I
i
TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
MASTER PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A - Public Particoation APPENDIX B - Keating Channel Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX C - Surficial Soil Contamination Survey of Leslie Street Spit 1989
JUNE 1989
the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority I
Appendix A - Public Participation
Table of Contents
1. Public Participation Summary
2. Purpose
3. Studv Approach 3. 1 Introduction
4. Phase I - Zone Identification 4. 1 Overview of Phase I 4.2 Task Force 4.2. 1. Introduction 4.2.2. Major Tasks
4.3 Task Force Meeting # 1/ 83 ( May 16, 1983) 4.4 Task Force Meeting # 2/ 83 ( June 30, 1983) 4.5 Task Force Meeting # 1/ 84 ( March 8, 1984) 4. 6 Phase I Public Meeting ( May 3, 1984) 4.7 Task Force Meeting # 2/ 84 ( May 28, 1984) 4.8 Phase I Public Meeting ( June 18, 1984) 4.9 Task Force Meeting # 3/ 84 ( December 13, 1984) 4. 10 Task Force Meeting # 1/ 85 ( June 5, 1985) 4. 11 Public Information Centres June 24, 25, 27, 1985) 4. 12 Task Force Meeting # 2/ 85 ( September 5, 1985) 4. 13 W.R.L.M.A.B. Meeting # 4/ 85 September 6, 1985) 4. 14 Authority Meeting ( November 29, 1985)
5. Phase II - Alternative Development Components 5. 1 Overview of Phase II 5.2 Potential Site Uses Survey 5.3 Potential Site Uses Public Meeting ( June 17, 1986) 5. 4 Revised Site Uses Program 5. 5 W.R.L.M.A.B. Meeting ( September 19, 1986)
6. Phase III - Concept Plan Development 6. 1 Overview of Phase III 6.2 Public Workshop ( September 27, 1986) 6.3 Phase III Public Meeting ( November 27, 1986) 6.4 W.R.L.M.A.B. Meeting ( December 5, 1986) 6. 5 Authority Meeting (January 23, 1987) 7. Phase IV - Master Plan 7. 1 Overview of Phase IV 7.2 Natural Area Advisory Committee 7.2. 1 Purpose 7.2.2 Committee Representation 7.2.3 Committee Process 7.2.4 Summary of the Committees Findings
7.3 Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee 7.3. 1 Purpose 7. 3.2 Membership 7.3.3 Process 7.3.4 Summary of Meetings
7.4 Government Agency Comments 7.5 W.R.L.M.A.B. Meeting # 8/ 87 ( January 14, 1988) 7. 6 Authority Meeting # 9/ 87 ( January 29, 1988) List of Figures
FIGURE 3. 1 Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Study Approach
FIGURE 4. 1 Master Planning Zone: Option # 1
FIGURE 4. 2 Master Planning Zone: Option # 2
FIGURE 4.3 Master Planning Zone: Option # 3
FIGURE 6. 1 Table 1 - Concept Plan
FIGURE 6.2 Table 2 - Concept Plan
FIGURE 6.3 Table 3 - Concept Plan
FIGURE 6.4 Table 4 - Concept Plan - Proposal 1
FIGURE 6.4A Table 4 - Concept Plan - Proposal 2
FIGURE 6.5 Table 5 - Concept Plan
FIGURE 6.7 Table 6 - Concept Plan
FIGURE 6.8 Table 7 - Concept Plan
FIGURE 6.9 Table 9 - Concept Plan
FIGURE 6. 10 Table 11 - Concept Plan
FIGURE 6. 11 Revised Concept Plan " D" (December, 1986)
FIGURE 7. 1 Representative Ecosystem by Community Type
FIGURE 7.2 Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Concept Plan ( October, 1987)
FIGURE 7.3 Authority Approved Master Plan January, 1988)
FIGURE 7.3A Authority Approved Master Plan January, 1988) List of Tables
TABLE 5. 1 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK - PHASE II PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY
TABLE 6.1 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK CONCEPT PLAN - PUBLIC WORKSHOP SUMMARY MORNING AND AFTERNOON SESSION) SEPTEMBER 27, 1986
Exhibits
EXHIBIT 4. 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AQUATIC PARK" - GLOBE AND MAIL APRIL 30, 1984
EXHIBIT 4.2 LETTER - R. I. BURGAR ( M.N.R.) DATED MAY 7, 1984
EXHIBIT 4.3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AQUATIC PARK" - TORONTO SUN JUNE 4, 1984
EXHHBIT 4.4 PUBLIC MEETING NEWS RELEASE - ISSUED JUNE 5, 1984 FOR PUBLIC MEETING - JUNE 18, 1984 PHASE I)
EXHIBIT 4.5 NOTICE OF INFORMATION CENTRES AQUATIC PARK" TOMMY THOMPSON PARK TORONTO STAR, SUNDAY, JUNE 16, 1985
EXIMIf 4.6 LETTERS RECEIVED FROM WILMA HARNIMAN - JULY-27, 1985 PETER AND ALLISON LOWENS RECD AUGUST 1, 1985 NEVILLE AND DORIS WOOD - JULY 18, 1985 ELIZABETH MATHESON - JULY 28, 1985
EXIMrr 4.7 FORM LETTER - ST. JAMESTOWN SAILING CLUB DATED JUNE 21, 1985
EXHIBIT 4.8 SUBMISSION BY B. K. BERTIE AND H. MACKEY- JULY 31, 1985
EXHBIT 4.9 SUBMISSION BY THE BOARD OF TRADE OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO - JULY 29 1985
EXHHBIT 4. 10 SUBMISSION BY FRIENDS OF THE SPff JULY 29, 1985
EXHIBIT 4.11 SUBMISSION BY THE OUTER HARBOUR SAILING FEDERATION - JULY 29, 1985
I
i EXHIBIT 4. 12 STAFF COMMUNICATION - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK MASTER PLANNING ZONES - PHASE I SEPTEMBER 6, 1985
EXHIBIT 4. 13 MINUTES OF FULL AUTHORITY MEETING 09185 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK - PHASE 1 REPORT
EXHIBIT 5. 1 POTENTIAL SITE USES AND FACILITIES SURVEY - PHASE II
EXHIBIT 5.2 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK CONCEPT PLAY PUBLIC INPUT PHASE II - ALTERNATIVE SITE USES"AND FACILITIES - NOTICE TORONTO SUN, MARCH 14, 1986
EXHIBIT 5.3 SUBMISSIONS ON POTENTIAL SITE USES AND FACILITIES OUTER HARBOUR SAILING FEDERATION APRIL 8, 1986 MARION BRYDEN, MPP, BEACHES-WOODBINE MARCH 12, 1986
EXHIBIT 5.4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TOMMY THOMPSON PARK, CONCEPT PLAN PHASE II - POTENTIAL SITE USES GLOBE AND MAIL - JUNE 16, 1986
EXHIBIT 5.5 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK USE PROGRAM AS PRESENTED JUNE 17, 1986
EXHIBIT 5.6 SUBMISSIONS REGARDING PHASE II REPORT POTENTIAL SITE USES FRIENDS OF THE SPIT - JULY, 1986 TORONTO FIELD NATURALISTS - JULY 11986 DEREK QUIN - SEPTEMBER 6, 1986 AQUATIC PARK SAILING CLUB - JULY 17, 1986 PAUL AND VICTORIA MIDGLEY - JULY 14, 1986 TORONTO MULTIHULL CRUISING CLUB JULY 8, 1986 EXHIBIT 5.7 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK REVISED SITE USE PROGRAM - SEPTEMBER, 1986
EXHIBIT 6. 1 PUBLIC WORKSHOP NOTICE - PHASE III
EXHIBIT 6.2 PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE: PHASE III ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT PLANS
EXHIBIT 63 STAFF REPORT - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK CONCEPT PLAN - WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD# 6/ 86
EXHIBIT 6.4 AUTHORITY MEETING # 9/ 86 MINUTES TOMMY THOMPSON PARK CONCEPT PLAN
EXHIBIT 7.1 ECOLOGICAL PLANNING - ABSTRACT TOMMY THOMPSON PARK BY E.D.A. COLLABORATIVE
EXHIBIT 7.2 NATURAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE POINTS OF AGREEMENT - OCTOBER, 1987
EXHIBIT 7.3 CONCEPT PLAN COMMENTS - GOVERNMENT AGENCIES METROPOLITAN TORONTO WORKS - JUNE 30, 1987 METROPOLITAN TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT - JULY 3, 1987 METROPOLITAN TORONTO PARKS AND PROPERTY DEPARTMENT - JUNE 8, 1987 MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES - JULY 8, 1987
EXHIBIT 7.4 MASTER PLAN COMMENTS - GOVERNMENT AGENCIES MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES JANUARY 28, 1988
EXHIBIT 7.5 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TOMMY THOMPSON PARK MASTER PLAN PHASE IV - TORONTO STAR JANUARY 5, 1988
EXHIBIT 7.6 STAFF REPORT - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK MASTER PLAN. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD# 8/ 87
EXHIBIT 7. 7 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES - MEETING # 8/ 87 JANUARY 14, 1988
E CEUBIT 7.8 AUTHORITY MINUTES OF MEETING # 9/ 87 JANUARY 29, 1988 Appendix B - Keating Channel Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents
B. 1 Overview
B2 Notice of Acceptance of E.A.
B3 Schedule 1 - Proposed Conditions
Exhibits
EXHIBIT B- 1 KEATING CHANNEL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT- NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SECTION 9) - MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
EXHIBIT B- 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE - KEATING CHANNEL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Appendix C - Surficial Soil Contamination Survey of Leslie Street Spit
Table of Contents
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 Surficial Soil Sampling Locations
FIGURE 2 TROW Borehole ( subsurface) Sampling Locations
FIGURE 3 Mercury Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Surficial Soil I FIGURE 4 Mercury Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Subsurface Soil
FIGURE 5 Cadmium Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Surficial Soil
FIGURE 6 Lead Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Surficial Soil
FIGURE 7 Lead Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Subsurface Soil
FIGURE 8 PCB Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Surficial Soil
FIGURE 9 PCB Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Surficial Soil
FIGURE 10 _ PCB Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Subsurface Soil
FIGURE 11 PCB Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Subsurface Soil
FIGURE 12 Surficial Soil Action Map List of Tables
TABLE 1 Ontario Ministry of Environment's Draft Clean-up Guidelines for Parkland and Draft Restricted Land Use Guidelines for Lakefilling Activities
TABLE 2 Replicate Lead Analysis
TABLE 3 Summary of Surficial and Subsurface Soil Analysis
TABLE 4 Leslie Street Spit Trow Borehole Results Depth 0 - 3 m 1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
The landmass at the foot of Leslie Street known as Tommy Thompson Park has been the topic of much public debate since the introduction of the 1976 Master Plan for the Park . The 1976 master plan was quickly out- dated due to rapidly changing site conditions , resolution of the ownership/ land configuration , and responsibility for final armouring of the headland .
In 1984 , the MTRCA initiated a new master planning process with a commitment to involve the public throughout the development of a master plan for the Park. This report is a documentation of the public participation during the Master
Plan process and preparation .
Sample copies of the public submissions have been included as part of this documentation; however if further information is required , all written submissions for each phase concerning the Park are available at the Authority ' s office .
I 2. PURPOSE
The area now known as Tommy Thompson Park, at the foot of Leslie Street , has undergone rapid changes since it 's inception as a landfill site for material from construction sites in downtown Toronto . Changing trends in the shipping industry altered the original intent of expansion of the
commercial shipping port , to a disposal site for rubble and dredgeate material .
Through the process of natural succession , plant and wildlife species began to establish themselves at the disposal site . There are several theories as to how and why certain species have come to exist on this man- made landmass ; however , the present situation is that the site has evolved naturally, thereby creating an environment which is unique to Toronto ' s central waterfront area . As a result of rapidly changing site characteristics , this site has become an increasingly popular site for naturalists , cyclists , pedestrians , and sailors/ boardsailors .
The character of the park is unique to the City of Toronto . It is connected to land but sufficiently removed to provide an " escape" from the city environment . In -order to prepare a master plan highlighting the site ' s natural characteristics , and waterfront potential , the Authority initiated a comprehensive study with public involvement during each pahse and at critical decision- making points . The Authority ' s goals for the Tommy Thompson Park as established (Section 5 ) are :
1 . TO CONSERVE AND ! MANAGE THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF THE SITE.
2. TO PROVIDE A UNIQUE, WATER—ORIENTED OPEN SPACE WHICH
WILL ASSIST IN MEETING REGIONAL RECREATION NEEDS.
3. TO DEVELOP PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT AND TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
IN PARTICULAR.
4 . TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR TOMMY THOMPSON PARK WHICH IS
COGNIZANT OF THE POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA. i 3. STUDY APPROACH
3 . 1 INTRODUCTION
In 1976 , a master plan promoting extensive public recreation facilities including boating was prepared and approved in
principle by various government agencies . However , due to
unforeseen rapidly changing site conditions (through the
natural succession of plant and wildlife species ) the master
plan no longer reflected the site characteristics and its
users . In 1983 , a new master planning process was initiated by the MTRCA. To assist the Authority, the Aquatic Park Planning Task Force was established . This task force acted as a liaison with those agencies or groups concerned with the
park . Representation on this Task Force included :
Metropolitan Toronto Works Department , Metropolitan Toronto
Parks and Property , Metropolitan Toronto Planning , City of Toronto Planning , Toronto Harbour Commissioners , Ministry of Natural Resources , Ministry of the Environment , Ministry of
Tourism and Recreation .
The study approach for Tommy Thompson Park involved a review
of site data , user demand , establishment of contraints and
opportunities , preparation of alternative concepts , all of
which resulted in the presentation of an approved master
plan . This study approach involved another key component , that of the opportunity for comprehensive public input .
The new master planning process involved five phases . During each of the phases important key public planning issues were presented and comments received through an
extensive public participation program . This program had
been established from the beginning of the project in
1984 . Public involvement throughout the master plan project was formally initiated on May 3 , 1984 with a public meeting at Toronto City Hall . An introductory pamphlet was distributed which explained the nature of the project and the importance and opportunity for public input throughout the master plan development stages . The five phases , formally presented at the meeting , were as follows :
PHASE I Zone Identification
PHASE II Alternative Development Components
PHASE III Concept Plan Development
PHASE IV Master Plan
PHASE V Report and Approvals
Each of these above phases will be described in the following sections with respect to the submissions received from concerned individuals , groups , and agencies , and the subsequent decisions reached at each one of these phases .
The public participation program and key decision points by the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board and the Authority are outlined on Fig . 3 . 1 . PARK 111 1 987 3. 1, 1988 A(. 1988 155 174Ae PIANNING FEB.. ,,..JAN,,, JAN. NOV. R APPRO, FIGURE L- HOMPSONrl"
MASFI" STUDY R REVISED lI TOMMY IA, APPROVAIjS AND V PHASEREPORT
1",
4
l"
J '
JAN
P
i I K7 1l)
l,,
M i"
11
F Pk A R Rl 1A i 1 PLAN Tj% R I P IV R ltd llt
AiN PHASE MAS' J
I'LOPNMENN
I
DEV' I IAM V
1 AN Pl.,, III EPT PHASE CON(*
X
T'
DEVELOPMEN S
V, 11 it4, fI5, C k A M
8 PHASEALTERNATINTECOMPONENT' fF
rv,
1 P k,,
c
ll AlI' A - 11- Nf"
Z( ) III
4. PHASE I - ZONE IDENTIFICATION
4 . 1 OVERVIEW OF PHASE I
During Phase I of this project , a special Aquatic Park Planning Task Force was assembled to provide a broad range of expertise and to assist the Authority in the preparation of a master plan for what is now known as Tommy Thompson Park.
Two p ublic meetingsg , and an information centre were held in
Phase I .
i
The first public meeting served as an introduction to the master planning process for Aquatic Park ( now known as Tommy Thompson Park ) . Highlighted within this presentation was a site history , an explanation of current status of the project , and an outline of the submissions received up until May 3 , 1984, regarding some of the initial views of special interest groups and the public .
The second public meeting , held in June , 1984 , provided another opportunity for public input during the initiation of the master planning process .
Authority staff prepared a draft report entitled "Aquatic Park Master Planning Zones" incorporating the public ' s concerns and MTRCA' s goals/ objectives to formulate three
Planning Zones and Options for the Park .
This draft report was presented to the Planning Task Force for comment and review on December 13, 1984 . The final form of the Phase I report was presented to the Task Force on June
5, 1985 , after changes were made reflecting the plans and policies of the various agencies on the Task Force .
Authority staff held a three day public information centre in order to communicate on an informal basis to the public the Phase I report . This public information centre program
was advertised extensively with only thirty- two people attending over a three day period . However , over one hundred and thirty- three written submissions , expressing their development views for the park, were received, until August 2, 1985 , by the Authority .
A Task Force meeting was held on September 5, 1985 - to review the public comments received on the master planning zones report . Based on the results of the public input process , Authority staff suggested that the Master Planning Zone
Option III" be recommended to the Water & Related Land Management
Advisory Board meeting of September 6 , 1985 . At the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board meeting the Authority' s staff ' s recommendations , as cited in the Staff ' s communication ,
were approved .
On November 29 , 1985 an Authority meeting was held , at which time the following resolution was carried .
Res. 4148
THAT the staff report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan Master Planning Zones - Phase I Report and public/ Task Force comments be received;
THAT the staff be directed to proceed with Phase II and III of the study approach as approved by the Authority and Task Force, ensuring full and active public participation and to identify and evaluate further the components for the needs and requirements and merits for both Options 1 and 3.
Phase I - Zone Identification
Task Force Meeting 1 ( # 1/ 83 ) May 16, 1983 Task Force Meeting 2 ( # 2/ 83) June 30 , 1983
Task Force Meeting 3 ( # 1/ 84) March 8 , 1984 Public Meeting May 3 , 1984
Task Force Meeting 4 ( # 2/ 84 ) May 28 , 1984
Public Meeting June 18 , 1984
Task Force Meeting 5 ( # 3/ 84 ) December 13 , 1984
Task Force Meeting 6 ( # 1/ 85) June 5, 1985
Public Information Centres June 24 , 25 , 27 , 1985
Task Force Meeting 7 ( # 2/ 85) September 5 , 1985
W. R. L. M. A. B. ( # 4/ 85 ) September 6 , 1985
Authority Meeting ( #9/ 85) November 29 , 1985 4 . 2 TASK FORCE
4 . 2 . 1 Introduction
The Aquatic Park Planning Task Force is unique t o f hiS
project ; it was created by the Executive Committee of
the MTRCA in 1983 . The purpose of this Task Force was to provide technical input and to assist the Authority in the preparation of a master plan for the area known
now as Tommy Thompson Park .
The following agencies were invited to appoint
representatives ; Metropolitan Toronto Parks and
Property Department , the Metropolitan Toronto Works Department , the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department , the City of Toronto Planning Department , The Toronto Harbour Commissioners , the Ministry of
Natural Resource , the Ministry of the Environment , and
the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation .
4 . 2 . 2 Major Tasks
Tn providing input and assistance to the MTRCA throughout the master planning process , the Task Force was charged with the following major functions :
1 . to provide technical expertise and advice to
the MTRCA throughout the master planning
process ;
2 . to present the stated positions of their
respective municipalities/ agencies , when
appropriate ; 3 . to ensure that appropriate staff , other then
themselves , at their respective
municipalities/ agencies are adequately
informed throughout the process ;
4 . to review the membership of the Task Force and make suggestions for expansion or
contraction as the Task Force sees fit or as
situations present themselves;
5 . to provide comment and input to the
suggestions brought to the Task Force ;
6. to assist in the identification of current , outstanding issues involving the Aquatic Park area and make suggestions as to appropriate
ways of resolving them;
7 . to comment on the adequacy of the study area in light of the interests and positions .of
their respective municipalties/ agencies ;
8 . to receive written comment and hear delegations as input into the planning
process , when appropriate , and to make
suggestions thereon to MTRCA staff ;
9 . to assist the MTRCA in presentations/ public
forums , where appropriate ;
I
I 4. 3 TASK FORCE MEETING # 1/ 83 ( May 16 , 1983 )
The first meeting of the Task Force was held on May 16 , 1983 to discuss the overall approach to the preparation of the new master plan . Questions were raised as to the public ' s participation role in the Task Force meetings and it was decided that these meetings would be open to the public by invitation only. Input and discussion at the public meetings would provide a better opportunity for involvement during the planning process .
During the meeting a time frame for the master plan development study was projected to be 12 - 2 years . All questions from the public and press regarding the park would be handled by Authority staff . The public was to be invited to participate , allowing for public involvement in the overall planning process .
Some of the major unresolved issues resulting from the 1976 Aquatic Park Master Plan were reviewed and re- evaluated . These issues were as follows :
transfer of title for Aquatic Park to The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority ; armouring of the shoreline by the Toronto Harbour
Commission ;
securing of public roadway to Aquatic Park from the City of Toronto prior to any development
proceeding ; preparation of a phased implementation plan prior to any development proceeding ;
changing site conditions ;
people vs . birders" ;
boaters vs . birders" ;
cars vs . no cars on the Spit ; it
future uses of the north shore of the Outer
Harb o ur •
status of the dyed g eate cell s i n the planning for Aquatic
Park ;
funding .
The format and date of the first public meeting was discussed at great length . It was suggested that further meetings with major interest groups be held , in order to obtain a more detailed study direction . It was later decided that members of the public be invited to submit their comments at the first public meeting . Additional plans were initiated to provide background information packages to all those interested in the planning process . II I,
I!,
I 4. 4 TASK FORCE MEETING # 2/ 83 - ( JUNE 30 , 1983)
The second Task Force meeting was held on June 30 , 1983 at the Toronto Harbour Commissioners ' office .
The study limits of Aquatic Park were defined where major works could occur as a result of the master planning process .
The timing of the first public meeting was discussed and tentatively set for the beginning of September . Extensive discussions occured with respect to the meeting ' s proposed
format . It was agreed that the purpose of the first public meeting would be to inform the public of the master plan study by further expanding on the background information package material . Clarification as to the type of public
input required and the time frame for acceptance of written
submissions was discussed . 4. 5 TASK FORCE MEETING # 1/ 84 - ( MARCH 8 , 1984 )
On March 8 , 1984 the third Task Force meeting was held at the
Toronto- Harbour Commissioners ' offices . It was explained at this meeting that the proposed first public meeting which was to be held in September 1983, was delayed due to staffing changes at the MTRCA.
Correspondance received from the general public , sailing clubs , M. P. P. ' s and special interest groups between June 30 ,
1983 and March 1 , 1984 was summarized to the Task Force . A suggestion by Mr . Renwick , M. P. P. , Riverdale , was made to include a member of the Riverdale community on the Task Force . This suggestion was not accepted since it would alter the role of the Task Force . It was felt that the public would have ample opportunity for input during the planning process . A request from the Ontario Sailing Association to increase the number of moorings at the Aquatic Park Sailing Club was denied . The existing 100 moorings would remain in accordance with the Interim Use Program until completion of the master planning process .
The Aquatic Park ownership status and Aquatic Park limits were reviewed during this meeting as follows :
lease arrangement between THC and MNR for endikement
area ( May , 1983 ) ;
transfer of park lands from MNR to MTRCA;
transfer of MNR waterlots to THC ( Outer Harbour)
transfer of an area at the base to be used as a
public road allowance between the MTRCA/ THC/ City of
Toronto. The Keating Channel Dredgeate Disposal and Aquatic Park Landfill Programs were briefly presented at this meeting . A progress report of the disposal operations and a schedule for endikement construction for 1984 , 1985, and 1986 were presented to the Task Force for discussion purposes .
Mr . Roberts , Metro Parks and Property, requested that the MTRCA obtain a letter from the Minister of Natural- Resources , stating that there is no objection to include the leased land THC and MNR) in the master plan study . A written commitment from the Minister to transfer these leased lands
to the MTRCA should also be obtained .
The outline of the Aquatic Park Master Plan Study Approach
was presented to the Task Force . Upon discussion of the
study approach , the Task Force agreed that :
The interim user meeting be replaced by a public
consultation program; Biophysical inventory and analysis to be included as
part of Phase I ; A general public meeting be held before the end of April with the distribution of an introductory pamphlet and request the public to submit briefs to
the Task Force .
The study approach as presented by staff was accepted as the process for the Aquatic Park Master Plan with only a few
minor amendments .
An introductory pamphlet was prepared for distribution.
I 4. 6 FIRST PUBLIC MEETING - MAY 3 , 1984
The first public meetingtin was held on Mayy 3, 1984 at Toronto City Hall to present background information on Aquatic Park and the MTRCA study approach for the preparation of the
Aquatic Park Master Plan . One hundred and twenty people attended this public meeting .
The public was invited to attend the meeting through newspaper advertisements in The Toronto Sun and The Toronto
Star on April 29 , 1984 , and in The Globe and Mail on
April 30 , 1984 ( see Exhibit 4 . 1 ) . Notices regarding the meeting were also sent out through the MTRCA' s mailing list to interested individuals and groups .
Some major public concerns and questions outlined at the meeting were as follows :
1 . Steve Varga , Federation of Ontario Naturalists
special interest groups should be provided with
same information as Task Force ; interest group representation on the Task
Force should be expanded ; timing for public input .
2 . Dave MacMillan, Friends of The Spit requested a sign be placed at entrance to Aquatic Park outlining the process for public
involvement ; questioned the use of newspaper notification for
the next public meeting ; if the THC lands contained within the planning area will those lands be included in the MTRCA
study. 3 . Mary Smith , Toronto Field Naturalists
requested a change in the planning process to have interest groups and users map their
preferred uses at Aquatic park.
4 . Rob Herman , Aquatic Park Sailing Club enjoys the location of the sailing club;
naturalists and sailors enjoy the same natural
amenities , but sailors need improved
facilities .
Written submissions were also received at the meeting from the following groups ;
Toronto Field Naturalists
Toronto Multihull Cruising Club Ontario Sailing Association
Outer Harbour Centreboard Club
Mooredale Sailing Club Toronto Outer Harbour Sailing Federation
Toronto Catamaran Club
List of Speakers
Steve Varga - Federation of Ontario Naturalists
Dave MacMillan - Friends of the Spit
Jack Smith - Outer Harbour Centreboard Club
Danny Masialeh - East York Collegiate Institute Mary Smith - Toronto Field Naturalists
Roy Merrens - Beaches Marathon Runners Association Bill Patterson - Aquatic Park Sailing Club
Malcolm Gilbert - Toronto Field Naturalists and
Friends of the Spit
Alf Jenkins - Ontario Sailing Associations
Nigel Watts - Outer Harbour Centerboard Club
Marion Bryden - M. P. P. , Beaches Woodbine
Rob Herman - Aquatic Park Sailing Club
John Lee - Sierra Club
Keith Morgan - Aquatic Park Sailing Club Exhibit 4. 1 Notice of Public Meeting Aquatic Park - Globe and
Mail. April 30, 1984.
i NOTICE Of PUBLIC MEETING AQUATIC PARK"
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY has initiated o molter plan exercise for Aquatic Park. The Authority Is being assisted by the Aquatic Pork Planning Task Force which is comprised of representatives from several government agencies— City of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto, Toronto Harbour Commissioners, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.
The Authority invites all interested public to attend on information public meeting to be held
DATE: Thursday, May 3. 1964 TIME: 7: 30P. M. PLACE: Toronto City Holt Council Chambers
The purpose of the meeting will be to: present the master pion process and opportunities for the public' s involvement distribute an information pomphlet provide an opportunity for the public to obtain clari• fication on the Aquatic Pork Master Plan process outline a process to assist the public and interest groups in preparing future submissions to the Au- thority and Task Force.
YOUR PARTICIPATION IS VITAL TO THE PREPA- RATION OF THE AQUATIC PARK MASTER PLAN.
Should You require further information prior to the meeting, please contact*
LARRY FIELD— Protect Co-ordinator
661- 6600 , 4 . 7 TASK FORCE MEETING # 2/ 84 ( MAY 28', 1984 )
The Aquatic Park Planning Task Force met on May 28, 1984 to evaluate the comments and submissions received from the May 3 , 1984 public meeting and to discuss the agency policies on Tommy Thompson Park.
A letter from R. Burgar , Assistant Deputy Minister , Ministry of Natural Resources , was received by the Task Force ( see
Exhibit 4 . 2 ) . This letter stated that ;
1 . MNR' s ultimate objective is to transfer ownership of the lands presently under lease to the THC to the
MTRCA;
2 . The MTRCA should assume responsibility for the interim management of the lands under MTRCA
ownership . I
The May 3, 1984 public meeting was reviewed and the public comments assessed , resulting in the following actions ;
It was agreed that agendas , minutes , and reports to
the Task Force would be made available to all
interested parties ;
The Task Force agreed that base maps be made
available to interest groups ;
All meetings be open to the public and that notices
be sent to all on the MTRCA mailing list .
Authority staff should advise the committee on the proposed format for future meetings and public input
into the decision making process of the Master
Plan ;
The MTRCA should erect an appropriate sign at
Aquatic Park . Exhibit 4.2 Letter - R. J. Burgar M.N.R.) May 7. 1984
y May 7, 1984
Mr. W. A. McLean A/ General Manager Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shorehar Drive Downsvlew, Ontario H3ia 1S4
Dear hr. McLean:
Thank you for your letter of parch 28, 1984 regarding the future ownership, and responsibility for interim management, of those lands at Aquatic Park which are currently subject to a lease agreement between this Ministry and the Toronto Harbour Commission.
As you are aware, Cabinet specified in 1977 that the title of those lands and waters required for Aquatic Park should be transferred to your Conservation Authority as soon as the natter of armouring and stabilizing the external shoreline had been resolved. You are also aware that the Outer Harbour Headland has been leaned to the Toronto Harbour Commission for a ten year period. This lease was undertaken as an interim measure only, and was intended to ensure agreement between this ministry and the agency directly responsible for the creation and stabilization of the land base. Our ultimate objective, of transferring ownership of the subject lands to the 11TRCA, however, remains unchanged. ue are aware that the Toronto Harbour Commission has traditionally held responsibility for the control of interim management of the subject lands. Since the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority will ultimately hold ownership over these lands, it would seen reasonable that the Authority should also assume responsiblity for the interim management of these lands. I have noted your intentions to assume complete responsibility of the interim management program as of January 1, 1985. Although I foresee no problems with this transfer of responsibility, I Would request that you consult closely with the staff of the Central Region office, in the intervening period, to finalize the mechanisms through which the interim management program will be administered. ORtdiNAL SiGNfD By R, J. 13URGAR I B. J. Burger I G&" t. o S / Assistant Deputy Minister Southern Ontario Metro Requested that the land and water area to the
Works south of Ashbridge ' s Bay sewage treatment plant be reserved for expansion of tertiary treatment facilities with the specific requirement to be
determined in 1985 .
City of To facilitate the Interim Use Program the City Toronto will provide half of the funding or full Planning funding for the bus depending on the Authority' s Department - funding commitment ; Council policy for Aquatic Park was stated as :
supports park and open space uses
no wave pool on spit
Keating Channel E. A. is supported by
Neighbourhood Committee subject to MTRCA
considering SCOW proposal as part of E. A.
Addendum
Central Waterfront recommendations will go
to the Land Use Committee on June 13 , 1984
with Environment Resource Area and Open
Space Area ( permits boating and other
recreational uses ) designations .
A presentation was given by Task Force members reflecting the member ' s agency policy and plans for Tommy Thompson Park. These policies are outlined as follows by agency;
MINISTRY Minimum funding available for capital OF NATURAL development along the waterfront RESOURCES - Interest in maintaining landform by armouring Supports maintenance and improvement of the
natural resources .
MINISTRY No direct interest in park only as a supportive
OF THE function of the habitat (MNR) and as an
ENVIRONMENT approval agency for Environment Assessments Need for docking 4- 6 boats and associated
facilities for the Ministry' s Water Resource -
Great Lakes Unit MINISTRY OF - Requires public process which maximizes public TOURISM AND input and comment
RECREATION - All programs under review with emphasis on
multi- use facilities , community orientation Interest in user/ non- user participation in the
master plan process
METRO PARKS - Recognizes Aquatic Park as a regional resource
AND PROPERTY and requests regional access be provided to the
DEPARTMENT site
METRO
PLANNING Metro Plan policy statement with respect to
Aquatic Park will be forwarded to the MTRCA
TORONTO Concern with endikement/ shoreline stabilization
HARBOUR works and the 10 plus 10 year lease (commencing COMMISSIONERS May 1983 ) for landfilling and dredgeate disposal in the endikement cells
Offered a three year lease on Cherry Beach to the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Agreement with City for the Martin Goodman
Trail
THC proposal for a 1 , 200 berth fully serviced marina facility on their lands in the Outer
Harbour
Suggestion to MTRCA to accommodate Outer
Harbour Sailing Federation Sailing Clubs on Authority lands
MTRCA presented the Environmentally Significant Area
report on Aquatic Park , and the Authority ' s
water quality program.
Upon completion of this meeting Task Force members were requested to be present at the June 18 , 1984 public meeting at which time the results of this Task Force meeting would be presented to the public . 4 . 8 PHASE I PUBLIC MEETING ( JUNE 18 , 1984 )
The second public meeting was held on June 18 , 1984 at Toronto City Hall , to provide an opportunity for the public to present initial views and comments on the future uses of
Aquatic Park . There was an appreciable increase in attendance , from the first public meeting , demonstrating a growing public interest in the future public use of this site .
The public was informed about this meeting through advertisements in : The Toronto Star (June 3 , 1984 ) , The
Globe and Mail (June 2 , 1984 ) , The Toronto Sun ( June 4 , 1984 ) ,
see Exhibit 4 . 3 ) and Ward Nine News . Public notices were sent out to the local and regional municipalities in MTRCA' s watershed area . There were 400 notices (see Exhibit 4 . 4 ) distributed to the media , 500 notices were distributed at the park , and 150 notices sent to M . P. P. ' s and civic politicians .
The MTRCA erected a notice board at the entrance of the park , and utilized a direct mailing list to inform the public of the meeting .
The meeting began with the announcements of several changes resulting from suggestions put forth in the first public meeting (May 3 , 1984 ) . The changes were as follows :
the Aquatic Park Planning Task Force meetings would be open to the public ;
agendas , minutes , and reports of the Task Force would
be made available upon request ;
composition of Task Force not altered to accommodate
representation from some interest groups
a permanent sign erected at entrance of park as a
notice board ;
Task Force extended deadline for submissions until
June 29 , 1984 . Exhibit 4.3 Notice of Public Meeting Aquatic Park" - Toronto
Sun - June 4, 1984
I I
I' the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING ,
AQUATIC PARK" o
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, as part of the public consultation process in Phase I — Aquatic Park Master Plan, has arranged public meeting # 2 for
DATE: Monday, June 18, 1984 TIME: Starting at 6:00 P. M. PLACE: Toronto City Hall Council Chambers
The purpose of the meeting will be to: provide an opportunity for the public, interest groups, etc. to verbally present their interest in Aquatic Park and ideas on future use( s) to the Aquatic Park Planning Task Force. ALL PRESENTATIONS SHOULD BE APPROXI- MATELY FIVE ( 5) MINUTES.
submit written briefs to the Task Force.
The Task Force would request that all interested public obtain a presentation time by contacting:
LARRY FIELD — Manager Planning and Environment Section The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority or his Secretary 661- 6600 Exhibit 4.4 Public Meeting News Release
Issued June 5, 1984
re: Public Meeting
June 18, 1984 (Phase 1) THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY nEWS R 5 Shoreham Drive, North York, Ontario M3N 1S4 416) 661- 6600 Issued June 5, 1984)
M. T. R. C. A. SPONSORS PUBLIC MEETING ON AQUATIC PARK
TORONTO --- Do Yyou have anY ideas on how Aquaticq Park could be used in the future? If so, plan to attend the public meeting on Monday, June 18 , 1984 at Toronto City Hall Council Chambers, starting at 6 p. m. , and participate in the Aquatic Park
Master Plan.
The meeting, arranged by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, provides interested individuals and/ or groups with a chance to verbally present their views and to submit written briefs to the Aquatic Park Planning Task Force.
Often referred to as the Leslie St. Spit or the Eastern Headland, Aquatic Park extends in a southwesterly direction from the base
of Leslie St. into Lake Ontario. This 5 km long man- made peninsula has 120 hectares of land area and 94 hectares of water
area. The proposed landfill program would create another approximately 40 hectares of land.
For more information or to obtain a time for making your 5-
minute presentation, contact Larry Field, Manager, Water Resource
Division, at 661- 6600, extension 243. Fifty two people presented their individual or interest group' s views on the future of the park . Detailed written submissions received by the Task Force on June 18 , 1984 are available for review at the MTRCA office .
The following is a summary of some of the major public concerns presented during this meeting .
1 . Walter Haeberle , Outer Harbour Sail Federation OHSF feels that the Spit provides an opportunity for a number of uses including sailing ; zoning by the City of Toronto should not be a barrier to access the sailing areas .
2 . Mrs . W. Harniman , Toronto
Taxpayers ' money should not be spent to spoil
the natural state of the Spit ;
Spit should be maintained as a wildlife
sanctuary;
public should be better informed about environmental impacts of the marina and Keating Channel dredgeate disposal program on the Spit .
s . Dr . Nancy Dengler, Associate Professor, Department
of Botany of University of Toronto the diverse habitats presently on the headland be preserved ;
entire area under MTRCA control be maintained in
an undeveloped state ;
in consultation with educators from entire
education system ( primary to university) , an interpretative program be developed for the
park . 4 . Gale Cox , Toronto
Leslie Spit should be left alone in its natural
state ;
best plan for the Leslie Street Spit is no
plan .
Written submissions were received at the meeting from the following :
Gale Cox , Toronto, Ontario
Glen Norcliffe , Maple , Ontario
Herbert Kugel , Toronto, Ontario
Iry Geller , Toronto, Ontario
Bob Anglin , Toronto Power Squadrian
Maureen McKeen, Steven Poulus , Toronto Serpentrain
Marian Bryden , M. P. P. , Beaches- Woodbine
Lois Scott , Toronto, Ontario
David MacMillan, Friends of the Spit
Walter Haeberle , Outer Harbour Sailing Federation
Coleen Burke , St . Lawrence Neighbourhood
Association
Mary Smith , Toronto Field Naturalists
Roy Merrens , Toronto, Ontario
George Milne , Beaches Marathon Runner ' s Association
P. J. Costello, Westwood Sailing Club Brain Patterson , Aquatic Park Sailing Club Alf Jenkins , Ontario Sailing Club Dave Harrison, Mooredale Sailing Club Jerold Campbell , Toronto Multihull Cruising Club Bill Kay, St . Jamestown Sailing Club Bill Coffman, City of Toronto, Cycling Committee
Mrs . W. Harriman, Toronto, Ontario
John and Victoria Carley, Toronto, Ontario
David Fujiwara , Longboat Road Runners , and
University of Toronto Track Club
Michael Ferris , North Toronto Sailing Club Sam Craig , Hanlan Boat Club
Peter McQueen , Scarborough , Ontario
Mike Vollmer , Allied Boating Associations Don Gray , City of Toronto, Cycling Committee
Harold Bower , Toronto, Ontario
Joseph Ernest , Willowdale , Ontario
Verna Higgins , Botany Conservation Group University of Toronto)
Christine Masson, Sail Toronto
John Medwell
Ms . Merlin Andrew, President , Action Volunteers
John Lee , Conservation Chairman, Sierra Club of
Ontario
Peter Fetterolf , University of Toronto
Steve Reid , Toronto Catamaran Club
Kurt Rudzewski , Member of Aquatic Park Sailing Club Gaston Tessier , Canadian Wildlife Service
William Martin
Frank Chester
Joel Rotftein
Sarah Miller, Stop Contaminating Our Waterfront
Dr . Nancy Dengler, Associate Professor, Department of Botany, University of Toronto
Barrie DeZawaan
Albert Tucker
Lee Gold , Friends of the Spit ( Co- Chairman)
Janice Harniman
Steven Price , World Wildlife Fund
John Oliver, Outer Harbour Centreboard Club
Hugh Peters , Beaches President . 4 . 9 TASK FORCE MEETING # 3/ 84 ( DECEMBER 13 , 1984 )
Twenty four observers were present at the Planning Task Force meeting - at the MTRCA offices on December 13 , 1984 .
A summary of the June 18 , 1984 public meeting was presented to the Task Force . It was noted that 46 submissions were presented on the 18th and that 114 submissions were received by MTRCA staff after this meeting . The comments received were summarized as follows :
unique wilderness area - leave it alone ;
separate wildlife area non- motorized boating facilities for sailboats ,
canoes , and kayaks , etc . are compatible .
The Gull- Goose program for controlling the ring- billed gull
population was outlined to the Task Force . This program was
an extension of the 1984 gull- control on the endikement and creation of a Common Tern island at the end of Peninsula B. Ian Brown of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners outlined their plans for the development of the marina in the Outer Harbour . The THC had initiated a proposal call for the preparation of a feasibility study to be completed in spring of 1985. If this feasibility study proves favourable , then the THC would commence construction in 1986 .
The preliminary Planning Zones Phase I for Tommy Thompson were presented to the Task Force for comment . The comments
from the Task members for the Phase I report were requested to be forwarded to staff by the end of January , 1985 .
The public input format for the completion of Phase I was
discussed . The choices of format for a meeting to discuss the Phase I report were as follows :
l . - Public meeting forum; 2 . Open house format followed by a public meeting ; 3 . Open house followed by a time period for comments to be received by the Authority . 4 . 10 TASK FORCE MEETING 41/ 85 ( JUNE 5, 1985 )
The Authority' s resolution renaming the Aquatic Park as Tommy Thompson Park was announced to the Task Force . The advisory role of the Task Force did not change ( no approval function) .
Phase I report - Master Planning Zones was presented . This report reflected comments received from Task Force members on the Draft Report submitted in December 1984 to the Task Force . This report presented three planning options :
1 . Master Planning Zone Option 41 ( Fig . 4 . 1 Natural Resource Zone )
2 . Master Planning Zone Option # 2 ( Fig . 4 . 2 Recreation Zone )
3 . Master Planning Zone Option 43 ( Fig . 4 . 3 Natural Resources/ Recreation/ Long Term Development Zones ) .
The Task Force members were requested by the Authority to submit their comments , with respect to the Phase I report , prior to July 31 , 1985 .
A revised study schedule for the master plan development , containing tentative dates for future public meetings , was presented .
MTRCA staff presented their intentions to hold public information centres as part of public participation for Phase I . ii 4
mill
P 49
rxc. t vos
L
Mill
y
a AOUATIC PARK
SAW
I 1 I Zone . optiontion # Master Planning Figure 4. 1 1
t 4
1`".v`,. i a.` 4`\\,o ' N:' `: iFL i\hr, J'. •' . a:
y'', ,\ ya ,. y a: at:. ., bSa;; v _;• c:i.`2 a \, J-. '. 1-c—. 1
co Gi• . o;:; i.;, io.. . .. a+,yY` 1` t,`'a: k, h,. t,^ h ., r ,i,`` ,ra'`.. : oE. a,'\` v+k: i Z•' Y"Q , o i••` ni', `''',.' Vii.\ e. .:• '\ t""', ' / i`a a$,v ve S. o. \ i.;;.< r i;:.>.. 1':$ ,: iti;'``. iq,.,,' yt, may' E"• J; w v. kc• .,,, a: 5 h' ii> jam '.." "^ Ei\+::•:r\,\h. x. . S'' i .; Y%: ' 2'\•°'a Li'ro.. ,•\ v,0,
v:•' . ' 1i'>orii,` \, r; C\,>., i' . J'•• „: '{ i,: . r• h<,.: ev:' Cie;"` :•'•. ;:. e' ui Cin', y,,` C s`'" ai`a"'. o,..e \,:•' I : JS v 1 1 i=,'` v.•.... \..', yTFLA eII'' r ` i:. 2i yiFLA IN's v
K pa AT c P
2 Qpit,o n # Zone : P1an' g as. er 2 Significant Area EnvironmentallyIly
CO
Natur
source Transition Area
TAC L 05
fp
FY Cf r Long Term
evelopmeant
avow" AOUATIC FW
3 Zone option # Figure 4.3 Master Planning 27 , 1985 ) 4. 11 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES ( JUNE 24 , 25 ,
The Authority invited all interested individuals to attend Public Information Centres , at Toronto City Hall , on June 24 ,
25, and 27 , 1985, to allow the public the opportunity to discuss the report for Phase I with MTRCA staff members .
Public comments , in the form of written submissions to the 1985 . Authority , were requested by a deadline date of July 31 ,
Advertisements for the Public Information Centres were placed
and The in The Toronto Star ( June 16 , 1985) ( see Exhibit 4. 5 ) ,
Globe and Mail (June 17 , 1985) . Public service announcements were forwarded to Toronto radio and television stations for
airing . Notice of the Information Centres were mailed out through the MTRCA' s direct mailing list to ensure a comprehensive advance notice of these Information Centres .
Eight people attended the Information Centre on June 24 ,
seven people on June 25, and seventeen people on June 27 ,
1985.
Written submissions were received by the Authority corresponding to the Phase I report until the first week of
August . The type of submissions could be classed into five
categories :
1 . No development
2 . Form letters from the St . Jamestown Sailing Club
3 . Letters from individuals expressing specific
concerns
4 . Letters from Associations
5 . Task Force comments .
The first category of submissions stated that the entire
headland remain as a " wilderness" area , and that there should
be no development on the headland . The majority of these I submissions stated their strong opposition to any type of development , making no reference to the Phase I planning zone options . The arguments for the Option One ( Natural Resource Option ) can be summarized as follows :
too much of the waterfront is developed ; the waterfront is monopolized by boaters ; Tommy Thompson Park represents the only opportunity for a natural environment park on the Waterfront in which it would be possible to escape the urban
environment ;
preservation of natural habitat ;
unwarranted public expense ;
Vehicle access to the site be prohibited .
A listing9 f submissions received b y the Authorityt ority stating the " no development" option is highlighted on the following pages . A sample of the submissions received are included
see Exhibit 4 . 6 ) .
The second category of submissions could be classified as form letters from the members of the St . Jamestown Sailing Club . An example of the letter is illustrated by Exhibit 4 . 7 .
The third category of submissions received , provided interesting perspectives on the development of the park . Each of these submissions cited specific concerns and comments on the proposed master planning zones outlined in the Phase I report . Exhibit 4 . 8 provides a sample of one of these submissions . ii
Written submission received by the Authority stating the associations ' concerns and comments are classified as category four . Sample submissions are included and listed as
Exhibits 4 . 9 , 4 . 10 , and 4 . 11 . LIST OF SUBMISSIONS - CATEGORY ONE
Gord Carley August 2 , 1985
M . V. Liubaicius July 18 , 1985
1985 J . North July 25,
Jacqueline Courval July 21 , 1985
W. A. Martin July 20 , 1985
1985 Rudy Welbourne July 18 ,
Elizabeth F. Nuse July 18, 1985
1985 B. A. White July 16 ,
Lisa Wood July 17 , 1985
Mrs . Bruce McIntosh July 31 , 1985
1985 Lyn July 29,
Charlotte A. Reid July 29 , 1985
Grant Hurlburt July 29 , 1985
Lillian D. Corley July 28 , 1985
Michelle Mayhew July 24 , 1985
M. Smith July 28 , 1985
H. Hoyer July 28 , 1985
P. Parnell- Jones July 29 , 1985
Mrs . V. A. Williamson July 29 , 1985
John Tregurtha July 30 , 1985
1985 Ms . Clara J. Stacey July 27 ,
Frances Roynor July 29 , 1985
John L. Chaberlin July 25, 1985
Sheila M. Neysmith July 22 , 1985
Barbara M. Fallis July 23 , 1985
1985 Nancy Galbraith July 23 , 1985 S . Erhardt July 23 ,
Paul W. Mayhew July 24 , 1985
Varda Burstyn July 24 , 1985
Jonathan W. Grant July 24 , 1985
Donald M. DeNike July 24 , 1985
John Cranmer Bynq July 27 , 1985 1985 N. C. Murr July 21 , Barry Sray August 8 , 1985 Wendy Hughes August 10 , 1985
B. J . U. de Zwaan July 29 , 1985
Sheila de Zwaan July 28 , 1985
Mrs . W. Harniman July 27 , 1985
Laurine Harniman July 26 , 1985
S . Lambert July 30 , 1985
Margaret & John Armstrong August 6 , 1985
Mr . Louis Bednar July 28 , 1985
Saul Glickman July 29 , 1985
1985 Jean Hutchison July 28 ,
1985 J . D. Curtin August 11
Mr . H. Elliott July 25, 1985
1985 R. Brunell July 22 ,
Pat Rae July 22 , 1985
1985 Mrs . S . Kryzncwski July 22 , 1985 E . Davis July 22 , 1985 Gavin Miller July 23 , 1985 Margaret Wilson July 24 , 1985 Lise Anglin July 22 ,
1985 L. Witlox July 22, 1985 Ms . Odile Le Dain July 23 , 1985 Miss Gladys Ray July 22, 1985 George Miller July 23 ,
1985 Aline Kane July 21 , 1985 Gail L. Cox July 20 , 1985 Anne Hansen- Johnston July 23, 1985 Mrs . L. T. Gardner July 19 , 1985 H. Hansen July 19 , 1985 Dave Carley July 19 , 1985 Louise Taite July 19 , 1985 Terence A. Kelly July 18 , 1985 Neville & Doris Wood July 18 , 1985 Eric & Karen Parker July 17 , 1985 Norman Lofts July 17 , Susan Wood July 17 , 1985 Mark Kubisz July 17 , 1985 T. & H. Kugel July 18 , 1985 M . D. Goldrick July 17 , 1985 Mr . & Mrs . 0. Oppertshrauser July 16, 1985
Fran D. Grady August 6 , 1985
Mrs . Elinor Beard August 1 , 1985
Annie Hooks August 7 , 1985
A. D. Brewer July 28 , 1985 J . K. Van Boven July 29 , 1985
Peter & Allison Lowens August 1 , 1985
Mrs . Marie Naylor July 29 , 1985
Anthony Lisanti July 29 , 1985
L. & I . Geller July 24 , 1985 Mr . M. A. Neil July 29, 1985 Dennis G. Rioux July 29 , 1985 R. D. McRae July 28 , 1985 Phyllis M. Scott July 27 , 1985 Phyllis M. Scott July 27 , 1985 Satu Pernanen & Randy Parisien July 29 , 1985 James M. Griffith July 28 , 1985 Janet Pugsley July 29 , 1985 Mrs . Aileen Coles July 29 , 1985 T. H. Levere July 26 , 1985 Ida K. Struth July 26 , 1985. Mrs . Elizabeth Matheson July 28 , 1985 Mary A. Murray July 27 , 1985 Mary T. Jones July 25 , 1985 Rosemary Hale July 30 , 1985 B. Yukich _ July 26 , 1985 Sandra Hanmer July 29 , 1985 Ruth Arntz July 23 , 1985 F . Brailey July 24 , 1985
Norma C. MacLeod July 24 , 1985 A. R. Morpurgo July 23 , 1985 Helen Anne Bolger July 24, 1985 LIST OF SUBMISSIONS - CATEGORY THREE
James E . Loukides August 7 , 1985
Bruce Kidd July 22 , 1985
Jake Smythe July 26 , 1985
Harriet Davidson July 27 , 1985
B. K. Bertie & H. Mackey July 31 , 1985
M. Bryden , M. P. P . , Beaches- Woodbine August 8 , 1985
R. G. Boekner August 12 , 1985
E . Davis June 21 , 1985
Julie Zariolo June 21 , 1985
Catherine Webb June 21 , 1985
Al Dow June 21 , 1985
LIST OF SUBMISSIONS - CATEGORY FOUR
The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto August 2, 1985
The Federation of Ontario Natauralists August 12, 1985
Friends of the Spit July 22, 1985
Conservation Group, Department of Botany, University of Toronto July 22, 1985
Sierra Club of Toronto July 18 , 1985
Beachers Marathon Runners Association June 25 , 1985
Toronto Field Naturalists July 23 , 1985
Toronto Windsurfing Club July 31 , 1985 1985 Ontario Sailing Association August 16 , Toronto Multihull Cruising Club July 31 , 1985 The Toronto Outer Harbour Sailing Federation July 29 , 1985 1985 Mooredale Sailing Club July 30 , 1985 Aquatic Park Sailing Club July 29 , 1985 W. Laurence Jones July 26 , 1985 Ms . Pat Evans August 13, 1985 John Stone July 27 , 1 , 1985 Bob Fraser August 1985 Merlin Andrew July 20 , Exhibit 4.5 Notice of Information
Centres ("Aquatic Park")
Tommy Thompson Park Toronto Star, June 16, 1985. the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES AQUATIC PARK") TOMMY THOMPSON PARK The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has presented to the Aquatic Park ( Tommy Thompson Park) Planning Task Force and made public the " Phase 1- Aquatic Park Master plan- Master Planning Zones" Report. - The Authority invites all interested public to attend public information centres to be held. DATE: Monday, June 24, 1985 TIME: 2.00 p.m.- 7.00 p.m. PLACE: Toronto City Hall Committee Room# 1 DATE: Tuesday, June 25, 1985 TIME: 2.00 p.m.- 5.00 p.m. PLACE: Toronto City Hall Committee Room# 1 DATE: Thursday, June 27, 1985 TIME: 3.30 p.m.- 8.30 p.m. PLACE: Toronto City Hall Committee Room# 3 The purpose of the public information centres will allow an opportunity for all interested public to discuss the Phase- I Report with Authority staff. Public comment on this report is request- ed in writing to the Authority by July 31, 1985. Copies of the report summary may be obtained prior to the public information centres by contacting MR. LARRY FIELD
Watery Management Section. 5 Shoreham Drfire North York, Ontario M3N 1S4 Telephone: 661- 6600 Exhibit 4. 6 Letters received from:
Wilma Harniman - July 27, 1985
Peter and Allison Lowens - Received
August 1, 1985
Neville and Doris Wood - July 18, 1985 Elizabeth Matheson - July 28, 1985 t 67 - Tr-,- 0!,-t U Toronto I_ 7T Tuly 27t' n- , 1985
C' T-11" a
r. Parry field , 7 n aZp-r rater '1. 1- naee~aent Section' , T . In Saorehaf:i Drive , Do,•: nsview, Ontario, 1 J4.
Dear T; r. Field:
etro ' s It ,,,,oald be grossly un-fair to the -_Ia- )ority of residents to change the Spit by either 0? tio-n 2 or 3. Every good point about the Spit i--iould be forever lost . should special interest groups wino
T' sn, beast , bird butterfly and -list would be driven this so- c!:- Iled "!aturai Resources area. Oil spills , bar- b- c simiells ( boaters Eo on shore at 'Toro-r-to 'Islands and b r- b c C7;rsll alti le nowerfal ~rotor boats would have a ijj s'- latterin.- i:i-oact on tAe ,-,I-iole area.
Mat is t1ae cost to —etro taxpayers to help boaters who forget to fill the E-as tinksl T_;—r_6r6--i-:eat'_-ier warnings , have been in a boat collision, are stalled , are taring in water or have a -fire , and require the se.- vices or the r,,_Iarine un i t?
Does the public have any idea of the expense of --laintaining the' 55 - len of the " ari-je Tjni -,- , plus 15 uptown constables to oatroi the 32 miles of shoTelf_-ne fro_: the Rouge River , in ca-rboro to ' T arie Curtis Park i- :3- 1-- bicoke?
mmI is ilarine Unit has a fleet of 17 boatsV L-Prom the 15 foot ol:,,ered steel 3coston ",rhaler to tae 12 : 7,etreU (40 foot; dieSel-) aarine and po 1 4Lce and rescae craft. A.11 boats carry ' radios and first- aid and life- savinF, equipment .
I think the people of 1,T-etro will feel that they are doing quite enough for the boat owners already. ,';hy, then s") ould they be asked to sacrifice the TM,7'aole concept and atmosphere of the Spit to an invasion of masses or boaters demanding car access , parking for- thousands , and : aany support buildings?
OPTIC'_', I IS THIZE 01MY Designate the whole Spit as a ' ITTatural Resources" 5--. rea.
Yo• rs truly, RECEIVE)
AU - 1985
Larry Field MST C.. As Water Management Section MT RCA 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview M3A 1S4
Dear Mr. Field
I would like to add my voice to the final management plan for the Leslie St. Spit. Very simply, I want it to remain as it is, and any alteration, addition or change to it occur because of the evolution of nature, not because of man ' s desire to alter it.
It seems to me that with Ontario Place, the CNE and the Toronto Islandw Toronto residents have access to both the lake and amusement areas , ally if the people so wish, via the TTC .
Just outside of Toronto Canada' s Wonderland exists for amusement- Further, as you are well aware, our city offers many areas of entertainment, culture and excitement for all of us.
I may be wrong, but to my knowledge there is no area anywhere in North America that can boast of a wildlife area that has had over 250 species of birds sighted. And yes, there are the gulls , but with proper management our city will still be able to boast that an inland city of over two million inhabitants has what is perhaps the largest breeding colony of waterbirds within its boundries . Further, what area in North America is superior, within a city limits) to study the constant evolution of an ecosystem than the Spit?
I realize that tax dollars do not occ er in great quantity because of the Spit. I realize that the Spit will never draw tourists like a Dome ( if we ever get one) and I realize that birds and Birders and joggers and cyclists may not have great political power. What birds and birders and joggers and cyclists do have in common is the fact that we all co- exist in harmony, are peaceful, do no harm and enjoy the sense of freedom on the Spit. Give us the few acres of sand and vegetation, Toronto can afford it.
Sinc ly,
Pet r an lison Lowens 26 Holloway Road Islington, Ontario Canada M9A 1G1 1`C•a. Bo4ov, s/ m rarZ, o Al fN 47,8 7
AEIED JUL 2a la r?, T R. C. .4• ro 4 o.Y ra • M. T.R„ C„ A.
15: 170
i' tea: Q. il,sx. X
pzlotd a
4WZ a
41 a
our Lilt)
RECEIVED
JUL 30 g O M*T*R#,CiAo l Exhibit 4.7 Form Letter - St. James
Town Sailing Club
Dated June 21, 1985
I ST. JAMES TOWN SAILING CLUB P. O. BOX 984, STATION Q, TORONTO, ONTARIO M4T 2P1
June 21st, 1985
The Chairman and Members, The Aquatic Park Planning Task Force, c/ o M. T. R. C. A. , 5 Shoreham Drive, North York, Ontario 11j 1V 1.5Y
Dear Mr. Chairman and Fellow Members, I welcomed the release of your Phase 1 Report on June 5th, would like to thank you for it and add a few thoughts of my own.
I was introduced to the sport of sailing, along with thousands of others, through a low- cost community sailing club. I learned to sail dinghies in the safe, protected waters of Toronto' s Outer Harbour, and now throughly enjoy the beautiful surroundings there. The club to which I belong will not be allowed to stay on the north shore where it is, although I wish it could forever. I am welcome there . . . I have many friends there I can drive there . . . and I can sail safely there. In respect to the boating survey you commissioned last year, I find the area on Tommy Thompson Park zoned recreation- al rather small in as much as the demand for boating is ever increasing.
Please, consider our needs when you make your final. decisions on Tommy Thompson Park. I am sure he would have wanted ALL the people to use it.
You7 Trul ,
Ja wn--gailing Club.
EI VE0 A11G 28 IS C, Aw
MEMBER OF THE ONTARIO SAILING ASSOCIATION WPM SPONSORED i
IIII i I
J I
Exhibit 4. 8 Submission by B.K. Bertie and H. Mackey July 31, 1985 HAND DELIVEEZ®
14 Sandstone Lane Ito, Ontario
July 31, 1985
Mr. W. A. McLean Chairman Acquatic park Planning Task Fbrce c/ o Metropolitan Toronto Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York, Ontario
Dear Mr. McLean:
Please find enclosed our ccnments on the Phase I Acquatic Park planning exercise.
Because most of the north shore between Cherry and Leslie Streets is owned by the THC, planning, fran a recreational/ parkland point of view, for the general area has been focused on the " spit" area proper despite the good intentions of the initial terms of reference.
Your catmittee has not addressed the question of whether or not the present land use on the north shore is the best use possible. This means that the spit has to be planned in isolation fran the surrounding lands and therefore must a%:k.%..,.,&_ date the needs of all the
environmental/ recreational interest groups. This necessitates the multi- use approach on the spit despite the fact that there is overwhelming public support that the spit just be left to evolve.
Ideally, we would like the total spit area, including the triangle at its base, left in essentially the ' do nothing' state. This would mean that the recreational (conventional) park focus would have to shift towards the THC lands south of Unwin Avenue.
We feel that the key problem from a parkland/ recreation perspective is the Toronto Harbour Camussion, its deficit problem and the long term port of Toronto outlook. The second key problem is the trade- off between parkland and possible econanic development within the area bounded by the Lakeshore Avenue, the lake and Cherry and Leslie Street.
The issues then would be:
1. Is it in the public interest for the lands south of Unwin Avenue between Cherry and Leslie Streets to be in the hands of the Toronto Harbour Catmission?
2 2 -
2. Does it continue to be in the public interest to designate the lands as stated in (1) as industrial lands?
3. Is it in the public interest to designate some/ all of these lands for residential uses as the Magma International proposal suggests?
We realize that the questions we ask are quite complex inasfar as the Public Interest includes the legitimate interests of the Toronto Harbour Commission. Any proposal to put those lands to another use must provide a compensation mechanism for the THC to ensure that it remains whole. Perhaps Metro would be prepared to transfer other Metro properties to the THC in exchange for the existing THC lands south of Unwin or perhaps the City of Toronto would be prepared to grant greater density rights on other THC properties as compensation for the lands involved.
We also realize that what we are asking is beyond the jurisdiction and authority of your Committee. If it is to be addressed, it must be discussed by and between the appropriate political levels and the THC.
We respectively suggest that planning for the AcNatic Park be slowed or put on hold pending an assessment of the whole area between Leslie and Cherry Streets south of Unwin Avenue and that your committee recommends to the City/ Metro that a planning review be undertaken of a much larger area. One main objective of this exercise would be to define the boundaries of Acquatic . Park in this larger planning context.
In closing, we believe that the existing Phase I plan developed by your Committee is fairly reasonable - except as noted in our enclosed canments given the present zoning and ownership constrains on the lands south of Unwin Avenue. The issue of the desirability of public lands adjacent to the lake - as a principle - should we feel, be referred by your Cammittee to the appropriate levels of municipal government and perhaps provincial government.
Yours truly,
flzt::7
B. K. Bertie H. Mackey Economist Biologist
Encl. c. c. Chairman, Municipality of Metro Toronto Mayor, City of Toronto Aldermen, Ward Eight, City of Toronto MPP, Beaches - Woodbine Chairman, Toronto Harbour Commission Planning commissioner, City of Toronto Commissioner, Parks and Recreation, Metro CcMi RS
PHASE I —AQ1uffrw PARK MASTER PIM Issues Page
Initial Terms of Reference to the MI'RCA Task Fbrce
Planning Area
a) Metro Waterfront as an ' Acquatic Park' Multi use in this sense now. b) Acquatic Park Boundaries: Area South of Unwire Avenue
Toronto Harbour Commission Lands
a) Toronto as a Shipping Centre b) The Toronto Harbour Commission and it' s Deficit Problem
Economic Development Proposals
a) THC Marina Proposal b) Magma International Proposal c) Lands North of Unwin Between Leslie and Cherry Streets
Assessment of Phase I Plan
a) Dredgeate Disposal b) Metro Sewage Treatment Plant Property c) Transitional Zone d) Boating Facilities e) Recreational/ Demand Analysis i 1.
Pf1ASE I - SIC PARK MASTER PLAN
Issues
The effectiveness of Phase I planning should be addressed in terms of
now well this phase addresses the issues.
The key issues for Phase I as we now see them are as follows:
1. Is it in the public interest for the lands south of Unwin Avenue I. i . c.6.. Cherry Street and Leslie Street to be in the hands of the
Toronto Barbour Commission?
2. Is it in the public interest to designate the land as stated in
one ( 1) above as industrial lands as Metro/ City of TbronW have
done?
3. Is it in the public interest to designate same/ all of these lands
for residential uses as the Magma International ... 1
suggests?
Initial Terms of Reference to the MPRCA Task Fbroe
According to the May 1984 ' Information Pamphlet' produced by the MTRCA, the terms of reference given to the task force with respect to the
study area was to include Acquatic Park property, however, Acquatic
Park was to be planned in light of existing and future uses and possible interactions with the North shore of the Outer Harbour from
Cherry Beach to the Hearn plant discharge, the triangle land areas at
the base of the Acquatic Park and the main sewage treatment plant
lands.
Currently much of the land areas south of Unwin Avenue between the eastern and western street limits is presently being used for recrea-
tional purposes, specifically; 2.
a) sailing b) fishing
c) cycling, walking, jogging:
i. e. Martin Goodman trail
i In the absence of ' industrial' development on these lands defacto recreational uses have emerged. Other uses e. g. picknicking, could evolve if the land use zoning was changed from its existing industrial designation to parkland/ recreational.
While the original study focus area was correct; i. e. larger than the formal boundary area of Acquatic Park, the ' given' of industrial land designations, within the study area, could significantly influence the results of the study in terms of land use zones. Indeed this is the case because on page four of the May, 1985 Phase I report, it is clearly stated that a key objective is the establishment of planning zones in the MPRCA owned lands and the THC leased lands ( from MNR) before attempting any more detailed allocations of space, activities and programs.
PLwming Area
a) Metro Waterfront As An ' Acquatic Park'
Multi Use in This Sense Now
If Acquatic Park is looked at solely as an isolated entity then it is inevitable that a multiple use plan allowing for wild areas, boating and more developed general use parkland and recreational
facilities must be considered, if the needs of all are to be
served.
To date in the public participation in the planning excercise we have seen many interest groups state their position and then
inform the Committee that group ' X' represents ' Y' individuals. i
3.
As long as the ' spit' is viewed in isolation from the whole Metro
Waterfront, there must be a trade off relative to score form of
multi- use as it relates to the current ' spit' planning excercise.
By changing the focus to the overall waterfront, it is possible to
view that ' Acquatic Park' in terms of multi- use over the whole
waterfront. In this context is the concept of the ' spit' as a
wilderness' area in it' s totality out of line in terms of servicing the needs and desires of the Metro population? The mechanics of analyzing the problem this way is outlined somewhat
within this paper under the heading, entitled,
Recreational/ Demand Analysis' .
Because of the world interest in the ' spit' as an evolving
wilderness' area in a large world class city, it would seem imprudent not to examine this planning proposal fron a much wider
perspective befitting a world class Metro area.
kb) Acquatic Park Boundaries: Area South of Unwin Avenue
In spirit the initial terms of reference recognized that the real planning area included all lands south of Unwin Avenue between
Leslie Street and Cherry Street, including the Metro Sewage property to the east of Leslie Street. i
Because the land area south of Unwin Avenue is owned by the THC that land area is currently zoned industrial.
We note that the CityY f Toronto Council in 1984, adoptedPt the Land Use Committee reccminendations for official plan policies and land
use zoning for the Central waterfront area. The result of this
decision is that it ensures a multi- use plan; i. e. ESA and
recreation, of Acquatic Park ( Page nine of the MTRCA May, 1985
Phase I report) .
It apparently is a given that, despite all good intentions, the planning area is to be narrowly focused; i.e. to include coley the
snit' area. This makes it almost inevitable that the ' Spit' will be 4.
multi- use. Whether this is desirable or not depends on the existing uses of the land adjacent to Lake Ontario between the boundaries of
Metro. Within this sense of 'Acquatic Park' ' wilderness' parks are
under- represented. Within this context a ' wilderness' spit in it' s totality may not be out of line:
In our opinion a more desirable perspective is to plan' for the area between Cherry Street and Leslie Streets south of Unwin using the City
of Toronto 1984 criteria for this whole area; i.e. assume no current
zoning constraints ( commercial/ industrial/ residential. This would
allow for, say, boating and more intensive recreational use of the area
south of Unwin Avenue, while allowing the spit area ( including the
triangle' ) to remain " natural" or become ' natural' with little official interference in the process other than some soil additions in areas that are now mainly building material rubble etc.
By presenting this option it is recognized that there will be
objections from specific_ stakeholders. These are legitimate and must
be addressed. At a minimum the objections would likely be as follows;
1. The City and Metro have no real control over the THC. True, however, if the City/ Metro evolved a plan that would solve the THC
problem and allow the Federal government to be in a position of neutrality or definate advantage then the perceived road blocks
may end up just being that e. g. perceived.
2. Part of the public interest involves the THC and its debt problem,
hence, the need to sell/ lease land. True, but can these problems
be overcome; i.e. are there alternatives?
3. Potential industrial land could generate industry and hence jobs for Metro ( City of Toronto) . True, but is it likely?
4. The area south of Unwire Avenue may be needed by the shipping/ distribution needs. True, but is it likely? 5.
From Metro' s and the City of Toronto perspective the question to be asked is whether or not the THC lands as currently designated have the best land use category for the citizens of Metro and the City.
Because of the unique nature of this case would it perhaps be desira- ble, if feasible, to subject this area to the Ontario Environmental
Assessment Act? In this way alternatives can be examined. Part of examination would presumably revolve around the question of whether or not it would be socially and environmentally unsound to place industry on the waterfront in this area? Whether or not the THC, a semi- autonomous agency of the Federal government is subject to the Act is not known, however, if the rational for a hearing can be convincingly made in terms of the public good of Metro, the Federal government might be persuaded to waive their exemption on the grounds that there could possible advantages for them in terms of public perceptions and possible elimination and/ or reduction of it' s financial liability stemming from their connection with the THC, if any.
While this question probably cannot be addressed by the Task Force or the MI'RCA inasfar as they are likely beyond their jurisdictional authority and power, we think that this should be addressed again by the relevant political authorities at the municipal, provincial and
Federal levels and we urge your Committee to consider this course.
Is the current zoning of these lands ( south of Unwin) the best land use for this land considering the major stakeholders?
citizens (Phase I citizen input)
developers; i.e. Magna International
City of Toronto; i. e. tax revenue, recreational concerns, jobs
THC and its financial problems 6. a) Part of Toronto as a Shipping Centre
It is acknowledged that there is tremendous demand for sailing facilities in Metro, hence, a logical initial setting within
Central Metro would be the north shore of the Outer Harbour.
However, the THC, is mainly reserving this area for potential
commercial shipping expansion, hence, sail clubs that are
presently located there are on short term leases and are
understandably nervous, hence, the pressure to locate to the
Spit.
Given that these THC lands could be considered desirable from a
recreational boating point of view, and given that the location
would not interfere with a ' natural spit' this THC assumption of preserving shipping options deserves sane serious examination and possible study. What are the chances for shipping growth?
Two main influences, in our opinion, negate against this:
1. Conventional ' laker' bulk traffic is in decline and this may be permanent.
At any given time in the last 3- 4 years, approximately 10- 12 ships are on lay up in Toronto. Most of these ships are bulk
carriers.
Bulk carriage on the Great Lakes is probably in permanent
decline in terms of traditional cargoes such as grain, coal and iron. External factors to Canada are most likely the cause; i.e. decline of the steel industry in North America in
favour of third world nations, technology i.e. plastics substitution etc., and emerging agricultural self-sufficiency in traditional grain importing nations such as China.
In a recent article in the Globe and Mail (July 24th) it was
reported that 50 ships ( 35% of the Canadian Fleet) is tied
up. It was further reported in The Toronto Star that by 7.
August an additional 20 ships will probably be laid up. Some
of this is the result of prairie drought, however, it is likely that as the primary industries decline in Canada and the U. S. A. , the overall importance of Great Lakes shipping will also decline.
If the bulk carrier trade is in permanent decline then this
will affect the cost of operating the Seaway, hence, it will make it more expensive to operate container ships to inland
destinations.
The cost of the Seaway is somewhat fixed; i. e. independent of
traffic. If laker'' traffic continues to decline ' ocean
going' traffic; i. e. container ships will have to bear much higher St. Lawrence Seaway user charges which many operators
already consider onerous.
In both Canada and the U. S. A. deregulation and user pay forces are quite strong hence there will be probably more pressure on the Seaway Authority to raise fees.
2. Railway container trains connecting seaports with inland
distribution centres are often much more economic from a
total distribution point of view.
This concept has achieved a high level of development in the
U. S. A. - particularly the West Coast area. American
President Lines ( a steamship company) has perfected this
system to a fine science.
If railways control their labour costs - and evidence
indicates that they will. - through significant crew reduction
size, it is likely that this new distribution concept could
became the norm.
i 8.
It may make more sense to relocate the proposed THC marina
proposal, if economic, from the west side of the spit to the
north side of the Outer Harbour. Existing clubs and new ones
perhaps could also be accommodated.
Given that 7. 6% or 195, 900 residents of the Metro population
will sail this summer according to a June i6, 1985 Star
article and given that this is expected to increase to
208, 000 in 15 years this option should be examined further.
This would require an in- depth assessment of the economics of
laker' and ' ocean' shipping prospects on the Great Lakes in addition to the usual engineering feasibility and sailing demand studies and assessments.
In a May 28th, 1985 article in the Globe and Mail, the
Chairman of the THC stated that Commission planners were in
fact studying the future of the port. Perhaps planning for the Acquatic Park should be slowed down pending the results
of this report.
If there is no strong future need then it would tend to focus
the debate on the appropriate uses for this land; i. e. total
recreational or recreational/ housing as proposed by Magma
International. Part. of this assessment should be tied into
examining that part of Toronto' s official plan which now prohibits waterfront housing between Yonge Street and the
Beaches. Should it also prohibit industrial/ commercial
activity also?
b) The Toronto Harbour Cannission and Deficit Problem
The deficit of the THC is of public concern inasfar as the THC is
a ' public' authority. As we understand it the THC deficit stands
at $ 30 million which was accumulated over a 25 year period.
The sale/ leasing of this land and business ventures of the Commission on it' s ' lands' could help to alleviate or eliminate 9.
the THC deficit. Management of the THC would be remiss if it did not attempt to utilize the land assets it has in order to generate sufficient cash reserves to pay down its accumulated deficit.
The THC management has no real choice but to consider proposals to maximize revenue from its operations. It is beyond the mandate of the THC to consider the greater Public Interest of which the THC interest is only one component but nevertheless the THC interest is an important one.
At the public meeting prior to the release of the Phase I report there was overwhelming citizen support for recreational/ ESA areas between Cherry and Leslie Streets and south of Unwin Avenue.
The City of Toronto current official plan prohibits waterfront housing between Yonge Street and the Beaches. Obviously if the City decided to rezone the specific area between Leslie and Cherry
Streets south of Unwin from industrial/ commercial to parkland, it must obviously be prepared to compensate the THC in monetary terms or other considerations for the opportunity foregone; i. e. the price per acre for industrial land less the price per acre for parkland or lease revenue foregone etc. In addition the City must balance off the potential jobs lost and the consequent economic spinoffs ( multiplier effects) and consequences ( economic welfare payments) .
The fate of the ' triangle' and other THC lands south of Unwin Avenue is currently under study by the THC relative to development feasibility, including potential market. Again pending the public tabling of this document by the THC, it may be advisable to slow dawn or delay any further planning on Acquatic Park.
In our opinion the MTRCA, Metro Toronto and City of Toronto policies as outlined in section 2. 0 of the Phase I report could be met much more fully if the THC lands south of Unwin Avenue between Leslie and Cherry Streets were transferred to the MPRCA. i
10.
It is strongly urged that the THC lands in question be bought out
similar to the proposal for the remaining valley lands in
private hands - or the City/ Metro/ Province provide comparable
acerage elsewhere in sane sort of a land exchange deal.
Alternatively perhaps the City of Toronto would be prepared to
give to the THC higher density rights on sane of its other
properties.
It is interesting that in a May 28th, 1985 Globe and Mail article discussing the Magna International proposal, it was stated that a key consideration in this proposal was whether or not the THC would be willing to sell. This is also important relative to the discussion above. Apparently t'ze land was deeded to the THC when it was created in 1911 to plan as part of its mandate, the future
of the Port of Toronto. It was stated in the article that the
cone issioners are worried that if they sell the land ( or agree to a land exchange) they will be jeopardizing the only likely reason for the commission' s existence. The future prospects for the port
are key in a number of related planning excercises.
Fcm= nic Proposals
Within the area of planning concern we have had to date two potential projects announced:
a) THC Marina Proposal
According to a June 16th Toronto Star article, the Chairman of the THC is quoted as saying of his project, "Everyone with an eye knows the need is there for more berths but it' s bloody expensive
and it' s not a profit centre. It' s hard to make a go of it."
This project focuses on the THC water lots adjacent to the MTRCA
lands. This implies the need for public funds to develop a
marina. 11.
b) Magna International Proposal
Magna' s proposal ( as per the Globe article) requires -the land
south of Unwin Avenue for housing. It is interesting the Magna is saying that there has to be new housing as part of this proposal in order to justify funds to build the factories that would 4 provide the jobs and the consequent hefty increases in the city' s assessment base.
If this is true then Alderman Dale Martin suggests that the City industrial policy is not viable economically without sane way of introducing higher level uses; i. e. housing.
If Alderman Martin' s contention is true then the City of Toronto' s Econcmic Corporation - as described in the July 12th, 1985 ' Real Estate News' could be a fizzle unless part of the 100 acres of
idle industrial lands have allowances for housing. As we understand it the whole city objective is to get these lands into productive industrial use and discourage the present owners from
holding on or asking ' speculative prices in the hope the land will eventually be zoned residential or commercial. c) Lands North of Unwin Avenue Between Leslie and Cherry Streets
Surely industrial redevelopment should focus on the area bounded
by Lakeshore, Unwin Avenue and Leslie and Gerry Streets, rather than on the Lake itself.
To allow development i.e. oommercial, residential, industrial
south of Unwin Avenue seems extremely short sighted inasfar as there are significant THC and other privately held lands which have been available and vacant for years in the same bounded
area as described above.
Much of the area bounded by the ship canal is occupied by bulk
distribution facilities i.e. oil distribution, salt storage etc.,
which are not significant job generators. While the economics of 12.
transportation by water may have been valid years ago - is this
still valid today? Even if it is, should these storage and
distribution industries be located elsewhere in Metro where
industrial land is not as scarse as in the City of Toronto? It may even be in the City of Toronto' s interest to subsidize the
difference in transportation costs i.e. rail versus water, if
there are significant differences. This could be justified on the
grounds of the potential for labour intensive industrial
development and the resultant tax assessment accruing to the City.
The focal point of this whole area is the ship canal. While the west ends of the canal still sees active commercial ship activity the east end is used primarily as a winter storage point or year round lay up point for inactive ships. Why could we not consider using this easterly area of the ship canal for marina and small boat ship purposes in the longer term. Prior to progressing this too far, a study should be requested from the THC as to the
feasibility of storing over winter boats elsewhere i. e. main harbour and/ or the west end of the existing ship canal.
Assessment of Phase I Plan
a) Dredgeate Disposal
This is probably the most economic from a purely operational point
of view; i.e. in terms of line haul time to/ from origin/
designation.
This ' cutting' of the spit approach in the longer term could lead
to an irresistible urge to use cells one, two, three as boating
refuges. It would be a logical extension of the boat moorings/
facilities already occurring in embankment ' C' . It would also pre- determine all the use of this area. 13.
In order to keep ' development options' open, the longer re- route
around the headland into cell three and beyond should be
considered.
If all ' cells' are eventually envisioned as boat mooring points, how would you propose to ensure ( 1) integrity of the ESA areas and 2) the wishes of Council to ban motorized vehicles beyond Leslie/
Unwin Avenue?
b) Metro Sewage Treatment Plant (MSTP) Property
Other than the need to expand this plant and the consequent taking of the MI'RCA lands there appears as if no thought has been given to the integration of appropriate parts of the MSTP property for
parking and/ or recreational purposes including boat launches,
mooring spaces etc.
At a minimum parking for Acquatic Park should be considered here. At present there is a lot of lawn. Reasons for not being able to
do this i.e. jurisdictions, should be spelled out for further
public ocuntent.
c) Transitional Zone
The transitional zone is a excellent idea to ensure minimisn
degredation of the Environmentally Sensitive Area ( ESA) .
d) Boatinq Facilities
O
AS shown in figure 4. 4 of the Phase I report, only alternative # 2 total recreation) allows the biggest weight for short/ long term regional boating needs.
Ideally, rather than having the proposed THC marina where
presently planned, and in the longer term creating boating
pressure for cells one, two, three, consideration should be given
to: 14.
1) situating the proposed THC marina or public facility out from the north shore, west of the existing ' triangle' ;
2) develop conventional recreational/ boating facilities south of
Unwin Avenue between Leslie and Cherry Streets; and
3) development of ships/ marina type operations at the east end
of the existing ship canal; i. e. between Lakeshore and Unwin
Avenue.
e) Recreational Demand Analysis
It would appear as if waterfront recreational demand could. be
broken down into a number of market segments.
A partial listing - it is not meant to be all inclusive - is as
follows:
1. On water - surf sailing or sailboarding dingy sailing,( inexpensive)
large boat sailing (expensive)
small motor boat ( inexpensive)
motor yachts ( expensive)
fishing
swimming
2. On land - walking biking
running
picknicking
sports e. g. baseball
environmental ( naturalist activities)
formal gardens
attractions i. e. Centre Island i
15.
The Phase I report dealt explicitly only with boating and sailing as per the reference to the 1984 recreational boating study update which had- been commissioned by the MI'RCA. I
What would -be interesting and could be of immense help in decision making from all perspectives would be a study detailing:
1. The theoretical demand for all activities on the Metro
waterfront. II
2. The importance of values ( attributes and factors) rank
ordered.
3. The correletions between the market segments and the
demographics of the Metro population particularly as it
relates to income levels.
In addition the Phase I report should include a inventory of all
facilities/ land area ( private and public) available now along the Metro waterfront by market segment and/ or interest group. This inventory then should be analyzed by comparing existing demand by
segment or activity (if available) and/ or by market research
techniques to determine demand. The objective, of course, is to assess whether each group has it' s fair share.
While the sailing community, according to The Toronto Star article
dated June 16, 1985, is an expanding one, the planning exercise should identify within the Metro waterfront area just haw well serviced this market segment is (both private and public)- relative
to other market segments. In addition is there a point at which public investment in terms of leasing of public lands for marina' s and yacht facilities is disfunctional and di pL v",. Lionate with
respect to the demographics and total recreational needs of the
Metro population? 16.
In this overall context is our desire to see ' spit' area as
defined in this report out of line. This in our opinion has yet
to be proven.
B. K. Bertie H. Mackey
Economist Biologist
July 31, 1985 HAND DELIVERED
August 6th, 1985
Mr. W. A. McLean Chairman, Acquatic Park Planning Task Force, c/ o Metropolitan Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, North York, Ontario.
Dear Mr. McLean:
Further to our submission of July 31st, we wish to clarify part of our position.
Irrespective of the ultimate land use designation for the THC lands south of Unwin Avenue, the phase I report has not yet addressed the question of the ' Spit' area as part of a total Metro waterfront aquatic park ( between the boundaries of Metro, including the Toronto Islands, Harbour Front, Ontario Place, Ashridges Bay, Beaches, Bluffer' s Parks, Exhibition Park etc.)
We feel that the criteria for examining the ' Spit' area should reflect the fact that the existing Metro waterfront acquatic park areas are now segmented by multi- use principles. Within this ' park' planning definition it has yet to be proven by your committee that leaving the ' spit' completely alone, i. e. an enduring natural resource area, would not be an appropriate balance within the existing multi- use area designations in the overall Metro acquatic park scheme. More ' market research' in this area as suggested on page 14 of our submission under ' Recreational Demand Analysis' is required. It is not enough just to look at boating demand by itself.
The final ' Phase 1' report, in our opinion, should address explicitely the concept of the ' Spit' as an enduring natural wilderness area within the existing Metro acquatic park system.
The May, 1984 ' Information Pamphlet' has provision for a public meeting prior to commencement of the Phase 11 planning ( Fig. 44) . Presumably, this meeting will allow members of the public the opportunity to question the committee as to their reasoning for chosing or not chosing to include the suggestions brought forward by the public at this time, - if appropriate analysis is not included in the proposed final draft of the Phase 1 report.
We look forward to this meeting and urge that it be scheduled after the summer holiday period - perhaps in September.
Hopefully, the responses received to the Phase 1 plan will be automatically distributed to all the respondents along with any minuted decisions made by your committee prior to the next public meeting.
Yours truly,
H. Mackey B. K. Bertie
C. C. Chairman, Municipality of Metro Toronto Planning Commissioner, City of Toronto Mayor, City of Toronto Commissioner, Parks & Recreation, Alderman, Ward Eight Metro Toronto MPP, Beaches - Woodbine Chairman, Toronto Harbour Commission i
Exhibit 4.9 Submission by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan
Toronto - July 29, 1985 THE BOARD OF TRADE 9 WTUPOUT" TONI" to. on M• 3 fats wam" ftm. Toeom." tax VU M• t4 X6-WI
July 29, 1985 D AUG 2 t985
Mr. Larry Field Tommy Thompson Park Planning Task Force The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York, Ontario M3N iS4
Dear Mr. Field:
The Board of Trade commends The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for its report, Phase I Aquatic Park Master Plan. The Board supports the MTRCA' s zoning recommendations for the LesTi a Street Spit/ Aquatic Park, or Tommy Thompson Park, as it is now known.
We endorse your proposed zoning of the Master Plan Area into three distinct zones. The Natural Resource Zone on the southern portion of the spit creates a wilderness in the city, and serves the needs of the many walkers, joggers, cyclists, and birdwatchers who frequent the area. Your proposed zoning permits and encourages recreation on the northern part of the spit, and this area could be used, in part, for marinas and community sailing clubs, thereby helping to meet the growing demand for mooring space in the Toronto area. The proposed Transitional Area, between the Natural Resource Zone in the southwest, and the Recreation Zone in the north, provides an appropriate buffer area where such uses as an educational facility might be located.
The Board also agrees with the designation and location of a third zone, the Long Term Development Zone, consisting of most of the endikement and Cells 2 and 3, which will be used for long- term dredgeate disposal . This area can continue to receive fill while the other two zones are Trade available to the public.
Such zoning permits a variety of uses, serves the needs of a number of interested parties , and minimizes the possibility of friction between incompatible uses.
2 Mr. Larry Field July 29, 1985 Page 2
As- for the question of auto access on to the spit, The Board believes that it is imperative to permit it for the proposed boating facilities. The Board also believes that permitting vehicles in the Recreation Zone will, not only make that area a more convenient place to visit, but will also make it more attractive for many people wishing to visit the 3 kilometre long natural habitat to the south. The Board can see no major negative impact on the natural habitat area by permitting auto access and parking within the boundaries of the Recreation Zone on the northern part of the spit.
In conclusion, The Board of Trade fully supports the planning Zones recommended for Tommy Thompson Park by -the MTRCA.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Y
W. S. Campbell Vice- President
i W. G. Ralph Assistant General Manager and Secretary
I I
I
I
III
Exhibit 4.10 Submission by Friends of the Spit - July 22, 1985
I
i
III 0
o g RECEIVED Friends of the Spit JUL 2`' 1985 PQ Box 467, Station J Toronto, Ontario MQ 4Z2 T R C A
July 22, 1985
Mr. L. Field, M. C. I. P. Manager, Water Management Section The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
Re: Phase I, Aquatic Park Master Plan, Master Planning Zones
Dear Mr. Field,
Friends of The Spit wish to go on record as being in opposition to the Phase I recommendation for "Option 3" as the recommended Plaster Planning Zone.
As you know, Friends of The Spit represents over 1200 members, and countless others, who enjoy the Spit as a car- free natural wilderness area in close proximity to the city. We strongly feel that the entire Spit, from Unwin Avenue, south, should remain as it is, a wild place for walks, cycling, nature study, picnics etc., and should not be carved up into zones of development. Under no circumstances should portions of the Spit be devoted to recreation_ uses such as marinas, sailboat moorings and dry- dock stations, and other uses that both privatize the water- front and introduce uses alien to the essential joys and beauty of the Spit.
As we have pointed out before, the needs of sailors and yachters are well- met along the whole Toronto water- front; The Spit is the one last chance to partially redress the imbalance of uses extant on the water- front.
The Spit is now, and should remain, the spot on the water- front where all those many people who need natural solitude can go, a need which is not met elsewhere on the water- front.
2
6 i it
I
As you know, the " let it be" approach to The Spit will be the least expensive, by far, of all the proposals.
Friends of The Spit urge you, and recommend you, to cease recommending Option 3", and instead, put your energies fully towards the active expousal of Option I. The entire Spit should be a Natural Resource zone, to be left to develop as Nature wills it; to be the one spot on the Toronto water- front that satisfies that great constituency who wish a natural urban wilderness.
Please recognize that the Spit requires conservation, not development.
Yours sincerely,
CJoqn Robert Carley Lee Gold Chairperson, Co- Chairperson. Friends of the Spit Friends of the Spit
Copies to: Mr. W. McLean, General Manager Members, Aquatic Park Planning Task Force Members, Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
I
it
I Exhibit 4. 11 Submission by the- Outer Harbour Sailing Federation July 29, 1985 1985 .. N AUG
A M• T• R'
COMMENTS ON THE
PHASE I REPORT - MASTER PLANNING ZONES
The Toronto Outer Harbour Sailing Federation
July 29, 1985 Our thanks to the Taskforce.
The Outer Harbour Sailing Federation is pleased to see the ' Phase I Report' of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan published. Our members who have attended the Taskforce' s presentations or who met Taskforce members in our informal events particularly appre- ciate the- the MTRCA' s approach, as it reflects the intention to look at the issue from many sides and to do justice to many interest groups.
Without getting into the actual details of the plan, we feel that the dividing the lands into a G and open access zone is a step in the right direction, since we always have strongly supported the idea of multiple uses for this large site. Furthermore, the proposal to put dry sailing clubs into embayment " D", if properly prepared and dredged, would suit most Federation member clubs.
Aquatic Park Sailing Club and TMCC
Unfortunately, the situation concerning the Aquatic Park Sailing Club is not quite clear. Unlike other members of the Federation, this keelboat club is already located on the spit and finds itself in a zone for which the Phase I Report remains uncommit- ted. Considering that no alternate location exists east of its present location, the present plan leaves this club in a position less secure than ever before.
Similarly, the Tornto Multihull Cruising Club, which already has been forced to moor some of its boats in embayment ' C' for lack of space, is not likely to be able to use embayment ' D' because its craft require too much draft, are too wide and easily damaged by dinghies. East of embayment ' C' there are no protected waters which these fragile craft require.
RECOMMENDATION: As these concerns of ours are very serious, and since we have proposed in the past ( June 1984) to place these two clubs in embayment ' C' , we would like to urge you again to designate the water area in this location for boating purposes. The kind of boating activities of these two clubs requires very small facili- ties on land that could easily be integrated with other federa- tion facilities provided proper access to the water is available.
2 The area between embayment ' C' and ' D' is not a environmentally sensitive area. It provides access to a swimming beach, already contains a road, parking spaces and a storage area. We find it difficult to understand that by having been included in the transition area' this land should ever appear to be of particu- lar value as natural resource area and be re- classified later.
RECOMMENDATION: We propose to include the lands between embayment ' C' and ' D' in the ' Gm' zone.
New arrivals
We have realized during the last few months that we are not alone in our search for a new site. In our immediate neighbourhood and on the Toronto Islands are other dinghy clubs which have found themselves in a predicament very similar to ours. They will be looking for space within the forseeable future. We consider it reasonable to assume that before plans for the spit are implemen- ted, the demand for drysailing facilities, boardsailing or other non- motorized water sports will increase. We note that the summary of the ' Metro Toronto Waterfront - Boating study update' does not take into consideration Board- sailing. We expect that in the coming five years a sizeable proportion of boardsailers will migrate to drysailing facilities as their family and socio- economic status changes. Besides that, the boardsailing community can be expected to grow at the same rate as the boating community in general .)
In order to gain a reasonable grasp of the situation, our public relations committe has begun to contact various other sailing organizations in the area, which drew an immediate response from five clubs. They were interested in participating in our efforts to secure land on the spit while some actually wish to join our organization.
It has therefore become obvious to us that the demand for facili- ties will definitely be greater than we originally thought, as we likely will be joined by:
Westwood Sailing Club ( 20 boats, approx. 200 members) Toronto Windsurfing ( 40- 60 boards and many members/ users) Other windsurfing organizations North Toronto Sailing club ( presently on the Island in very crowded facilities with approx. 20- 30 boats)
3 Land Requirements
When one considers the total land area of the spit and the total available shoreline, then the share allocated to recreational water sports according to Phase I Report appears to be relatively small . Given the demands we can foresee over the next few years, we urge the Taskforce to avoid including areas not considered environmentally sensitive into the transition zone or the G zone altogether, but to reserve them for active recreational purposes.
RECOMENDATION In order to make sure that land allocations planned will be adequate, the Federation asks that the Taskforce draw up a de- tailed land assignment by type of boat and sailing activity, along with final zoning proposals. Alternatively, we would be pleased to answer the Taskforce' s request for a detailed pro- posal .
Representation of ' Low Cost Boating' interests in the Outer Harbour area
When the time comes for the Master Plan to be implemented, many different interest groups will rush for what by then will have become a very scarce and valuable land resource. Many applicants will confront each other, defending only their own interests , making the orderly implementation of a plan unneccessarily dif- ficult.
The Outer Harbour Sailing Federation believes that by uniting the sailing interests in the Outer Harbour conflict between clubs over land demands can be avoided. Our history during the last ten years, as an umbrella organizion and administrative body, has shown that we are well equipped to look after diverse sailing interests and can present them to organizations like the THC and MTRCA in an orderly and productive fashion.
Our goal is to organize and represent all current and future sailing interests in the Outer Harbour with respect to the Master Plan.
We are looking forward to making the best out of Tommy Thompson Park!
Walter Haeberle Public Relations, OHSF
4 The Task Force submitted the following comments ( Category 5) with respect to the Phase I - Master Planning Zones report :
The Toronto Harbour Commission . While supporting the
recommendation of Option 3 , questioned whether
sufficient land area has been proposed in the
recreation zone . Clarification of some of the
access" definitions was also requested;
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto ( Parks and
Property, Planning and Works ) . Indicated that the time frame for establishing land use in the long- term development zone would have to be adjusted according
to landfill rates and dredgeate disposal . However ,
the three departments concur with the recommended
Option 3 ;
The Ministry of the Environment . Concurs with Option 3 as recommended in the report as addressing the major concerns of the Task Force with the preliminary report including those of the Ministry .
The- Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Concurs with
Option 3 as the most viable . A policy statement on matters related to the T. H. C. future development needs
would be helpful .
The Ministry of Natural Resources . Indicates that the selection of Option 3 does not inhibit any of the programs of the Ministry and is the logical option based on the evaluation . 4 . 12 TASK FORCE MEETING # 2/ 85 ( SEPTEMBER 5 , 1985)
A Task Force meeting was held on September 5 , 1985, in order to review all comments received on the Phase I - Master
Planning Zones report .
The Task Force was in general agreement with the following :
That there have been ample opportunities for the
public to comment on the Phase I report ;
That the public consultation process , as set out in
the approved study approach , will provide public consultation in all phases of the study and in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act
requirements .
MTRCA staff reviewed with Task Force members the communication and recommendations which were to be considered
at the September 6 , 1985 meeting of the Water and Related
Land Management Advisory Board . These recommendations were :
1 . The staff report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept
Plan - Master Planning Zones - Phase I report and public/ Task Force comments be received;
2 . The Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones - Phase I report , including the recommended planning Option 3 , be approved in
principle ;
3 . Staff be directed to proceed with Phase II and III of the study approach as approved by the Authority
and the Task Force ;
4 . All public , associations , and Task Force members be
forwarded a copy of the Board ' s recommendations . 4 . 13 W. R. L. M. A. B. MEETING # 4/ 85 ( SEPTEMBER 6 , 1985 )
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met on September 6 , 1985 . Item 4 was a review of the Tommy Thompson
Park - Master Planning Zones - Phase I report . There were ten delegations heard by the - Board with respect to the Phase I report .
A staff communication , ( see Exhibit 4 . 12) , summarizing the report , was submitted to the Board for information . Contained within this communication was a recommendation for the acceptance of the Phase I report and the recommended Option 3 , and that staff be authorized to proceed with Phase II and III of the master plan process .
Upon a review of all the material presented to the Board , and the public input concerning the Phase I report , the Board recommended to the Authority that :
1. The staff report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones - Phase I report and public/ Task Force comments be received.
2. The Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planing Zones - Phase I report, including the recommend planning Option 3, be adopted.
3. Staff be directed to proceed with Phase II and III of the study approach as approved by the Authority and Task Force.
4. All public, associations and Task Force members be forwarded a copy of the Board' s recommendations. Delegations present at the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board ( Meeting # 4/ 85) , regarding the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones - Phase I report included :
John Carley, Co- Chairperson , Friends of the Spit
Bob Christie , Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto Gerald Campbell , Toronto Multihull Cruising Club - Stephen J . Reid , Commodore , Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Alf Jenkins , Executive Director, Ontario Sailing Association Roy Merrens , Beachers Marathon Runners Association
Mr . Ken Bryden , representing Marion Bryden , M. P. P.
Beaches- Woodbine
Wilma Harniman
David Astele
B. Bertie
it i
II
Exhibit 4. 12 Staff Communication re:
Tommy Thompson Park
Concept Plan, Master
Planning Zones - Phase 1
Report - September 6, 1985
i i D- 95
SCHEDULE " A" TO: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M. T. R. C. A. - Meeting 44/ 85
FROM: MR. J. C. MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION
RE: TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN - MASTER PLANNING ZONES PHASE 1 REPORT
At the meeting 43/ 85 of the Board, staff were directed to " present the Phase 1 Aquatic Park ( Tommy Thompson Park) Master Plan - Master Planning Zones report including all Task Force and public comments received to the next meeting of the Board." It should be noted that all references to " Aquatic Park" are deemed to mean " Tommy Thompson Park" in accordance with the Authority' s resolution at its Meeting # 3/ 85.
The Phase 1 report ( copy attached to this communication) was released to the public at the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Task Force on June 5, 1985. The purpose of the report was to establish planning zones for the master plan area setting out the general direction for the park and providing a clear statement of intent regarding the ultimate concept for public use. The many conflicting demands on Tommy Thompson Park and the varying time frames in which areas of the park will be available for use, make planning For the park a particularly difficult and contentious task. It was therefore essential to establish these zones before attempting any more detailed allocation of space, activities, or programs.
The report outlines in Section 2 the following
1) those government policies which have a direct bearing on Tommy Thompson Park ( MTRCA Watershed Plan, Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan, City of Toronto Central Waterfront Official Plan and Zoning) .
2) key developments within the planning area that will significantly affect the future use of the area ( THC Industrial Park, THC Marina Proposal, THC Landfill operation, Keating Channel dredgate disposal, Metro Sewage Treatment Plant expansion - see Figure 2. 1 in the report) .
3) opportunities and constraints presented by the location and physical characteristics of the site location on the waterfront relative to other facilities, site configuration and ecology) .
and 4) public input concerning the preferred role and potential development of the park. ( preservation of a significant area of wilderness on the water- front, provision of recreational boating facilities, diversity of public uses on Metro' s waterfront, prevention of pollution and financial considerations) .
Section 3 of the report establishes goals and objectives for Tommy Thompson Park following the direction established by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Watershed Plan and, more specifically, by the Lake Ontario Waterfront Devalopment Program. In addition, the goals and objectives specifically reflect the opportunities for this waterfront area, the policy and development factors identified and the diverse interests of public agencies, interest groups and the public whose submissions were received. The four goals developed for Tommy Thompson Park are as follows
TO CONSERVE AND MANAGE THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREA OF THE SITE
TO PROVIDE A UNIQUE, WATER- ORIENTED OPEN SPACE WHICH WILL ASSIST IN MEETING REGIONAL RECREATION NEEDS
2. . . D- 97
TO: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M. T. R. C. A. - Meeting # 4/ 85
FROM: MR. J. C. MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION
RE: TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN - MASTER PLANNING ZONES PHASE 1 REPORT PAGE 2
TO DEVELOP PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT, AND OF TOMMY THOMPSON PARK IN PARTICULAR
TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR TOMMY THOMPSON PARK WHICH IS COGNIZANT OF THE POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA.
Section 4 of the study developed three planning zones - Natural Resource, Recreation and Long Term Development which are defined in terms of: site character, degree of physical development, level of operation, access and uses. The definitions of each zone provides the framework for the development of design guidelines for the site in the evaluation of preferred components ( Phase II) and the formulation of alternative concepts ( Phase III) . Three ( 3) planning zone options were then generated as follows:
OPTION 1 - concept plan area designated " Natural Resource"
OPTION 2 - concept plan area designated " Recreation"
OPTION 3 - concept plan area designated - Natural Resource, Recreation and Long Term Development
Note: See to Figures 4. 1, 4. 2, and 4. 3, appended to this communication.
The above options were then tested against the goals and objectives for Tommy Thompson Park with Option 3 meeting the greatest proportion as described below:
TO CONSERVE AND MANAGE THE NATURAL RESOURCES.
Option 3 identifies a substantial land and water area
for a ' natural resource' zone, makes a clear commitment to that area identified by the Authority as an Environmentally Significant Area, allows maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat, and provides research opportunities.
TO PROVIDE A UNIQUE, WATER ORIENTED OPEN SPACE.
By designating a substantial area as ' Natural Resource' , Option 3 provides an opportunity for an area unique from all other waterfront areas in scale, character, and recreational activities. By establishing a ' Recreation' zone, a limited opportunity is also provided to consider the range of recreation uses as set out in Table 4. 1 of the report.
TO DEVELOP PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT.
By providing opportunities to establish interpretive programs exploring historical processes, natural processes, and environmental management techniques, and by allowing establishment of an interpretive centre" in the ' Recreation' zone. Option 3 supports this goal.
3. . . D- 98
TO: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M. T. R. C. A. - Meeting $ 4/ 85
FROM: MR. J. C. MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION
RE: TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN - MASTER PLANNING ZONES PHASE 1 REPORT PAGE 3
TO DEVELOP A PLAN WHICH IS COGNIZANT OF POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA.
By definition, the three zones as drawn in Option 3 generally recognize policies of Metro and the City of Toronto, the long term commitment of the THC *_b port facilities in the outer harbour, THC and Metro Works development proposals, and the landfill and dredgeate disposal programs.
Option 3 also permits the maximum flexibility in considering alternative uses ( either natural resource or recreation related) for the endikement and Cells 2 and 3 ( Long Term Development Zone) over a time period which is beyond a reasonable planning time frame.
Option 3 was therefore recommended as the preferred option in the Phase I report.
The procedure used in preparing the report has followed the study approach adopted by the Task Force and endorsed by the Board and the Authority. The third opportunity for public input in Phase I, as outlined in this study approach, was initiated through a public notice of information centres placed in the Sunday Toronto Star ( June 16, 1985) and the Globe and Mail June 17, 1985) . Notices were also sent to over 100 people on the Authority' s mailing lists and Toronto radio - TV stations including the posting of a notice at Tommy Thompson Park. The public information centres were held at Toronto City Hall - Monday June 24, 1985 -. 2: 00 pm to 7: 00 pm, Tuesday June 25, 1985 - 2: 00 pm to 5: 00 pm and Thursday June 27, 1985 - 3: 30 pm to 8: 30 p. m. Thirty- two ( 32) people attended the information centres. Copies of the reports were available at the centres or by calling the Authority. Public comments including those of the Task Force were requested by July 31, 1985. ( All comments received up until August 23, 1985 have been included in the comment summaries) .
To date, 131 submissions responding to the report have been received from the general public, and from various associations with an interest in the future of Tommy Thompson Park. Summaries and individual submissions have been appended in the following order: general public; associations; Task Force members.
Of the public and interest group submissions, the majority ( 122) were in favour of maintaining the entire spit as a " natural resource" area, or wilderness".
Specific concerns raised by the public and interest groups are briefly summarized as follows:
The public and interest groups supporting preservation of a wilderness area objected to any compromise
The inclusion of embayment D in the recreation zone will remove the existing buffer and impinge on the Environmentally Significant Area
The general public and groups supporting preservation oppose vehicular access to any portion of the park.
The individuals and groups requesting inclusion of water- oriented recreational uses maintain that the land and water area allocated to the Recreation zone is inadequate.
4. . . D- 99
TO: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M. T. R. C. A. - Meeting 44/ 35
FROM: MR. J. C. MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION
RE: TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN - MASTER PLANNING ZONES PHASE 1 REPORT PAGE 4
Although detailed responses were received from some individuals and associations, very few of the general public indicate having read the report, and it is apparent that most responses followed the publication of a nature column in the Toronto Star, and in the " Friends of the Spit" newsletter. The result has been that few specific comments are made on the background, goals, zoning options, or evaluation procedures presented- in the report. Only 45 mention a zoning specifically ( these all request adoption of Option 1) , and few indicate an acquaintance with the jurisdictional, ownership and site constraints.
There were also several comments dealina with the study process, as distinct from the report recommendations.
M. Bryden MPP - Beaches- Woodbine, suggested that the evaluation process used was flawed, as it was based on questionable goals and objectives which were not subject to public review and which are subject to varying interpretations.
Ms. Bryden and others also suggested that the planning responsibilities of the Task Force and the Authority should be expanded to include the Outer Harbour and adjacent land under the Toronto Harbour Commission ownership. M. Bryden also protested the " significant departures" from the original study process, the elimination of public meetings and the substitution of information centres for formal public meetings. ( Note: M. Bryden' s comments - summary of public comments appended to the communication) .
The Task Force submissions ( no comments received from the City of Toronto) indicated their concurrence with the recommended Option 3 ( see Summary of Tommy Thompson Park Planning Task Force Comments appended to the communication) . It should be noted that approval by City of Toronto Council of the Central Waterfront recommendations and land use zoning for Tommy Thompson Park is still pending.
Staff have reviewed the public/ interest group and Task Force submissions, and note that the major issues have not substantially changed since the presentation of the first Aquatic Park Master Plan in 1976. If a plan. for Tommy Thompson Park is to be developed, the process must progress beyond a discussion of these issues alone. To that end, the selection of a preferred Option 3 and adoption of the Phase I report will allow the study to proceed with Phases II and III - selection of alternative development components and concept development.
Option 3, as outlined and recommended in the Phase I report, is considered to provide the best basis for proceeding as it:
recognizes the unique character of the headland by presently committing approximately 55% of the land and water area in the planning area as a ' Natural Resource' ( Note: Natural Resource zone is twice the area of the Recreation Zone) and by ensuring protection of the designated Environmentally Significant Area.
recognizes the significance of and the unique opportunities preserved by the outer harbour for recreational boating and other water activities
recognizes that a major portion of the park is still under construction and leaves all options for its future use - natural resource or recreation oriented uses open for future determination under the definition of the Long Term Development Zone.
3. . . D- 100
TO: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M. T. R. C. A. - Meeting ; 4/ 85
FROM: MR. J. C. MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION
RE: TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN - MASTER PLANNING ZONES PHASE 1 REPORT PAGE 5
It should be noted that adoption of the Phase I report, although an important step in the study process, represents only the first stage. Phase V of the study provides for a full review of the final concept plan by the public, Authority, Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto and the Ministry of Natural Resources, and subsequently through the Environmental Assessment process.
Staff therefore recommend adoption of the Phase I report and the recommended Option 3, and that the staff be directed to proceed with Phases II and III of the study.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Whereas the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board directed staff at its Meeting # 3/ 85 to present the Phase I - Aquatic Park ( now Tommy Thompson Park) Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones report including all Task Force and public comments received to the next : meeting of the Board. Whereas the Authority staff presented the Phase I report to the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Task Force on June 5, 1985, held ; public information centres on June 24, 25 and 27 at Toronto City Hall and requested public/ task force comments by July 31, 1985.
And Whereas the Authority staff have evaluated all comments in relation to the Phase I report and recommended Option 3.
And Whereas the Authority staff has prepared a report for the Board' s consideration.
Therefore, THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
1) The staff report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones - Phase I report and public/ task force comments be received.
2)' The Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones Phase I report including the recommended planning Option 3 be adopted.
3) Staff be directed to proceed with Phases II and II of the study approach as approved by the Authority and the Task Force.
4) All public, associations and task force members be forwarded a copy of the Boards recommendations.
Attachments:
1985. 08. 28
LF/ md
I 4 . 14 AUTHORITY MEETING ( NOVEMBER 29 , 1985)
At the Authority meeting of November 29 , 1985 , twenty- one delegations were present with respect to item 14 - 4# : Tommy
Thompson Park - Phase I report - Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board recommendations .
Upon consideration of the recommendations received- from staff reports , the Task Force , the Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board, and the public , the Authority adopted the following resolution:
Res. # 148:
That the staff report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - faster Planning Zones - Phase I report and public/ Task Force comments be received;
That the staff be directed to proceed with Phases II and III of the study approach as approved by the Authority and Task Force, ensuring full and active public participation and to identify and evaluate further the components for the needs and requirements and merits for both Options 1 and 3.
A listing of all delegations speaking on the Tommy Thompson
Park - Phase 1 Report and actions by the full Authority are
found in Exhibit 4 . 13 .
i I
I
I Exhibit 4. 13 Minutes of Full Authority Meeting # 9/ 85 - Tommy Thompson Park - Phase 1
Report k+& A- 166 61F
the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes
AUTHORITY MEETING 29- NOVEMBER- 1985 9/ 85
Meeting # 9/ 85 of the Authority was held on Friday, 29 November, 1985, at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 10: 00 a. m. in -the Theatre.
PRESENT
Chairman William T. Foster Vice- Chairman Lois Hancey Members William G. Barber Michael W. H. Biggar Jesse A. Bryson Roger J. Crowe James Davidson Chris T. Gibson Robert S. Gillespie Elizabeth Gomes William B. Granger Lois E. Griffin Brian G. Harrison William R. Herridge, QC Don Jackson William J. Kelly Emil V. Kolb . Hi C. Lawrie Bryn Lloyd Rocco Maragna John A. McGinnis Frank J. McKechnie William G. McLean Ronald A. P. Moran Sandy Nimmo Gordon W. Patterson Floyd R. Perkins Nancy Porteous Maureen Prinsloo Alex Robertson J. Sherman Scott Morton M. Smith, QC Dr. Walter M. Tovell Helen White
ABSENT
Members Bill Belfontaine Donald W. Currie Ronald L. Dancey Lorna D. Jackson Clarence W. Jessop Eldred King Margaret Marland, MPP Richard M. O' Brien Marius Ois Basil V. Orsini Peter E. Oyler Helmut J. Piller Rudy Skjarum Norah Stoner Betty Sutherland William Sutherland James Witty Robert F. M. Yuill A- 167 2-
MINUTES
Res. # 144 Moved by: Floyd Perkins Seconded by: Hi Lawrie
THAT the Minutes of Meeting # 8/ 85 be approved. CARRIED.
DELEGATIONS
The following appeared as delegations in connection with Report # 14/ 85 of the Executive Committee, Item 14 - # 4: Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan Master Planning Zones - Phase 1 Report:
1) Marion Bryden, M. P. P., Beaches- Woodbine
2) Bob Christie Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto
3) Steve Reid - representing Alf Jenkins, Executive Director Ontario Sailing Association
4) Steve Reid, Commodore Outer Harbour Sailing Federation
5) Miss Janice Harniman - representing herself and Miss Laurine Harnimar.
6) John Carley Friends of the Spit
7) Lee Gold Friends of the Spit
8) Gerald Campbell, Future Site Chairman Toronto Multihull Cruising Club
9) Wendy Joscelyn . Mooredale Sailing Club
10) Roy Merrens, Secretary Beachers Marathon Runners Association
11) Frank Loritz St. James Town Sailing Club
12) Kevin Kavanagh The Botany Conservation Group
13) Kevin Kavanagh, representing Trudy Kavanagh
14) Jacqueline Courval
15) Mrs. Wilma Harniman
16) Janice Blackman Aquatic Park Sailing Club
17) John Cranmer- byng Thornhill
18) Michael Oliphant
19) Hugh Currie Ontario Field Ornithologists
20) Ken Bryden
21) Victoria Carley, representing William Clarke, Pembroke 3- A- 168
REPORT # 14/ 85 OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Item 14 (# 4), Section II of the above report was considered at this time.
Item 14, Section II Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan Master Planning Zones Phase I Report
Res. # 145 Moved by: William McLean Seconded by: William Kelly
THAT Item 14 ( 44) Section II of Report # 14/ 85 of the Executive Committee be received.
Following lengthy discussion, it was resolved as follows:
Res. # 146 Moved by: Nancy Porteous Seconded by: Morton Smith
THAT the question be put.
OPPOSED - Lois Griffin CARRIED.
ON A RECORDED VOTE:
VOTING YEA: 26 VOTING NAY: 5 ABSTAINED: 1
Barber, W. G. Crowe, R. J. Gomes, E. Biggar, M. W. H. Griffin, L. Bryson, J. A. Harrison, B. G. Foster, W. T. Maragna, R. Gibson, C. T. Prinsloo, M. Gillespie, R. S. Granger, W. B. Hancey, L. Herridge, W. R. Jackson, Don Kelly, W. J. Kolb, E. V. Lawrie, H. C. Lloyd, B. McGinnis, J. A. McKechnie, F. J. McLean, W. G. Nimmo, S. Patterson. G. W. Perkins, F. R. Porteous, N. Robertson, A. Scott, J. A. Smith, M. M. Tovell, W. M. White, H.
THE MOTION TO RECEIVE WAS ------CARRRIED.
Res. 4147 Moved by: Emil Kolb Seconded by: William Barber
THAT the meeting move into New Business to more properly deal with the matter.
CARRIED.
Motion Moved by: Roger Crowe Seconded by: Lois Griffin
THAT the staff report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones: Phase I report and public/ task force comments be received;
THAT the staff be directed to proceed with Phases II and III of the study approach as approved by the Authority and the Task Force, ensuring full and active public participation and to identify and evaluate further the components for the needs and requirements and the merits for both Options 1 and 3; A- 169 4-
THAT the Authority advise the Toronto Harbour Commission that access to any proposed marina be via Unwin Avenue through the proposal industrial park and not via the Spit;
AND FURTHER THAT all public, private, and task force members be forwarded copies of the full Authority' s recommendations.
THE ABOVE MOTION WAS NOT VOTED UPON
Res. # 148 Moved by: Roger Crowe Seconded by: Lois Griffin
THAT the staff report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan Master Planning Zones Phase I Report and public/ task force comments be received;
THAT the staff be directed to proceed with Phases II and III of the study approach as approved by the Authority and the Task Force, ensuring full and active public participation and to identify and evaluate further the components for the needs and requirements and the merits for both Options 1 and 3;
ON A RECORDED VOTE - VOTING YEA: 20 VOTING NAY: 11
Barber, W. G. Bryson, J. A. Biggar, M. W. H. Hancey, L. Crowe, R. J. Kolb, E. V. Foster, W. T. Lawrie, H. C. Gibson, C. T. Lloyd, B. Gillespie, R. S. Maragna, R. Comes, E. McKechnie, F. J. Granger, W. B. Patterson, G. W. Griffin, L. Perkins, F. R. Harrison, B. G. Robertson, A. He= ridge, W. R. Smith, M. M. Jackson, Don Kelly, W. J. McGinnis, J. A. McLean, W. G. Nimmo, S. Prinsloo, M. Scott, J. S. Tovell, W. M. White, H. CARRIED.
Motion Moved by: Roger Crowe Seconded by: Michael Biggar
THAT the authority recommends to the Toronto Harbour Commission that access to any proposed marina be via Unwin Avenue through the proposed industrial park and not via the Spit.
AMENDMENT Res. 0149 Moved by: William McLean Seconded by: Bryn Lloyd
THAT the matter be referred for a staff report to be presented to the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board.
CARRIED.
Res. 0150 Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Hi Lawrie
THAT consideration of the agenda, as circulated, be resumed.
CARRIED. 5. PHASE II - ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS
5 . 1 OVERVIEW OF PHASE II
The primary objective of Phase II was to establish and identify a range of uses or components for Tommy Thompson
Park .
An extensive public survey was undertaken in order to determine a list of potential uses for Tommy Thompson Park . Pamphlets were distributed to people on the MTRCA mailing list 1( , 300 in total ) and to the weekend park users . As well , advertisements were placed in the City ' s three large newspapers and a media release was provided by the Authority. One hundred and forty- three submissions were received by the MTRCA as a response for the call of public input for potential site uses for Tommy Thomspon Park.
These pamphlets contained both options I and III from Phase I of the study . Both of the development options ( I and III ) zones were weighted equally in this pamphlet so as to provide a fair basis for public input . The major issues arising from this survey addressed the concerns of site access and potential development of certain site facilities for public use .
The results of this site uses survey were presented to the public in the form of a report on June 17 , 1986 .
The listing of site uses as contained within the report were again subjected to public review over a two month period . A revised listing of site uses was published in September 1986 , which provided a basis for Phase III - the preparation of
Alternative Concept Plans . 5 . 2 POTENTIAL SITE USES SURVEY
Phase II 's main focus was to determine potential site uses and site facilities for Tommy Thompson Park, using the planning zones established in Phase I . The site uses survey see Exhibit 5 . 1 ) was distributed to individuals on the MTRCA direct mailing list , and made available at local aldermen ' s offices . Advertisements were also placed in The Globe and
Mail , The Toronto Star, and The Toronto Sun ( see Exhibit
5 . 2) .
The Natural Resource Zone Option (Option I ) in the survey, addressed issues such as ; access , environmental management , research, education/ interpretation , and recreation . The
Recreation Zone Option ( Option III ) requested input on access , education , public boating , accommodation of boating clubs , and recreational uses . The site survey cited examples of the type of public input needed from the public . However , the examples given did not represent or predetermine any future uses of the park .
The public was requested to submit their suggestions for site uses and associated site facilities to the MTRCA. Table 5. 1 provides a complete summary of the public input for the suggested site uses and associated site facilities .
Exhibit 5 . 3 illustrates examples of the public submissions as a result of distributing the survey . Exhibit 5. 1 Potential Site Uses and
Facilities Survey - Phase II
I TOMMY THOMPSON PARK PUBLIC INPUT.
POTENTIAL SITE USES AND FACILITIES
Phase II - Alternative Development Components of the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan study has been initiated by the Authority. The development and evaluation of potential site uses and facilities will be carried out in accordance with the Authority' s direction to consider both Option I ( Natural Resource option) and Option III (Natural Resource, Recreation and Long Term Development option) as outlined in the Phase I Report.
As part of the Phase II planning, the Authority requests your suggestions on potential site uses and associated facilities for both Option I and Option III see pg. 2). Your list should be developed within the concept of the " Master Planning Zones Definition" ( see pg. 3).
To illustrate the input the Authority is requesting, the following examples for both Option I and Option III are provided for your guidance.
POTENTIAL SITE USES AND FACILITIES
OPTION I Example Only
Natural Resource Zone
Wildlife Viewingl observation platforms2 trails interpretive signage marsh area
Site Services transportation
washrooms
1 - identifies the potential uses 2 - identifies associated facilities
OPTION III Example Only
NATURAL RESOURCE ZONE RECREATION ZONE LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT
Wildlife Viewing Sailing Interim Uses observation moorings platforms club house trails launching ramps interpretive signage Interpretive Use marsh area interpretive centre including displays, and education program Site Services transportation Site Services washrooms parking lot transportation
washrooms
Your suggested uses and facilities along with the other public and Authority staff' s lists will be evaluated to generate a preferred list of uses for planning zone Option I and III. This list will be circulated to the public for comment in May, 1986.
Please forward your list to: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York, Ontario M3N 1S4
BY APRIL 11, 1986
If you have any questions, please contact: MR. LARRY FIELD - 661- 6600. R i
3
Master Planning Zones Definition
J
ZONES
CRITERIA LONG TERM NATURAL RESOURCE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT
1. SITE perception of range from formal active CHARACTER natural processes park to natural area construction and " wilderness in with aquatic area the city" concept orientation
2. DEGREE Of minimal physical physical development no permanent PHYSICAL development to support waterfront structures DEVELOPMENT related to recreation opportu- management of nites ( e. g. services, completion resources and parking areas, of landfill education of building to service in accordance public in site' s potential educational with approved natural processes aspects of " yatural final e. g. trails, Resource" zone, configuration signage, wildlife support facilities observation for sailing, sail- platforms) boards, etc.
minor landform alterations
3. LEVEL OF environmental moderata to high level high level of OPERATIONS management, of public facilities, construction research, and maintenance and activity public education security during the interpretation period Monday including site to Friday security over a 20- 30 year time period
4. ACCESS no private private vehicle access construction vehicles vehicles and public transit authorized
public/ service personnel vehicles access for construction vehicles - Monday to public access public access Friday for required prohibited except for certain period of landfill and during environmentally dredgeate disposal construction significant areas" period during specified public access in all periods seasons access to cells limited no motorized boats to tug and and controlled scow for access for other dredgeate non- motorised disposal vessels
S. RANGE OF environmental active recreational .. landfill TYPICAL management uses such as sailing, construction ASES sailboarding and shoreline educational armouring
research interpretive centre for park and natural scow dumping interpretive resource zone of dredgeate programs disposal in passive recreation cells and non- development jogging, cycling, appropriate recreational uses walking filling of including jogging calls in cycling, walking, accessory uses - accordance birdwatching, commercial, with approved dredgeate canoeing, fishing e. g. concessions cover scow routs through Sewage Traatment requirements Embayment C Plant expansion interim use of
completion of completion of landfill landfill areas landfill in in accordance with and water accordance with approved configuration areas in approved configu- cells
ration scow route through Embayment C
Source: Phase I. Report, Pg. 34 i
Exhibit 5. 2 Tommy Thompson Park
Concept Plan - Public Input
Phase II - Alternative Site
Uses and Facilities - Notice
Toronto Sun, March 14, 1986 I
The Metropolitan Toronto and C+j Region Conservation Authority TOMMY THOMPSON PARK % wfa v O* r""t° 1. CONCEPT PLAN PUBLIC INPUT PHASE II ALTERNATIVE SITE USES AND FACILITIES -
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has ini- tiated Phase 1I - Alternative Components of the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan Study. The generation and evaluation of potential site uses and facilities is being carried out in accordance with the Authority' s direction to consider both Option I( Natural Resource option) and Option III ( Natural Resource, Recreation and Long Term Development option) as outlined in the Phase I Report.
The Authority requests your suggestions for potential site uses and associated facilities for both Option I and 1I1. After evaluating all potential uses. the Authority in May, 1986 will be circulating for public comment the preferred- tilt of uses and facilities. To assist you in submitting your suggestions, the Authority has p1repared an information pamphlet. This Pamphlet is available by contacting Mr. Larry Field at 661- 6600. Your list should be forwarded to:
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York. Ontario M3N IS4
AY. APRIL 11, 19W Table 5. 1 Tommy Thompson Park Phase II - Public
Input Summary TOMMY THOMPSON PARK PHASE II PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY
GENERAL
SERVICES/ UTILITIES
telephone emergency underground wiring
lighting security pedestrian scale
none
CONVENIENCES
public washrooms
unobtrusive
portable electric or composting as now
more
at entrance at lighthouse halfway
garbage containers
unobtrusive
water fountains
INFORMATION
signage
none one map at entrance
Toronto boating information
t z- NATURAL RESOURCE ZONE
ACCESS
parking at entrance
unpaved
as now on base leased from THC
public transportation
at cost
none as is pay free
quiet
electric bus tram non- polluting in evening in winter with interpre'ter- driver wheelchair accessible for handicapped, elderly and families with children only no more than once per hour improved service to park as at Point Pelee
entry fee no
yes
extended park hours dawn to dusk
year- round
non- motorized vehicles and vessels
controlled
unrestricted
non- motorized boats
restricted on summer weekends e. g. to 500 during nesting season on trails for environmental protection special groups in evenings and winter by signs water access
construction . minimal
no private vehicle/ car access research . during week
service/ maintenance vehicles
wheelchair rental at entrance
no pets
I 3-
SUGGESTED USES SUGGESTED FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
habitat creation marsh with bullrushes/ marsh area to promtoe diversity cattail marsh to attract rare species embayment C enhance educational and embayment D scientific value SE corner of embayment D dredgeate cells cell 2 cell 3 adjacent to 1981, 1967, 1970 and 1974 fill
areas
extended mudflats embayment B
extended tern habitat islands in embayment D
nesting boxes
shallow pools for fish and amphibians
wildlife and habitat protection extended sandbanks for bank swallow no mowing shoulders nesting protect migratory birds, especially rare and wooded swamp in closed off cell 1 endangered species ESA monitoring forest
field
population control wildlife preserve gulls foxes protected ESA
water level regulation unobtrusive ESA signs
protected breeding and feeding areas
protected embayment D for waders
water purification cattail marsh in dredgeate cells water quality monitoring no dumping of toxic fill cut through neck to flush out outer harbour, same for embayments for emergencies only e. g. rabies and dredgeate cells, to move poisons out to sea noise restrictions
RESEARCH
professional/ academic
biology and botany
special projects e. g. banding
none
L i 4-
SUGGESTED USES SUGGESTED FACILITIES
EDUCATION/ INTERPRETATION
none as at Long Point Provincial Park
as at Prince Edward Point nature study wildlife habitat as at Point Pelee
succession for children, adults, education/ interpretation centre school groups handicapped accessible none
at entrance in natural resource zone wildlife viewing birdwatching small small open- air amphitheatre guided tours by naturalists displays lectures none
shows native species arboretum
marsh) boardwalk
none
viewing platforms/ towers by roadside where maintenance sheds
were
none
observation area
observation blinds
sightings board and/ or book at
entrance
interpretive signs
none
maps and educational leaflets
books, pamphlets ( returnable), slides at entrance
sign at entrance explaining why wildflowers should not be picked
interpreter
RECREATION separate bike trails/ lane
cyclina surfaced
no bicycle rental
bicycle racks at intervals
extension of Martin Goodman trail dogging, running
unpaved pedestrian and bicycle
walking, hiking, exploring parking lot bypass 5-
SUGGESTED USES SUGGESTED FACILITIES
RECREATION hiking/ walking/ jogging trails beside road CONT' D) soft surface replacing roadway unplanned, as occur from picnicking use
none swimming wider than road to
reinforce pedestrian sunbathing, reading, drawing, dominance painting, poetry writing not around embayment edges kite flying wheelchair accessible
new gravel road photography
astronomy none
casual sports benches at inervals
contemplation, quiet enjoyment, at lighthouse
cloud watching, soul restoration, at entrance hand holding none
bike racks at entrance fishing picnic tables at lighthouse sailing at entrance
sailboarding BBQ stands cross country skiing bathing beaches
ice skating change rooms
sailboarding( without facilities) parkland in embayments and cells unmanicured as a product of natural
processes canoeing none no planted or introduced plant materials no hydroplane races landscaped character some judicious planting no drinking wilderness character
no parties first aid centre
shelter( s) no moviemaking unobtrusive
no sports events visiting anchorage in embayments A no float plane landing and B
no boat beaching small canoe rental none no industry
OTHER
no scow route through embayment C
no sewage treatment plant
explansion
no completion of landfill 6-
TOMMY THOMPSON PARK PHASE II - PUBLIC INPUT SUMARY
RECREATION ZONE
ACCESS:
parking
as now
in transition zone, central for club members only overnight
near each club
public transportationP ortation bus jitney
entry fee
extended park hours dawn to dusk
year round
private vehicle/ car access
as now club members only weekdays only 15 mph speed limit before 9 a. m. and after 6 p. m. to boating to education centre 24 hr., 7 day, year round none to embayment C
direct waterfront access to outer harbour for boaters
boating access by water only
overbeach access to embayment C for boaters
restricted power boat access
outer harbour should not become access channel for powerboats heading to Lake
no scow cut through embayment C
pets permitted
i SUGGESTED USES SUGGESTED FACILITIES
EDUCATION
oritentation/ education/ water activity education interpretation centre boating with displays water safety OSA run facilities separate from
clubs
observation points for aquatic activities
experimental wind, solar, or wave
none power generator
none
PUBLIC BOATING
craft rental public access dock
canoe kayak public launch ramps
windsurfer
visitor moorings in embayments A, B and D water tours
storage ecologically based rental craft private craft
none parking
washrooms
canteen
separate from clubs
none
ACCOMMODATION OF BOATING CLUBS
Hanlan Boat Club craft parking, launch storage facilities Aquatic Park Sailing Club ramps present location docks floating Outer Harbour Centreboard Club repair and loading as far west as possible swing moorings workshop Toronto Windsurfing Club storage sheds east shoreline of gasoline lockers embayment C winter storage canoe/ dinghy storage/ racks St. Jamestown Sailing Club shell house small hoist Mooredale Sailing Club crane ramp fence/ gates Westwood Sailing Club sheltered water dredged embayment D private and municipally operated dedicated beach canoe and kayak clubs shore stabilization
east side of embayment C 8-
SUGGESTED USES SUGGESTED FACILITIES
ACCOMMODATION OF BOATING CLUBS CONT' D)
boater facilities ecologically based club house no basement in embayment C hydro running water keel boat clubs on south side sewer connections
of spit telephone
washrooms
none showers lockers meeting room architectural guide- lines
pro shop windbreaks
paved walkways
paved road lawns for sail folding for recreation gravel areas to discourage goose nesting grading and landscaping
shared
club- supplied facilities
municipally supplied services
for each club
clear territorial definition
layout as on north shore
layout as at Toronto Catamarin Club
none 9-
SUGGESTED USES SUGGESTED FACILITIES
RECREATION as for Natural Resource Zone, plus:
tennis courts tennis food services eating cafe( s) restaurant( s) snack bar
refreshment stand shopping on base of spit none
unique world renown tourist commercial development
attraction at entrance to provide
sense of arrival
cycling concessions recreational and near entrance training minimal none
nature appreciation boutiques, shops on base of spit
ecologically based Caravan Village: series of villages representing Toronto' s various cultures with music crafts, boating boutiques and food, connected by racing mosaic of gardens, trails, cafes teaching and quays crusing/ camping day sailing one way bike loop, 20 ft. wide, none connecting to existing road, perhaps bridging one embayment boat land/ launching none wildlife observation area
sailing events base of spit purchased from THC to accommodate intensive ice boating recreation
rowing judicious alterations to landform
waterskiing first aid centre
special sailing programs for Olympic regatta course youth, the elderly, handicapped parkland extensive treee planting existing character formal park as at Toronto Islands as at Humber Bay landfill as at Bluffers park as at Cold Creek Conservation Area
OTHER
housing lowrise townhouses on base of spit
daycare
no sewage treatment plant
expansion I
I 10-
SUGGESTED, USES SUGGESTED FACILITIES
extension of recreation zone marina waterfront recreation
ice skating parking roller skating accommodation of growth in security boating community provincial park style kiddie amusements camping tourists only tenniscourts no liquor
campground extension of natural resource zone baseball diamonds nature appreciation filling with material other football fields than rubble to encourage
natural succession and park colonization landscaped character
environmental cleanup silt filters reduced pollution long term detoxification no permanent structures unplanned, for future needs
no commercial development relocated marine police terminal no industry
II
I
I
I Exhibit 5.3 Submissions on Potential
Site Uses and Facilities Outer Harbour Sailing
Federation - April 8, 1986
Marion Bryden - MPP,
Beaches - Woodbine
March 12, 1986. OUTER HARBOUR SAILING FEDERATION O H S F BOX 313 ADELAIDE POSTAL STATION T M5C 2, 14
April 8, 1986
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, 14 North York, Ontario M3N 1S4 Attn. Mr Larry Field
Dear Mr Field, M. ' i'. 1.` C. A.
Re: ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS OF THE TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
The Outer Harbour Sailing Federation ( O. H. S. F. ) represents six sailing clubs and one sailing school located on five acres of Harbour Commission raw industrial land on the north shore of the Outer Harbour, and one club located in Embayment C of the Tommy Thompson Park. The O. H. S. F. was formed to facilitate administration for the Harbour Commission and to promote sailing in the Outer Harbour. The north shore clubs have been allowed to use ( and more recently to be licencees on) their present site since the early 19701s. This was an interim arrangement, in the eyes of the Harbour Commission, until a permanent home could be established for them on the then Leslie Street spit (Tommy Thompson Park) .
These non- profit; open membership, and self help clubs have a combined membership in excess of 1500 sailors and, also provide training for an additional 1000 persons each year. Affiliated with the Ontario Sailing Association and the Canadian Yachting Association, the clubs provide a unique Toronto opportunity for novice sailors to to learn the sport at minimal cost on community owned or member owned boats. From small, one person Lasers to large multihulls, these aspiring sailors progress educationally, through all Sail Ontario course levels. The O. H. S. F. and other sailing, windsurfing and rowing clubs of the Outer Harbour, which in total represent in excess of 4000 people, promote a healthy outdoor leisure sport close to downtown Toronto, which is both environmentally sound and uses only a minimum amount of land on Toronto' s largest protected bay.
The O. H. S. F. welcomes the opportunity to provide input for the T. T. P. Concept Plan Study. The O. H. S. F. can not support Option I. Leaving the entire T. T. P. to wilderness, restricting its uses to a limited number of landbased, passive recreational activities. It does not provide access to Toronto' s precious and unique resource - the protected waters of the Outer Harbour. cont' d. . . ./ 2 Page 2
The O. H. S. F. supports the principal of mixed landuse in Option III. The extensive and growing area which is demarcated as a Natural Resource Zone in the Phase I report should be left as a " wilderness" . Such an area provides an opportunity to study plant succession and bird habitation in an urban environment. To this end the area should be left in as natural a state as possible, with a minimum of site services such as:
walking and cycling trails;
an interpretive centre and observation platforms;
washroom facilities;
and a public transportation corridor for the elderly and handicapped as well as emergancy and service vehicales The areas indicated as Recreation and Transition are appropriate for a wide variety of active recreational uses such as sailing, board sailing and rowing clubs. With suitable dredging and site preperation the area around Embayment D could accommodate dry sailing clubs.
The Aquatic Park Sailing Club ( APSC) is presently using Embayment C with no adverse impact on the environment. Embayment C is a suitable permanent home for this club and it could also accommodate the The Toronto Multihull Cruising Club ( TMCC) , a unique club to Canada. delicate multihulls require protected mooring waters and can often not be accommodated in other clubs or marinas because of their width.
The O. H. S. F. considers suitable uses for the Recreational and Transition zone to include:
sailing activities with associated clubhouses, land storage, launching ramps and docks;
access to embayment C, moorings, a crane ramp and shore facilities for the A. P. S. C. and T. M. C. C. ;
rowing and windsurfing clubs;
Site requirements would be:
car access and parking facilities which could double as winter storage areas
security provisions for the dry sailing clubs
car access, parking and launch facilities for the public
washroom/ shower facilities, for the Public boating community, swimmers and other casual users; cont' d. . . .\ 3 Page 3
The O. H. S. F. is concerned that the recreation and transition zones offer barely adequate space for the relocation of the over 4500 existing members of the sailing, windsurfing, and rowing community that presently use the Outer Harbour, and that have insecure tenure at their north shore location. Interim uses in the Long Term Development Zone should include provision for growth of the boating community.
The O. H. S. F. trusts the M. T. R. C. A. will continue to take a balanced view of the various interest aroups who would like to use the T. T. P. in the future and that it will ensure that the sailing community continues, as they were originally designated by The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, to have access to the protected waters of the Outer Harbour.
esCpe u y ur ,
en J "Reid, 0 odor , OHSF ROOM 210 NORTH WING Ontario CONSTITUENCY OFFICE LEGISLATIVE BUILDINGS 2118 DANFORTH AVENUE TORONTO ONTARIO M7A IA2 TORONTO. ONTARIO M4C 1J9 965. 4726 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 421- 1610
MARION BRYDEN, M. P. P. BEACHES- WOODBINE
Mr . Larry Field , March 12 , 1986 The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority , 5 Shoreham Drive , North York, M3N 1S4
Dear Mr . Field ,
Regarding potential site uses and facilities for Tommy Thompson Park, I can only reiterate that the only option as far as I am concerned is that of keeping this area as close to its natural state as possible .
This means staying with Option 1 , which would keep a natural wilderness and keep costs low. Further development is unwarranted and I am convinced would lead to slow but sure erosion of any natura element in favour of more and more manicured areas .
Yours sincerely,
Marion gryden , MPP Beaches- Woodbine New Democratic Party
c . c . Friends of the Spit
18 l o 5. 3 POTENTIAL SITE USES - PUBLIC MEETING ( JUNE 17 , 1986 )
A public meeting was held on June 17 , 1986 at the University of Toronto' s Medical Sciences Auditorium to present the
Potential Site Uses Report - Phase II . One hundred and nineteen people were in attendance .
Notice of this meeting was given by correspondence to individuals on the MTRCA direct mailing list , a sign posted at the entrance of the park , and through newspaper advertisements in the Globe and Mail (see Exhibit 5 . 4 ) , The
Toronto Star , and The Toronto Sun .
An overview of the Phase II report was presented , highlighting the following sections ; biophysical inventory, regional context , site context , and potential site uses .
The Authority announced the deadline extension to July 18 , 1986 for submissions on the Phase II report .
Prior to proceeding with the public forum; Walter Kehm ( EDA
Collaborative Inc . ) , the Authority' s consultant , was called upon to explain the evaluation criteria which were applied to the responses received from the Potential Site Uses Survey. A summarized list of use components for the park was presented .
see Exhibit 5 . 5) .
An invitation was extended to interested individuals or groups to meet with Authority staff on an informal basis , during July and August , to initiate the formulation of alternative concepts as part of Phase III . The public was informed of the Authority' s future plans in the planning
process . A public workshop to be held in September 1986 , would provide a basis to obtain alternative concept plans using the master planning zones and list of park use components from Phases I and II . I
Eighteen people presented their comments on the Phase II
report , at this meeting . A summary of some of the comments
are as follows:
1 . Marion Bryden , M. P. P. planning schedule does not provide sufficient
time to respond , issues requiring further discussion: locations for sailing clubs , transition zone ,
impact of THC marina , car access , sewage
treatment plant expansion, and the proposed
scow cut through the headland .
2 . John Carley, Friend of the Spit Spit not to be used as " laboratory" ,
Friends of the Spit want a commitment that the
Spit is for people only, site uses survey is incomplete , some of the
proposed uses already occurring .
3 . Verna Higgins , Botany Conservation Group some of the proposed uses are inappropriate or duplicate facilities along the waterfront such
as : kite flying , sunbathing , cross- country model boats , skiing , canoeing , rowing , fishing ,
ice skating , archery , camping , and scuba diving .
4 . Alf Jenkins , Ontario Sailing Association Option 1 remains unacceptable to the boating
community and general public , it should be a park for people and sail boats .
5 . Steve Reid , Outer Harbour Sailing Federation OHSF want provisions for sailing in Tommy
Thompson Park .
6 . Ms . Blackburn , Aquatic Park, Sailing Club in last ten years on the Spit , the APSC has not
hindered natural development ,
provides low- cost , non- elitist sailing , non polluting and compatible with its present
location . 7 . B. Bertie
pleased with level of MTRCA public
communications ,
many uses fit into several zones , more uses for the natural zone should be considered , critical zoning issues include regional balance
of recreation, water and natural resources , as well as City of Toronto zoning of land south of Unwin . A possible transfer of THC lands south
of Unwin to MTRCA should be considered and zoned
for park uses .
i Exhibit 5. 4 Notice of Public Meeting Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan Phase 2 -
Potential Site Uses
Globe and Mail
June 16, 1986 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TOMMY THOMPSON PARK" CONCEPT PLAN PHASE 2- POTENTIAL SITE USES
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, as W 01 the pAft Consultation proceu in Phase 2 has ar- ranged a Public meehag for DATE: Tuesday, June 17, 1966
TtME: 1tat" at 700 P- M. PLACE: Medical Selena Building, Audit~. Main Floor, 1 King' s Collage Circle, M* twtian University Avenue and SL George SL Nd North of College SL)
YOUR PARTICIPATION IS REQUESTED. li An Information package will be available at the meeting. If YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL:
LARRY FlEIA-- Manager. Water Msnagernent a$~, The MAhopoU4n Toronto and Region CCnsarv~ Authority 661-0600.
I
I
I II I Exhibit 5. 5 Tommy Thompson Park Use Programme As
Presented June 17, 1986 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK USE PROGRAMME
AS A RESULT OF THE SCREENING PROCESS AND EVALUATION, THE POTENTIAL TOMMY THOMPSON PARK USES AND FACILITIES AS SHOWN ON THE SUMMARY EVALUATION HAVE BEEN LISTED AS TO THEIR APPLICABILITY TO THE THREE MASTER PLANNING ZONES AS FOLLOWS :
NATURAL RESOURCE ZONE
LAND BASED
BICYCLE TRAILS CROSS COUNTRY SKIING PICNICKING HIKING NATURE SCHOOL BIRD WATCHING SKATEBOARDING SITTING AREAS NATURE STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ART KITE FLYING SUN BATHING PHOTOGRAPHY/ DRAWING ASTRONOMY INTERPRETIVE CENTRE VISITORS CENTRE
WATER BASED
MODEL BOATS ROWING COURSE KAYAKING CANOEING FISHING SWIMMING BEACH ICE SKATING
SERVICES
WASHROOMS TELEPHONE HYDRO/ LIGHTING WATER/ FOUNTAINS SEWAGE SERVICES GARBAGE CONTAINERS SIGNAGE PARKING PUBLIC TRANSIT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
HABITAT CREATION HABITAT PROTECTION POPULATION CONTROL WATER LEVEL REGULATION RESEARCH SHORELINE PROTECTION WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
RECREATION ZONE
LAND BASED
ARCHERY BICYCLE TRAILS CROSS COUNTRY SKIING PICNICKING HIKING NATURE SCHOOL BIRD WATCHING SKATEBOARDING SITTING AREAS NATURE STUDY - PIONEER CONDITIONS ENVIRONMENTAL ART KITE FLYING SUN BATHING PHOTOGRAPHY/ DRAWING ASTRONOMY CAMPING ( TENT) INTERPRETIVE CENTRE VISITORS CENTRE BICYCLE RENTAL
WATER BASED
SAIL BOAT LAUNCHING MODEL BOATS ROWING COURSE KAYAKING CANOEING FISHING TOUR BOAT BOAT CHARTER SWIMMING BEACH SAILING CLUBS SAILING SCHOOL WINDSURFING DIVING/ SCUBA ICE SKATING WATER ACTIVITY - EDUCATION SERVICES
WASHROOMS FOOD SERVICE TELEPHONE HYDRO/ LIGHTING WATER/ FOUNTAINS SEWAGE SERVICES GARBAGE CONTAINERS SIGNAGE PARKING PUBLIC TRANSIT
I ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
HABITAT PROTECTION POPULATION CONTROL WATER LEVEL REGULATION WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT SHORELINE PROTECTION
LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT ZONE
LAND BASED
BICYCLE TRAILS CROSS COUNTRY SKIING PICNICKING HIKING NATURE STUDY BIRD WATCHING SKATEBOARDING SITTING AREAS NATURE STUDY - PIONEER CONDITIONS ENVIRONMENTAL ART KITE FLYING SUN BATHING PHOTOGRAPHY/ DRAWING ASTRONOMY
I
WATER BASED
MODEL BOATS KAYAKING CANOEING FISHING SWIMMING BEACH WINDSURFING DIVING/ SCUBA ICE SKATING r
SERVICES
WASHROOMS TELEPHONE HYDRO/ LIGHTING GARBAGE CONTAINERS SIGNAGE PUBLIC TRANSIT
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
HABITAT PROTECTION POPULATION CONTROL WATER LEVEL REGULATION SHORELINE PROTECTION WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT NOISE GENERATION RESTRICTION RESEARCH
I
0 5. 4 REVISED SITE USES PROGRAM
The Tommy Thompson Park Use Program, as outlined in the
Potential Site Uses Report and presented in June, 1986 to the public , was subject to further submissions to the Authority during the summer of 1986 .
A list of the public organizations , or agencies submissions
received up until August 22 , 1986 are presented on the
following pages . Exhibit 5 . 6 presents examples of the public
responses to the Phase II Report - Potential Site Uses .
The Authority received 50 public submissions as of
September 2 , 1986 commenting on the Phase II - Tommy Thompson Park Use Program. The comments generally recognized that the
Use Program" , as outlined by the Authority, was a possible listing of appropriate uses . Other responses tended to
comment on " how" the use would 'be incorporated into the
concept plans ( Phase III ) . In essence these comments did not
reject a use from further considerations , rather they provided direction to the Authority on how the use could best be incorporated into Tommy Thompson Park .
The public responses did question the appropriateness of a number of uses such as , " archery, skateboarding , kite flying" .
The Authority reviewed the public comments on the
if of a number of uses and prepared or revised list of " Potential Uses" ( see Exhibit 5 . 7 ) for consideration
in the development of Alternative Concept Plan in Phase III . Submissions received by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as of August 22, 1986 after presentation of the Phase II Report - June 17 , 1986 .
DATE
NO. NAME ORGANIZATION RECD.
1 . Jean Macdonald Toronto Field Naturalists June 17
2 . Marion Bryden M. P. P. , Beaches- Woodbine June 17
3 . G. Hurlburt June 24
4 . Uwe Ackermann June 25
5 . W. L. Jones July 02 6 . Mary T. Jones July 04 7 . David Blatman July 04 8 . William Brunow July 04 9 . Jean Macdonald Toronto Field Naturalists July 04 10 . Peter J . Lowens July 07 11 . Louise Dixon & July 07
Paul Kerman
12 . Robert Kilby July 07 13 . Sylvia M. Hvidsten July 08
14 . Trevor H. Levere July 09
15 . H. R. Cuuking July 10 16 . Mrs . Wilma Harniman July 10 17 . Peggy Feltmate July 10
18 . Albert Aulsebrook July 10
19 . R. Barker July 11
20 . Dermott F . Corr July 11 21 . Wm. A. Martin July 11 22 . Gerry Campbell Toronto Mulithull Crusing Club July 14 23 . Ian Brookes July 15 24 . Victoria Midgley & July 16 Paul Midgley 25 . Tom Ferguson July 18 26 . Brian Paterson Aquatic Park Sailing Club July 17
27 . Anne Farraway July 17
28 . Donna Rex Mooredale Sailing Club July 17 29 . Hans Blokpoel Canadian Wildlife Service July 17 30 . W. K. Bryden July 18 31 . Chris Wabon July 18 32 . P. M. Dalton Outer Harbour Centreboard Club July 18
33 . Frank Loritz St . Jamestown Sailing Club July 20 34 . Samuel A. Craig Hanlan Boat Club July 20 35 . Lloyd Lamsee The Toronto Catamaran Club July 21 36 . Joanne & Jim Griffith July 21 37 . Roy Scott Westwood Sailing Club July 21 38 . Lois Scott July 22 39 . Alf Jenkins Ontario Sailing Association July 22 40 . Brian K. Bertie & July 23 H. Mackay
41 . Mrs . Ruth Arntz July 23 42 . Harriet Davidson July 23
43 . Stanley E. Kutz July 23
44 . Edward R. Baldwin Baldwin & Branklin Architects July 24
45 . Don Huff & The Federation of Ontario Aug . 15
Steve Varga Naturalists
46 . Verna J. Higgins Botany Conservation Group Aug . 18 47 . Gerry Campbell Outer Harbour Sailing Aug . 18
Federation
48 . John L. Cranmer- Byng NO DATE
49 . Friends of the Spit July Exhibit 5. 6 Submissions regarding Phase II - Potential Site
Uses
Friends of the Spit - July 1986 Toronto Field Naturalists
July 3, 1986
Derek Quin - September 6, 1986
Aquatic Park Sailing Club July 17, 1986 Paul and Victoria Midgley July 14, 1986 Toronto Multihull Cruising Club July 8, 1986 OA •
O
i Friends of the Spit P.O Box 467, Station J Toronto, Ontario MQ 4Z2
GOALS OF FRIENDS OF THE SPIT JULY 1986
After 10 years of deputations and submissions on behalf of The Spit, Friends of the Spit can only deduce that, once again, we must state our aims with
emphasis.
Friends of the Spit is a volunteer organization representing over 120 0 members and all those who go to The Spit to enjoy it as it is. Our constituency is naturalists, wide, and varied. We represent walkers, hikers, joggers, cyclists, Our picknickers, etc. , all unified by their enjoyment of The Spit as it is. group wishes to preserve The Spit, the entire Spit, from development. We coined the phrase " Public Urban Widerness" to epitomize our position.
As we have stated so many times before, and will state again, the following items are non- negotiable within any planning framework:
A. Ensure that The Spit is accessible, with no admission charge, to
all people.
B. No private automobile access to the entire Spit.
C. Enshrine the " Let it Be" concept. Allow The Spit to evolve as nature allows it.
D. No privatization of the waterfront or land uses. No sailing clubs or
marinas.
E. Enshrine the concept that The Spit as a Public Urban Wilderness is absolutely necessary to redress the imbalance of uses on the Toronto Waterfront and acknowledge that keeping The Spit as a Public Urban Wilderness will involve the least expenditure of taxpayers' money. Acknowledge that a key precept of Urban Design is the creation, and maintenance, of Public Urban Wilderness space.
Various schemes and trial balloons for developing The Spit are periodically floated". Friends of The Spit want The Spit left undeveloped because:
1. Leaving it alone costs nothing, and saves the many millions of scarce taxpayers dollars that development would demand.
2
6 Page 2 Goals of Friends of The Spit
2. Most people want it kept as it is. In poll after poll Toronto Star, MTRCA), the overwhelming majority of respondents want The Spit left as it is.
3. It is the only section of Toronto waterfront still in a wild state - the rest has been privatized, paved over, commercialized, built up, or manicured. Saving The Spit as it is will help redress the imbalance of uses and activities on the Toronto
waterfront.
4. It is a placed used sucessfully for many activities including walking, hiking, jogging, cycling, family outings, nature study, relaxation away from the city' s bustle, etc. 5. We don' t want development there - development means parking lots, cars, buildings, roads, marinas, etc. , which will all spoil The Spit.
6. It is a priceless urban wilderness - left alone, it will get better
each year.
7. Increasing numbers of people come to The Spit each year ( 1984 - 25, 000±; 1985 - 41, 000±) to enjoy The Spit as it is. The Spit is a success as is, why change it? 8. It is a very special recreation amenity for the citizens of Toronto and Ontario - it costs nothing to enjoy! For those people who do not own cars, cottages, or sailboats, it is an essential amenity - easily accessible, and free.
9. It is a unique natural environment for learning about the processes of Nature, how things change and evolve in the wild - a unique outdoor laboratory for children ( and adults) to learn about our environment.
10. It is refuge to a number of rare plant and bird species - species which deserve our continued stewardship.
11. It offers an extraordinary range of experiences for its users, and offers a wide range of recreational possibilities as it is.
12. It costs virtually nothing to maintain it - most city parks are much smaller but cost a lot to maintain and manicure - on The Spit, Nature does the work, at no cost to taxpayers.
13. The Boating community is presently well- served on the Toronto water- front. Private vehicle access to The Spit and the support services required for boating are not compatible with a Public Urban Wilderness.
For these reasons, it is essential that all authorities dedicate themselves to the retention and maintenance of The Spit as it is.
As always, Friends of The Spit reiterate our desire to actively assist and guide all those involved in the planning process to keep The Spit as it is. We are waiting to be called upon. f- TORONTO FIELD NATURALISTS
July 3, 19g6 SINCE 1923 y
Mr. Larry Field Manager, Water Management Section The Metro aolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S1+
Dear Mr. Field:
Before commenting on the Phase 2 Summary of the Tommy Thompson bark Concept Plan we wish to say that we were encouraged by the remarks made by Mr. Walter Kehm at the meeting June 17. He seems to have a feel for the natural evolution of an unurbanized area and an attitude of restraint to too much development.
We - have now had time to review more thoroughly the Summary. In our comments, although we refer to the Recreation Zone, since it is part of the Plan, we continue to oppose Option 3.
The first goal of the Plan is "to conserve and manage the natural resources and environmentally significant area of the site". In the recreation zone which would have ? riority: the oP'_ortu.nities for recreation, or conserving or Protecting the environment? This is important because to achieve this goal, Planning in the recreation zone should be done with the idea of conserving the area and being conscious of the effect of management on the natural areas. ' It is also important to anticipate what effect an adjacent recreation area would have on the ESA. Figures 5. 1 to 5. 5 in the Summary indicate, by your own assessment, environmentally significant species or areas. Some of these fall in the Proposed recreation zone. We ask how these rare or important features will be protected if the area is opened to recreation, including parking, buildings, etc.
Many of the uses listed for the Natural Resource Zone and for the Recreation Zone are the same. In practise these could be conducted in a different way. Would your Plan be to actively Promote activities such as cross- country skiing, fishing, ice- skating or swimming, which would then require management: grooming trails, perhaps stocking Ponds, preparing and clearing ice rinks, Providing change facilities and life guards for swimming, or would you allow these to evolve naturally? Would you handle them differently in the different zones?
Following are comments on each of the items in the summary. I 2
LAND BASED
Cross Country Skiing - There is often less snow in the Park than on the main- land. Would it be viable? Would skiiers damage vegetation? The spit is cold.
Picnicking - Do not Provide tables. Place large logs, rocks or even slabs of concrete ( found among the fill) at random in accessible Places. Many Peonle are happily having their meals in just such places now and this gives them a sense of discovery. ( " Here' s a lovely log - let' s have lunch here") , instead of the implied regimentation (" Here' s a -.4cnic table, this is where you eat") . In this context no BBq stands.
Hiking All these are passive activities available to all Bird Watching individuals. These activities would be enhanced by the Sitting lower level of other activity expected in a natural Sun Bathing resource zone compared with a recreation zone. We are PhotograPhy/ Drawing) not clear- about the sub- section " pioneer conditions" Nature Study after Nature Study ( recreation zone) . Does this imply a structured situation?
Skateboarding - a resounding NO.
Nature School - This suggests buildings and equipment. There is already one on the island. What about access during the week when trucks are in the '-Sa.rk? ' We say no to this.
Environmental Art - What does this mean? No sculptures dotted about, Please.
Kite Flsyin, - Available elsewhere but could possibly be restricted to the north end. What about kite strings or kites getting tangled with other users, including flying birds?
Astronomy - Will the skies be dark enough so near the Metro area? Will this lead to demands for car access ( at night)?
Interpretive Centre - This would be useful but should be low key and unob- trusive at the north end.
Visitor;;b- Centre,.- Ycv. -.Thlc _sm , mot$
Bicycle Trails - The need is for se? arate bicycle paths, separate from walkers. Sneed should be controlled. There is scarcely enough land in the total area of the -%rk for bicycle trails. There is already bicycle access to different areas off the paved road.
Archery - Doesn' t seem necessary. Could be accommodated in many of the larger manicured" Metro parks.
Bicycle Rental - No. On some days there are already too many bicycles. This would entail racks, possibly a storage building. WATER BASED
Model Boats - Do some of these have noisy engines? They would be ina-opropriate.
Rowing Course) The activities in themselves are acce? table. They will require Kayaking launching areas, access by cars if persona wish to bring their Canoeing own equi?ment, perhaps storage areas, staff. Windsurfing ) Diving/ Scuba )
Fishin - Would anyone eat the fish? Would there be a demand for ice fishing with its accompanying huts? Car access?
Swimming Beach - With minimum land- based facilities
Ice Skating - Many _ arks and arenas have skating. No man- made rinks. Would ice quality on the open water ( frozen) be acceptable? T're headland is cold and windy. What kind of access would there be to the skating dace?
Tour Boat } These are available on the mainland. Should not dock at Park. Boat Charter)
SERVICES
Washrooms - Consider some kind of non- flushing toilets. This would eliminate need for water system. Those there now are very acce? table ( portables) .
Telephone - Already there. Desirable for security and emergencies.
Hydro lighting - There are lights along the main road. How often will the Park be used during hours of darkness? Extension of lighting seems unnecessary.
Water Fountains - Some people may find these a necessity. Requires a water system in the -Park. Perhaps at the north end with a sign that no. drinking water is available in the Park.
Sewage Service - To serve washrooms or to service the portable toilets? Flush toilets would require water and Plumbing. What about winter?
Garbage Containers - Necessary and inconspicuous - but not too much so. The Park is remarkably clean - users seem to respect its primitive character
Signage - Some robably desirable. Would depend on what and where. We would appreciate discussions as the need for this develops. The signboard at the entrance is very good.
Parkin - Outside the park and kept to modest proportions. Parking lot should not be expanded indefinitely to accommodate increasing numbers of cars.
Public Transit - Yes. More frequent service by TTC. ( May increase as demand increases) . A small train may ultimately be more suitable and should be examined for cost- effectiveness. ( Inside the Park) . 4
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Habitat Creation - Some may be desirable and we would a7)reciate it if environmental groups could have input into pro Posed Plans. A better term might be habitat enhancement. From a scientific and research point of view the less manipulation the better. Promoting diversity creates, in effect, an artificial environment which will not be as valuable as one left to evolve in its own way.
Habitat Protection - Yes. In the recreation zone will recreation take precedence over _protection?
Population Control - Other than Ring- billed Gull control or discouragement' and a little hel P to the tern colonies, if necessary, other PoPulations should be allowed to balance themselves.
Water Level Regulation) If or when necessary. Shore Line Protection )
Water quality Improvement - Yes;
The above breakdown deals with the Points which, for the most mart, are common to the Natural Resources Zone and the Recreation Zone. In addition in the Recreation Zone there are the following:
Sailing Clubs These will require land- based development '?lus access and Sailing School ) Possibly ?arking areas. The demand will increase - as Sailboat Launching) demand is increasing along the whole waterfront for sailing facilities - until the area can no longer su_oPort the numbers of potential Participants. Will it then flow over into the Natural Resources Zone?
On Page S a request has been made for moorings im embayments A, B and D. A, B and C are in the Natural Resources Zone. C is already used by sailors. D is the area which is favoured by shorebirds and is identified as an ESA site Figure 5. 1) .
Looking at the detailed suggestions ( Page 9) there are eleven sailing-related groups ho Ping to find space. There will be continued pressure for the facilities suggested on Page 9, and many of these will be necessary. There is even a request for a lawn for sail folding and recreation.
If these clubs are allowed a toehold the whole Recreation Zone will become urbanized and the Park will lose its character and become , just another bit tacked on to what will be no different from dozens of daces already in existence.
The 1200 boat marina pro Posed by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners will provide a great deal of additional sailing s_'RLce.
We feel that just because hundreds of thousands of PeoPle want to sail is no reason to turn every inch of shore into a marina or mooring bay. Everything 5 has its capacity whether it is Maple Leaf Gardens or a favourite restaurant. Sometimes everyone cannot be accommodated. In addition, the rights and wishes of other citizens deserve consideration.
Perhaps it is time to Pressure the THC to allow develo anent of sailing facilities along the mainland shoreline. It seems there will not be shiP'Oing in the foreseeable future. Sailing facilities could be Permitted as a revenue- r-roductng use with any development of the harbour lands taping '?lace behind the sailing facilities. There is a boat- related business just north of Unwin Street on Leslie. This might move to the THC lands nearer the sailing community. Access to the sailboats in embayment C could be from the mainland via a launch.
Camping; - There doesn' t seem to be any good reason to allow cam ping. So near a large urban area it might be a risk to Personal safety ( thieves, muggers, perverts, goons, etc.). Would there need to be security services?
Research - Some is being done now. Research activities should not exclude access by the general public other than Present exclusions to protect bird colonies and habitat in general.
Food Service - No.
Other Comments
In spite of talk of " sheltered bays" the lake on the morning of June 29 was like a mill pond, while the outer harbour was choppy; in fact even had white caps after noon.
Because of Plant growth in some Places between the road and outer harbour embayments there is no view of the water from the road. There might be an o p'?ortunity for a foot?ath through the shrubbery and a modest viewing area. A viewing platform or observation area could enhance appreciation but should be carefully Planned.
The chart " Environmental Character of Waterfront Areas" lists 31 areas. Only three have more than half natural or near natural areas. In two of these it appears that the near natural areas are inaccessible. Only one, Tommy Thompson Park is accessible for passive enjoyment and appreciation. Most of these areas are also listed on the" Lake Ontario Waterfront Program". At nine of these ( not including Tommy Thompson Park) mooring or sailing is available or Proposed. These could be extended and enlarged as they are mainland based. In addition to these MTRCA lands there are many more marinas.
We have not commented on the Long Term Develo-:anent Zone. It is too early to know how the Park will ultimately develop. In ten years when the endikements may be com:Plete we will know whether we have a Jamaica Bay or an Ontario Place. The Long Term Zone will then likely follow suit. Public o Pinion may strongly influence its future. 6
I was at the Park recently. A small group of people on bicycles went slowly by. One said something like "This is really lovely, isn' t it?" to one of his companions. The response, " It' s wonderful!". The ex'?erience here cannot be duplicated anywhere else in Metro Toronto. The whole ?lark should be kept as a natural area to enable ' People to get away from the organization, regimentation, sterilization and urbanization of most of the lakeshore.
Miss) Jean Macdonald President 28 Howland Avenue ,
Toronto, Ontario, Sept. 6, 1986. le The Metro Toronto and Region ow
Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive , Downsview, Ontario.
To the Members of the Board:
I appreciate this chance to reply to the Phase 2 document for the Tommy Thompson Park. I hope I 'm not too late in doing so.
I am a member of the " Friends of the Leslie Street Spit" . I cycle out to it when I can. And I love it for what it does to me and to others who use it as I do, to relax. It' s fun, natural and free. For those of us who don' t have boats, it' s a chance to get out on the water anyway, without the costs and water resistant equipment.
I was at your meeting at which Phase 2 was presented. To be honest, I heard with some sympathy the concerns of boaters ,esp. those who live in high rise buildings ,who, so to speak, need the water to escape . Yet, as I read through this document, I became worried. For all your expertise , or perhaps because of it, and because of your attempts to cater to all ideas for "developing" the Spit, I very much fear you
could ruin it
For example , I am pretty appalled at some of the uses you would
countenance - skateboarding, roller skating, etc. Frankly I feel such planning says you really have not understood the special quality of the place. I respectfully remind you that within the title of the Authority appears the word " conservation".
Where lies the balance between the conflicting wishes of the naturalists and the sailors ? In my view, it lies in favouring preserving the site as much as possible . Proportionately, land development for boating facilities would represent one- fourth only of the Spit. A natural border would hopefully reinforce the division 2/
arrived at between the two constituencies. What worries me is the extent of the auxiliary facilities ,e. g. parking, winter storage, etc. These examples are land intensive . I hope parking would be provided off- Spit.
I appreciate the fact that the Authority has kept interested parties informed.
Yo s truly,
Derek Quin.
i