R28m
150 50
2% SLOPE MIN
W 1.5m
2% SLOPE MIN
40
SLOPE TO DRAIN CROSSFALL OR
CROWN AT 2%
L 1.2m - 1.8m x W 0.8m x H 0.5m MIN.
STONE LINK ARMOURSTONE OR
APPROVED EQUAL.
MEADOW
50mm HL8 ASPHALT BINDER
6.5m
15 x TREMBLING ASPEN
(60mm / CAL)
150mm GRANULAR 'A' COMPACTED TO
95% S.P.D.
4.5m
ASPH WIDE
ALT T
RA
IL
OPTIONAL: 270r GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC IN
WET AREAS OR AS REQUIRED
OPTIONAL: 270r GEOTEXTILE
FILTER FABRIC IN WET
AREAS OR AS REQUIRED
150mm GRANULAR 'B' COMPACTED TO 95%
S.P.D. DEPTH FROM APPROVED SUBGRADE
TO BOTTOM OF GRANULAR 'A'
225mm GRANULAR 'A'
COMPACTED TO 95% S.P.D.
SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% S.P.D.
SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO
95% S.P.D.
NOTES:
1. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES.
2. ASPHALT AND GRANULAR BASE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUM AFTER COMPACTION
3. SLOPE SUBGRADE PARALLEL TO FINISHED GRADE (MIN. 2% SLOPE).
4. EXCAVATE TO 350mm MINIMUM DEPTH, CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
OF ANY UNSUITABLE SUBGRADE MATERIAL SUCH AS TOPSOIL. REMOVE ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL AND DISPOSE OF
OFF SITE.
NOTES:
1. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES.
2. ALL GRANULAR BASE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUM AFTER COMPACTION.
3. SLOPE SUBGRADE PARALLEL TO FINISHED GRADE (MIN. 2% SLOPE).
4. EXCAVATE TO 275mm MINIMUM DEPTH, CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF
ANY UNSUITABLE SUBGRADE MATERIAL SUCH AS TOPSOIL. REMOVE ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL AND DISPOSE OF OFF SITE.
28m
DESIGN WATER LINE
1 PRIMARY TRAIL - ASPHALT PAVING
N.T.S.
L-8 4.5m WIDE, VEHICULAR ACCESSIBLE
2 SECONDARY TRAIL - GRANULAR PAVING
N.T.S.
L-8 2.5m - 4.5m WIDE, VEHICULAR ACCESSIBLE
= 75.8
A
10m - 15m
ENSURE TIGHT JOINTS
MAX 50mm SEPARATION
50 MAX.
8m - 10m
COMPACTED
LIMESTONE SCREENINGS
75 mm COMPACTED
LIMESTONE SCREENINGS
0.4m
VARIES
10
±90.0
3
1
COBBLE BEACH
TRAIL
CALIPER TREE PLANTING
(TREMBLING ASPEN / 60mm CAL)
L 1.2m - 1.8m x W 0.8m x H 0.5m MIN.
APPROVED EQUAL.
150mm GRANULAR 'A'
COMPACTED TO 98% S.P.D.
MIN. 1m x 0.8m x 0.5mm LIMESTONE BLOCK
AMPHI-THEATRE /
SEATING NODE
MEADOW
PLAN
ELEVATION
PLAN
L 1.2m - 1.8m x W 0.8m x H 0.5m MIN.
APPROVED EQUAL.
±78.0
PROPOSED
GRADE
SEATING
STONE
LAKE ONTARIO
4.5m WIDE
ASPHALT
PAVING
100mm COMPACTED LIMESTONE SCREENING
DWL: 75.8
ASWL: 75.0
225mm GRANULAR 'A' COMPACTED TO 98% S.P.D.
SECTION
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
IMPORTED EARTH FILL
SECTION
3 SEATING STONE PLACEMENT
N.T.S.
L-8
4 ARMOURSTONE LOOKOUT
L-8 TYPICAL
ENGINEERED FILL
SECTION A-A'
EXISTING
GRADE
N.T.S.
5
L-8
AMPHITHEATRE & SEATING NODE
BAR SCALE
PROJECT TITLE:
REVISIONS
NO.
DRAWING TITLE
DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION
DETAILS
APP'D.
SCALE: BAR SCALE
DESIGN
DATE
DRAWN
CHECKED
DWG.NO
L08
REV.
DATE
2015-11-12
1. Typical Wetland
2. Naturalized Creek / Channel
3. Riparian Planting & Wetland
2
1
3
4. Observational Boardwalk
12
1
4
1
5. Secondary Granular Trail
2
11
1
9,10
11. Primary Asphalt Trail
13
7
6
5
8
6. Armourstone Lookout
12. Sand + Cobble Beach
7. Secondary Mown Grass Trail
8. Seating Stones
9. Amphi-Theatre (Typical)
10. Caliper Tree Planting & Seating Stones
13. Cobble Beach
PROJECT TITLE:
REVISIONS
NO.
DRAWING TITLE
DESCRIPTION
APP'D.
EXAMPLE PHOTOS
SCALE: BAR SCALE
DESIGN
DATE
DRAWN
CHECKED
DWG.NO
L09
REV.
DATE
2015-11-12
Environmental Component
Natural Environment
Criteria
Vegetation/habitat
removed or disturbed
during construction of
site access road and
laydown area
Indicator
Area and significance
of vegetation
removed
Alternative Route




Preferred Alternative (Route 2)
Limited Vegetation Removal including removal of a couple of large,
mature shade trees, a stand of staghorn sumac and shrubs and
younger undergrowth.
There are no Species of Concern within the immediate footprint of
the widened construction access road alignment, through a few
Butternut were observed within 25 m of the route
Generally speaking, most of the habitat removed involves
communities of lower conservation concern
Route does exit through to the Lake Ontario shoreline onto an L2
and L3 beach habitat condition


Less Preferred


Potential for forest
habitat
fragmentation


There is generally no increase in fragmentation
Alignment does occur through two distinct forest patches which
possess higher general functioning than the Route 1c alignment


Less Preferred

Disruption to Applewood
or Serson Creek
Length and nature of
disruption to
waterbodies
(including
Applewood, Serson
and Etobicoke Creeks
and wetlands)

Potential to impair
water quality in
Arsenal Lands
wetland areas and
wetland habitat
along Serson Creek
north of the railway
spur culvert



No waterbody disruption involved with the construction of the
access route. Crossing over Applewood Creek occurs in the land
creation area as such, is part of the primary design evaluation
previously completed.

Most Preferred

~50m from amphibian breeding pond
Fairly low risk of impacts on amphibian ponds due to siltation, dust
and release of contaminants along the route due to its distance.
Route 2 will not impact the wetlands along Serson Creek wetland
habitat north of the railway spur.




Route 1C
Limited Vegetation Removal required for access road installation.
While a number of younger trees will be removed along the west side
of the Serson Stormwater channel, these trees were going to be
removed to accommodate the proposed 5m widening of the
stormwater channel to improve aquatic and riparian habitat
conditions, and hydraulic conveyance. A number of young seedlings
recently planted along the railway spur north of the WWTF will also
be relocated.
For the most part, habitat removed includes communities of lower
conservation concern, though two locally rare plants (Silky Dogwood
and Foxglove Beardtongue) were observed on either end of the
railway spur north of the WWTF. These plants may or may not be
impacted.
Bobolink have been observed in 2013 and 2015, but no evidence of
breeding has been observed.
Route 1c exits through to the Lake Ontario shoreline onto a rubble
armoured shoreline.
Most Preferred
There is generally no increase in fragmentation
Located on highly disturbed former transportation and industrial
storage land uses. Alignment does go through two forest patches on
the north and south side of the railway spur north of the WWTF.
These forest patches possess less functioning than Route 2 alignment
Rest of the route is located on the margins of a regenerating open
meadow.
Most Preferred
Access road will travel along railway spur over culvert conveying
existing baseflows for Serson Creek and will cross over the
stormwater channel with a new temporary bridge crossing.
Potential for erosion, siltation and other contaminants in the area of
the Serson Creek crossing.
Potential for flood impacts resulting from the new temporary bridge
crossing over the stormwater channel.
Less Preferred
~30 - 50m from the wetland habitats along Serson Creek north of the
railway spur culvert.
Though located closer to the wetland habitats than Route 2 is
proximity of the amphibian ponds, the quality of habitat is lower and
the wetlands are upstream of the proposed route.
Route 1c will not impact the amphibian breeding ponds in Arsenals
Most Preferred
Most Preferred
Disruption related to
natural hazards
(floodplain, erosion)
Nature of change to
flood capacity and
exposure to natural
hazards
New – Influence of timing
of establishment of fish
and terrestrial habitat
elements in construction
phasing
Potential to advance
earlier habitat gains
for fish and
terrestrial habitat in
the construction
phasing strategy

Access road is not located near hazard areas. While Lake Ontario is
a hazard area, that is associated with the land creation area, not
the construction access road
Most Preferred
 Construction access entering from the far eastern portion of the
project site prevents early establishment of wetland habitats and
terrestrial elements given that construction access is required
through this narrow portion of the Project area.



Less Preferred
Temporary bridge crossing over stormwater channel has potential to
restrict flood flows upstream
The existing culvert north of the WWTF has the small potential for
failure under the railway spur north of the WWTF
Less Preferred
With the construction access coming down the west bank of Serson
Creek, the first confinement cell and western wetland area on land
creation area can be completed within 2-3 years of commencement
of the project. Construction access can then shift to the east side of
the Serson Creek channel and progress eastward, avoiding
construction impacts on the recently established early habitat gains.
More Preferred
Summary
Social Environment
Disruption to use and
enjoyment of
Waterfront Trail
Length of Trail
disrupted




Disruption to use and
enjoyment of Marie
Curtis Park
Area of Marie Curtis
Park disrupted


Disruption to
redevelopment of
Arsenal Lands and Marie
Curtis Park
Nature of disruption to
redevelopment
activities

NEW - Disruption to
redevelopment of
Inspiration Lakeview
Lands
Potential for disruption
for implementation of
Inspiration Lakeview
Plans



Less Preferred
Requires closure of 750m of Waterfront Trail through the Arsenal
Lands, including ~400m of trail that is destroyed
Requires dead-ending of the Trail within Marie Curtis Park
Construction of 380 to 420m of new temporary Waterfront Trail
along the south side of Lakeshore during construction from Small
Arms Building to Marie Curtis Park West
Will not likely require flagging at the one point of crossing for user
safety
Less Preferred
Construction access road crosses Marie Curtis Park West Beach
just east of the Applewood Creek outlet, preventing access along
the beach to the west.
Maintaining construction access road for duration of the
construction through Arsenal Lands and through the western limit
of the Marie Curtis Park Beach West produces visual distractions
and noise and dust adjacent to Beach and Park users.
Less Preferred
Impacts limited to the Small Arms Building area and trails adjacent
to riffle baffles
Potentially delays Master Planning activities for Arsenal Lands
Less Preferred
Route 2 does not impact planning and implementation of the
Inspiration Lakeview Lands.
In the event that Inspiration Lakeview does not advance to the
point of permitting access from the west side of the LWC at the
conclusion of the construction, an interim egress/access point
cannot be established along the decommissioned Route 2 that
would provide such access.
Less Preferred




Most Preferred
Requires one point of crossing of the existing Waterfront Trail at an
existing industrial access road to the G.E. Booth WWTF
Does not impact Waterfront Trail in Arsenal Lands
Does not impact Waterfront Trail in Marie Curtis Park
Does not require a temporary trail
Most Preferred


No physical disruption to users of Marie Curtis Park
Construction access road is located on the west side of the G.E. Booth
WWTF thus greatly reducing visual distractions and noise and dust
impacts
Most Preferred




No impacts to the Small Arms Building area or trails adjacent to the
riffle baffles
No impacts to potential Master Planning activities for Arsenal Lands.
Most Preferred
While located along the far eastern limits of the proposed Inspiration
Lakeview Lands, the proposed construction access route does not
impair the further planning or implementation of the Inspiration
Lakeview Plans as construction completion schedules are not
anticipated to impair initiation of the Inspiration Lakeview plans.
In the event that Inspiration Lakeview does not advance to the point
to permit access from the west side of the LWC at the conclusion of
the construction, an interim egress/access point along the
decommissioned construction access route could be sought with
Route 1c
NEW - Disruption to
interim use of OPG
Lands
Potential for disruption
of uses of OPG Lands
Potential to disrupt
traffic on Lakeshore
Boulevard
Potential for truck
traffic to affect the
flow of traffic on
Lakeshore Boulevard

Route 2 does not impact interim uses by OPG on their lands.

Most Preferred
While located along the far eastern limits of OPG Lands, the proposed
construction access route does not impair uses by OPG on their lands.
Most Preferred


Existing signal light at Lakeshore so no new disruption
Traffic can move straight across Lakeshore at the lights to and
from the entrance to the Small Arms building



Most Preferred
Most Preferred
Existing right turn off of Dixie onto Lakeshore
Left turn from Lakeshore onto GE Booth WWTF industrial road on
existing left hand turn lane.
With a right hand turn off of Dixie required and changing from the
right hand lane to the centre median before the access to GE Booth
WWTF, the impacts on traffic may be moderately higher than Route 2
Less Preferred
Summary
Cultural Environment
Proximity to heritage
features
Potential for Archaeology
Resources
Summary
Technical/Engineering
Ease of construction
Distance between
road and heritage
features
Potential for
unearthing
archaeological
resources as part of
access road
construction
Issues which will
complicate
construction








Less Preferred
Nearest features (Small Arms Building ) is ~5m
Crosses through the Arsenal Lands Property
Less Preferred
Route deemed to be heavily disturbed due to past industrial
activity – archaeological potential is low
Stage 2 assessment conducted cleared the route of possessing
archaeological heritage resources



Most Preferred
Nearest feature (Long Branch Indoor Rifle Range – 1300A Lakeshore
Road East) is ~50m away from the closest portion of the Access Road
Most Preferred
Route deemed to be heavily disturbed and consists extensively of
past lakefill activities – archaeological potential is low
Stage 2 assessment conducted cleared the route of possessing
archaeological heritage resources
Most Preferred
Most Preferred
Less Preferred
1 or 2 mature trees removed with stand of Sumac and understorey
~400m of of Waterfront Trail will be destroyed
~380-420m of new Trail along Lakeshore required for construction
period
~800m of new construction access road to be created
Most Preferred
Apprpoximately 30 younger trees are required to be removed along
the west side of the Serson Creek stormwater channel, as well as
several recently planted seedlings require relocation
None of the Waterfront Trail will be destroyed
No temporary trails required for duration of construction
Temporary construction bridge and abutment required for
stormwater channel crossing of Serson
~910m of construction roadway to be created including the
movement of earth along the western stormwater channel berm for
~390m
There will need to be a section of 1 lane traffic along abandoned
railway spur north of WWTF between 20m and ~165m to the
stormwater channel crossing. Two lanes the rest of the distance.
While this is not a constructability issue, will require consideration
from an operations perspective to ensure truck safety and scheduling.
Given the need for a bridge, the single lane section and proposed
widening of the Serson Creek Stormwater Channel berm as part of
the road construction, Route 1c is deemed less preferred




Most Preferred



Less Preferred
Ease of
decommissioning
List of issues which will
complicate
decommissioning


~460m of Waterfront Trail decommissioning required back to
existing conditions.
May dovetail with future implementation works of the Arsenal
Lands Master Plan (or alternative planning process). These plans
have not yet commenced as a clear direction has not yet been
selected.


Less Preferred
Potential to disturb
contaminated soils
Area of contaminated
soils crossed

Waterfront Trail does not require decommissioning
Decommissioning will tie in with costs for widening the Serson Creek
stormwater channel and completing the baseflow hydraulic
connection to the land creation area. Limited extra costs involved
with these activities, which will likely dovetail with implementation
works for the future Inspiration Lakeview lands.
Most Preferred
Potential for contamination from munitions and other industrial
activities on portions of the route – testing required ~4000m2

Potential for coal and associated contaminants along access road as
part of stormwater channel. Testing completed and all soils and
groundwater meets Table 1 conditions
Less Preferred
Most Preferred
Summary
Cost
OVERALL SUMMARY
Less Preferred
Cost of construction,
operations and
decommissioning
Order of magnitude
costs
Most Preferred
~800,000.00
~$1,900,000.00
Most Preferred
Less Preferred
Less Preferred
More Preferred
PROS
Route 1c:
 Majority of Project can be implemented away from users of Marie
Curtis Park Beach, Arsenal Lands and Waterfront Trail.
 Goes through less functional habitat conditions and potentially
impacts less rare vegetation species, but needs to consider the
potential impacts
 Has much lower impacts on built cultural heritage resources
 Further soils studies and treatment are not required.
ISSUES
Route 1C
 Needs to consider potential Bobolink habitat
 Closer proximity to water courses (Serson Creek) than Route 2 and
must address stream crossing issues
 Has potential to delay traffic on Lake Shore, but centre median left
hand turn out lanes should minimize impacts.
 A pinch point occurs north of the WWTF – depending on mitigation
approaches, could range from 20m to ~165m in length
 Costs are higher, but acceptable given the anticipated reduction in
public use, planning and built cultural heritage resource conflicts
Lakeview Waterfront Connection
November 16, 2015, 6:30 – 9:30 p.m.
Clarke Memorial Hall, 161 Lakeshore Road West, Mississauga, ON
Meeting overview
Region of Peel (RoP), Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) and local residents met to review the updated conservation area detailed
design and proposed new construction access route for the Lakeview Water Connection
(LWC) project. Kenneth Dion, TRCA, gave a comprehensive overview and status update of the
project. Participants contributed to the discussion commenting on the proposed new
construction access route and sharing their ideas for various design elements of the project.
Presentation overview
Jon MacMull (CVC) – Introduction and discussion facilitator
Councillor Jim Tovey (Mississauga, Ward 1) – Welcome speech
MP Sven Spengemann (Mississauga South) – Welcome speech
Kenneth Dion (TRCA) – Presentation of detailed design
Project Team in Attendance:
Kenneth Dion, TRCA
Kate Hayes, CVC
Janice Hatton, RoP
Jeff Hennings, RoP
Mark Preston, TRCA
Jon MacMull, CVC
1
Kimberley Holt-Behrend, CVC
Beata Jones, City of Mississauga
Attendance
75 individuals (residents and members of local community organizations) attended the public
meeting.
Group discussion summary
1. Do you agree with the evaluation outcomes for the proposed construction access
rout? (See included handout)
Comments:

Yes, I agree. However, my primary concern is reusing the route following construction

Yes, route 1C is well done

Better than Arsenal Lands

Excellent idea

Group is very supportive

This seems so much more expensive? Concern about costs

Dixie Rd vs. Cawthra Rd. (adding 200 trucks per day)
Questions:

Where is the majority of the fill coming from?
o Response: The majority of the fill will be coming from the Region of Peel but
other sources will be sought to maintain schedule and budget
2

What will the impacts of the trucks be on Dixie Rd after its construction?
o Response: Trucks will be arriving and leaving via different routes, though Dixie
Rd will be one of the primary routes. Given that the addition of 200-250 trucks
per day represents a small percentage of the total traffic volume currently
experienced on a daily basis, the cumulative impacts attributed to this specific
project are low.

Will fill be tested on site for quality or to ensure it meets standards?
o Response: Potential fill source sites will be required to go through detailed
geochemical analysis to confirm that the materials meet the applicable quality
standards. Bills of Lading will be used to enable close tracking of source and
material types. Each load will be visually inspected at the gate. Test samples
will periodically be undertaken to confirm materials meet quality conditions once
on site.
2. Do you have any questions or comments about the structural elements of the
conservation area? (E.g. shorelines, islands, river channels, wetland function, etc.)
Comments:

No, looks great!

As a group we agreed it looks great

I enjoy all of the elements

Happy about Serson Creek stepped node (outlet) for fishing

Would like the islands to look less like hotdogs (robust)
3
Questions:

How will existing river channels be affected?
o Response: Both creeks will be connected to new coastal wetlands, and Serson
Creek will be designed to allow fish access in the watershed for the first time in
decades

Will there be any diversion for Etobicoke Creek? I.e. flooding from 2014
o Response: Etobicoke will not be changed as a result of the LWC

Will the sand beaches or any other elements involving sand be replaced each year?
o Response: The new beaches created will consist of cobble materials (~20cm
diameter) west of the easternmost island. The created beach from the first island
to where it connects with Marie Curtis Park Beach will have rock sized cobble
between 2 and 7.5 cm in diameter. It is expected in the summer, sand will
accumulate naturally above the rock on this most eastern part of the new beach.
During the winter storms, that sand top dressing will be pulled offshore, and will
appear similar to the conditions found at the existing Marie Curtis Park beach.
There is no plan for a formal sand nourishment plan for the existing Marie Curtis
Park beach, nor the newly created beaches, though sand is periodically added
when needed, such as after the July 2013 storm.

Is there enough flow down Serson Creek for wetland?
o Response: Wetland function is based on Lake Ontario water levels. As such,
there will be sufficient water to maintain those habitat features.
4

Will there be a swamp?
o Response: There is an ephemeral wet forest located along the base of the
WWTF lands between the Applewood Creek and Serson Creek wetlands.

Are you concerned about destructive animals, such as cormorants?
o Response: The project design and management has taken into account known
issues such as cormorants (e.g. islands designed to overtop with water to
dissuade establishment of trees and shrubs for roosting) and invasive species
such as emerald ash borer (e.g. no use of ash in planting plan). However, it is
impossible to foresee all possible effects that future animals may use. CVC will
actively monitor and manage the site after construction and will devise response
plans if and as required

How many years for the fill to come in?
o Response: About 7-10 years

Will the islands have the same quality assurance?
o Response: Yes, all material will go through an inspection process, ensuring it
meets quality standards.
3. How do you like the layout and form of trails at the naturalized conservation area?
Comments:

Looks great! Nice and close to the shoreline

It looks good

It looks similar to Humber Bay trail

The trails need to be wide enough for capacity
5

The walking trails should be separate from the cycling trails

A number of areas need to be wheelchair accessible

No lighting during night time to discourage night use rather than closing the park

There needs to be signage to encourage walking or dismounting from bikes

You could use different surfaces to encourage specific activities (i.e. biking vs. walking)

Example of Vancouver park

There should be multiuse trails

You could use marking on the pavement for trail usage (i.e. this side for cycling and that
side for walking)
Questions:

Any connections to island? Or just via swimming?
o Response: There are no connections from the shoreline to the islands and given
the potential rapid changes in weather, swimming to the islands will be
discouraged.

Will the trails be maintained in the winter?
o Response: No, consistent with CVC policies we do not not anticipate
maintaining the trails in the winter. Signs will be installed annually in December
notifying individuals that the trails are not maintained in the winter.

Is there a plan for a rail system?
o Response: No, as the design is intended to be a naturalized conservation area,
we do not anticipate the inclusion of rails along the trails at this time.
6

How will the trail be shared with bikes?
o Response: The design intends for the existing Waterfront Trail north of the
WWTF to remain in operation, providing a more direct route for higher speed
bicycle commuting. A primary trail system in the LWC is considered at this time,
as a 4.5m wide paved trail which will effectively double the existing trail capacity
south of Lakeshore Road. Secondary trails will be placed in the LWC that will be
2.5m wide of crushed limestone that will be dedicated to pedestrians, and will
provide alternative trail routes through the park away from the primary shared
multi-use trail. We will continue to engage with agencies and the public on this
item.
4. How do you like the layout and form of the various look-outs? Including the seating
nodes, informal seating areas, the interpretative boardwalk into the hemi-marsh and the
stepped armourstone at the Serson Creek outlet to encourage an informal fishing node
at the creek mouth.
Comments:

As a group we like the features

The current amount of look-outs is not enough

There should be an elevated platform at Applewood wetland

There should be more benches put in sporadically throughout the project

Then large trees should be planted beside the benches for appropriate shading

Would be to see separated bike trails from pedestrians

We are concerned about car access and parking
7

There should be informational/interactive signage for how to respect natural spaces

QR codes/interactive tour

The main look-out should be accessible
Questions:

Will you be building a picnic site? A designated area?
o Response: No, there will be informal seating and lots of green space for people
to have informal picnics but not a dedicated area for picnic tables and shelters .

What about garbage cans and dogs?
o Response: It is intended to have garbage receptables at both ends of the LWC
where people can deposit garbage at the end of their visit. Dogs will be on-leash
only as it is intended to attract wildlife. A dog-off leash area is already located in
Marie Curtis Park West.

Is there an armourstone edge for people to sit on?
o Response: Informal armourstone seating can be found throughout the
Conservation Area.

How many people can the current look-out accommodate?
o Response: The various look-outs vary in capacity from a few people to several
dozen people. The park is intended for accommodating family unit or smaller
groups that would visit for such activities as nature interpretation and education.
8
5. The tie-off groyne between LWC and Marie Curtis Park beach is intended to be as
non-descript as possible (buried in the beach material further up and low-lying further
out in the water). The groyne is intended to play a role in beach stability and for fish
habitat rather than encouraging public access out into the water at this point. Do you
concur?
Comments:

Yes, this is good

It’s too bad we won’t be able to walk on it

It would be nice to be able to see the CN Tower from the groyne

If it is too prominent, it will look too divided

People are fine with this but if it’s there, people will use it

Keep budget to a minimum on this feature but address its use

No matter what you do, people will walk on it anyways

You could fence it off but it will be an eyesore

Instead of fencing it off, you could just make it for user friendly

You could make it a look-out
Questions:

Will there be easy access?
o Response: The groyne is generally a linear pile of rocks that extends for about
30-40m from top of beach to offshore. Depending on lake levels, the in water
portion of the groyne could be at, below or above the water’s surface. People
that wanted to walk on the rocks, would be able to do so.
9

Are we able to use it for something?
o Response; The primary function is to stabilize, the new beach being created to
the west of it. Given the low-lying nature of the groyne and its close proximity to
the existing beach, it was deemed not to have much value in providing unique
views as would be created elsewhere in the LWC Project. Better fish habitat will
also be established further to the west, than would be provided by the groyne
itself.

Could it be used for fishermen to stand on?
o Response: If fishermen think it is a good spot to fish, they will definitely stand on
the structure. But we suspect better fishing opportunities would be generated to
the west in the LWC, than in close proximity to the public beach at Marie Curtis
Park.

Will people jump off of it for swimming?
o Response: The groyne is intended to be sufficiently low that there would not be
much of a jump.
6. It is not park of the Lakeview Waterfront Connection; however, what would you like to
see done with the eastern pier (fenced off until a more permanent use is defined)?
Comments:

People want to walk out onto the pier

It could be used as a ferry stop

Boat racing in channel / tournaments

Common Tern or other wildlife habitat
10

Put wood decking on it

Put rocks around it and naturalize it

It should be accessible for people with wheelchairs

Perhaps it could be made to look like the Burlington Pier

Turn it into a tourist attraction

Use it as a dock/boating station

Put benches along it

Put telescopes and platforms on them

We don’t think it should be used for anything because of safety reasons

Attach another island to it and make a somewhat seamless connection

Promote connection from Marie Curtis Park

Cover it up/bury it with rubble

Use the ships as an educational tool/promoting local history
Questions:

Could it be removed?
o Response: It would be very costly and this isn’t something we would like to do
given its history and aesthetic potential.

How high above the water level are the ships?
o Response: When you get to the third ship, it’s only a few feet higher than the
water level. It’s very dangerous in windy weather and the winter

What’s there now?
o Response: Nothing
11

Are they home to any animal/bird species?
o Response: Cormorants and gulls are often seen in significant numbers on the
pier in the summer.
7. Additional comments, questions or concerns?
Comments:

Keep it on budget and keep it on time!

Would like “pebble-sized” beach rocks leading from Marie Curtis beach as far past
Applewood Creek as possible

People like to walk on the beach and should be allowed to continue to do this. “River
rock sized and larger” is almost impossible to enjoy – uncomfortable under foot!

Not everyone rides speed bikes, or wants to walk on pavement trails. I have made this
request at every meeting.

Keep trails separate

I suggest people visit Col. Sam Smith Park which was an initiative by MTRCA. It’s very
similar to this project, which was received very suspiciously by me and many others
when we first heard about dumping fill in the lake. In fact, one of the very first
assessments under the EA Act was undertaken as a result of our objections. It is now
an amazingly "natural" and beautiful place visited by bird watchers from all over,
especially when the whimbrels land there in the spring, and our group runs nature
popular programmes for elementary schools.
12
Questions:

Will provisions for parking and lifeguard safety be implemented?
o Response: Being land locked from Lakeshore, parking on the lands for LWC
Conservation Area, is not possible. The LWC Team has been working closely
with the City of Mississauga through the Inspiration Lakeview planning process
and it is intended that parking is provided near the western trail link as part of that
Planning initiative. Similarly, with the Arsenal Lands planning activities, it is
anticipated that parking will be a component of the plans implemented there.
Lifeguard stations are not anticipated in the created beach areas: while as CVC
park staff will be monitoring the park there won’t be full-time staff. CVC will also
not be advocating swimming on those portions of the waterfront.

Will the additional trees reduce the smell from sewage plant?
o Response: While there may be some “filtering” benefit of having grasses and
forest habitats located between the trail users and the WWTF, vegetation is not
intended or anticipated to mitigate any odours generated from the plant. The
Plant has however, incorporated millions of dollars in odour control upgrades in
the plant over the last 10 years; as such, complaints received have dropped
tremendously.
13

How will other Port Credit developments be affected? I.e. cost delays, road signs, etc.
o Response: We will do our best to disturb the community as little as possible. We
will be in close communication with the community whenever there may be a
delay.

Are you able to start construction sooner?
o Response: We are doing our best to stay on track with our timeline

Are wind turbines being considered?
o Response: No

Are you putting drinking fountains in?
o Response: No
14

What about tobogganing?
o Response: We will put up signs to discourage this activity

Are you going to put in lighting for safety?
o Response: Likely not

Could there be phased use during construction?
o Response: This is something we are looking into
Concerns:

Issues with bathroom accessibility

Concerned with the smell from Applewood Creek

There should be emergency response buttons, similar to parking lots and
college/university campuses
15
APPENDIX C
Materials from November 12, 2015 CLC Meeting
Community Liaison Committee Meeting
Thursday November 12, 2015 – 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Mississauga Seniors’ Centre, 1389 Cawthra Road, Mississauga, L5G 4L1
Meeting Purpose:



Discussion around upcoming public information centre
Groups Represented:
TBD
Agenda:
6:30 – 6:40
Arrival, dinner is served (working dinner)
6:40 – 6:50
Opening remarks
6:50 – 6:55
Overview
6:55 – 7:00
Review of CLC Terms of Reference
7:00 – 7:15
Group Discussion: Questions or comments about the Terms of Reference.
7:15 – 7:20
Presentation on potential new construction access route
7:20 – 7:30
Group Discussion: Potential new construction access route
7:30 – 7:45
Presentation on revised detailed design for the new conservation area
7:45 – 8:15
Group Discussion: Questions or comments about revised detailed design for the new
conservation area
8:15 – 8:25
Public information centre – November 16
8:25 – 8:30
Closing remarks and next steps
Discussion Guide:
Reviewing the CLC Terms of Reference:
1. Is there anything missing in the Terms of Reference?
2. Do you agree with the Terms of Reference?
Reviewing the proposed revised construction access route:
3. Is there anything missing in the evaluation table or materials required for fair evaluation by public?
4. Do you agree with the evaluation outcomes? (see included handout)
Reviewing the revised detailed design for the conservation area:
5. Do you have any questions or comments about the structural elements of the conservation area? (e.g.
shorelines, islands, river channels, wetland function, etc.)
6. How do you like the layout and form of trails?
7. What are your thoughts on the various look-outs ? (e.g. mid-location amphitheatre, armourstone
promontory look-out, Serson Wetland look-out and informal stone seating areas)
8. Do you like the idea of an interpretative boardwalk into the Hemi-marsh?
9. Do you like the idea of stepped armourstone at the Serson Creek outlet to encourage an informal fishing
node at the creek mouth?
10. The tie-off groyne between LWC and Marie Curtis Park beach is intended to be as non-descript as
possible (buried in the beach material further up, and low-lying further out into the water). The intent is
for the groyne to play a functional role for beach stability and act as a fish habitat structure, rather than
encouraging public access out into the water at this point. Do you concur?
11. It is not part of the Lakeview Waterfront Connection; however, what would you like to see done with
the eastern pier (fenced off until a more permanent use is defined)?
12. Is there anything else you would like to see as it relates to the public use realm of this naturalized
conservation area?
LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT
CONNECTION
Community Liaison Committee
November 12, 2015
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
Opening Remarks
Status Update
CLC Terms of Reference
Upcoming public information centre
Status Update
Design
months
Purpose:
• The CLC performs a vital advisory and advocacy
function for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection (LWC)
project, acting as a conduit between the LWC project
team and local community / local interests. The CLC is
made up of representatives from residents’ associations,
environmental groups, recreation groups, political
associations and other local interests. Members reflect
the informed opinions of their constituents and provide
input and advice to the LWC project team.
Functions:
• Assist the Region of Peel, Credit Valley Conservation (CVC),
Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) (LWC project team) in
obtaining public input and advice
• Assist in planning and supporting public meetings and public
communications
• Identify opportunities to advance and promote the project
• Identify issues that may concern the community regarding the
project
• Disseminate information
• Review information and provide comments to the LWC project team
during the detailed design and construction phases of the project
Approach:
• The committee will operate using a consensus-based
approach, where members seek general agreement on
guidance and advice to the project team. Guidance and
advice will be received by the project team as
recommendations from the committee.
• A consensus-based approach is where participants openly
discuss ideas, perspectives and viewpoints, and seek to
develop common ground and narrow their areas of
disagreement to the best of their ability.
• Where differing viewpoints and opinions exist, these will be
documented in meeting notes.
Meetings:
• It is anticipated that the CLC will meet on weekday
evenings. There will be one standing meeting each year
and other meetings scheduled throughout the year as
needed and linked to project milestones.
DISCUSSION ON TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.5M m3 Footprint
Existing Habitat
(ha)
% Habitat
Lakeview Waterfront
Connection
from LWC
225.47
6.0%
11.8 ha
4.97%
1.7
0.0005%
1.0 ha
58.5%
485.26
12.9%
4.6 ha
1.02%
Wetlands
18.4
0.5%
6.2 ha
20.2%
Swamp
12.07
0.3%
1.5 ha
11.05%
Rocky islands
0 ha
0
0.8 ha
Total
742.9
Meadow
Cobble beach
Forest
26 ha
Project Costs
LWC Cost Components
2013
2015
-
$1,200,000
Road Construction
$1,289,000
$2,908,000
Construction
$34,111,000
$42,952,000
*Design
Cost
Contingency
$6,300,000
$7,200,000
$12,500,000
$5,432,000
Recovery
-$23,600,000
-$23,600,000
Total
$30,600,000
$36,100,000
Main benefits
• Does not impede Arsenal Lands Master Planning
• Avoids Arsenal Lands built-heritage cultural features
Main Impacts
• Will likely require removal of ~30 trees largely non-native/invasive with two locally rare
plants that will be relocated or avoided
• Cost
• Pinch point north of WWTF
POST AMENDMENT DOCUMENT ON WEBSITE & WITH MOECC FOR 30 DAY REVIEW
Physical Model Outcomes
Key Outcomes of the Physical Modeling:
Able to test shoreline function and habitat stability over wide range of lake
levels and wave sizes to account for normal cycles and Climate Change
Reduced volume of purchased aggregate materials in the order of $2-$3M
Identified design changes to ensure beach stability
Explored beach sediment transport patterns and circulation behind the
islands
Examined ability of Applewood Creek to clear cobbles from outlets and
directed design to reduce formation of large cobble plugs
Refined Design
Refined Design – Depicting Terrain
Design Features
OUTLOOKS
Boardwalk
4 – Serson
Wetland
2 - Amphitheatre
1 - Promontory
5 - Seawall
Promontory
Key Features:
Toronto Skyline
Revetment Trail
Natural Amphitheatre
Key Features:
Seating for ~150 people, assuming
0.5m per person
viewscape
Cross-Section Natural Amphitheatre & Trail
Key Features:
Groyne:
• Large Stone
• 30-40m long
beach material
through woods
woods edge
Constructed Island
Key Features:
Island
Navigation Lights
AERIAL TOUR OF LAKEVIEW
Schedule
Task
Date
October 22 2015
Jan or Feb 2016
July 2016
September 2016
October 2016
Until 2023-2026
Open House Public Meeting
•
•
•
•
Monday, November 16
• Clarke Memorial Hall, 161 Lakeshore Road West, Mississauga
PURPOSE:
• To present updates to the conservation area detailed design
• To present new construction access route and proposed
amendment to the environmental assessment
Thank you!
Community Liaison Committee
November 12, 2015, 6:30 – 9:30 p.m.
Mississauga Seniors’ Centre,
1389 Cawthra Rd, Mississauga, ON
Meeting overview
Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Region of Peel (RoP), Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) and Mississauga Ward 1 Councillor Jim Tovey local associations met to
review the latest update on the Lakeview Waterfront Connection (LWC) project. Ken Dion,
TRCA, gave a detailed update on the conservation area design and the proposed new
construction access route. Participants contributed to the discussion by identifying potential
conservation area features and addressing any concerns regarding construction.
Presentation overview
Jim Tovey (Mississauga Councillor Ward 1) – Brief introduction
Jon MacMull (CVC) – Introduction
Ken Dion (TRCA) – Project overview and status update
Project Team in Attendance:
Kenneth Dion, TRCA
Kate Hayes, CVC
Janice Hatton, RoP
Jon MacMull, CVC
Kimberley Holt-Behrend, CVC
Lorenzo Ruffini, City of Mississauga
1
Groups Represented
City of Toronto, Rattray Marsh Protection Association, University of Toronto, Waterfront
Regeneration Trust, MIRANET, Port Credit Salmon and Trout Association, Sierra Club Peel,
Citizens Concerned About the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront, South Peel Naturalists Club,
The office of Minister Charles Sousa, Toronto Field Naturalists, Mississauga Cycling Advisory
Committee.
Regrets
Port Credit Village Residents Association, Mississauga Bassmasters, Lakeview Estates
Ratepayers' Association, Port Credit Yacht Club, HBSCA, The office of Councillor Mark
Grimes, Port Credit BIA, , Mississauga Canoe Club, Credit River Anglers Association,
Lakeview Ratepayers Association.
Discussion summary
Discussion of the ‘Community Liaison Committee Terms of Reference (CLC ToR)’ (discussed
at the last CLC meeting)
Q: (Jon) Does it seem reasonable?

Yes (by a show of hands – unanimous agreement)
Q: (Jon) Does anything seem out of place?

No
Q: (Jon) Does everyone agree with the ‘Terms of Reference’?

2
Review of EA and overview of Detailed Design – Ken
Q: Why didn’t the recovery costs go up? Are they pre signed contracts?

Ken: No contracts have been signed yet. It is based on a relatively conservative
estimate of recovery costs we are anticipated to receive via RoP fill, 3 rd party tipping
rates and reuse cost savings for materials. It could be a little more or a little less and
it will be dependent on many factors such as market forces, economy and potential
for competing receiving sites. Until work proceeds, it is difficult to refine our estimate
assumptions at this time.
Q: So it's down in size and as much as 20 per cent off in cost?

Ken: Cost assumptions were made during the EA process for both footprint
assumptions. The 2013 vs 2015 estimate is based on a comparison of the original
1.5M cubic metre footprint.
Q: What sort of flow are you expecting in the channel?

Ken: With the widening of the cannel, we will be able to get a narrow meander
pattern with naturalized features and vegetation, while still providing flood protection.
It still isn’t the best alignment from an ecological perspective but it’s what we can get
right now while Inspiration Lakeview is still working towards its vision. For us, this
gives us a greening corridor, a fisheries corridor and road access all in one.
Q: Are you expecting to use any of those lands for storage? Not on the Arsenal lands?

Ken: We are going to be doing some storage on the parking lot but not on the
Arsenal Lands.
3
Discussion on EA Amendment
Q: (Jon) What do you think of the proposed route? Are any of the benefits, impacts
problematic?

My concern is traffic flow, the need for cars and trucks to start and stop. Is there any
way to smooth the flow out or decongest it?
o Ken: We tried to get an option to come down Hydro Rd. and enter through the
main part of the property but OPG was unwilling to basically sterilize their
lands for the duration of the construction period (which is a reasonable
response), so we had to find an alternate route. The route we chose has very
poor habitat, is away from public recreation areas, limits the effects to OPG,
and facilitates wiser construction phasing than the original alignment. .
Q: Is it going to be noisy?

Ken: It could be, however, nobody lives here. It’s just the treatment plant and
industrial activity. Residential is north. This is a much better route compared to the
eastern one.
Q: Where the one lane is going, are you going to have lane laybys?

Ken: We’re definitely going to have a single lane with the bridge crossing which is
about 20 metres long. We think we can squeeze in two lanes for much of the pinch
point, or layby areas. So there will be a minimum of 20 metres where there will be a
pinch point, maybe a bit more. To minimize the effects on traffic flow, we will
incorporate signage and maybe even automated lights if required.
4
Q: Will you be putting signals on lakeshore?

Ken: That is not the initial intent. Trucks accessing the site from the east have a
125m long centre left-hand turning median to pull out of the traffic flow on
Lakeshore. The Waterfront Trail crossing at this intersection already has stop signs
and overlapping speed control gates for cyclists. Heavy construction traffic has
been going in and out of this intersection for years and we do not see this as a
significant change over existing conditions. We still need to meet with City of
Mississauga Transportation, but our understanding following our Traffic Impact
Analysis report generated during the EA was that the proposed number of new
trucks for the LWC represents a very small fraction of the total traffic using
Lakeshore in this area, and that there should not be any significant change in overall
traffic flow.
Q: What is the volume of trucks? How many an hour?

Ken: At peak operation, we are probably looking at about 200-250 trucks a day but
that won’t be every day or all the time. At this point it’s hard to determine how many
trucks as hour.
Q: How are you going to deal with rush hour traffic in the morning?

Ken: We determined that if the trucks are coming in during peak rush hour traffic in
the morning or afternoon, they will add approximately 72 additional vehicles to the
traffic flow per hour, which according to the Traffic Impact Assessment conducted
during the EA, will not significant delay traffic conditions. Also, truckers get paid by
5
the load and they don’t want to be sitting in traffic, so will likely avoid peak traffic
times in orderto maximize productivity (profits). .
Q: In terms of the sequencing of construction, now you are going from west to east instead of
east to west. Does that have any impact in terms of the sensitivity in some of the natural
spots? I thought the marsh area was right down at the beginning where contraction was
starting, whereas before it was when construction is finishing.

Ken: There are two main marshes. This new plan is much better for phasing.
However, I have a whole phasing slide coming up, so we will discuss this shortly.
Q: Is this a 24-hour operation?

Ken: No, it isn’t. We will be going by municipal guideline bylaws for construction. 7
a.m. until whenever appropriate. It is anticipated Monday to Friday but there may be
times where we may look for a Saturday but there will be public notification for
operations.
Q: Should cyclists be concerned about mud and bike lane conditions?

Ken: If there is mud, we will be cleaning it. There is a nice long industrial laneway
before they get to the main trail, so we don’t anticipate mud being dragged all the
way up but if it does, we will clean it.

Janice: We also have it in our budget for mud control and lane cleanings.
Q: That’s a tight turn at the Baily Bridge. Can you not take a different route?

Ken: I agree that this route isn’t the most ideal route but we are trying to avoid
disturbance of vegetation. We did look initially at entering off of Hydro Road for
6
some time, but this would have sterilized OPG’s lands from other interim uses for the
duration of the construction as that access bisects the entirety of their property.
Q: What will the road be made up of?

Ken: It will be a highly compacted and granular surface similar to the existing
conditions found along the former railway alignments. It won’t be paved.
Q: The idea of naturalizing Serson creek, can you talk to flood mitigation and storm channels?

Ken: Currently, the RoP has provided dykes that prevent flooding onto their lands.
However, if we were simply to divert baseflows under these current narrow
conditions, we could only install a series of steps and pools and would not allow any
vegetation in the corridor. With the 5m widening, we are still not providing optimal
valley width conditions to maximize ecological potential, but it will allow us to put in a
more meandering channel with pools and riffles and vegetation on the banks while
still providing the necessary flood conveyance . Further planning for the final optimal
channel condition will likely carry through the Inspiration Lakeview planning with the
City of Mississauga and OPG.
Q: (Jon) Do we all agree with the evaluation outcomes?

Q: (Jon) That overall this is a preferred route?

Q: (Jon) Do we agree on these benefits and impacts?

7
Q: How fast is the linear flow speeds (currents) along the new constructed shoreline?

Ken: Behind the islands during windy days, it is a fraction of a metre per second but
it is sufficient to maintain circulation in the sheltered portions of the shoreline.
Q: What is the elevation of the islands?

Ken: They are not that high, they are designed to have waves overtop them to
minimize opportunities for vegetation to establish on the crest to better manage
against cormorant nesting.
Q: Are fish gates planned to go in at the beginning of the project?

Ken: Fish gates will be phased in as wetland construction is completed. Isolating the
wetlands from lake levels in the first year will assist with early establishment of
vegetation.
Q: Is there an out flow from the Applewood Creek hemi-marsh portion of the design (just
downstream from the stormwater treatment train for the WWTF culvert)?

Ken: Currently, the grading plan does not provide a well-defined channel connecting
the hemi marsh with the lower coastal marsh that is connected directly to Applewood
Creek. The intent with this grading separation is to provide an isolated warmerwatered wetland conducive for amphibian and reptile habitats. Inflows from the
culvert are anticipated to flow through the underlying sand matrix. The proposed
treatment train immediately below the culvert is designed to reduce the erosive
energy of flows from the WWTF, and provide a sediment settling basin which can be
managed, before flows enter the Hemi-marsh. This of course does not change
water salinity. If water quality becomes an issue over time in the hemi marsh (ie.
8
due to salt) we can modify the grading to allow for a small, stepped channel to
connect the two wetland areas to allow better flow through downstream.
Q: How well is the sewage treatment plant hidden?

Ken: The elevation of the sewage treatment plant much lower than the proposed
hills that will be constructed on the LWC land base. Once the hills are installed, trees
will also be planted on these hills, which in time, will completely block the view of the
WWTF from the Conservation Area.
Q: Will Carolinian species be planted?

Karen: The intent is to include species that are typical of Carolinian vegetation
communities. However, the planting plan will be a phased approach with species
selection based on conditions – immediately following construction, early
establishment species will be selected on the basis of their ability to grow quickly in
harsh conditions in order to stabilize soils and begin to transform the soils, while
providing habitat. Nodal forest plantings will also be undertaken. As time
progresses, other vegetation species will be introduced as the local micro-habitat
conditions change as the initial vegetation matures. CVC will be active in the
vegetation succession process over time in the Conservation Area.
Q: I am trying to understand where standing water may be. Are there going to be places for
skating in the wintertime?

Kate: CVC does not promote this type of activity. It would be similar to what we do in
Rattray Marsh, we put up a sign indicating that skating is not permitted. The signs
would communicate that these areas are unsafe, please don’t skate, etc.
9
Q: In your various models, were any potential impacts or concerns raised with Marie Curtis
Park?

Ken: There are no negative impacts. Water circulation modeling suggests that given the
new shoreline configuration being in deeper water, that near shore water quality will
likely improve faster following a rainfall event than under existing conditions in the area.
Q: Your primary path is 4.5 meters wide. Is it paved?

Ken: Yes, they are – they are the primary multi-use trails proposed for the Conservation
Area. The secondary trails are 2.5m wide consisting of crushed limestone screenings
and are designed for pedestrian usages through the area.
Q: You really need to take into consideration how people are going to use the park. It isn’t just
about getting from point A to point B. They want to hang around and enjoy themselves. Is there
an opportunity to widen the trail if need be?

Ken: We anticipate the existing Waterfront Trail near Lakeshore to remain in place,
providing a more direct route to Toronto, which will encourage higher speed bike
commuters away from the project area. The Primary Trail will essential double the
existing trail capacity, but with its more circuituous alignment, will likely be less
conducive for those that want to travel from Point A to B quickly. There is also the
crushed limestone trails that offer additional an alternative trail access through the
Conservation Area for pedestrians.

Comment: I highly suggest talking to Jacqueline at the City of Toronto because they are
having a really big problem with volume on the Humber Trail.
10
Q: Is there going to be park staff?

Kate: There will not be any staff full-time at the Conservation Area. Staff will be at the
Conservation Area as part of operations and maintenance on an as needed basis. .
When the park first opens we will have high volumes of staff that will help to establish
visitor behaviour and culture.
Q: Will there be access to the water for people to use canoes and kayaks?

Ken: This is one of those things like the skating rink where CVC won’t be encouraging
folks to disembark out on the waters. The cobble beaches will get to a depth of 4.5m
fairly quickly and the beach material (west of the first island) is fairly large which is not
particularly conducive for launching and beaching, particularly during windy weather.
Wave height and energy, plus refractory waves off the revetments in the deep water
make kayaking and canoeing difficult and potentially dangerous if the weather
conditions are not right or the boating equipment is not large-lake equipped (i.e. sea
kayak required).
Q: Is picnicking encouraged?

Ken: There will be lots of informal seating and grassed area, so there will be plenty of
opportunity for people to find a spot to have a bite to eat, but there are no formal
picnicking areas with tables and shelters planned.
Q: What about washroom facilities?

Ken: The closest washroom is currently at Marie Curtis Park. By the time this natural
space opens, there may be additional washrooms at the Arsenal Lands and Inspiration
Lakeview area. We are isolated from everything else, so toilets would challenge in a
11
natural park setting– there are no washrooms at Rattray Marsh Conservation Area.
They also cost a lot to maintain and repair given their susceptibility for vandalism. The
intent is to direct management funding towards the maintenance of the natural features,
rather than hard infrastructure elements. CVC monitors park usage and visitor needs at
all its conservation areas, and can respond to such needs in the future are
demonstrated.
Q: What is the walking time from the parking lot to the promontory? We need to communicate
to people that this is a low intensity park. It is different from other parks and is intended to be
enjoyed through a natural perspective.

Ken: It is about 1.5 km long from end to end and yes, I agree.
Q: What about garbage stations? Can you put up signage that says ‘carry in, carry out’?

Ken: I chatted with CVC and the plan is to have large receptacles at either end of the
park area. Yes, signs can be installed.
Q: Have you thought of what the purpose of the amphitheatre is?

Ken: It is intended to provide a central informal seating area approximately halfway
between both ends of the conservation area. It could provide seating for informal
picnics, small educational groups and nature interpretation groups. Possibly allow for
small ceremonies. It is not intended as an extensive event space.

Suggestions on Design: Reconfigured with the wings to form a more circular pattern,
and if possible moved back further from the primary trail. If this is for conservation talks
perhaps you should think of seating for two school classes as the optimum size for the
12
amphitheatre? I.e. 70-75 – you will need a portable loudspeaker if talking to such a
large group.
Q: To me, amphitheater implies high uses of energy and the need for generators and
electricity. Renaming it may take some of these thoughts away. Is there an opportunity to
rename the amphitheater?

Ken: Yes. NOTE - Following the CLC meeting, LWC Project Team renamed the
amphitheatre to a Seating Node to avoid the more formalized event connotations
associated with the wording. LWC Project Team will also work with Municipal Park
Landscape Architects to review size, location and configuration of this seating feature.
Q: I haven’t heard anything yet about First Nations peoples? Shouldn’t we be acknowledging
their heritage and using it as an education aspect?

Ken: We have been developing a relationship with the Mississaugas of the New Credit
First Nations for years, and just recently met with them to discuss the EA and design
progress, and our proposed new construction access route. Things they would like to
see is identifying some of the trails or constructing ceremonial spaces, to show that they
aren’t just a part of history – they are still active members of the community. They also
expressed interest in continuing active involvement and opportunities in the
construction, establishment and operations phases of the project.
Q: What is the design frame? Do we have a two-year time frame before anything happens?

Ken: The key structural components associated with the shoreline, rivers, and wetlands,
will be finalized through this round of consultation as as these are key elements of the
13
permits that are required. Issues related to the public realm, such as trails, dimension
trails, outlooks, and other use features will continue.

Karen: An area where there is a lot of interest (the boardwalks and the wetlands) from a
permitting point of view, what would its impact be on the wetlands and streams, those
would start to encroach on that permitting schedule but those other elements that are
away from these interests, we are still able to talk them out and change things around.
Q: Did the islands move at all after the water study?

Ken: The islands are pretty much in the same spot as the smallest defined footprint for
the Preferred Alternative during the EA process. Some extensions were added for
habitat and beach stability reasons following the physical modeling works.
Q: When can the public start to come into the natural area?

Ken: Between 2023 – 2026 is when things will be finished. We might be able to do
some phasing for public access to get people in earlier at the far eastern end of the site,
but that will be confirmed as the project progresses.
Q: What about under temporary conditions opening up certain parts of the trail?

Ken: I think it would be difficult. There are strict construction site labour laws, which
would make it difficult to just bring the public in.
Q: I am concerned about fish habitats and phasing.

Karen: Recent discussions with DFO resulted in a slight change in the proposed
construction phasing strategy that should allow us to open new wetland habitats early in
the construction process (the western wetland area for Serson) – in the order 3 years or
14
so. This is a much earlier timeframe than would be possible if construction occurred
from the east end of the project area.

Another added benefit of the phasing with the proposed new construction access
alignment, is that it provides us with the potential opportunity to provide interim trail
access on the west side of the Project, in the event the Inspiration Lakeview plans have
not been implemented to a point that will allow the primary western connection to be put
in place at the end of the LWC Project construction. The existing construction access at
the far eastern side of the Project does not provide this same additional potential
opportunity.
o Comment – these two items should be highlighted in your EA amendment
documentation. NOTE: they were added.
Q: Where is the parking?

Ken: Currently, parking is available at Marie Curtis Park, though it is acknowledged that
parking demand at peak hours (evenings and weekends) exceeds capacity. However,
the LWC has capacity to provide parking on the established land base. The LWC EA
Project Team coordinates closely with the City of Mississauga and OPG regarding the
parallel Inspiration Lakeview planning process. There is anticipated to be
accommodation for parking through that plan on the western terminus of the LWC
Project. The amount and form is all going to be worked out in the future. There is also
the opportunity to establish parking opportunities through the Arsenal Lands planning
process that may proceed shortly.
15
Q: Public transit?

Ken: There is public transit planned to support the future Inspiration Lakeview
community through the middle of the site. With an anticipated construction schedule of 7
to 10 years, there is time for the Inspiration Lakeview and Arsenal Lands planning
initiatives to progress.
Q: I was under the impression that armourstone wasn’t going to be used?

Ken: No, we are still going to use it in the far western portion of the project area where it
was not possible to establish appropriate conditions to extend the beach any further. A
benefit of the revetment design, is that with a double layer of randomly placed stones,
there is significant voids in the revetment wall that can be used by fish. We will also be
placing smaller rock at the toe of the revetment to provide shoal conditions for additional
habitat function as well. Monitoring following construction will show us how effective the
works are at attracting fish.
Q: What about the three ships making up the eastern OPG Pier? Are there any plans in place
to utilize them?

Ken: CVC will ultimately end up in ownership of the pier and is interested in finding uses
for the structures long-term, but the pier is not being planned for through the LWC
Project. There are some safety considerations that need to be addressed which are
costly: the ship furthest from the shoreline is about a meter above lake levels which
makes it dangerous to be out there in the winter or windy days. As you get closer to
shore, the ships are progressively higher above the water (shallower conditions), but
there remain open water gaps between the ships. A marine engineer did a structural
16
assessment for CVC in 2014 and confirmed that, despite being more than 100 years
old, they are in good shape, only requiring relatively minor repairs. A reason for their
state of good condition can be attributed to the excavation of the lake bed which formed
a “cradle” for each barge prior to installation, which limited the degree of motion they
have experienced over the decades.
Q: What are they filled with?

Ken: The barges are filled with rock and I lined with concrete.

Lorenzo: From a design point of view, the piers belong together. I think one in isolation
wouldn’t be right. They were built together for part of the same heritage. I think there is
an immediate opportunity because CVC has done a lot of work studying the history of
those ships. You have a record of the captains of the ships, photographs, and that is an
immediate step for some sort of heritage interpretation. In terms of getting the public out
on those, that’s another story but we can begin educating the public right away no the
history surrounding the project.

Kate: One option that we thought of was creating habitat for common tern. This could
potentially pull in predators, muskrats and cormorants. But as far as the history of the
ships goes, there is definitely opportunity to create interpretive signage to relay the rich
cultural heritage.
17
Final comments
Ken:

In the next two weeks we have meetings with our Technical Advisory Committee (other
government agencies). We’re hoping to be in a position by the end of December or
early January that our EA amendment will be approved. We’re hoping to start
construction in January or February, which will require execution of the agreements with
OPG.

We have a fisheries window construction guidelines – we can place material in the open
lake from July 1st to March 31st.

We’re going to the public Monday, for the public information centre.
18
APPENDIX D
First Nations and Métis Consultation Materials
Consultation Manager
Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
Department of Consultation and Accommodation
6 First Line R.R. #6
Hagersville, ON
N0A 1H0
September 8, 2015
Dear
On May 27, The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change approved the environmental
assessment for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection (LWC) project. The project, led by Credit Valley
Conservation and the Region of Peel with support from Toronto and Region Conservation, will
transform an environmentally degraded and inaccessible section of the Mississauga waterfront into
one with increased access to the shoreline for both people and wildlife.
Detailed designs for the new natural space are currently being developed. These include feedback
received from the public and other stakeholders during the environmental assessment phase.
The project will be presented to Peel Regional Council in the coming months. If approved, construction
may begin as early as 2016, with an anticipated seven to 10 year timeline for completion.
We are grateful to the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation for their participation in the
environmental assessment process. Your contributions will help make this waterfront transformation a
reality by reconnecting land and water via a new naturalized shoreline. It will also connect people to
the land and water by creating public access where there currently is none. Most importantly it will
restore natural space in a highly urban area and create much needed habitat for fish and wildlife.
We enjoyed meeting with you, Margaret Sault, Carolyn King and the Band Council during the process.
The meeting brought to light some of your specific interests related to the LWC project, including:
 a desire to recognize that the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation have a current as well as
historic presence in the area;
 an interest in exploring ways to incorporate the moccasin identifier project into the LWC
project;
 an interest in creating an area to hold ceremonies along the Lake Ontario shoreline as part of
the LWC project; and
 an interest in reintroducing Carolinian species.
We wish to congratulate the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation on establishing the new
Department of Consultation and Accommodation. We are very interested in meeting with you and
your colleagues in the DOCA to introduce ourselves and the project planning that has occurred to date.
As the project moves forward, we invite your continued involvement and would be pleased to meet
with you and your colleagues to discuss how best to incorporate your interests in the LWC project. We
would be happy to visit you or host you at the CVC office in Mississauga. We can arrange a site visit of
the Lakeview area and discuss project planning to date. We would of course cover reasonable travel
and meal expenses. Kate Hayes from Credit Valley Conservation will be phoning you in the next few
days to discuss.
On behalf of the Lakeview Waterfront Connection project team, thank you for your support.
Janice Hatton
Program Support Analyst,
Public Works
Region of Peel
Kate Hayes
Manager,
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Kenneth Dion
Senior Manager,
Special Projects
Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
Jon MacMull
(905) 670-1615 ext. 385
[email protected]
Williams Treaty First Nations
8 Creswick Court
Barrie, Ontario
L4M 2J7
September 8, 2015
Dear
,
On May 27, The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change approved the environmental
assessment for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection (LWC) project. The project, led by Credit Valley
Conservation and the Region of Peel with support from Toronto and Region Conservation, will
transform an environmentally degraded and inaccessible section of the Mississauga waterfront into
one with increased access to the shoreline for both people and wildlife.
Detailed designs for the new natural space are currently being developed. These include feedback
received from the public and other stakeholders during the environmental assessment phase.
The project will be presented to Peel Regional Council in the coming months. If approved, construction
may begin as early as 2016, with an anticipated seven to 10 year timeline for completion.
This important waterfront transformation will reconnect land and water via a new naturalized
shoreline. It will also connect people to the land and water by creating public access where there
currently is none. Most importantly it will restore natural space in a highly urban area and create much
needed habitat for fish and wildlife.
Please let us know if you would like to continue receiving updates on the project. We invite the
involvement of the Williams Treaty First Nations and would like to know how you would like to be
involved in the project as it moves forward.
On behalf of the Lakeview Waterfront Connection project team, thank you.
Janice Hatton
Public Works
Region of Peel
Kate Hayes
Manager,
Kenneth Dion
Senior Manager,
Special Projects
Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
Please direct responses to:
Jon MacMull
(905) 670-1615 ext. 385
[email protected]
Meeting:
Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Department of Consultation and Accommodation and
Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project Staff
Date:
November 3, 2015
11 a.m. – 1 p.m.
Location:
Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Department of Consultation and Accommodation
6 First Line Rd., R.R. #6, Hagersville, ON N0A 1H0
Attendees:
Mississauga of the New Credit First Nation:
 Councillor R. Stacey LaForme
 Mark LaForme
 Fawn Sault
 Dale Sault
 Meghan DeVries
Region of Peel:
 Janice Hatton
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
 Kenneth Dion
Credit Valley Conservation:
 Mike Puddister
 Jon MacMull
Draft Agenda:
1) Introductions (10 minutes)
2) Presentation from the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (20-30 minutes)
a) Introduction and History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
3) Presentations from the LWC Project Team (20-30 minutes)
a. Brief summary of key features from the LWC EA that was approved in May 2015
b. Update on the project design elements since the EA
c. Update on implementation planning
i. new construction access road alignment
ii. Region of Peel council report
iii. proposed construction phasing and approach
iv. proposed construction schedule
4) Project discussion (30 - 45 minutes)
LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT
CONNECTION
Mississaugas of New Credit
First Nation
November 3, 2015
Mississaugas of New Credit Engagement
Date
Type of
Engagem
ent
Aug. 18
2011
Oct. 17
2011
Meetings
with
Carolyn
King
Topic
Discuss
Feasibility
Study
Feb. 15
2012
Phone
Call
Start up of
EA ToR
Dec. 28
2012
Couriered EA Notice of
Document Commencem
ation
ent & PIC 1
Discussion
Emphasis on importance of water
Considering claim on water rights (1 mile each side
Credit and L. Ontario)
Interest in continued engagement in EA process
Improve access to water, celebrate water (Possible
ceremony locations on the shoreline)
Better communicate current/past history of MNCFN
No concerns with the Project.
Particular interest in ancestral remains and asked for
immediate notification if remains found.
Raised issues related to the environment and potential
treaty rights.
Requested meeting with LWC Project Team
Response
Detailed Design –
ceremonial
Interpretive
Signage
Mississaugas of New Credit Engagement
Date
Type of
Topic
Engagemen
t
Jan. 15 2013 Meeting with Development
Carolyn King, and Evaluation
Margaret
of Alternatives
Sault and
Fawn Sault
May 24
2013
Sept. 25
2015
Boat Tour –
LWC
Waterfront
Carolyn King
Fawn Sault
Community
BBQ
Discussion
Incorporate Moccasin Discuss views
and landscapes from different
perspectives
Offer site tour
Opportunities to honour nature
Present Project
Opportunities
and Scale
Carolyn King provided talk of the
ongoing interests of the Mississaugas
of the New Credit First Nation in this
area and their connection to water.
Community
Engagement
Claim submitted to provincial and
federal government re: riparian rights
along the Credit and L. Ontario
shoreline.
Need to consult regarding Design
Process, LWC.
Response
Primary Trail –
Identifier in the
Detailed Design
Preferred Alternative
Existing Habitat (ha)
Meadow
% Habitat
Lakeview Waterfront
Connection
from LWC
225.47
6.0%
11.8 ha
4.97%
1.7
0.0005%
1.0 ha
58.5%
485.26
12.9%
4.6 ha
1.02%
Wetlands
18.4
0.5%
6.2 ha
20.2%
Swamp
12.07
0.3%
1.5 ha
11.05%
Rocky islands
0 ha
0
0.8 ha
Total
742.9
Cobble beach
Forest
26 ha
Refined Design
Design Features
Main benefits
• Phases project from west away from users of Marie Curtis Park
• Not as close to built cultural heritage resources (e.g. Arsenal Lands)
• Less potential risk to manage soils than Route 2
Main Impacts
• May affect potential Bobolink habitat
• Will likely require removal of trees and some locally rare vegetation
• Passes through City of Mississauga Natural Areas System
Neutral Impact
• Stage 2 Assessment (archaeology) confirmed both routes heavily disturbed due
to past industrial activity or consist of created land.
• Extensive marine archaeology also depicted no heritage resources
CONCLUSION – Preferred given the significant anticipated decrease in public
use, planning and built heritage conflicts and anticipated impacts are mitigable.
Status Update
Design
• Design work by team nearing
completion
months
Schedule
Task
Date
October 22 2015
Initiate construction of access road
Jan or Feb 2016
July 2016
September 2016
October 2016
Until 2023-2026
Project Costs
LWC Cost Components
2013
2015
-
$1,200,000
Road Construction
$1,289,000
$2,908,000
Construction
$34,111,000
$42,952,000
*Design
Cost
Contingency
$6,300,000
$7,200,000
$12,500,000
$5,432,000
Recovery
-$23,600,000
-$23,600,000
Total
$30,600,000
$36,100,000
Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
6 First Line R.R. #6
Hagarsville, Ontario
N0A1H0
November 27, 2015
Dear
Further to the letter sent to you on September 8th 2015 notifying you of the approval of the Lakeview
Waterfront Connection (LWC) environmental assessment (EA) by the Ministry of Environment and Climate
Change, we are now writing to provide the following additional updates:


we have pursued discussions with the Ontario Power Generation to gain access through their property,
a route that will translate to far fewer negative impacts (i.e. Route 1C). The amendment to the EA
includes a 30-day review (November 27th 2015 – January 4th 2016) process for the proposed new
construction access route as summarized in the draft report:
o

o
o
We welcome your input on the amendment to the EA and the detailed design, and will send hardcopies of any
of the above-noted materials upon request. We would be pleased to meet with you and your colleagues to
discuss further. Staff will follow up in the next few days to confirm receipt of this letter with you.
1
Janice Hatton
Public Works
Region of Peel
Authority
Kate Hayes
Manager,
Kenneth Dion
Senior Manager,
Special Projects
Toronto and Region Conservation
Jon MacMull
(905) 670-1615 ext. 385
[email protected]
1255 Old Derry Road
2
Williams Treaty First Nations
8 Creswick Court
Barrie, Ontario
L4M 2J7
November 27, 2015
Dear
,
Further to the letter sent to you on September 8th 2015 notifying you of the approval of the Lakeview Waterfront
Connection (LWC) environmental assessment (EA) by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, we are
now writing to provide the following additional updates:

The project received support by Peel Regional Council on October 22nd, 2015 to proceed to construction,
with an anticipated 7 to 10 year timeline for completion.

alterations that would have negatively affected users of the Waterfront Trail and Marie Curtis Park Beach,
mature vegetation on the Arsenal Lands, and built cultural heritage features. Since that time, we have
pursued discussions with the Ontario Power Generation to gain access through their property, a route
that will translate to far fewer negative impacts (i.e. Route 1C). The amendment to the EA includes a 30day review (November 27th 2015 – January 4th 2016) process for the proposed new construction access
route as summarized in the draft report:
o

o
o
We welcome your input on the amendment to the EA and the detailed design, and will send hardcopies of any of
the above-noted materials upon request. We would be pleased to meet with you and your colleagues to discuss
further. Staff will follow up in the next few days to confirm receipt of this letter with you.
Janice Hatton
Public Works
Region of Peel
Kate Hayes
Manager,
Kenneth Dion
Senior Manager,
Special Projects
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Jon MacMull
(905) 670-1615 ext. 385
[email protected]
1255 Old Derry Road
APPENDIX E
Agency Consultation Materials
Technical Advisory Committee: Municipal
Wednesday November 25, 2015 – 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
Credit Valley Conservation Head Office, 1255 Old Derry Road, Mississauga, L5N 6R4
Meeting Purpose:

Summary of LWC EA and Update of Status



Discussion of next steps
Agenda:
1:00 – 1:15
Opening remarks and round table introductions
1:15 – 1:25
Presentation on LWC EA Summary and Status: Q&A
1:25 – 1:50
Presentation and discussion on revised potential new construction access route
1:50 – 3:00
Presentation and discussion on detailed design
LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT
CONNECTION
Technical Advisory Committee
November 25, 2015
Agenda
•
•
•
•
Introduction
EA Status Update
Approved Preferred Alternative
1.5M m3 Footprint
Existing Habitat
(ha)
% Habitat
Lakeview Waterfront
Connection
from LWC
225.47
6.0%
11.8 ha
4.97%
1.7
0.0005%
1.0 ha
58.5%
485.26
12.9%
4.6 ha
1.02%
Wetlands
18.4
0.5%
6.2 ha
20.2%
Swamp
12.07
0.3%
1.5 ha
11.05%
Rocky islands
0 ha
0
0.8 ha
Total
742.9
Meadow
Cobble beach
Forest
26 ha
Updated Project Costs
LWC Cost Components
2013
2015
-
$1,200,000
Road Construction
$1,289,000
$2,908,000
Construction
$34,111,000
$42,952,000
*Design
Cost
Contingency
$6,300,000
$7,200,000
$12,500,000
$5,432,000
Recovery
-$23,600,000
-$23,600,000
Total
$30,600,000
$36,100,000
EA Status Update
Design
months
Review Transportation Impact Assessment 2013
•
•
•
•
•
•
Study undertaken by Morrison Hershfield
RoP, CoM and CoT provided traffic count and signal timing plan data.
Five timing horizons explored: 2013, 2014, 2022, 2027 and 2032
Synchro 7 software determined Level of Service and volume to capacity.
SimTraffic used to observe and confirm Synchro findings.
Assumed 250 trucks per day due to LWC and distributed the various
source sites for fill to determine supply and route assumptions
• Local traffic (Dixie and Lakeshore – signalized intersection) impacts by
the Project during construction very small, ~72 vehicles per hour during
peak hours. Does not worsen the LOS
• Concluded enhanced signal light timing between the City of Toronto and
Mississauga along Lakeshore could improve the overall traffic
congestion at peak hours.
Refined Drawings
Benefits and Considerations of New Route 1c
Main benefits
• Allows for earlier establishment of terrestrial and wetland habitats
• If required, possibly provide western trail link in event Inspiration Lakeview not sufficiently
underway
• Does not impede Arsenal Lands Master Planning and built-heritage features
Main Considerations
• Requires removal of ~30 trees largely non-native/invasive with two locally rare plants
• Cost
• Pinch point north of WWTF (bridge ~20m) and absence of traffic lights at Lakeview and
WWTF driveway
POST AMENDMENT DOCUMENT ON WEBSITE & WITH MOECC
DETAILED DESIGN
(video)
Refined Design
Design Features
Trail Specifications – Primary & Secondary
OUTLOOKS
Boardwalk
4 – Serson
Wetland
2 – Seating Node
1 - Promontory
5 - Seawall
Promontory
Key Features:
Toronto Skyline
Revetment Trail
Cross-Section of Seating Node & Trail
Seating Node
Seating Node
Seating Node
Key Features:
viewscape
Key Features:
Groyne:
• Large Stone
• 30-40m long
beach material
through woods
woods edge
Constructed Island
Key Features:
Island
Navigation Lights
Operations and Maintenance
Key Features:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Passive use conservation area (walking, running, cycling, fishing, etc.)
CVC management and enforcement
Daylight hours of operation
Dogs on leash enforced; no boating or skating
Accessibility features (Built environment standards)
Natural park aesthetic
CPTED design principles (no lighting, site lines maintained, access point
control, etc).
Minimal infrastructure; vandalism resistant features
Visitor monitoring (visitation numbers, visitor flow, impacts, etc)
Educational programming and research opportunities (in combination with
Arsenal dev)
Self-guided interpretive signage
Special event spaces and opportunities (First Nations ceremonial, etc.)
No washrooms, garbage bins at each trail terminus
Parking will be explored through Inspiration Lakeview, Arsenal Lands – in
addition to existing at Marie Curtis Park
Schedule
Task
Date
October 22 2015
Jan or Feb 2016
July 2016
September 2016
October 2016
Until 2023-2026
Thank you!

APPENDIX A - Lakeview Waterfront Connection

Transcription

Similar documents

Breach of Condition Notice 5

Lakeview and Port Credit District Policies Review November 22th

April 12, 2000 To whom it may concern, Re: Mr. Elliot Yehia Since

new diversity brochure.indd

c O n TA c T jiM SPEROS

PDF of project data sheet.

flower valley conservation trust

Pahlen Realty, Inc. proudly presents

WARRIORS FOR WILDLIFE

Chesterfield East Branch Trail