DOCSLIB.ORG

Port Lands Flood Protection & Enabling

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Port Lands Flood Protection & Enabling Infrastructure Design Review Submission Phase 2 12 April 2018 DRAFTMVVA Inc. • WSP • DTAH Design Review Panel Comments ● Ensure a strong presence of public realm throughout ROW’s (leading with landscape). ● Within the 40 m ROW there is opportunity to achieve a very good landscape best practices vs. innovation. ● There is concern over the ROW widths being too wide and verging on having a suburban character. ● Think about what is innovative with the design and what makes it different. ● A better understanding of how this is going to look, feel, and work (cross sections) is required. ● Ensure the streets integrate well into Villiers Island. ● Find a roleDRAFT for public art within the design. Design Advancement: 4 Strategies ● Reconnect the Port Lands to Toronto’s regional road and bike network ● Program Opportunities for Innovative Sustainability and Resilience Strategies ● Clarify the identity of the Villiers Island public realm ● Develop a site-specific character for each major thoroughfare DRAFT 1. Reconnect the Port Lands to Toronto’s Regional Road and Bike Network DRAFT Existing Connective Roadways Expanded Port Lands Connectivity Dundas St E Dundas St E Leslie St Leslie St Leslie Sumach St Sumach St Sumach Broadview Ave Broadview Ave Broadview Carlaw Ave Queen St E Carlaw Ave Queen St E Don Valley Pkwy Parliament St Parliament Eastern Ave Eastern Ave Lake Shore Blvd E Lake Shore Blvd E Commissioners St Commissioners St Don Roadway Don Leslie st Leslie st Leslie Munition St. Munition Don Roadway Don Unwin Ave Unwin Ave Cherry St Cherry St Cherry Primary Roads Primary Roads DRAFTSecondary Roads 0 250 500m Existing Transit Network Open the Port Lands with Transit Gerrad St E Gerrad St E Dundas St E Dundas St E Queen St E Ave Broadview Queen St E Ave Broadview King St E King St E Leslie St Leslie St Leslie Cherry St Cherry St Cherry Commissioners St Queens Quay E Streetcar Stop Transit Hub Future Proposed Street Car Street Car in Mixed Traffic DRAFTStreet Car in Mixed Traffic 0 250 500m Existing Bike Network Create a Bikeway Nexus Dundas St E Dundas St E Sherbourne St Sherbourne Shuter St St Sherbourne Shuter St Jones Ave Jones Ave Eastern Ave Logan Ave Logan Ave Logan Mill St Lake Shore Blvd E Mill St Lake Shore Blvd E Commissioners St Don Roadway Don Leslie st Leslie st Leslie Munition St. Munition Unwin Ave Cherry St Cherry St Cherry Martin Goodman Trail Martin Goodman Trail Bike/Shared R.O.W. Lanes Bike/Shared R.O.W. Lanes DRAFTFuture Bike Lanes 0 250 500m Regional Bike Trail Network (Existing) Don Valley Trail Martin Goodman Trail - Queens Quay Blvd DRAFT Trail Network (Existing) Trail Network (Interim) DRAFT Trail Network (Interim) Phase 1 Scope LEGEND Martin Goodman Trail Don River Trail Park Path DRAFT 2. Program Opportunities for Innovative Sustainability and Resilience Strategies DRAFT Framework Considerations for Innovative Road Design Adaptive Technology ● Communication between ‘smart’ elements (streetlight poles, cars, smart phones, transit buses / LRT) ● Road infrastructure will feature a joint use trench (JUT) with fibre/copper ● Potential data collection on users to refine future phase of implementation Road Design Considerations for Autonomous Urbanism ● At grade design which separates users (bikes, cars, pedestrians) is conducive to introduction of autonomous urbanism ● Less parking, more drop-off lay-bys ● Locating drop-off areas close to desired destinations DRAFT● Toronto Hydro will likely manage-build extra capacity in JUT’s Adaptive Local Road Network adaptive pedestrian signal crossing potential data collection designated lay-bys for Uber/AV E.V. recharge stations PaveGen (London, UK) DRAFTAquaPave Geothermal System - Snow Melt Sensing Technologies “Open Building” Utility Raceways park utility raceway sidewalk raceway DRAFT Environmental Comfort: Wind Breaks wind break 34m 42.5m 17m 10.6m 13.8m 30m 8.5m prevailing winter winds DRAFT Permeable Pavements lay-by areas LRT decking Stormcrete Pre-cast Pavers DRAFTMississauga Park Porous Pavement Trial Hybrid Porous System Centralized vs. Decentralized Stormwater Treatment Program • Construction parallels maintenance of utility service • Treatment train approach to stormwater management • District scale economy of service • Park edge treatment, diverting boulevard drainage to park • New technology for ballasted flocculation DRAFTmeets/exceeds WWFMG • Enhanced water balance targets / climate change Hybrid Centralized-Decentralized Stormwater Treatment Program SWM APPROACH Centralized vs. Decentralized CENTRALIZED DECENTRALIZED Capital Cost 1.5m Environmental Cap Time to Achieve Approvals Heterogeneous O&M Cost Urban Fill Sustainability 100 yr Storm Performance wrt WWFMG Groundwater/ Lake Level Process Equipment Standardized Design Precedence Penetration of the Environmental Barrier Potential Additional Filling for Gravity Sewers Discharges above 100-year HGL Park+Channel Villiers Island Park + River Good: Possible (complicated): Fail: DRAFT Decentralized Stormwater Collection and Redistribution green roof collection (50%) site collection polishing landscapes DRAFT Centralized Stormwater Treatment Rainfall Event Local LID for Surface and Sub Surface Collection Linear Pre-Treatment BIOSWALE SOIL CELLS Outlet to Lake End of Pipe Treatment: Ballasted Flocculation Facility Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Canada Inc. & Technologies Solutions Water Veolia Canada Inc. & Technologies Solutions Water Veolia © © DRAFT OIL / GRIT SEPARATOR Villiers Island Public Art Strategy (Draft WT - 2017) Passages Program (marks transformation over time) Linkages Program (connects to site history) Engagement Program (lures with temporary works) 3.5 Parallel Program In addition to the public art contributions coming from private and public development blocks, the art program for Villiers Island will benefit from funding generated by the required 1% public art contribution on major capital works undertaken by the City of Toronto and Parallel Program (integrates with infrastructure) it’s Agencies, Boards and Commissions, as passed by Toronto City Council in the 2003 Culture Plan for the Creative City: “The Culture Division should work with all relevant City departments, agencies, DRAFT boards and commissions to implement Council’s policy dedicating one per cent of the capital budget of all major municipal buildings and structures to public art.” Kristan Horton, Icing, 2010, Bathurst and St. Clair West, Toronto Most notably, there will also be a budget for art opportunities accompanying the build out of the new LRT systems along Cherry and Commissioner Streets. This civic capital project will generate a percent for art budget through the City’s Percent for Art Program which mandates a minimum of 1% public art budget applied to the construction costs of any major capital project undertaken by the City or any of its agencies, boards or commissions. It is anticipated that implementation of these future opportunities will support the intentions and vision outlines in this Strategy. 20 Engagement Program: ‘Isle of Bikes’ Competition DRAFT Engagement Program: ‘Isle of Bikes’ Competition visibility of bike culture social gathering pioneering of industrial lands DRAFT mechanical craft 3. Clarify the Identity of the Villiers Island Public Realm DRAFT Villiers Island: Gateway to the Port Lands Villiers Street New Cherry Street Don Roadway North Don Roadway New Munition Street Trinity Blvd. Trinity Villiers Park Rd. Park Villiers Commissioners Street DRAFT 0 67.5 135m Villiers Island: Gateway to the Port Lands Cherry St (40m ROW) Don Roadway Commissioners St (40m ROW) (42m ROW) Commissioners St (40m ROW) DRAFT R.O.W. Width: Comparative Scale Studies Spadina Avenue (University) Queens Quay Boulevard Front Street (WDL) 28m (+) 6.6m 7.1m 3.6m 15.9m 42m 8m 8m 38.5m 8m 18.1m 7m 7.5m 7m ROW = 38.5m (+16m) ROW = 28m (Min) ROW = 42m 32% Cross Section = Public RealmDRAFT50% Cross Section = Public Realm 75% Cross Section = Public Realm Cherry Street Cherry Street Expresses the Shift in WaterfrontDRAFT Geometry Cherry Street: Link the Urban Archipelago Cherry St West Don Lands Distillery District Keating Precinct Villiers Island Polson Quay DRAFTCherry Beach Don Roadway Sculptural form at crest of wall Walled Edge + Occupiable edges at riverine vistas DRAFT Don Roadway: Reveal the New River Mouth Don Roadway DRAFT Commissioners Street Normative McCleary Leslie Street City Grid Park Greenway Villiers Island Promontory The Blue Park Square Terminus at Park Don River Broadview Industrial DRAFTCherry Edge Channel Nexus Portlands Commissioners Street: Incorporate the Park Edge Commissioners St River Park North DRAFT Trinity + Villiers Streets Keating Villiers Channel Park Promenade Park-Urban Interface Promontory Don River DRAFTPark Channel Trinity + Villiers: Unify the Island Edge Trinity Blvd Villiers St Villiers Park Rd (20m ROW) (32.2m ROW) (20m ROW) DRAFT 4. Develop a Site-Specific Character for Each Major Thoroughfare DRAFT Roadway Scope - Relative to PPRR Scope Legend Phase 1 Future Phases Cherry St Relative PPRR Scope Villiers St Villiers Park Rd Trinity Blvd Don Roadway Commissioners DRAFTSt 0 67.5 135m Phase 1 Streetscape Types Corridors Urban Park River Landscape Typologies Precinct Threshold Park Threshold Plaza LRT Station Pedestrian Thoroughfare Promenade DRAFT 0 67.5 135m Cherry Street: Link the Urban Archipelago Cherry Street North Distillery District Polson Quay DRAFTCherry Beach Cherry Street - Design Criteria 58% Cross Section = Public Realm setback
Recommended publications
  • Villiers Island Precinct Plan Community Consultation Meeting #1 Report

    Villiers Island Precinct Plan Community Consultation Meeting #1 Report

    Villiers Island Precinct Plan Community Consultation Meeting #1 Report Villiers Island Precinct Plan Community Consultation Meeting #1 Summary Report Prepared by Lura Consulting for: Waterfront Toronto June 2014 Villiers Island Precinct Plan Community Consultation Meeting #1 Report This report was prepared by Lura Consulting, the independent facilitator and consultation specialist for the Villiers Island Precinct Plan. If you have any questions or comments regarding the report, please contact: Amanda Santo Liz Nield Waterfront Toronto Lura Consulting 20 Bay Street, Suite 1310 505 Consumers Road, Suite 1005 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2N8 Toronto, Ontario M2J 4Z2 416-214-1344 ext. 292 416-536-6174 [email protected] [email protected] Villiers Island Precinct Plan Community Consultation Meeting #1 Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.0 Open House ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 Welcome and Opening Remarks ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.0 Presentation .......................................................................................................................................................................................
  • Enabling Rapid Transit AUTHOR: Sidewalk Labs

    Enabling Rapid Transit AUTHOR: Sidewalk Labs

    Master Innovation & Development Plan Technical Appendix TITLE: Mobility Technical Appendix A: Enabling Rapid Transit AUTHOR: Sidewalk Labs ABSTRACT The Mobility Technical Appendix provides further detailed information on the mobility and street design-related proposals in the Master Development and Implementation Plan, as well as information on their potential application in the Toronto context. Most relevant sections: Vol 1 (Quayside Plan, River District Concept Plan) / Vol 2 (Mobility) © 2019 Sidewalk Labs. The content, documents and materials contained herein are considered Sidewalk Proprietary Information. Appendix A: Extending transit along the waterfront Summary ................................................................................................................................... 2 Key Components in Brief ........................................................................................................................... 2 Forces That Shaped the Plan ................................................................................................... 2 1. Observations: the necessity of, challenges to, and opportunities for extending rapid transit along the Eastern Waterfront ...................................................................................................... 3 2. Furthering the objectives of existing policies and plans ............................................................... 7 3. Public and expert input .......................................................................................................................
  • Paradise Lost

    Paradise Lost

    PARADISE LOST AFTER THE FLOOD; CAN TORONTO ISLANDS BE SAVED FROM THE NEXT DISASTER? The island flood of 2017 is a clear warning that we must do all we can to ­preserve the closest thing to wilderness that we have in Toronto BY RICHARD LONGLEY SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 IMAGES BY SEAN TAMBLYN NOW MAGAZINE Seneca­Pump The flood waters had only begun to subside, but over the August long weekend, the Ward’s Island Association annual Summer Gala was in full swing beside the Ward’s Island Clubhouse. The band played, and attendees wore T-shirts that read “I Survived the Flood of 2017.” “We laughed, we drank beer on the bowling green,” says long-time Island resident Jay Bascom. “We’d survived adversity in the past and we knew we could survive it again.”A veteran of the floods of 1952, 1973, 1993 and 2017 – as well as the “40 years war” waged by the former Metro Council to evict Island residents – Bascom is a living testament to the resilience of the Toronto Islanders. For the 20,000 people who visit them on sunny summer weekends, the Toronto Islands are a lotus land of meadows, woods, lagoons and sandy beaches (one of them clothing optional). But for the 800 residents, 30 businesses and two schools that call the islands home, it isn’t always paradise. The weather can blast, flood and ice them in from the mainland. The land they live on is nothing more than a bump in a watery sandbox that’s slowly sinking out from under itself.
  • TO-Sidewalk-Labs-Vision-Sections-Of-RFP-Submission-Sm.Pdf

    TO-Sidewalk-Labs-Vision-Sections-Of-RFP-Submission-Sm.Pdf

    October 17, 2017 Since its inception, Sidewalk Labs has been conducting a thought experiment with leading urbanists and technologists about what the city of the future might look like— and scouring the globe for a place to bring it to life. In March 2017, Waterfront Toronto issued Request for Proposals No. 2017-13, a call for an innovation and funding partner for Toronto’s Eastern Waterfront. After all of our searching, we knew this was the perfect place, and the perfect partner. Our response to Waterfront Toronto’s RFP represented a snapshot in time of our ideas about how to create a place that deployed emerging technology and people-first design innovations to address the challenges that face growing cities—and how we might realize this vision on Toronto’s Eastern Waterfront. We’ve decided to release the vision we laid out in our response, both in the interest of transparency and to start what promises to be a history-making public conversation. We hope all Torontonians—and city-lovers far and wide—will join in. Which urban challenges are most urgent? Where can technology prove useful in finding solutions, and where is it not the right tool? Which of our ideas are great, which are crazy, and what did we miss? We need your ideas, your aspirations, your critiques, your concerns. We hope you’ll email us, call us, tweet at us, and, if possible, join us in person at a series of public conversations, beginning with a Community Town Hall in early November. We couldn’t be more honored to have been selected by Waterfront Toronto to do something historic on the shore of Lake Ontario.

  • Thank You for Coming to the Villiers Island Precinct Plan Community Consultation Meeting

    01 WELCOME Thank you for coming to the Villiers Island Precinct Plan Community Consultation Meeting. This meeting is part of a series of planning initiatives in the Port Lands led by Waterfront Toronto, the City of Toronto, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. We are excited to present our work to date and have a conversation about the future of the Precinct. Tonight’s purposeDon River is to explore and define the vision and guiding principles and receive feedback on three development options for the Villiers Island Precinct. Don River Park KING STREET LAKESHORE BLVD E FRONT STREET West Go Transit Yard Donlands PARLIAMENT STREET Distillery District DON ROADWAY COMMISSIONERS STREET Film Keating Studio Channel VILLIERS STREET Precinct Precinct Keating Channel QUEENS QUAY W East Bayfront Greenway Link Ship Channel VILLIERS ISLAND PRECINCT Inner UNWIN AVENUE Harbour CHERRY STREET Urban Strategies 6:00 to 6:30 p.m. The Project Team Project Lead, Tonight’s Open House The Villiers Island Project Team consists Urban Planning and Design Agenda of a multi-disciplinary team, working in 6:30 to 6:40 p.m. collaboration with Waterfront Toronto, Arup Welcome and Introductory Remarks Transportation, Servicing and and in partnership with the City of Sustainability 6:40 to 7:25 p.m. Toronto, and the Toronto and Region Presentation of the Precinct Vision, Principles and Conservation Authority (TRCA). W. Architecture Options Landscape Design and Architecture Port of 7:25 to 7:40 p.m. Cherry Taylor Hazell Architects Toronto Questions of ClarificationBeach Heritage Conservation 7:40 to 8:30 p.m. RWDI Workshop Wind and Micro-Climate Conditions 8:30 to 8:55 p.m.
  • Waterfront Toronto

    Waterfront Toronto

    Chapter 3 Section 3.15 Waterfront Toronto stakeholders come second to the public’s best 1.0 Summary interest. These oversight entities were given much greater authority than was given to Waterfront Toronto, making it possible for them to implement In 2002, the federal, provincial and Toronto muni- such measures as restricting building heights, creat- cipal governments established Waterfront Toronto ing large public spaces, providing public access to “to oversee all aspects of revitalization of Toronto’s the water’s edge and expropriating land in cases waterfront.” With the land along the waterfront where the intended use was not consistent with the being held by a variety of public- and private-sector overall revitalization plans. landowners, it was widely accepted that the water- Another key responsibility of an effective over- front could only be successfully revitalized if a co- seer is to watch over all work being done to ensure ordinated, well-planned approach was undertaken. it is done right, cost-effectively and on time. Water- This required that some entity be put in charge Chapter 3 • VFM Section 3.15 front Toronto never established all of the necessary to ensure that the needs of the public would be processes to do this. This may have been partly put first and foremost, so that the full potential of because it never had any real authority to stop pro- Canada’s largest city—a city by the lake—could be jects it believed were not consistent with its vision realized. That entity was Waterfront Toronto. of a world-class transformation of Toronto’s water- Successful oversight requires that the overseer front.
  • Villiers Island Precinct Plan

    Villiers Island Precinct Plan

    Attachment 2 - Part 1 VILLIERS ISLAND PRECINCT PLAN SEPTEMBER 2017 W VILLIERS ISLANDW PRECINCT PLAN W Architecture & Landscape Architecture 08.11.15 VILLIERS ISLAND PRECINCT PLAN W Architecture & Landscape Architecture 08.11.15 Waterfront Toronto, the City of Toronto and the Villiers Island precinct planning team gratefully acknowledge the consultation and participation of representatives of the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation in the preparation and this precinct Plan. We also thank all participant from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and the Landowners and Users Advisory Committee for their continued input throughout the precinct planning process. SECTION 1 SETTING THE CONTEXT SECTION 2 VISION AND STRUCTURING MOVES 1.1 Overview and Purpose 1 2.1 Precinct Plan Vision 24 1.1.1 Introduction 1 1.1.2 The Port Lands Planning Framework 2 2.2 Guiding Principles 26 1.1.3 Precinct Planning 2 1.1.4 Interpretation of the Precinct Plan 2 2.3 Climate Positive Precinct 27 1.1.5 Structure of the Document 3 2.3.1 Climate Positive Framework 27 1.2 Planning Policy Context 5 2.4 Villiers Island Development Plan 28 1.2.1 Provincial Policy Statement 5 1.2.2 The Growth Plan 5 2.5 Structuring Moves 30 1.2.3 City of Toronto Official Plan 5 1.2.4 Making Waves – Central Waterfront Secondary Plan 6 2.6 Character Areas 32 1.2.5 Port Lands Planning Framework 6 2.6.1 Keating Channel Promenade and Old Cherry Street 35 1.2.6 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA and 2.6.2 Harbourside and New Cherry Street 41 Lower Don Lands Infrastructure
  • 324 Cherry Street & 429 Lake Shore Boulvard East

    324 Cherry Street & 429 Lake Shore Boulvard East

    STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 324 Cherry Street & 429 Lake Shore Boulvard East – Draft Plan of Subdivision Application – Request for Direction Report Date: May 28, 2018 To: Toronto and East York Community Council From: Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District Wards: Ward 28 – Toronto Centre-Rosedale Reference 16 271924 STE 28 SB Number: SUMMARY This report reviews the draft plan of subdivision application (16 271924 STE 28 SB) for the subject site located at 324 Cherry Street and 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East. The draft plan of subdivision application was submitted in anticipation of the Official Plan Modification and Zoning Bylaw Amendment approved by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) on December 22, 2017. The draft plan of subdivision application was received on December 30, 2016 for 324 Cherry Street and 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and proposes to subdivide the 5.76 hectare site into seven blocks. This application establishes the primary street network, including two new public north-south streets, two new public east- west streets, five development blocks, and two park blocks that collectively provide approximately 0.35 hectares of waterfront promenade parkland. Staff report for action – Final Report – Staff report for action – Request for Direction – 324 Cherry Street and 429 Lake Shore Boulvard East Draft Plan of Subdivison Application. 1 V.05/13 On November 27, 2017, the applicant appealed their subdivision application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) on the grounds that the approval authority has failed to make a decision on the application within the prescribed timelines of the Planning Act. A pre-hearing conference related to this matter has yet to be scheduled by the Tribunal.
  • Uqql Initial Business Case Report Final.Docx

    Uqql Initial Business Case Report Final.Docx

    City of Toronto Union Station – Queens Quay Transit Link Study Initial Business Case Final | April 1, 2019 This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. Job number 265754-00 Arup Canada Inc. 2 Bloor Street East Suite 2400 Toronto ON M4W 1A8 Canada www.arup.com Document Verification Job title Union Station – Queens Quay Transit Link Study Job number 265754-00 Document title Initial Business Case File reference Document ref Revision Date Filename UQQL Initial Business Case Report v1.docx Draft 1 Mar 5, Description First draft 2019 Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Stuart Hamre Felipe Camargo Marc-Paul Gauthier Signature Draft 2 Mar 15, Filename UQQL Initial Business Case Report v2.docx 2019 Description Second draft Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Stuart Hamre Felipe Camargo Marc-Paul Gauthier Signature Final Apr 1, Filename UQQL Initial Business Case Report v3.docx 2019 Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Marc-Paul Gauthier Daniel Haufschild Daniel Haufschild Signature Filename Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Signature Issue Document Verification with Document | Final | April 1, 2019 | Arup Canada Inc. UQQL INITIAL BUSINESS CASE REPORT FINAL.DOCX City of Toronto Union Station – Queens Quay Transit Link Study Initial Business Case Contents Page 1 Executive Summary 1 2 The Case for Change 5 2.1 Problem and opportunity
  • Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal D’Appel De L’Aménagement Local

    Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal D’Appel De L’Aménagement Local

    Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local ISSUE DATE: March 08, 2021 CASE NO(S).: PL030514 The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended Appellant: See Schedule “1” Subject: New Official Plan for the City of Toronto, as adopted by By-law No. 1082-2002 Municipality: City of Toronto LPAT Case No.: PL030412 LPAT File No.: PL030412 (various files see Schedule “1”) LPAT Case Name: 3C Lakeshore Inc. v. Toronto (City) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended Appellant: See Schedule “2” Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 257 Municipality: City of Toronto LPAT Case No.: PL030514 LPAT File No.: O030096 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Appellant: See Schedule “3” Subject: By-law No. 1049-2006 Municipality: City of Toronto LPAT Case No.: PL030514 LPAT File No.: R060297 2 PL030514 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: 3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot) Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: Central and East Bayfront Proposed Designation: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit Commercial and Residential uses Property Address/Description: 429 Lakeshore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 05 171818 STE 28 OZ LPAT Case No.: PL060106 LPAT File No.: O060034 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.

  • Escribe Agenda Package

    ​ Executive Committee Meeting Agenda #7/15 July 3, 2015 9:30 A.M. HEAD OFFICE, 101 EXCHANGE AVENUE, VAUGHAN Members: Maria Augimeri Michael Di Biase David Barrow Ronald Chopowick Vincent Crisanti Glenn De Baeremaeker Chris Fonseca Jennifer Innis Colleen Jordan George Mammoliti Mike Mattos Jennifer O'Connell Pages 1. MINUTES OF MEETING #6/15, HELD ON JUNE 5, 2015 http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/208219.pdf 2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 4. DELEGATIONS 5. PRESENTATIONS 6. CORRESPONDENCE 1 7. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION 7.1 CITY OF PICKERING 9 Request for a Permanent Easement Lake Ontario Waterfront CFN 54047 7.2 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 - 2015 12 Flood Plain and Conservation Component Teefy Developments Ltd. CFN 53336 7.3 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 - 2015 15 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed, Shell Canada Limit CFN 54025 8. SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTION 8.1 HOSPICE VAUGHAN 18 Proposed Lease or Sale of Land City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River Watershed 52745 8.2 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARINGS 20 Requests for Approval to proceed to the OMB 8.3 CANADA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL AND ITS GREATER TORONTO 30 CHAPTER Continuation of Partnership Agreement 8.4 PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION AND ENABLING INFRASTRUCTURE 40 DUE DILIGENCE AND PROJECT PLANNING Award of Contract #10000581, Marine Engineering Services 8.5 MUD CREEK RESTORATION - REACH 5 (PHASE 2) - CREEK BYPASS 44 PUMPING SYSTEM Extension of Contract RSD14-103 8.6 G. ROSS LORD DAM PROJECT - BUILDING UPGRADES 46 Tender #10000576 9.
  • Joel Denomy Tel 416-495-5499 Enbridge Gas Inc

    Joel Denomy Tel 416-495-5499 Enbridge Gas Inc

    Joel Denomy tel 416-495-5499 Enbridge Gas Inc. Technical Manager [email protected] 500 Consumers Road Regulatory Applications North York, Ontario M2J 1P8 Regulatory Affairs Canada February 12, 2021 VIA EMAIL and RESS Ms. Christine Long Registrar Ontario Energy Board 2300 Yonge Street, 27th Floor Toronto, ON M4P 1E4 Dear Ms. Long: Re: Enbridge Gas Inc. (Enbridge Gas) Ontario Energy Board (OEB) File: EB-2020-0198 NPS 20 Waterfront Relocation Project (Project) – Reply Submission In accordance with Procedural Order No. 5 dated January 29, 2021, enclosed please find Enbridge Gas’ Reply submission in the above noted proceeding. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. Yours truly, Joel Denomy Technical Manager, Regulatory Applications cc: G. Pannu – Counsel - Enbridge Gas Inc. S. Stoll – Counsel - Aird & Berlis LLP Intervenors (EB-2020-0198) Filed: 2021-02-12 EB-2020-0198 EGI Reply Submission Page 1 of 15 Plus Attachment ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF The Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.15, Schedule B, and in particular, S.90.(1) and S.97 thereof; AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Enbridge Gas Inc. for an Order granting leave to construct natural gas pipelines in the City of Toronto. ENBRIDGE GAS INC. RESPONDING SUBMISSIONS TO PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 5 Introduction 1. Enbridge Gas Inc. (“Enbridge Gas”) is responding to the Ontario Energy Board’s (“OEB” or the “Board”) questions provided in Procedural Order No. 5 and the submissions of the various parties responding to such questions. In considering the questions posed by the Board, Enbridge Gas submits the responses to the questions must be considered in light of the Board’s statutory objectives and the public interest considerations that it is legally obliged to consider in a leave to construct application.