D A QUA TIC PARK SAILING CLUB
RE 0 Er. Li t.. + f O JUL 1'7 1586
July 17, 1986 M. T. R. C. A.
Larry Field, Co- ordinator Tommy Thompson Park Planning Project M. T. R. C. A. 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario
Dear Larry:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Phase 2 Summary. Having viewed the paper in depth it appears that there is nothing ostensible now from previous uses. We are concerned that the elements of our presentation were not included and will highlight those again. We are also concerned that certain people had access to the material earlier. It should be released to all parties simultaneously.
The members of A. P. S. C. laud your efforts to expedite the planning problems. Marion Bryden' s call for more public input is unfounded and counter productive.
The late Tommy Douglas, a founder of the N. D. P., always described the party as a party of action. If there was new intelligence coming to the fore, things would be different.
We have taken the report and are commenting only on variances in Section 8. Where we agree, there is no comment.
Yours truly, }
Brian Paterson Commodore
BP: gh NATURAL RESOURCE ZONE
Land Based
1. Nature school, nature study, interpretive centre and visitors centre should be combined.
2. Omit skateboarding, environmental art, kite flying and sunbathing.
Skateboarding we do not see in an environment sensitive area. It requires a paved surface. Environmental art we view as being unnecessary and kite flying will be a problem with trees and birds. Sunbathing we inferred, requires a cleared area with grass or a beach and would not therefore fit.
3. Add to the list:
a. first aid station b. sailing clubs c. landing area for boats at anchorage d. working lighthouse - public access e. limnological study area f. meteorlogical study area g. sailboat race viewing area for officials h. sailboat race viewing area for the public
Water based
1. Omit model boats Omit rowing course
The above are structured activities and might not be good fits.
2. Concern is expresseed over a swimming beach. The water quality for any " in water" activity is most unsuitable as long as the birds are present.
3. Concern is expressed over skating. The safety due to ice thickness is at best tenious.
4. Add:
a. moorings b. docks
c. anchorages d. harbour of refuge
Moorings are quite compatible with the environment as are docks so build to support the environment. There is a drastic need for anchorages which is not only regional ( as is the requirement for moorings) but is lakewide. With the exception of the Toronto Islands area there are no other anchorages in Toronto and only the Niagara River west of Pres' quile. Harbours of refuge are for safety and there is a shortage of these in this area. 2 -
Services
1. Add and combine with washrooms, shower facilities. 2. Our comment on hydro/ lighting is that the latter be limited. 3. Add security. The history of past occurences weighs into this comment.
Environmental Management
1. Add " noise level protection".
The party of boats, hydroplane races, etc. have a detrimental effect if this important. item is considered.
RECREATION ZONE
Land Based
Aquatic Park as the site was originally named should address water related activities. Some listed activities could be taken to any location and location is not important to enjoyment. These should not be considered further in our opinion.
1. Omit archery, skateboarding, kite flying, bicycle rental, camping tent) sun bathing for the reasons above.
2. Omit environmental art. Is there really a need for this locally or regionally?
3. Add in:
a. drysailing b. winter storage c. sailing club support facilities d. hydro, water, sewage e. hoist
4. Combine nature study, interpretive centre and visitors centre.
There is a drastic need for boating facilities regionally. These needs have been well studied bY M. T. R. C. A. and T. H. C. More sophisticated utilities and sanitation will be required as usage increases.
Water Based
1. Caution is to be advised regarding any swimming beach as the water quality can not improve with the bird colonies as large as they are ( ever assuming the other problems are unsolved which are Toronto wide). 3 -
2. Omit scuba diving for health ( as above) and safety. The visibility is approximately 6 inches at 10 feet. With the amount of boat traffic and the constricted traffic, divers wouild be in danger of being struck.
3. Omit model boats. Is there a regional need and if so, is the spit the location? It would be as well enjoyed on any pond in the city with fewer hazards.
4. Omit tour boats and boat charters. If there is some concern about environment, booze cruisers and charters do not fit. There is a high level of activity already in the city.
5. Add to sailing schools, club operated. We do not recommend a commercial venture.
6. Add to windsurfing, clubs and individuals ( no rentals). Concern is expressed about the traffic and safely factors.
7. Ice skating is of concern due to poor ice thickening only.
8. Add to Water Activity - Education the word safety.
9. Add:
a. moorings b. docks
c. hydro and water d. support facilities
e. anchorages
There is a high regional demand for these entities as we have so described' on several occasions.
Services
1. Omit food services. We do not see the need for fast food
outlets. If there is a desire to maintain some environmental integrity, the golden arches does not fit.
2. Add " parking for private vehicles".
3. Add " security".
4. Add " winter storage".
Environmental Management
1. Add " noise level restriction".
2. Add " speed regulation - land and water". 4 -
Long Term Development
The elements listed should match those of the recreation zone. 291 Garden Avenue Toronto , Ontario M6R 1J4
14 July 1986
The Metropolitanp itan Toronto and Regioneg on Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive JUL Iu DOWNSVIEW , Ontario M3N 1S4 T'" " Attn : Mr. Larry Field - Manager C•A. Water Management Section
Dear Mr. Field ,
Re : TOMMY THOMPSON PARK CONCEPT PLAN PHASE 2 - SUMMARY
We are writing in response to the Summary. Tommy Thompson Park should , in our opinion , remain natural - with only the minimal facilities necessary for emergency situations and public transit access no greater than it is at present .
This area is a rare and valuable asset to this City. At the meeting on 17 June 1986 , Mr. Walter Kehm used the words incredible ' , 'extraordinary ' and ' dramatic ' in describing the Spit as it now is - many of the uses and facilities suggested for the three master planning zones would destroy this environment which Mr. Kehm described so accurately.
Allowing increased access and uses would create litter , noise and possible danger to the general public as well as the wildlife now inhabiting the area . Bicycle trails and skateboarding usually lead to racing . Picnicking , sun bathing , and swimming lead to litter . Model boats are noisy. Kite flying and fishing lead to lines tangled in trees and bushes which can harm birds not to mention hooks which are tossed or left behind .
The facilities necessary to support the above suggested uses , as well as bicycle rentals , sail boat launching , rowing courses , tour boats , boat charters , sailing clubs/ schools , windsurfing , diving/ scuba , swimming beaches , and ice skating would inevitably lead to litter and increased noise , not to mention destroying what we presently have . Mr. Larry Field 2 - 14 July 1986
The uses and facilities suggested are readily available in the surrounding Metropolitan Toronto area and are not unique - to leave the Park as it is would ensure its uniqueness . Tommy Thompson Park should be left as natural as possible . To quote the late Mr. Thompson ,
I considered the most important thing was to get the most land I could and let it sit there , virtually untouched . Let the good earth bring forth what it could . ' (TORONTO LIFE , June 1986 )
Yours sincerely ,
r
Victoria Midgley Paul Midgley TORONTO c/V\c MULTIHULL CRUISING CLUB Largest freshwater multihull cruising club in the world• Established in 1971
Ernie Heard Submission to the MTRCA Commodore
Flo Rutland regarding Secretary S c 188 Gough Avenue TON1t4Y THOMPSON PAR!: Toronto, Ontario M4K3P1 Concept plan—Pha3e 2
Clubhouse and moorings are located on the north
shore of The Toronto Multihull Cruising Club would like to thank the
near the HearnrnGenGeneratingrating MTRCA for providing a comprehensive phase 2 report . The Station visitors are always presentation format is very easy to follow and understand. welcome. As stated in previous submissions the TMCC remains stanchly opposed to a totally natural environment park ( option 1 ) . We do support a multi use park ( option 3) as origionally recommended by the Water and Related Land Management Board.
We would also like to confirm Mr . Gerry Campbell ' s conversation with Mr . Larry Field on June 17 , 1986 , that a typing error left Toronto Multihull Cruising Club off the list on page 9 of section 5 under the heading ACCOMMODATION OF BOATING CLUBS .
Overall TMCC could not find erroneous statements in the report , however we do have more suggestions and general comments .
SECTION ONE
The report has four specific goals , the following applies to TMCC the most :
GOAL: To provide a unique , water- oriented open space which will assist in meeting regional recreation needs .
TMCC is a unique Canadian self- help boating club located on the north shore . TMCC members come from Rochester in the south, Hamilton in the west and to Montreal in the east. The only other multihull cruising club in Canada is a scattered association of multihull owners located all over the British Columbia coast . There can be no arguement that TMCC entirely fullfills this major goal of unique regional water- oriented recreation sport . We also fullfills portions of the other three goals of the planning process .
SECTION TWO
The following are the key directions indicated in the
Active member of the Canadian Yachting Association, the Ontario Sailing Association and the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation i page 2
planning report :
Development of suitable public acess to the waterfront , The provision of water- orientated recreational opportunities .
Again, TMCC f ullfills the key directions as stated. TMCC as an open public club has always enjoyed talking to and showing curious individuals the advantages of Trimarans and Catamarans . We will continue this proud tradition as long as we exist. TMCC is also of the opinion that shoreline access should be provided . Obviously due consideration has to be given to security of the boats.
Other special interest groups have been outspoken about the proliferation of marinas/ boat clubs located on MTRCA parkland . TMCC would like to point out that only 8 out of 31 waterfront area parks actually have seasonal mooring for boaters . There is not one park which is strictly dedicated to boating. On the other hand there are 22 parks which have portions which are considered a natural area.
SECTION THREE
Shoreline access is an absolute necessity for multihulls to facilitate launch and haulout with a mobile crane. These cranes can not travel travel more than a few dozen yards carrying the Multihulls. In terms of land area required the winter storage area is a logical parking lot during the summer.
Although the Land Use Committee of the City of Toronto supports reduced car acess to the Park, the Wards 8 & 9 Ratepayers Association, the St . Lawrence Neighbourhood Association ( Wards b & 7) and the Mayor of Toronto support the relocation of the OHSF member clubs onto Tommy Thompson Park .
TMCC praises the THC for having the foresight to assist in reducing the existing need for slips by the boating community in Metro Toronto. What we regret is that it does not suit the TMCC goal of low cost enjoyment of multihull cruising. Further, there has been no assurances that the Marina design would provide for the needs of dingy sailers or multihulls.
SECTION FOUR
TMCC found this section enlightening and informative . The chart clearly show it is possible for TMCC and the Outer page 3
Harbour Sailing Federation to locate on the Spit separating Embayments ' C ' and ' D ' without interfering with ESA designated items . The exsistance of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club located on this small spit of land within Tommy Thompson Park with the ESA' s developing on parts of the Park is prima facie evidence that boat clubs and the environment can co- exist .
It should be noted that figure 3 . 0 refers to " low wave action" and " no wave action" in the cells on the south side of the Park. It is TMCC' s opinion that without modification of the lake opening these areas are subject to extreme wave action and are unsuitable for slips or moorings .
SECTION FIVE
TMCC would like to suggest new items to be included within this potential uses section .
1 . General Comments entrance control point underground wiring
Conveniences
washrooms every two kilometers holding tanks for pumpout waterfountins every two kilometers
Information signage as required throughtout similar and consistent
2 . Natural resource zone
Access parking in transition zone paved or bricked public transportation cars to transition zone tram within natural environment zone
year round entry fee daily, weekly, monthly, season , yearly representing cost of park upkeep construction
washrooms shoreline improvements for boat clubs suitable OHSF Clubhouse( s ) page 4
private vehicle/ car acess to transition zone pets in recreation , transition and long term zones emergency boat beaching in natural environment zone
Environmental Management habitat creation introduce new rare species for variety ( uses= ' U' )
Education/ Interpretation
recreation extension of Martin Goodman trail to start of natural resource zone only ( facilities= F' ' ) replace road in natural resource zone with path ( ' F' ) picnic tables at entrance to natural environment zone ( ' F' ) first aid center at park entrance and boat clubs ( ' F ' ) shelters designed as part of washrooms ( ' F' ) other moviemaking ( ' U' )
2 . Recreation and Transitional Zones
Acess private vehicle/ car access for boat club members 20 KPH
Education orientation/ education/ interpretation center OSA or OHSF run ( ' F' )
Public boating public access dock provided by boat clubs ( ' F' ) public lanuch ramp provided by boat clubs ( ' F ' ) OHSF clubhouse( s) with appropriate facilities ( 'F' )
Accommodation of Boating Clubs Toronto Multihull Cruising Club ( ' U' ) Toronto Catamaran Club ( ' U' ) Outer Harbour Sailing Federation ( ' U' ) facilities embayment ' C ' shoreline and water ( ' F' ) municipally supplied services to the edge of leased lands
SECTION SIX and SEVEN
TMCC believes the MTRCA screening process is fair and equitable. We hope the suggested extras in the preceeding pages are submitted to your criteria and included in the page 5 final proposal of site policy and development factors .
SECTION EIGHT
The MTRCA is to be praised for compiling the diverse list of the potential general public suggested uses for Tommy Thompson Park. We understand this list represents only suggestions that could be , or could not be , the final uses .
SECTION NINE
TMCC looks forward to the final Phase Two report and to the Phase Three workshops early in September. We would like to request that we are in receipt of any documents a minimum of 20 days prior to the commencement of the workshops in order to facilitate disussion within TMCC.
July 8 , 1986
Gerald Campbell 4 Albert Franck Place Toronto, Ontario M5A 4B4 364- 0759 Exhibit 5.7 Tommy Thompson Park Revised Site Uses
Programme, September 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 ADDED USE DELETED USE
BICYCLE TRAILS CROSS COUNTRY PICNICKING SKIING 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 SEPTEMBER, 19 86 PUBLIC TRANSIT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ADDED USE DELETED USE
HABITAT CREATION HABITAT PROTECTION POPULATION CONTROL WATER LEVEL REGULATION RESEARCH SHORELINE PROTECTION WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
RECREATION ZONE
LAND BASED ARCHERY BICYCLE TRAILS CROSS COUNTRY PICNICKING SKIING 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 TRANSIENT MOORING September , 1986 SERVICES ADDED USE DELETED USE
WASHROOMS FOOD SERVICE TELEPHONE HYDRO/ LIGHTING WATER/ FOUNTAINS SEWAGE SERVICES GARBAGE CONTAINERS SIGNAGE PARKING PUBLIC TRANSIT
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
WATER BASED
MODEL BOATS KAYAKING CANOEING FISHING SWIMMING BEACH WINDSURFING DIVING/ SCUBA ICE SKATING
SE IESM, 1986 SERVICES ADDED USE DELETED USE
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
III
II
SEP= ER, 1986 5. 5 W. R. L. M. A. B. MEETING ( SEPTEMBER 19 , 1986 )
A status report of the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan was presented to the Board by Authority staff at their September 19 , 1986 meeting . It was noted that all public
submissions received until August 22 , 1986 were included in the distribution of public input for Phase II .
The study approach for Phase III was also presented to the Board . The preparation of alternative concept plans using Options 1 and 3 in conjunction with the park use program was
to be consistent with the methodology outlined in the # 1/ 86
W. R. L. M. A. B. meeting . This process provided for the following steps :
1 . Evaluate all public concept plan , submissions from September 27 , 1986 workshop; 2 . Prepare concept plan and present concept plan at a public meeting for comment ; 3 . Submit preferred concept plan to Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board and Authority for
review and approval .
Authority staff informed the Board of the public workshop to be held at Norway Public School on September 27 , 1986 . The Board was informed of the methods of advertising which had already taken place at the time of this Board meeting for the public workshop .
The following resolution was carried at the Board meeting concerning Tommy Thompson Park :
Res. # 66
That the staff status report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan be received. 6. PHASE III - CONCEPT PLAN DEVELOPMENT
6 . 1 OVERVIEW OF PHASE III
The primary objective of Phase III was to produce a concept plan highlighting the results from Phase I and II for Tommy Thompson Park. A public workshop held at Norway Public
School on September 27 , 1986, formed the basis for the design
of four alternative plans for the park . The public was given
the opportunity to graphically express their development views by the use of site plans provided at the meeting . Many suggestions stemming from this public workshop were used in the preparation of four alternative conceptual layouts
presented at the November 27 , 1986 public meeting .
These four conceptual layouts were presented by Walter Kehm,
MTRCA' s consultant ) , at the November 27 meeting . Prior to
this , an information kit , dated November 7 , 1986 containing
an evaluation of each concept , was circulated through the
MTRCA mailing list , and made available to the public through
various governmental agencies . The public had an opportunity to review this document and prepare a submission for this
meeting .
The recommended plan of the November 27 meeting was modified to incorporate some of the public suggestions for the plan.
This modified plan was then presented to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board on December 5, 1986, for recommendation and approval of the Authority on January
23 , 1987 .
PHASE III - CONCEPT PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Public Workshop September 27 , 1986
Public Meeting November 27, 1986
Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board ( # 6/ 86 ) December 5 , 1986
Authority Meeting ( #9/ 86) January 23 , 1987 6 . 2 PUBLIC WORKSHOP ( SEPTEMBER 27 , 1986 )
A public workshop was held on September 27 , 1986 at Norway
Public School to initiate Phase III , concept development of the planning process . Ninety participants were involved in the workshop.
Advertisements for the workshop were placed in The Toronto
Sun ( Sept . 12 and 18 ) , The Globe and Mail (Sept . 15 and 19 ) , and The Toronto Star (Sept . 14 and 21 ) . In addition to the newspaper advertisements , over 500 notices were sent out to individuals and groups on the MTRCA' s direct mailing list see Exhibit 6 . 1 ) . A notice of the workshop was also posted on the board located at the park entrance .
Four land use concept plans were presented by MTRCA' s . consultant , Walter Kehm , E . D. A. Collaborative Inc . , to the workshop participants . These four plans formed the basis of discussion during the morning session of the workshop . The participants were divided into ten working groups and then asked to collectively formulate , by table , comments on these conceptual layouts . These comments are summarized in this section of the report by participating group (see Table 6 . 1 ) .
AFTERNOON PORTION
The afternoon session of the workshop was devoted to the development of various conceptual plans for the park by each table of participants . All the plans produced during these workshop sessions focused on the following concerns :
Pedestrian and vehicle access
Provisions for sailing and water use facilities
Level of protection and enhancement for the Natural
Resource Area No recreation development or private vehicle access past the base of peninsula D and that this area be devoted for natural resource activities Locations for an interpretive centre and parking Future expansion potential beyond sewage treatment plant limits by landfill operations Provision of a pedestrian link to Ashbridge ' s Bay & Beaches .
A description of the workshop participants ' conceptual layouts are listed by table on the following pages . The actual concept plans prepared by each table of participants are listed as Figure 5 . 1 to Figure 5 . 9 inclusive . verbal comments on each concept plan are also provided in the summary of the Public Workshop ( see Table 6 . 1 ) . Exhibit 6. 1 Public Workshop Notice Phase III
i TOMMY THOMPSON-PARK EL
THE METROPOLITAN MRONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
PUBLIC WORKSHOP NOTICE
THE NEXT STEP IN PLANNING FOR TOMMY THOMPSON PARK IS THE
PREPARATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT PLANS - PHASE ' 3. AS PART OF OUR
PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROGRAM, THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HAS SCHEDULED A ' PUBLIC WORKSHOP' TO
OBTAIN YOUR CONCEPT PLAN IDEAS .
THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP IS SCHEDULED FOR:
DATE: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 271 1986
PLACE: NORWAY PUBLIC SCHOOL - EAST ENTRANCE
55 CORLEY AVENUE
KINGSTON ROAD, 1 BLOCK EAST OF WOODBINE AVENUE)
TIME: 9: 30 A. M. - 5: 00 P. M.
l
REGISTRATION. IF YOU PLAN TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS ALL DAY
WORKSHOP, WE REQUEST THAT YOU REGISTER BY PHONING LARRY
FIELD AT 661- 6600, BY SEPTEMBER 25, 1986.
THE AUTHORITY WILL HAVE ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION AND MAPS AT THE WORKSHOP FOR YOUR USE IN DEVELOPING YOUR CONCEPT PLAN IDEAS .
LIGHT REFRESHMENTS WILL BE AVAILABLE. PARTICIPANTS MAY WISH, TO
BRING A LUNCH. Table 6. 1 Tommy Thompson Park
Concept Plan - Public
Workshop Summary
morning and afternoon session)
September 27, 1986. TOMMY THOMPSON PARR CONCEPT PLAN
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
SEPTEMBER 27, 1986
MORNING SESSION - Summary of group comments on consultant' s alternative concepts.
TABLE # 1 MOVE T. H. C. marina to expansion of water treatment plant WRITTEN COMMENTS - big boats access directly into lake leave small sailboat fraternity in outer harbour, either on embayment C & D of spit or on T. H. C. lands balance of spit natural and passive recreation.
VERBAL ADDITIONS - favour leaving the Aquatic Park Sailing Club as it is.
NOTE SEE CONCEPT DIAGRAM
TABLE # 2 T. H. C. marina out! WRITTEN COMMENTS - agreement to commercial marina lakeside near sewage treatment plant public transit to lighthouse private access to embayments C & D for sailing clubs for vehicles sailing clubs on embayments C & D environmental sound restrictions
no vehicle access
VERBAL ADDITIONS - no agreement on car access issue
NOTE SEE CONCEPT DIAGRAM
TABLE # 3 Consultants' Concept Alternative 1: WRITTEN COMMENTS is too limited does not accommodate boaters' needs unrealistic to have no facilities , washrooms etc.
Consultants' Concept Alternative 2: great for naturalists, not cood for boaters think that the small islands without access in the bay is good common terns will nest where they want, not where we attempt to nest them need rocky/ sandy area for terns what about gull- control
most members ( 5 out of 7) opposed to Option I charts 1 & 2) allow transient mooring marina does not meet needs of Outer Harbour Sailing Federation eliminate T. H. C. marina.
2. . . 2-
TABLE # 3 Cont' d. Consultants' Concept Alternatives 3 and 4: positive idea towards protected areas utilize embayment C for large boats utilize embayment D for day sailors environmental concern over future expansion of boat clubs boating community ( OHSF) not served by either alternative 3 or alternative 4 sewage plant expansion into boating facility does not serve dinghy sailors or windsurfers especially during training fixed bicycle path along South Shore and out to lighthouse car access to within 1/ 2 mile for parking, and drop- off access at water' s edge restricted access to environmental ( protected) areas is very positive feature.
TABLE # 4 no commercial marina, or move to lakeside shore WRITTEN COMMENTS - no commercial development on spit need services - phone, johnny- on- spot sailors need 24 hour access and parking at present location naturalists do not want vehicle access to spit North Shore sailors very disappointed'.
VERBAL ADDITIONS - alternative A is bad for boaters generally favour consultant' s alternative D
TABLE # 5 General Points: WRITTEN COMMENTS THC marina is not in a good location open planning in the neck area of the spit is precluded by the THC marina rowing option should be included in all options sewage treatment plant marina is not acceptable for any option.
Concept A: wilderness needs are addressed access is difficult and limited sailing and rowing community, are not addressed.
Concept B: better access Aquatic Park Sailing Club needs could be met.
Concept C: no sailing needs.
Concept D: most number of uses for most people some sailing needes are not met wilderness area is limited.
VERBAL ADDITIONS - rating process produced the following scores: concept alternative - A = 4. 4 B = 3. 0 C = 1. 5 D . = 7. 8
3. . .
j S-
T ABLE # 6
WRITTEN COMMENTS - unanimous agreement that the THC should allow the North Shore clubs to remain where they are no car access from basin C to the end of the spit.
Proposal 1: public access to the lighthouse Aquatic Park Sailing Club to remain limited restricted areas during sensitive periods i. e. hatching) pressure to locate the North Shore sailing clubs on Tommy Thompson Park.
Proposal 4: meets the needs of the majority of the group strong objection by one member to any car access beyond base of the spit general agreement on permit parking to basin C -- East side.
VERBAL ADDITIONS - maximum public access is desirable.
TABLE # 7 General: WRITTEN COMMENTS THC proposed marina OUT of outer harbour THC should give long term lease to• North Shore clubs future industrial expansion is undesirable Aquatic Park Sailing Club should be allowed, to stay on spit.
Consultants' Alternative A: majority against.
Consultants' Alternative B: okay for Aquatic Park Sailing Club majority against due to lack of dry sailing, and no facilities for dinghies and moorings.
Consultants' Alternative C: same as B.
Consultants' Alternative D: most desirable BUT still no Aquatic Park Sailing Club in Dredger' s Bay ( embayment C) .
TABLE # 9 Principles: WRITTEN COMMENTS that public transit access be available all the way by tram only, not bus. proposals have not addressed the boaters needs proposed THC marina does not fit in with these plans, and seriously affects ALL other
considerations cycling is good but the speed should be, controlled for safety and pleasure most of the spit must be left in its natural state
minimum " management") no private cars except limited access by boat owners.
4. . . 4-
TABLE # 9 Cont' d. THC Marina: WRITTEN COMMENTS increased traffic congestion power boats. will negatively affect: shoreline erosion noise level dangerous to small craft who need sheltered harbour doesn' t serve present boating community - too expensive car parking requirement for marina is too large will have an increased impact on environment of peace and quiet presently on spit THC should allow present boaters to remain on north shore and allow the Martin Goodman Trail to remain as is on north shore.
VERBAL ADDITIONS - no proposed alternative meets needs of boaters
Consultants' Alternative A: Aquatic Park Sailing Club should stay.
Consultants' Alternative B: boating proposed by sewage treatment plant is ridiculous - exposed to storm winds, expensive to construct, and of no use to community clubs.
Consultants' Alternative C: canoeing is good Some dredgeate/ water quality concerns.
Consultants' Alternative D: boating is better but still inadequate for community clubs.
TABLE # 10 planning for spit cannot be looked at in isolation from WRITTEN COMMENTS future plans for outer harbour location of THC marina inappropriate, location on lake side shore more appropriate. Need for a marina is disputed cyclists- to be allowed on spit consideration should be given to option to swap MTRCA lands for THC lands preservation of' north shore lands and sewage plant frontage as greenspace for public/ recreational use car access - no consensus
consultants' alternative D - sailors are concerned about provision for land facilities.
TABLE All no present concept acknowledges adequately the needs WRITTEN COMMENTS for sailing ( 7 out of 8 participants feel) no concept acknowledges the possibility of continued keel boat sailing in embayment C, or the historical presence of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club' or the Toronto Multihull Cruising Club adequately; or acknowledges their growth ( 7 out of 8 participants feel)
5.. .
i 5-
TABLE # 11 Cont' d.
do not want THC marina at all (unanimous) concept alternative A lacks adequate public transportation ( elderly & handicapped) ( unanimous) one member feels that concept A would be acceptable, with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club remaining in embayment C if there was no car access past ( south of) the toll booth remaining 7 of 8 participants accept the above but want some car access.
VERBAL ADDITIONS - most participants wanted more sailing facilities suggest using scow cut and road as natural boundaries dividing recreation and environmental resource zones.
6.. . 6-
AFTERNOON SESSION
TABLE # 1 outer area to be environmental VERBAL COMMENTS - transit system runs to lighthouse road marked to create •a separate bike lane Aquatic Park Sailing Club to remain in embayment C some of group would also like the Toronto Multihull Cruising Club to be accommodated in embayment C) a transfer of land between the MTRCA and the THC would allow the THC marina development to occur to the East of the spit. Failing this, the marina would open to the lake side of the neck. services would be extended out along the neck to the base of the endikement. the sailing clubs would stay on the north shore, or be accommodated on THC lands to the north of the proposed marina. ( Some of the group would like them in embayment D, with parking and winter storage facilities adjacent. )
NOTE SEE CONCEPT PLAN
TABLE # 2 Define limits of: WRITTEN COMMENTS Aquatic Park Sailing Club natural area transport Bay D: natural life at present, not suit,abd e for boats. clubs as far east as possible if THC marina is built? interpretive centre entrance to park infill cap. cell 2 ( Mid) separate bicycle/ pedestrians bus route/ WE/ to lighthouse swing bridge deny access to nest areas differential privilege of access and hours electronic gate private access road - separate/ buffered location of gateway i. e. west of road
car park bus route small interpretive centre- control boat facilities: docks environmentally fences sensitive area but I Bay ' D'
TABLE # 2 began developing consultants' concept alternative D VERBAL COMMENTS - Aquatic Park Sailing Club would stay the north shore clubs should stay in their present location. Failing this, the Toronto Multihull Cruising Club should be accommodated in embayment C, and the remainder of the clubs in embayment D. since this would necessitate dredging embayment D and disrupting the wildlife, embayment A or B could accommodate this wildlife instead.
7.. . 7-
TABLE # 2 Cont' d. public transit would run to the lighthouse. bicycle access would be permitted to the lighthouse. pedestrian access would also be permitted right to the tip, but access control points might be installed to restrict use. car access would occur along a separate road, and would be 24 hrs./ day, OR no private car access would be permitted. an interpretive centre would be built on the base of the spit, or at the end of the neck ( base of the endikement)
the proposed THC marina is a given, so rather than ignoring it this concept proposes it open into the lake through a cut in the neck of the spit. the sewage treatment plant expansion is seen as a good location for a commercial marina, but not for the clubs presently on the north shore.
NOTE SEE CONCEPT PLAN AND SECTION ( sketches)
TABLE # 3 plan developed from consultants' concept alternative D VERBAL COMMENTS - propose a possible entry fee would include protected areas, marsh & islands access control point at parking restricted car access for boaters Aquatic Park Sailing Club and Toronto Multihull Cruising Club would be accommodated in embayment C remaining clubs would be in embayment D the sewage treatment plant shoreline would accommodate either the relocated THC marina, or another boat club.
NOTE SEE CONCEPT PLAN
TABLE # 4 Proposal # 1: WRITTEN COMMENTS access to new marina from lake side leave Aquatic Park Sailing Club as is interpretive centre at Unwin Avenue if community clubs are to be relocated - new location on south shore - west of marina parking for both Aquatic Park Sailing Club and community clubs south of community clubs leave remainder of area as is.
Proposal # 2:
no marina existing access for Aquatic Park Sailing Club members ( i. e. no cars between 9 a. m. and 5 p. m. on weekends) . no more development of existing boating facilities leave spit natural ( as is) leave community clubs on north shore public parking at Unwin and Leslie information shelter at parking lot spit to be open to the ' public year round ( when construction completed spit should be open all week, not just weekends) .
8. . . S-
TABLE # 4 Cont' d. I Proposal # 1: VERBAL ADDITIONS Toronto *Multihull Cruising Club would stay where it is or share embayment C with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club ( if the boats would all fit) or be accommodated to the north of the proposed marina.
Proposal # 2: if the THC must build a marina it would be to the east of the spit orientation/ information booth at Unwin to be
unmanned.
NOTE SEE CONCEPT PLANS
TABLE # 5 Scenario # 1: the THC do not co- operate WRITTEN COMMENTS Aquatic Park Sailing Club and Toronto Multihull Cruising C1uD in embayment C ( using both docks and moorings) . Outer Harbour Sailing Federation around edges of embayment D. Regional anchorage in embayment A. Interpretive centre to the south of embayment D.
Scenario # 2: THC turns out to be human Outer Harbour Sailing Federation locates on: expanded land on north shore land area on THC marina land Aquatic Park Sailing Club locates in embayment C.
VERBAL ADDITIONS - Scenario #Z: the marina would open directly to the lake. in either scenario, a rowing course with a clubhouse is- included.
NOTE SEE CONCEPT PLANS
TABLE # 6 community clubs and Toronto Multihull Cruising Club WRITTEN COMMENTS to be accommodated parking and winter storage to embayment C car access to embayment C limited to club members THC marina Tommy Thompson Park to remain undeveloped.
VERBAL ADDITIONS - move THC marina lobby THC so north shore clubs can stay on north shore if not, north shore clubs would be accommodated on spit in embayment D, etc. ) some of group would like separate car, bike, and pedestrian access. Others ( Friends of the Spit) would like an Aquatic Park Sailing Club jitney in preference to private car access. Aquatic Park Sailing Club to remain as at present.
NOTE SEE CONCEPT PLAN
9... 9-
TABLE # i marina out of outer harbour WRITTEN COMMENTS - small boat clubs, including Toronto Multihull Cruising Club, would remain on north shore primary parking on THC industrial land some would like Aquatic' Park Sailing Club parking near club ( small) ( 3 of 4 participants) regular bus/ tram service to lighthouse MTRCA plan, should include all lards and water south of Unwin. concerns on dredging
MINORITY REPORT: How to beat the THC: 1. write to James Bradley, minister of environment, asking for an environmental assessment ( MTRCA to do the same?)
2. lobby metro, province, and federal government for a review of the THC role.
3. pray.
VERBAL ADDITIONS - THC marina would be relocated to the east of the spit.
NOTE SEE CONCEPT PLAN
TABLE # 9 Aquatic Park Sailing Club stays with permanent tenure, WRITTEN COMMENTS possibly with Multihull sharing embayment C controlled car access, provision of public transit omit THC marina environmental area sewage treatment plant accommodates community club for larger boats various options exist for accommodation of north shore clubs. First choice is to stay on the North shore.
VERBAL ADDITIONS - a location north of the proposed THC marina ( along the water frontage of the proposed industrial park) was evaluated for the community clubs. This idea was discarded due to concerns about currents, should the Hearn Generating Station be returned to use. no good location for the community clubs, apart from their present position on the north shore, was found. Embayment D was considered to present difficulties due to winds, the beach area to the West to be too shallow and subject to silting, and the area east of point E to be unsuitable due to the proposed marina. low level of development main parking for clubs to ocdcur at base of endikement boating on sewage treatment plant shoreline could accommodate larger boats from the Aquatic Park Sailing Club and Toronto Multihull Cruising Club public transit to lighthouse if THC marina must go ahead, it should be reoriented to the lake after the spit construction is completed.
I NOTE SEE CONCEPT PLAN
I
10.. . 10-
SUBMISSIONS BY PERSONS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE WORKSHOP
R. Barker if a trailer and R. V. park is to be included it WRITTEN COMMENTS should be located close to bus service minimum requirements would be: paved lot with dump station drinking water source pay phone and lighting later additions could include washrooms, showers, laundry and security fencing electric outlets should be as in provincial parks LAYOUT SKETCH ATTACHED) a large culvert through the neck of the spit would allow the Niagara current to flow through the outer harbour and reduce sedimentation.
NOTE SEE CONCEPT PLAN Y
c...-•.$•. rlM- HARK
1 I------MEET Mo. Figure 6. 1 Table 1 - Concept Plan lJ
1 43
eXcycLr- w, 6' fro T rr
1 Pr1RK
SHMT Np
Figure 6. 2 Table 2 - Concept Plan TItglE 03
do
wry
t 4. rk
4/ 4. .. W fr..A..
A. I.. f..* f. V- 4 _
Uh. ptl (+..y.. 1..) T.... f. 44
TOMMY THOMPSON d1. . I. I.. v. wfrl a1o11a NW .. y. f1 C. nfrfv. tlon . rlflaNT t::= PARK
OIfElT 11..—
Figure 6.3 Table 3 - Concept Plan ac, 1 Fd M- r,o u
TOMMY MW31* o......
i oo' ru.+ro. . rne. r PARK
Figure 6.4a Table 4 - Concept Plan Proposal 1 I I SHUT AWe r
for*
Odk e4cago" S bt t4w ' 06 Ow
A•P.sc.
t
t
t t
aw
also ac ns .4r 6PAiqplpm * oA tWwki 2 dF A an or %6" 0101 0+
7TOMM 7HOMPSM PARK
SOMT No.
Figure 6.4b Table 4 - Concept Plan Proposal 2 f I
ONt
1
Y T conwrrwn rnw. r PARK
r— O/ E[ T Ib igure 6. 5a Table 5 - Concept Plan Proposal 1 r
w
4 OL PAP
M
Ct
Z
CIO C
TOMMY THOMPSON COIIMIYMIOrI rrlMrMy r_t_------FARK
r SHUT Km
Figure 6. 5b Table 5 - Concept Plan Proposal 2 gyp.,
a+ ^•'°""
f
w.+ -"'' R«.
61 All 411a , da a o ' a
9 oc) alav y
9, Q 9
c
i 1 1
TOMMY THOwAPSON FOM
T- 7 I MQT Ile. Figure 6. 7 Table 7 - Concept Plan 0 Od 4b i
3
T OUAI W TMOMPSON a. «=. o. w^ . o...... a eon.... Mbw . IOOrNT FARK
IElT Ib
Figure 6. 8 Table 9 - Concept Plan I
L
TOMMY THOMPSON tl» ••• v. n.. m...... a .. a.. C0n&wv6u.. ., na PARK
SHEET N.
Figure 6.9 Table 11 - Concept Plan Public Workshop Participants
Name Affiliation
Ernest Heard TMCC
Derek Quin Friends of the Spit
Tim Kelsall APSC
Wendy Joscelyn Outer Harbour Sailing Federation
Dale Sciberas Councillor Tom Jakobek' s office
member Toronto Windsurfers
Mr. Lind Outer Harbour Community Club Victoria Carley Friends of the Spit
Brian Rutherford TMCC
friend not listed
Joan Biddell Outer Harbour Community Club Peter Farquharson APSC
Warren Keillor APSC
Karen Fawthrop not listed member Toronto Windsurfers
Jean Macdonald Toronto Field Naturalists
Alex Turkewitch TMCC
Anne Fairway not listed
Tim Kelsall APSC
Ms. Chris Watson not listed
Sandra Hanmer not listed
Jim Younker APSC
Eleanor Henkel TMCC
Penny Williamson APSC
Ken Elliot not listed
Gord Laco APSC
Rob Herman TMCC
Brian Patterson not listed
Marion Bryden MPP/ Beaches - Woodbine
Sam Craig Hanlon Boat Club
David Lathem not listed member Toronto Windsurfers
Willy Walker APSC
Katherine Graham APSC
Jack Dundas TMCC
Barbara Hall Ward 7
Gerry Campbell TMCC Name Affiliation
Lee Gold Friends of the Spit
Cynthia Rutherford Westwood Sailing Tom Ferguson not listed
Tom Bernard Toronto Catamaran Club
William Brunow not listed
Jim Shaw TMCC
Brad Barr APSC
Verna Higgins U of T Botany Conservation Group Chris Vipond APSC
Kitty Brown not listed
Less Will THC
Arno Henkel TMCC
Robert Pyle APSC
Chris Shaw TMCC
Irene Dundas TMCC
Jake Smythe not listed
Elizabeth Durno APSC
Rob Smalley for Marion Bryden
Roy Scott Westwood Sailing Ruth Arntz not listed
Frank Loritz ST. Jamestown Sailing Club Alf Jenkins Ontario Sailing Association W. K. Bryden not listed
John Darling Toronto Windsurfers John Carley Friends of the Spit
Wilma Harniman not listed
Cathy Cirko Outer Harbour Community Club Peter Dalton Outer Harbour Community Club Laurine Harniman not listed
Margaret Heard TMCC
Ms. U. K. Cibor not listed
Jacqueline Corval Friends of the Spit
Sam Craig Hanlon Boat Club ( duplicate ?)
Sharon Marineau APSC
Ed Nott TMCC 6 . 3 PHASE III - PUBLIC MEETING ( NOVEMBER 27 , 1986 )
A public meeting was held on November 27 , 1986 , at York Quay Centre ( Harbourfront ) in order to allow the public to comment on the concept plans as per the November 7 , 1986 Information
Kit . Notices were placed in the paper ( see Exhibit 6 . 2 -
Globe and Mail , November 17 , 1986 ) . Copies of the
Information Kit were sent to all public on the Authority' s mailing list . Fifty- four out of the two hundred and sixty people in attendance , presented their comments on the plans contained in the Information Kit .
Prior to the commencement of the public meeting , an informal open house was held with Authority staff and its consultant
E . D. A. Collaborative Inc . ) . This informal open house gave the public an opportunity to discuss and clarify various planning rationale behind the development of the four concept plans .
The public meeting opened with a presentation of the concepts outlined in the Nov. 7/ 86 Phase III Alternative Concept Plans
Information Kit . The strengths and weaknesses of each concept were explained , as it pertained to the planning criteria established during Phase I and II , and during Phase III 's public workshop on Sept . 27/ 86 . The preferred concept Concept " D" - as recommended by the consultant , E . D. A.
Collaboative Inc . , was presented .
All registered persons were then called upon to present their submissions ( see following pages ) . A summary of comments of this meeting is as follows :
Too much area alloted for parking Vehicle access will have a high impact on
the site
Favour Concept A - minimal development
Most of the boating public and r.ecreationalists favour Concept D i
i
Exhibit 6.2 Public Meeting Notice Phase III
Alternative Concept Plans TOMMY THOMPSON PARK THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE THE CONSULTANTS. E D. A. COLLABORATIVE. HAVE PREPARED FOR THE METRO- POLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ALTERNATIVE CON- CEPT PLANS FOR TOMMY THOMPSON PARK. THE AUTHORITY AS PART OF THE PHASE 111 PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROGRAM IS INVITING COMMENTS ON THESE PLANS. A PUBLIC MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR: DATE: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1986 PLACE: THE BRIGANTINE ROOM YORK QUAY CENTRE 235 QUEEN' S QUAY WEST TORONTO, ONTARIO TIME: 7: 00 P. M. NOTE: THE PUBLIC ARE INVITED BETWEEN 3:30.7:00 TO REVIEW THE ALTERNA- TIVE CONCEPT PLANS WITH THE CONSULTANT AND AUTHORITY STAFF. AN INFORMATION KIT INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT PLANS IS AVAIL- ABLE AT THE AUTHORITY OFFICE, 5 SHOREHAM DRIVE, DOWNSVIEW, ONTARIO. THE AUTHORITY IS REOUESTING RECEIPT OF YOUR COMMENTS AT THE PUBLIC MEETING OR AUTHORITY OFFICES BY 4:30. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1988. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: MR. LARRY FIELD, MTRCA, 881- 6800. THC marina access should be provided through the proposed industrial park.
Written submissions received by the Authority after the meeting can be summarized as follows :
The Aquatic Park sailing club may remain in embayment C at 100 boats with special access
arrangements
Problems associated with the integration of the THC
marina with the park such as vehicle access and
parking requirements for the marina
Concurrence on the following site features ; natural
resource area , interpretive centre , parking ,
restricted vehicle access to the Aquatic Park
Sailing Club, and washrooms The unique urban wilderness of Tommy Thompson Park can only be protected with the implementation of
Concept A
The Botany Conservation Group ( University of Toronto) suggested the formation of a consultant
group consisting of representatives from the MTRCA,
Canadian Wildlife Service , Federation of Ontario
Naturalists , Toronto Field Naturalists , Toronto
Ornithological Club, Friends of the Spit .
Upon review of the written submissions and presentations received from the public regarding the conceptual master plan, MTRCA staff , through consultation with it 's consultant , modified the recommended Concept Plan " D" to reflect some of the public ' s comments . The recommended Concept Plan " D" was modified by reducing the number of parking spaces at the Interpretive Centre from 300 to 100 and in sailing area from 400 to 250 . The modified plan D provides the following features :
Conservation management through protection preservation
and enhancement of the natural site qualities
Private vehicle and Toronto Transit Commission access to the Interpretive Centre with 100 car parking lot Separation of parking from the construction route to the endikement and outer headland
Future overflow parking at the base and connection with
park transportation
Interpretive centre at the endikement as a focus and
proper entrance to the natural area with full municipal
services , washrooms , . shelter, education/ research, and
interpretive functions .
I List of speakers at the November 27 , 1986 Public Meeting :
Elizabeth Durno APSC i Warren Keillor APSC
John Carley Friends of the Spit
Jacqueline Courval Friends of the Spit
Janice Blackburn APSC
Darcy Chadwick APSC
Tracy Smith APSC
Paul Mitchell
Candace Banack APSC
Derek DeBoerr APSC
Barry DeZwaan J. C. Cranmer- Byng
David MacMillan Friends of the Spit
Bob Pyle APSC
Peter Kelly APSC
Lee Gold Friends of the Spit
Brian Bertie
Leo Lake APSC
Ken Bryden
Flora Jorgensen APSC
Marion Bryden M. P. P.
Thomas Waltor APSC
Wendy Joscelyn Mooredale Sailing Club
Simon Dexter
Verna Higgins University of Toronto , Botany Dept . John Whitney APSC
Gerry Campbell TMCC
Michelle Mayhew Friends of the Spit
Bill Martin FOS
Jerry Jean APSC Sylvia Hvidsten
Nicholas Teekman Renewable Dynamics
Inc .
Dennis Bott ABYC
Marg Latham Westwood Sailing Club
Steve Price World Wildlife Fond
Nick Gobel Toronto Windsurfing
Club
Margaret MacMillian FOS
Walter Sokolowki Ontario Water Ski
Association
Jean Macdonald Toronto Field
Naturalists
Sarah Miller SCOW
Steve Varga Federation of Ontario
Naturalists
Cathy Cirko
Gina Rurella TMCC
Craig Camplong TMCC
Caral Roberts
Alison Paulos
John Quarterly John Darling Toronto Windsurfing
Club
John Reddick APSC
John Neilson
Steve Reid Outer Harbour Sailing
Federation
Paul Mackey APSC
Mrs . W. Harniman
Robert Kay ABYC 6 . 4 W. R. L. M. A. B. MEETING ( DECEMBER 5, 1986 )
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board meeting was held on December 5, 1986 at the Black Creek Pioneer
Village Visitors Centre . Twenty- one delegations were present to speak to the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan meeting .
After a comprehensive review and evaluation of the written submissions and presentations received at the November 27 ,
1986 public meeting , a modified plan " D" was produced reflecting public input . This modified plan " D" was presented to the Board for approval and recommendation to the
Authority Meeting , January 23 , 1987 ( see Exhibit 6 . 3 ) .
MTRCA staff provided the Board with a brief summary report on the project ' s development during Phase I and II . Documentation with respect to the development of the modified plan " D" was also provided .
The following recommendations to the Board were made by staff :
It is recommended t h at the staff report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan be received AND THAT THE
BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
1 ) The recommended concept plan, as presented by the Authority staff for Tommy Thompson Park, be
approved ;
2 ) Staff be directed to proceed with Phase IV - Concept Plan report as outlined by the Tommy Thompson Park
planning process ;
I
Ii 3 ) An advisory committee be established with
representation from MTRCA, Canadian Wildlife
Service , local universities , Federation of Ontario
Naturalists , Toronto Ornithological Club , Friends of the Spit and related groups to prepare detailed implementation recommendations for the natural
resource area .
The following resolutions were carried after a staff presentation of modified plan " D" , and presentations from delegations were made ;
Res. # 92
THAT the staff recommendations concerning Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan be voted upon individually.
Res. # 93
THAT the staff report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan be received;
AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the recommended Concept Plan, as presented by Authority staff for Tommy Thompson Park, be approved.
Res. # 94
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with Phase IV - Concept Plan Report as outlined by the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Process.
Res. # 95
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT an advisory committee be established, with representation from the MTRCA, the Canadian Wildlife Service, local universities, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Toronto Ornithological Club, the Friends of the Spit, and related groups, to prepare detailed implementation recommendations for the natural resource area. Res. # 96
THAT the Board ask the Toronto Harbour Commissioners for an official and definitive position, by January 23, 1987, on the issue of long- term tenure for the community sailing clubs on the north shore and/ or on the north shore of the THC marina spit of the Outer Harbour.
The following delegations appeared before the board :
1 . Marion Bryden , M. P. P. Beaches- Woodbine
2 . John Carley, Co- Chairman, Friends of the Spit 3 . Verna Higgins , Botany Conservation Group
4 . Lyn MacMillan, Citizen
5 . A. Morpugo, Citizen
6 . Roy Scott , Outer Habour Sailing Federation
7 . Ralph Timson, Westwood Sailing Club
8 . Bill Martin, Citizen
9 . Steve Reid , Outer Habour Sailing Federation
10 . Pam Yuryn, Toronto Windsurfing Club
11 . Elizabeth Durno , A. P. S . C.
12 . Ken Bryden , Citizen
13 . Wilma Harniman , Citizen
14 . Walter Sokilowski , Ontario Water Ski Association
15. Steve Varga, Federation of Ontario Naturalists
16 . Jacqueline Courval , Friends of the Spit
17 . David Hopper , Toronto Catamaran Club
18 . Tom Walton, A. P. S . C .
19 . Gerry Campbell , Director , Toronto Multihull Cruising Club
20 . Jim Shaw, Citizen
21 . David Slater, Toronto Multihull Cruising Club
I Exhibit 6.3 Staff Report - Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan
Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board
6/ 86 TO: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M. T. R. C. A. - MEETING 116/ 86
FROM: J. C. MATTER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION
RE: TOMMY THOMPSON PARK CONCEPT PLAN
The Authority staff have proceeded in 1986 to complete Phase II - Alternative Development Components and Phase III - Concept Development in accordance with the Authority direction from it' s November 29, 1985 meeting which was as follows:
RESOLUTION # 148
THAT THE STAFF REPORT ON THE TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT FLAN - 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 TASK FORCE: ENSURING FULL AND ACTIVE PU3LIC PARTICIPATION AND TO IDENT"IFY AND EVALUATE FURTHER THE COMPONENTS FOR THE NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS AHD THE MERITS FOR BOTH OPTION ANC III" .
In Phase I, the Authority established goals and objectives for Tommy Thompson Parx which reflected the opportunities for this waterfront area, the policy and development factors identified and the diverse interests of public agencies, interest groups and the various public submissions. The four goals established as a framework for the preparation of the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan are as follows:
GOALS
1) TO CONSERVE AND MANAGE THE IATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT APEA 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 OF 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.
Phase 2 - Alternative Development Components was initiated with public consultation during March/ April 1986 to obtain the public' s ideas on potential uses and facilities within the guidelines provided by Planning Zone Options I and III. The Authority received 143 submissions by May 26, 1986. The summary of the public' s suggestions
2...
i 2 are outlined in the Phase II - Summary document. Authority staff in conjunction with our consultant , Walter Kehm, prepared a " use programme" utilizing the public input which had the following characteristics:
Consistent with the intent of the Phase I zone definitions.
Compatible with the resource environment.
Significant in the regional context.
On June 17, 1986 at the Medical Science Auditorium ( University of Toronto) a public meeting was held to receive public input and comment on the proposed Tommy Thompson Park Use Programme. The records indicate 119 members of the public were in attendance with 18 of the public addressing the meeting. As of September 2, 1986 the Authority received 50 public submissions on the proposed " use programme". The public responses did question the " APPROPRIATENESS" of a number of uses such as " archery, skateboarding, kite flying". In consideration of these comments the Authority staff and consultant revised the " use programme" as outlined in the programme attached to this communication.
The next step in the planning process was to formulate alternative concept plans ( Phase 3) utilizing the modified " park use programme" from Phase II. Phase 3 was initiated by requesting the public to assist the Authority in generating the alternative plans utilizing a public workshop forum. - The public workshop was attended by 90 registered participants.
During the afternoon session the public assembled into 10 working groups which developed concept plan ideas. Figure 1, in the attached Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan Information Kit summarizes the general concept plan ideas presented to the Authority.
The public concept plan ideas focussed on:
1) NO RECREATION DEVELOPMENT OR PRIVATE VEHICLE ACCESS PAST THE BASE OF PENINSULA D AND THAT THIS AREA BE DEVOTED FOR NATURAL RESOURCE ACTIVITIES.
2) PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE ACCESS.
3) LOCATIONS FOR SAILING/ WATER USE FACILITIES.
4) LEVEL OF PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCE AREA.
5) LOCATIONS FOR AN INTERPRETIVE CENTRE AND PARKING.
6) FUTURE EXPANSION POTENTIAL BEYOND SEWAGE TREATMENT AND PEDESTRIAN LINKAGE TO ASHBRIDGES BAY/ ENTRANCE BEACHES.
8) TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS, OUTER HARBOUR MARINA.
3... 3 -
The consultant, Walter Kehm ( E. D. A. Collaborative Inc.) utilizing the public workshop input, the Phase II Park Use Programme and the general guidelines of Planning Zone Options 1 and 3 generated four alternative concept plans ( Refer to attached Tommy Thompson Park Alternative Concept Plans, Information Kit) .
Alternative Concept Plans A and B reflected proposals for consideration within the natural resource zone option at preliminary cost estimates of $ 885, 000. and $ 3, 475, 000.. respectively. It is important to note in Alternative Plan A, that under the Authority' s Policies for Authority Lands, a minimum amount of management is required to orotect the environmentally significant area, preserve certain species, and maintain the site to ensure oublic health and safety.
Alternative Concept C and D were primarily developed within the guidelines of Planning Zone Option III except for Cells 1, 2, 3, which reflect natural resource uses and not the long term development uses as previously proposed. Concept C and D have total preliminary costs of 6, 335, 000. and $ 6, 385, 000. respectively.
The consultant evaluated all four ( 4) concept plans and recommended to staff, CONCEPT D.
The following summarizes Concept D:
PARK/ ENTRANCE/ GATEWAY AT UNWIN/ LESLIE WITH PRIVATE VEHICLE ACCESS TO THE ENDIKEMENT AREA AND PUBLIC PARKING FOR 300 CARS.
MAJOR LANDFILL IN THE AREA OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT PROVIDING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE LINKAGE WITH ASHBRIDGES BAY/ ASTERN BEACHES AND A MOORING BASIN FOR 300 - 400 BOATS.
INTERPRETIVE CENTRE ( e. g. 3, 000 SQ. FT.) PROVIDING EDUCATION/ INFORMATION PROGRAMMING, SHELTER AND WASHROOMS.
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT OF THE NATURAL AREA WHICH INCLUDES;
i) PRESERVATION OF THE CASPIAN TERN, BLACK- CROWNED NIGHT HERON AND COMMON TERN DUE TO THEIR RARITY, EDUCATIONAL OR SCIENTIFIC INTEREST.
ii) PROTECTION OF E. S. A. AMENITIES INCLUDING MIGRATORY BIRD STOPOVER AND CONCENTRATION POINTS, REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE OF A GULL COLONY AND RARE PLANT SPECIES.
iii) ENHANCEMENT OF THE NATURAL SITE QUALITIES THROUGH ISLAND CREATION FOR COMMON TERN NESTING, DEVELOPMENT OF WETLANDS, CREATION OF TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AND MANAGED SUCCESSION AREA.
4...
i 4 -
VEHICULAR/ PEDESTRIAN/ CYCLING SEPARATED ? LONG ACCESS CORRIDOR.
PROVISION OF BOATING WITH FULL VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR:
i) AQUATIC PARK SAILING CLUB ( EMBAYMENT C) WITH 100 BOATS AND PARKING FOR 80 CARS.
ii) KEEL BOAT BASIN FOR OUTER HARBOUR SAILING FEDERATION, WITH 65 BOATS AND 50 PARKING SPACES AND PUBLIC BOAT DOCKING.
iii) DRYSAILING ( OUTER HARBOUR SAILING FEDERATION) USE OR USE OF PENINSULA D AND E PRIMARILY ON NEW LANDFILL LIMITED BY PARKING LEVEL OF 270 cars. ALLOCATION FOR PARTICULAR CLUBS TO BE DETERMINED THROUGH A PROPOSAL AND CONSULTATION PROCESS WITH M. T. R. C. A./ METRO PARKS AND PROPERTY.
T. T. C. ACCESS ON SEASONAL BASIS TO ENDIKEMENT.
PARK TRANSPORTATION PROVIDED FROM INTERPRETIVE CENTRE.
To obtain the public' s comments and further input on the consultant' s alternative concept plans a public meeting was held on Thursday, November 27, 1986 in the Brigantine Room, York Quay Centre Harbourfront) commencing at 7: 00 P. M. Between 5: 30 and 7: 00, the Authority staff and consultant were available during a public open house to clarify points on the plans. A total of 260 public signed the register with 54 public presenting their views on the plans and the consultant' s recommended Concept D. A total of 93 written submissions were received up until 4: 30 on December 3, 1986.
The Authority staff reviewed all submissions and present the following summary of the key points:
The concept of creative conservation particularly habitat creation should be endorsed as a new initiative having ramification well beyond the Authority. i. e. regional, provincial, national and international significance.
The real issue- appears to be optimal integration of the T. H. C. marina project, the T. H. C. proposed industrial park on the triangle lands" and the M. T. R. C. A. Ashbridges Say Park with Tommy Thompson Park.
Aquatic Park Sailing Club received general support to remain in Embayment C at 100 boats with special access arrangements.
Several submissions indicated that protection of Tommy Thompson Park' s unique environment can only occur through the implementation of Alternative Concept Plans A or B and no private -vehicle access. The M. T. R. C. A. is missing an opportunity to maintain Canada' s first urban wilderness.
Suggestion to approve the components of a plan with the natural resource area, interpretive centre, parking, vehicular access, Aquatic Park Sailing Club in embayment C but defer a decision on the drysailing/ mooring basin adjacent to the marina until the M. T. R. C. A./ T. H. C. negotiate how many clubs can stay on the north shore of the Outer Harbour.
5... 5 -
Two proposed submissions not reflected in the four alternative concepts were:
to use a portion of the outer headland ( end of the andikement) as a test site for windmills of 50 - 200 kilowatts scale.
the Ontario Water Ski Association' s proposal for the development of a boatless water ski facility in Embayment D.
Several submissions questioned the " over- management" proposed for the natural area and the concern that another manicured waterfront park is proposed by the concepts.
In planning and preparing a management plan for the natural resource area, the Botany Conservation Group suggested the establishment of a consultative committee which would include members from M. T. R. C. A., Canadian Wildlife Service, the local universities, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Toronto Field Naturalist, Toronto Ornithological Club, Friends of the Spit and related groups interested in conservation and wildlife.
Several comments indicated that vehicle numbers and parking areas at the endikement will have an impact on the " wilderness" area and the public' s enjoyment.
Authority staff have reviewed the alternative concept plans, the consultant' s recommended plan and all public submissions. Authority staff present for the Board' s approval a recommended concept plan which caLlects Concept D as recommended to staff by the consultant with modifications.
THE RECOMMENDED CONCEPT PLAN IS.
CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FORMULATED FOR TOMMY THOMPSON PARK.
PROTECTIVE OF AND SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDS THE NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS FROM THE INTERPRETIVE CENTRE TO THE LIGHTHOUSE ( 200 ha) .
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TORONTO CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN AND POLICIES.
CONSISTENT WITH THE TOMMY THOMPSON PARK USE PROGRAMME AS REVISED IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INPUT AND COMMENT.
RESPONSIVE TO THE PUBLIC INPUT ON THE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT PLANS.
ENHANCES THE PUBLIC' S ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY TOMMY THOMPSON PARK AND ITS UNIQUE WATERFRONT OPPORTUNITIES.
RECOGNIZES THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AND THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY THE OUTER HARBOUR FOR RECREATIONAL BOATING AND OTHER WATER ACTIVITIES.
I
6... 7
6 -
THE RECOMMENDED CONCEPT PLAN PROVIDES:
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT THROUGH PROTECTION : RESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE NATURAL SITE QUALITIES.
NOTE: THE CREATION OF HABITAT/ WETLANDS IN CELLS 1, 2 AND 3 WILL BE SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION.
PRIVATE VEHICLE AND TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION ACCESS TO THE INTERPRETIVE CENTRE WITH 100 CAR PARKING AREA.
SEPARATION OF PARKING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ROUTE TO THE ENDIKEMENT AND OUTER HEADLAND.
FUTURE OVERFLOW PARKING AT THE BASE AND CONNECTION WITH PARK TRANSPORTATION.
INTERPRETIVE CENTRE AT THE ENDIKEMENT AS A FOCUS AND PROPER ENTRANCE TO THE NATURAL AREA WITH FULL MUNICIPAL SERVICES, WASHROOMS, SHELTER, EDUCATION/ RESEARCH AND INTERPRETIVE FUNCTIONS.
RECOGNITION OF THE LONG TERM OPPORTUNITY BEYOND THE ' SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT TO POTENTIALLY CREATE A LANDFILL AREA FOR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND A MOORING BASIN FOR 300 - 400 BOATS.
NOTE: THE FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SCHEME WILL BE AFFECTED BY METRO WORKS ULTIMATE REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THIS AREA.
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
NATURAL AREA MANAGEMENT S 11200, 000.
SITE SERVICES 635, 000.
SITE FACILITIES 1, 130, 000.
LANDSCAPING 520, 000.
SHORELINE PROTECTION 650, 000.
PARK TRANSPORTATION 100, 000.
TOTAL S 4, 235, 000.
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT - PUBLIC OPEN SPACE%MOORING BASIN
SHORE PROTECTION S 1,. 700, 000.
LANDSCAPING 200, 000.
TOTAL 11900, 000.
7... 7
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: the staff report on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan be received.
AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
1) The recommended concept plan as presented by Authority staff for Tommy Thompson Park be approved.
2) Staff be directed to proceed with Phase IV - Concept Plan Report as outlined by the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Process.
3) An Advisory Committee be established with Representation from the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Canadian Wildlife Service, local Universities, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Toronto Ornithological Club, Friends of the Spit and related groups to prepare detailed implementation recommendations for the natural resource area.
1386. 12. 04
LP/ al Attach:
r
r ws D OAOwdr. nine PLAN e w d•d ••
r. r
b..
1 ww+
M w y MAULEd' uo J E/ W yy. 3[ WAM oar«.. CONCEPT ur. ti 0 xftA" UA9 naw.. lift gmfouo HOMING loo up. f 4. 400 bow y,.. x•
F"300- PAM1rLo
AA
NA _ wamwl I u - MH MOM I mm ILN4A nwn/ C Atqu s RECOMMENDED MYMalA fM iuroM+ J OrirtA All OVEMFLOW fmoz
1 . J7 ru, ^«+. tl r. rAw 1aON j a+ PARK 16 i —D" VACAA9 WLIWG E uAE I' J/ wnoamFEDEhOnrou V" TOAAY L...' outcn5NL11J0 PANkANf wauf% Wo i CALD xf fmom W" MOONIW Mom Plan m SArLM5MA Wr9 p om fAfW eo mumw MAW Am 9 86) 0" PIODRINCi AQUdfIL fnnnrmo t,Auer mm 1OJ GN f 40" of flu" taEO CEIrf11E A, rww V f - 1XrDAA1LE frtsE NA91fiU0r' CAM crto Concept eutt flrOfF.pl tW rnnAnr- rUOrx. mvmrcotro meJ'rGApfIUWi uLAnow( 9ChVICL mEnenEtNE1 E fULL%fULL PAfWsjra B 8 Af1EA A tUruTAru i FJnuKA11oa TO At
1 vxtloWf ANA W[.•(Wq{ 1frA Revised December/ 1 JAJf n M1*t u. PRE9£ n W. EuyrM1OAInEAJfALL7 urrA r° 10 J` s MMM"" ei 7fAaurr Yff AA6A nnrow vr+ 6. a Aw+ foau° ua, w,,,,, EAMNIMfOfAL nwmzmu i11f7ffMAMM ApOrfan orcxAU r•M4WADwruepu a a E- 4M• EAE5 7f! Figure CAfE IAA1D./priiEirF, Of 4rtN 1:/_'••
W vAl4E7YCfItJQlD LIl111101MJE I 6 . 5 AUTHORITY MEETING ( JANUARY 23 , 1987 )
The Authority meeting was held on January 23 , 1987 , at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitors Centre . Thirty- seven delegations which were heard with respect to the Tommy
Thompson Park Concept Plan development - Revised Concept
11 D" .
The Authority adopted the following resolution: it
Res . # 197
THAT:
1) The recommended Concept Plan, as presented by Authority staff for Tommy Thompson be approved;
2) Staff be directed to proceed with Phase IV Concept Plan Report as outlined by the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Process ;
3) An advisory committee be established, with representation from The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Canadian Wildlife Service, local universities, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Toronto Ornithological Club, the Friends of the Spit, and related groups, to prepare detailed implementation recommendations for the natural resource area;
4) The letter, dated January 20, 1987, from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, on the issue of long- term tenure for the community sailing clubs on the north shore and/ or on the north shore of the THC marina spit of the Outer Harbour be received for information.
NOTE : See attached copy of Authority minutes
Exhibit 6 . 4 ) . Exhibit 6.4 Authority Meeting # 9/ 86 Minutes - Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan k k% A- 204
the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes
AUTHORITY MEETING 23- JANUARY- 1987 9/ 86
Meeting # 9/ 86 of the Authority was held on Friday, 23 January, 1987, 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 Frank Andrews William G. Barber Milton Berger William B. Granger Lois E. Griffin Brian G. Harrison Don Jackson Lorna D. Jackson William J. Kelly Eldred King Jack Layton Bryn Lloyd John A. McGinnis William G. McLean Sandy Nimmo Richard M. O' Brien Gordon W. Patterson Nancy Porteous Maja Prentice Maureen Prinsloo Al F. Ruggero Norah Storer Helen White Robert F. M. Yuill
ABSENT
Members Robert S. Gillespie Clarence W. Jessop Emil V. Kolb Rocco Maragna Ronald A. P. Moran
MINUTES
Res. # 194 Moved by: William Barber Seconded by: Brian Harrison
THAT the Minutes of Meeting # 8/ 86 be approved.
CARRIED. A- 205 2-
DELEGATIONS
Res. # 195 Moved by: Nancy Porteous Seconded by: Al Ruggero
THAT the 10 delegates listed on the agenda be heard for 10 minutes each, and the additional 30 delegates be heard for 3 minutes each.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Lorna Jackson Seconded by: William McLean
THAT the additional speakers be heard for 3 minutes each, but that the deadline for taking the vote be 1: 00 p. m.
ON A RECORDED VOTE - VOTING " YEA": 5 VOTING " NAY": 17
Andrews, F. Barber, W. G. Granger, W. B. Foster, W. T. Jackson, Don Griffin, L. Jackson, Lorna Hancey, L. Ruggero, A. F. Harrison, B. G. Kelly, W. J. Layton, J. Lloyd, B. McGinnis, J. A. McLean, W. G. Nimmo, S. O' Brien, R. M. Patterson, G. W. Porteous, N. Prinsloo, M. Stoner, N. White, H.
THE AMENDMENT WAS ------NOT CARRIED.
ON A SHOW OF HANDS, THE MAIN MOTION WAS ------CARRIED.
The following were heard as delegates in connection with agenda Item 5( 1) - Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan:
1. Anne Hansen, Interested Citizen 2. Patty Hudson, 3. Wendy Joscelyn, Commodore, Outer Harbour Sailinq Federation 4. Steve Reid, Toronto Catamaran Club 5. Dr. John Lee, Sierra Club 6. Mrs. Marion Bryden, M. P. P. Beaches- Woodbine 7. Geoff Dashwood, Interested Citizen 8. Nick Teekman, Renewable Dynamics Inc. 9. Daniel Egan, City of Toronto Cycling Committee 10. John Carley, Friends of the Spit 11. Lee Gold 12. Gavin Henderson, Interested Citizen 13. Jean MacDonald, Toronto Field Naturalists 14. Professor Verna Higgins, Botany Conservation Group, University of Toronto 15. Kevin, Kavanagh 11 11 11 16. John Oliver, Vice- Commodore, Outer Harbour Centreboard Club 17. Jim Younker, Commodore, Aquatic Park Sailing Club 18. Steve Varga, Federation of Ontario Naturalists 19. Ralph Timson, Westwood Sailing Club 20. Helen Hansen, Interested Citizen 21. Lyn MacMillan 22. George Gilbert, Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters 23. Roy Scott, Outer Harbour Sailing Federation 24. Frank Loritz, St. James Town Sailing Club 25. Alf Jenkins, Executive Director, Ontario Sailing Association 26. Janice Harniman, Interested Citizen 27. Wilma Harniman 28. William A. Martin 29. Victoria Carley on behalf of Jean DesFour, Friends of the Spit 3- A- 206
4
30. Donalda Wright, Toronto Bruce Trail Club 31. Bruce Withrow, Mooredale Sailing Club 32. Gerry Campbell, Toronto Multihull Cruising Club 33. Dr. D. V. Weseloh, President, Ontario Field Ornithologists 34. Sheila McKay Kuja, Interested Citizen 35. Susan Montenen on behalf of Ronald Tasker, M. D., F. R. C. S. ( C), Head, Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto General Hospital 36. Peter Kotanen, Interested Citizen 37. Ellen Schwartzel
CORRESPONDENCE
i The General Manager reported receipt of a number of written submissions concerning the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan, many of which requested that they be read into the record.
Res. # 196 Moved by: Richard O' Brien Seconded by: Maureen Prinsloo
THAT the written submissions be received, circulated among the Members, and appended as Schedule " A" of these Minutes.
CARRIED.
REPORT OF MEETIPJG # i/ ii OF THE WATER i RELATED LAND MAkAGBMENT ADVISORY BOARD
Item 1 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK CONCEPT PLAN
Mr. W. G. McLean, Chairman, Mater .& Related Land Management Advisory Board, noted that The Toronto Harbour Commissioners have responded, by letter dated January 20, 1987, appended as Schedule " B" of these Minutes, to the request of the Board for an official and definitive oosition on the issue of long- term tenure for the community sailing clubs on the north shore and/ or on the north shore of the T. H. C. marina spit of the Outer Harbour.
Mr. Harrison proposed a motion, which was not seconded, to adopt, in principle, Tommy Thompson Park, Phase III, A Better Concept Plan, January 14, 1987"; as presented by the Friends of the Spit. It was agreed to discuss the issue in the context of both motions before putting the recommendation of the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board to a vote.
Res. 197 Moved by: William G. McLean Seconded by: Robert F. M. Yuill
THAT ( 1) The recommended concept plan, as presented by Authority staff for Tommy Thompson Park and appended as Schedule " C" of these Minutes, be approved;
2) Staff be directed to proceed with Phase IV - Concept Plan Report as outlined by the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Process;
3) An advisory committee be established, with representation from The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, the Canadian Wildlife Service, local universities, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Toronto Ornithological Club, the Friends of the Spit, and related groups, to prepare detailed implementation recommendations for the natural resource area;
4) The letter, dated January 20, 1987, from The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, on the issue of long- term tenure for the community sailing clubs on the north shore and/ or on the north shore of the T. H. C. marina spit of the Outer Harbour be received for information. A- 207 4-
AMENDMENT Moved by: William B. Granger Res. * 198 Seconded by: Robert F. M. Yuill
THAT Item 1, Clause ( 3) of Report # 6/ 86 of the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board be amended to add the words " with itemized budget estimates attached".
SUB- AMENDMENT Moved by: Robert F. M. Yuill Res. * 199 Seconded by: Helen White
THAT Item 1 of Report 06/ 86 of the Water• & Related Land Management Advisory Board be amended by the additicn of Clause ( 5) reading " That the pedestrian and bicycle oaths be separated."
THE SUB- AMENDMENT WAS ------CARRIED.
THE AMENDMENT WAS ------CARRIED.
ON A RECORDED VOTE, VOTING " YEA": 11 VOTING " NAY": 6
Barber, W. G. Griffin, L. Berger, M. Harrison, B. G. Foster, W. T. Layton, J. Granger, W. B. O' Brien, R. M. Hancey, L. Prinsloo, M. Jackson, Lorna White, H. McGinnis, J. A. McLean. W. G. Patterson, G. W. Stoner, N. Yuill, R. F. M.
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS ------CARRIED.
I I 7. PHASE IV - MASTER PLAN
7 . 1 OVERVIEW OF PHASE IV
The primary objective of Phase IV was to prepare the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan based on the direction from the
Authority for Phase III - Concept - Plan . To achieve this objective the Natural Area Advisory Committee and the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee were created to obtain more detailed input for the natural
resource area and sailing facilities . As a result , several recommendations from these committees were incorporated into the final Master Plan .
The purpose of the Natural Area Advisory Committee was to prepare detailed implementation recommendations regarding the natural resource area with itemized budget estimates . Through a series of five meetings , including a site tour, several points of agreement were formulated and incorporated into the Master Plan .
The purpose of the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee was to contribute towards the development of the Master Plan for that area designated for boating and water based facilities . Three meetings were held in which a variety of suggestions were made , modified, and agreed upon .
A review by government agencies was solicited to assist in
the Master Plan formulation . A second review occurred after the completion of the master plan, however , the response was limited . A summary of the Master Plan and an invitation to a public meeting of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory
Board ( WRLMAB) , on January 14 , 1988 , was providea to the public . Following the WRLMAB recommendation for approval of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan , the full Authority at its January 29 , 1988 meeting , approved the Board ' s recommendations .
Natural Area Advisory Committee
Meeting # 1/ 87 April 6 , 1987
Meeting # 2/ 87 May 11 , 1987
Meeting # 3/ 87 June 8 , 1987 Meeting # 4/ 87 September 21 , 1987
Meeting # 5/ 87 October 19, 1987
Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee
1987 Meeting # 1/ 87 July 13 ,
Meeting # 2/ 87 September 28 , 1987 1987 Meeting # 3/ 87 October 20 ,
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
1988 Meeting # 8/ 87 January 14,
Authority Meeting
1988 Meeting # 9/ 87 January 29 , 7 . 2 NATURAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE
7 . 2 . 1 Purpose
As a result of Res . # 197 ( amended by Res . # 198 )
adopted by the full Authority on January 23 , 1987 , the
Natural Area Advisory Committee ( NAAC ) was established to prepare detailed implementation recommendations for the natural resource area including with itemized
budget estimates . Specifically , the NAAC was to prepare management and detail cost recommendations to
maximize the potential for the natural area as set out
in the approved concept plan (Phase III ) . These
recommendations were to be incorporated into the
final Master Plan .
7 . 2 . 2 Committee Representation
The Natural Area Advisory Committee membership was made up of a representative from the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority - Chairman , J. C. Mather , Ms . Anne Farraway ( Toronto Field Naturalists ) , Dr . Verna Higgins ( Botany Conservation Group) , Herb Elliott Toronto( Ornithological Club ) ,
John Carley ( Friends of the Spit ) , Doug Billings Outer Harbour Sailing Federation ) , Steve Varga
Federation of Ontario Naturalists ) , Gaston Tessier
Canadian Wildlife Service ) , Blair Dawson ( Ministry of Natural Resources ) , Tracey Smith ( Ministry of Natural
Resources ) , Art Coles (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and
Property Department ) , and Doug Geddes ( Field Botanists
of Ontario) . 7 . 2 . 3 Committee Process
The Committee met on April 6, 1987 ; May 11 , 1987 ;
June 8 , 1987 ; September 21 , 1987 ; and on October 19 ,
1987 . All except one of these meetings were held at the MTRCA Head Office . The June 8 , 1987 meeting was
held at Tommy Thompson Park , as a site tour .
Discussions were stimulated through the use of a video presentation , an on site tour , the use of discussion on
key " world class" natural area or urban wilderness characteristics , and a report by the consultants for
the project . The key " world class" natural area or urban wilderness characteristics included :
interpretive centre facilities and programs ,
topography, vegetation ( trees , shrubs , aquatic and herbaceous plants ) , animal life birds( , mammals , amphibians , insects , fish ) , site capacity and access , recreation , public use ( walking trails , bicycle paths , jogging , canoeing ) . The consultant ' s ( E . D. A.
Collaborative ) report outlined a " representative ecosystem by community type" for the natural area" . These discussions allowed the members of the Committee to express their concerns and interests regarding the formation of the Master Plan .
7 . 2 . 4 Summary of the Committee ' s Findings
As a result of these meetings , several changes to the consultant ' s management plan (see figure 7 . 1 ) and the accompanying abstract (Exhibit 7 . 1 ) were suggested . Exhibit 7 . 2 provides a summary of the ideas and points of consensus that led to preparation of the final management plan for the Master Plan . N4 MY
p10n
Sw " r^ or" I '°'°"'°o4wMwlbn $-* RI"'°°""'
BY TYPE _-_ 7 1l.
17, MSfR Type. REPRESENTATIVE ECOSYSTEMCOMMUNITY SEPTE
LMOS I 711C THOMPSON PARK r,r. Community TOMMY by
w1LlOw EM/ EACH OUN[ WOODLAND TONwpppgs NI EEACN/ SHINGLE! LAGOON COT MIXED COMMUNITY Ecosystem
MASH MARSH ® POND
I ISLAN0 MEADOW MEADOW MLUSTNINE LACUSTRINE Y WET SHORELINE/ JOLA12/ E a
Representative1 7. Figure Exhibit 7. 1 Ecological Planning Abstract Tommy Thompson Park by E.D.A. Collaborative TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
ECOLOGICAL PLANNING ABSTRACT
i BY
WALTER KEHM - EDA COLLABORATIVE
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987
The approved Tommy Thompson Park concept plan is predicated
on the ecological philosophy of natural succession . The
natural or " urban wilderness" aspects of the park are unique
along the Metropolitan Toronto waterfront and the processes which have allowed the state to evolve should be further
encouraged . In addition , any human interventions' made in the natural resource zone should only be carried out if the
use is compatible with the intrinsic qualities of the site .
In the natural resource zone this means that wildlife
requirements are the most important management concern . The
natural resource zone should be seen as a place where rare and endangered plant and animal species can find living
habitats , nesting and staging areas . For the visitor it is
a peaceful place - clos e to the inner city but also remote - where one finds physical and psychological relief from the
hard geometry of the urban world .
The concept plan stating the philosophical approach to be used for the natural resource zone was based on the rational
of conservation by design . Several environmental protection categories were defined including protection , preservation ,
environmental management , management succession and long
term habitat creation areas . In each of these areas the
goal is to protect rare and endangered wildlife species and
to create new regionally significant landscape environments where possible and appropriate to further
sustain and enhance those species . The new environments
proposed are wetlands in the form of palustrine and
lacustrine marshes , beach/ dune/ island complexes , mixed
woodland forest and pond/ lagoon areas .
The natural resource zone from a management perspective has
two specific sub- areas which are largely determined by the initial sandy dredgeate material to be found west of the existing spine road and the newer silt/ clay fill areas to the
east . In the sandy soil zone the existing cottonwood- aspen- willow communities are found and include the
majority of the significant bird nesting and habitat areas .
Natural regeneration of plant material has occurred at a
rapid rate due to the sandy soils , orientation to prevailing breezes ensuring the capture of a large number of airborned
seeds , and hydrologic features such as an extensive shoreline
ar.Ld good surface drainage . In contrast the more recent
eastern landfill is flat and has few impediments to airborne
seeds , contains highly impacted silty clays , has less favourable shoreline conditions , and imperfect surface
drainage . Plant regeneration has been slow and sparse even
in areas completed up to seven years ago .
This reality suggests that the " hands- off" management strategy used for the eastern zone is not relevant if greater ecological diversity is to be achieved for the eastern fill
areas . An alternative to the " hands- off" approach and one
which will achieve many of the same conservation objectives involves creating the necessary site conditions and providing the basic biological components that will set the initial
direction of the ecological succession rather than rely on
the accidents of man and nature . The approach proposed is
termed natural succession augmented by planned intervention
and management . This approach involves the active creation
or recreation of a group of species that resemble a natural
community . This approach is a special form of land
reclamation which can be called ecological restoration
I i
in which ecological communities appropriate to the site are modeled after natural communities . It can be demonstated that a deciduous woodland of 100 species can be achieved in five to seven years - not the 40 to 200 commonly believed - if a careful series of management interventions are followed .
The two appoaches are not fundamentally different ; both seek the same end result - natural communities in the convervation areas . The methods of getting there are different . The naturalistic succession proposed provides the physical and biological base conditions and the natural processes to determine community succession . The essential physical base conditions are variation in land forms , surface drainage modifications , the variation of soil types and depths , and the manipulation of water edge , soil and bottom conditions for the lake/ lagoon areas . The biological base is concerned with using either existing plant materials or re- establishing plan communities which are representative of the Lake Ontario shoreline . The overall objective of the planting program is :
To create artificially or naturally, a semi- natural self sustaining range of biological land and water communities in Tommy Thompson Park.
A number of subsidiary objectives support the primary objective . They are :
To enhance the natural heritage component of Tommy
Thompson Park .
To provide a viable education resource area to the
citizens of Ontario and Metropolitan Toronto .
To minimize the short and long term maintenance cost of maintaining the bilogical system. To provide additional understanding of the
naturalistic approach to landscape restoration .
To create and/ or maintain sustainable wildlife
habitats for rare and endangered species .
To create and/ or maintain ecosystems which have been
severely reduced ( i .e . wetlands) .
To accomplish these objectives 11 ecological community types are proposed as listed below and on the attached map . They are :
1 . Palustrine Marsh
2 . Lacustrine Marsh
3 . Lake Island Complex
4 . Dry Meadow Prairie Like Grassland and Sand Barrens
5 . Wet Meadow
6 . Shoreline Pond
7 . Beach Dune
8 . Shingle Beach
9 . Cottonwood Forest
10 . Mixed Hardwood
11 . Lagoon .
Before an appropriate implementation plan can be prepared ,
the biophysical requirements for the site and nearby areas must be determined and evaluated against the habitat
requirements of the proposed species complex . This will require ongoing research at the implementation stage of the
Parks .
II II
Conclusions
There is a limited experience in community restoration at an ecosystem level . Techniques for woodland and wetland restoration have not been standardized , partly for ecological reasons and partly because objectives and priorities differ from project to project . As a result it is impossible to present a single restoration formula even for a single site .
It is possible to judge the immediate results of the restoration technique but the ultimate results cannot be assessed for many years . Zedler ( 1987 ) includes the following statement which is applicable to woodlands as well as wetlands .
How should the rehabilitation of degraded wetlands
and creation of artificial ones proceed? It is
nearly impossible to carry out replicated experiments at the ecosystem level . It becomes necessary to
integrate research and management , to treat
management as an adaptive learning process where
management activities themselves are viewed as the
primary tools for experimentation" .
This adaptive learning process will be a significant component of the Tommy Thompson Park experience .
I Exhibit 7.2 Natural Area Advisory Committee - Points of
Agreement - October, 1987 Natural Area Management Ideas
A) Topography
prohibit future landfilling on Peninsula A, B, C and D
future landfill area - small ponds ( sloughs )
maintain lighthouse lookout
leave existing road and maintain long vistas
managed succession area could have minor relief changes through creation of dunes .
B) Vegetation
new landfill area to vegetate through natural succession
establish appropriate water levels for cattails/ wetlands
allowing for natural colonization and succession is an excellent educational opportunity.
C) Animal Life
management of significant species is necessary
diversity of habitats required to attract additional species to the site
wetland habitat is probably most important
fish habitat enhancement potential
boardwalks could be beneficial to minimize human disturbance of significant vegetation areas
provision of public viewing opportunities close to nesting colonies ( eg . Peninsual A or C) utilizing blinds or vegetation screens .
D) Recreation - Public Use
some access to peninsulas is acceptable during non- nesting
periods
pedestrian paths on peninsulas should be informal , sand paths
control points should be located at obvious points
park vehicle should be provided for public access separate pedestrian/ bicycle trails on spine road
bicycles should be kept out of central pedestrian trail area
no canoe launching in natural area or canbeing in proposed marsh areas
meanders of trail system off the existing main road area acceptable if they stay out of E. S . A. ' s
a goal should be to maintain and enhance the quality of the public ' s use and walking experience .
NOTE: Refer to Meeting Minutes # 1/ 87, # 2/ 87 and # 3/ 87 for the exact record of Committee ' s natural area ideas .
Natural Area - Points of Agreement
lighthouse point should be retained as the dominant height of land
majority agreement on the various community types - lake/ island system, pallustrine marsh, lacustrine marsh, wet/ dry meadow, cottonwood/ aspen/ willow, shingle beach, shoreline/ pond except the mixed woodland community
majority agreement that the plan should indicate more marsh habitat as opposed to the lake/ island system
consensus was that the proposed dune system could not be developed or maintained - a shingle beach will develop along the shoreline with the area behind that graded with local depressions, no berms, gentle undulations
majority of the Committee agrees that more marshes should be included with the following general features:
range water depth of 1. 5 - 2. 0 m with 1 m layer of organics on surface of the bottom would be preferable
less than 2 m of water depth is classified as wetland in Ontario
good waterfowl marsh is 30 inches or less
Cell 1 should have about 208 open water and 808 marsh
vegetation
Regarding the future fill areas the majority of the Committee agreed that:
natural development of a cottonwood forest would require additional topsoil material
a mixed woodland forest would require significant topsoil early succession species ( golden rod) could maintain themselves on existing material - day, shale, concrete, etc.
the majority of the Committee agreed that success or failure of the Tommy Thompson Park natural area plan will depend on an educational/ interpretive program
there was some disagreement on the scale of a facility required to serve as the base for the educational/ interpretive program
there was majority agreement on the path system concept including replacing the exisitng straight paved spine road beyond the interpretive centre with reservation about detailed alignments which can only be resolved at the detailed design stage
pathway loops off the main pedestrian system should be as they exist but with some formalization to limit width and environmental impact
access for handicapped is important
bikeway on endikement could be the existing roadway a small van service is critical to public access eg. once per hour.
4/ 87 and # 5/ 87 for the exact record NOTE: Refer to Meeting Minutes # of the Committee' s recommendations .
i 7 . 3 OUTER HARBOUR SAILING FEDERATION
PHYSICAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
7 . 3 . 1 Purpose
The purpose of this Committee was to contribute towards the
development of the Master Plan for the area designated for boating facilities and water based activities in the concept plan .
The meetings were held in order to assess the perceived
requirements of the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation ' s member
sailing clubs . The Committee was to proceed in parallel with the Natural Area Advisory Committee and was the input forum for the
sailing community .
7 . 3 . 2 Membership
The Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee was composed of representatives from each of the
OHSF member sailing clubs , Toronto Windsurfing Club, and the MTRCA staff . Specifically, the Committee membership was composed of
representatives from the Outer Harbour Centreboard Club, Toronto
Multihull Cruising Club, Aquatic Park Sailing Club, Sail Toronto , Moorsdale Sailing Club, Westwood Sailing Club, St . Jamestown
Sailing Club , Toronto Catamaran Club , and the Toronto Windsurfing
Club .
7 . 3 . 3 Process
A total of three meetings , July 13 , 1987 ; September 28 , 1987 ; and
October 20 , 1987 , were held .
The meetings were conducted in a consultative manner in order
to provide the MTRCA and the OHSF with physical planning data . Concept layouts were used to assist the Committee members
in visualizing the potential facility sites , lease areas , landfill configuration , and allocation of parking within the approved concept plan guidelines .
a 7 . 3 . 4 Summary of Meetings
Embayment D should be designated only for boating
facilities ;
No landfill should be placed as shown on the
Recommended Concept Plan .
Embayment D will not be an environmentally sensitive
area after the T. H. C . marina is built , since the
marina will create drastic changes ;
Information was collected from the OHSF regarding existing clubs present and future situation in terms
of :
i ) number of boats by size
ii ) mooring or ramp requirements
iii ) number of members
iv ) land/ water area
v) club house facilities
vi ) parking requirements for club members and regatta days
vii ) winter storage
viii ) other facilities or services ;
Concern was expressed that the concept plan' s proposed landfill area encroaches significantly into the Outer Harbour and further constrains the useable sailing area along with the T. H . C. marina;
The concept configuration for the boating facilities
reflected T. H. C. ' s marina entrance requirements and
proposed multihull mooring area . The final shoreline configuration is subject to modification upon further coastal engineering review based on soundings recorded by the MTRCA; No objections to supporting access and landforms with modifications to hardpoints at mouth of bay ;
Objections arose in regards to the amount of parking required to serve the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation and Toronto Windsurfing Club, and these could not be resolved ;
It was recommended that a maximum of one member per
club make deputations to the WRLMAB meeting .
NOTE: Refer to Meeting Minutes # 1/ 87 , # 2/ 87 , # 3/ 87 for the
exact record of the Committee ' s ideas .
Figure 7 . 2 outlines the agreed upon plan for the boating/ windsurfing/ public areas . Based upon comments from this Committee the Authority increased the parking allocation for the boating facilities from 250 to 300 to make provision for the boardsailing facility (50 parking spaces ) . nSIF• PJ
w". C••' r+ so•• 9vPp r PN o.. t
PO,-' n.•„`r. — ' PC, w , O•
r
s r uw.'•
o
i
l tkto tom 00--
p... .. i Concept lion r'.'°" w sa• Federa
f Sailing r arbou 19g fXl tiff' ' .` ber, r.. G.
J \ : Octo C=;- ____ QUter 2 I NNN 7. nor 1 •« d IANN 1' J nre i,. 4 t. slAtft y..,_ Rn,`µ A +
7 5 .
1
I '= 7 . 4 GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
Government agency response was requested at two different periods during Phase IV. The first response was requested after the completion of the Phase III - Approved concept plan . The second response was elicited after the completion of the Master
Plan . The MTRCA requested the following agencies to review the documents and provide comments : Toronto Harbour Commissioners ,
Ministry of Natural Resources ( Central Region) , Metropolitan
Toronto Works Department , Metropolitan Toronto Planning
Department , Metropolitan Toronto Parks Department , City of
Toronto Planning Department , Ministry of Tourism and Recreation , and Ministry of the Environment .
Concept Plan Response
In general , positive response was forthcoming in regards to
the principle of the Concept Plan . Metropolitan Toronto
Works Department , Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department ,
Ministry of Natural Resources ( Central Region) , and Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department provided
comments ( see Exhibit 7 . 3) .
Master Plan Response
Government agencies ' response for the Master Plan was
limited . The Ministry of Natural Resources indicated they would provide comments as part of the government review stage within the Environmental Assessment Process ( see Exhibit 7 . 4) .
I Exhibit 7.3 Concept Plan Comments -
Government Agencies
Metropolitan Toronto Works - June 30, 1987 Metropolitan Toronto Planning
DepartmentP Jul-Y 3 1987 Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department - June 8, 1987
Ministry of Natural Resources - July 8, 1987 The Municipality of METRpAOli Metropolitan Toronto a > Metropolitan Works Department o Phoenix House, 10th Floor j YEG, i- , O 439 University Avenue L oy Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1Y8 1 1953 Telephone:( 416) 392- 8202 3 5b1 Address all correspondence to the Commissioner F.J. Horgan, P.Eng. A. A. E.E. Commissionerof Works I# a; rr Referto: Mr. R. G. Ferguson, P. Eng. File no: 1077. 24 R•` ne 30, 1987
Mr. J. C. Mather, P. Eng. Director Water Resource Division The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
CONCEPT PLAN FOR TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
We acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 29, 1987 concerning the above proposal, and advise that we have no objection in principle to your approved Concept Plan for Tommy Thompson Park.
However, we must again draw your attention to the same reservations raised in our earlier letter dated November 28, 1986 ( copy attached).
With the increasing advocacy of water quality improvements including combined sewer overflow and storm water detention, the potential impact of the Provincial M. O. E. MISA program, and the City of Toronto and Provincial- Federal Remedial Action plans, it is becoming increasingly important to ensure that the area east of Leslie Street be reserved for ultimate sewage treatment plant expansion.
Eng. CommissionerhHorgan
RGF/ mm 22804 DOE i
8202
R. G. Ferbuson, P.&Ind. 1077. 24 November 23, 13S6
Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority S Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
Attention of Mr. L. Field
TOMhfY THOMPSON PARK - CONCEPT PLAN PHASE III
We have reviewed your Tommy Thompson Park Alternative Concept Plans Phase III, dated November 7, 1986. We have no objection to the general proposals fur any of the Concept Plans. We will leave comment on the alternatives, and preferred alternative, to the agencies concerned with recrea tion.
We are oblibed to raise some reservations to the details shown for the lands immediately adjacent to, and to the south of, our Slain Treatment Plant.
These lands, as outlined in Concept D, are proposed for a Keelboat Basin Clubhouse, and parking facilities for 300 vehicles. This Department, and the Provincial government, will, from time to time, be implementing treatment process improvements and increasingly more stringent pollution controls on effluent and on receiving water quality. The best applicable technology will be added as it becomes available and, therefore, we are unable to assess the ultimate area requirements for expansion of the Plant.
We are pleased to note that you have shown on your plans the water- lot extension which we have discussed with you as being necessary for the short- term future, within 20 years. We recommend that no major capital expenditures be made in this area immediately south of the plant. Accordingly, the Clubhouse location on Concept D at least, should be adjusted westerly to be clear of the possible future extension of the west limit of the Plant.
This plant serves approximately 65% of Metropolitan Toronto, and no action should be taken that would jeopardize future improvements and expansion of this essential service. Our comments above are based on the longer terms and ultimate expectations beyond 20 years, and, therefore, cannot be detailed.
F. J. Hor, an, P. Eng. Commissioner of `Works
6 GE• ns yC F METRO The Municipality of AO Metropolitan Toronto Metropolitan Planning Department z City Hall, East Tower, 11th Floor JUL 7 1987 C O Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 2N1 y Oy Telephone: ( 416) 392- 8783 Telex: 06- 23472 1953 r
4
n July 3, 1987
Mr. J. C. Mather, P. Eng. Director Water Resources Division Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
Dear Mr. Mather:
Re: Request for Comments - Tommy Thompson Park, Phase IV
By letter of May 29th you have requested this Department' s comments on Phase IV - Master Plan Preparation" for Tommy Thompson Park. After reviewing the draft this Department is prepared to support the stated " key components".
In addition, I would like to comment on the following matters.
1) South of the Martin Goodman Trail along the neck of the spit, landscaping" rather than a " buffer planting screen" should be developed so as not to hide the magnificent view of the downtown Toronto skyline or the marina which will form an interesting foreground to the view.
2) There is merit in having a reference in the goals of the Concept Plan to winter use of the park for such activities as hiking, bird watching and, if feasible, cross- country skiing and ice skating.
3) Facilities for food at the Interpretive Centre should be provided for the general public since there will be a demand. In addition, some refreshments should be available at the lighthouse area as this is a logical halfway resting spot and the views are exceptional.
4) The provision of a separate access road to the T. H. C. Marina through the Industrial Park is supported in order that control over park visitors ( and their automobiles) can be maintained.
5) A bicycle rental facility should be provided and located in relationship to parking and transit.
r The Municipality of METRC Metropolitan Toronto 2 - Planning Department L Z, l °'
Outside of the Concept Plan it may be advisable for the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to be requested to restrict motor boat access to the various basins.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ongoing development of the Tommy Thompson Park. We understand that the Metropolitan Parks and Property Department have sent their own comments.
Yours truly,
R. J. Bower Commissioner of Planning
MF/ cf cc: Chris Roberts, Metro Parks and Property Frank Kershaw, Metro Parks and Property r OF METRO The Municipality of t t AO Metropolitan Toronto Q ' , q
u Parks and Property Department o 8th Floor JUN 12 1987 o 365 Bay Street O Toronto, Ontario S'1 1953 M5H 2V1 8199 Ui. T. R. C. A. Telephone: ( 416) 392- F Robert G. Bundy, a com. Commissioneroi Parksan& Property D. Nikolayuk Deputy Commissioner— Operations Reply to the attention of C. Roberts Deputy Commissioner — Planning and Development Mr. F. E. Kershaw
File No. 53. 4. 4
June 8, 1987
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Water Resource Division 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
Attention: Mr. J. C. Mather, P. Eng. Director
I have received your letter of May 29, 1987 respecting the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan and your request for this Department's comments related to same. These comments may be briefly summarized as follows:
The Aquatic Park Sailing Club should at the outset be made well aware of Council's rental rates as it relates to boat clubs. This is particularly relevant to this club given the space consuming nature of swing moorings. I have appended the present rate structure herein.
Consideration needs to be given to food service in the park and the potential for one of the on site structures to accommodate this function at one of the proposed new buildings.
Washroom structures should also be designed to provide a main shelter function given the distances involved to return to car parking areas or other structures in the park.
The intersection of the Martin Goodman Trail with the Bain park entrance at Leslie Street will need careful consideration from a vehicular and public safety standpoint.
There will also be a requirement to screen the park maintenance facility as it will no doubt be the storage and service area for the public park vehicles (i.e. trackless train).
PLEASE WALK ON THE GRASS Page 2 i
We would be interested in knowing the priority and phasing of time proposed Thommy Thompson Park development as it relates to other waterfront parks having regard to capital cost implications. I We look forward to providing further input as the planning process proceeds.
Yours very truly,
J
FEK/ lmf C. Rober Deputy Commissioner - P nning and Development cc: M. Fine - Metro Planning Ministry of Knistere des Natural Richesses Resources naturelles Ontario
July 8, 1987 7337. 16
Mr. W. A. McLean General Manager Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive 87 NorthNorth York, Ontario M3N 1S4 A4 T A. c. . .a. Attention: Larry Field
Dear Mr. McLean:
SUBJECT: Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan
We have solicited comments from Regional and District staff who have completed their review of the above- noted Plan and wish to provide the following comments for your consideration.
1. Fish and Wildlife staff have no concerns from a regional perspective, however, District staff have noted that no mention is made of angling, access for public fishing or enhancement of fish habitat. The placement of stone and rubble could be designed to improve the opportunities for fish habitat.
They do not have a good appreciation of how many people would use a fishing opportunity at the park, but the demand in the Toronto area is greater than current facilities can handle.
Staff at the District would be most receptive to discussing these matters further with the appropriate MTRCA staff.
2. Parks and Recreation staff have directed comments towards the designated ESA and are as follows:
the " zoning concepts" are unclear. it is difficult to differentiate between the four ESA zones since their explanations are vague. If differences are not distinguishable we suggest combining several ESA zones therefore making this concept less complicated.
should clearly define preservation vs protection.
2 Page 2 July 8, 1987 Mr. W. A. McLean
when referring to "Protection of ESA Amenities including . . . representative example of a gull colony and rare plant species" what is meant by representative example? Your ESA study states that this area ". . . may contain the world' s largest ring- billed gull colony" ( MTRCA, 1982) . Clarification is therefore required as to whether a representative example means the total existing population of this colony or a portion thereof.
when referring to Item # 3, page two, there seems to be some inconsistency. The dry sailing facility and infill area appear to be in the designated ESA according to your ESA study (MTRCA, 1982) .
the final item on page four, also appears inconsistent. How can the proposed landfill occur in the ESA without affecting it?
under preliminary cost estimates, where do the Natural Area Management costs originate from? We suggest that you either include more details of expenditures or delete such costing estimates altogether.
3. Regional engineers feel that the proposal for shore protection works at "the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant" needs further detailing. It is not clear why the Conservation Authority has assigned $ 1. 9 million for this part?
We hope that this input will be of assistance to you in completing the next step of your planning program.
Yours truly,
J. J. McFadden Regional Conservation Authorities Program Coordinator Central Region 10670 Yonge Street Richmond Hill, Ontario L4C 3C9
Telephone: ( 416) 883- 3262
Attachment
AL/ de
cc. - Regional Engineer Regional Biologist Co- ordinator, Parks and Recreation District Manager, Maple it
Exhibit 7.4 Master Plan Comments
Government Agencies Ministry of Natural Resources - January 28, 1988 I Ministry of Ministere des Natural Richesses
Resources naturelles Ontario
10670 Yonge Street 7337. 16 Richmond Hill, Ontario L4C 3C9
January 28, 1988
Mr. W. A. McLean General Manager/ Secretary- Treasurer Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York, Ontario M3N 1S4
Dear Mr. McLean:
SUBJECT: Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan, Phase IV I
We have reviewed the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan, a copy of which was forwarded to this office for our information with your letter of December 15, 1987.
I We concur with the approach of requesting our comments only after the document has entered the environmental approval stage. However, we offer the following comment for consideration before the Full Authority meeting of January 29, 1988. It is strongly recommended that the Authority ensure that the boundary line for the Master Plan be identical to the boundary line of lands currently owned by the Authority and lands currently under lease of patent to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners but proposed to be transferred to the MTRCA at a future date.
Yours truly,
A. S. Holder Regional Director Central Region
416) 883- 3256
MW/ de 7 . 5 W. R. L. M . A. B. MEETING # 8/ 87 ( JANUARY 14 , 1988 )
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board public meeting was held January 1. 4 , 1988 at the Medical Sciences
Auditorium , University of Toronto . The purpose of this meeting was to receive public comments on the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan .
Approximately 1 , 000 copies of the Master Plan were distributed by December 15 , 1987 to all interest groups and public on the MTRCA' s mailing list and were available at the Authority ' s head office . One hundred and eighty- two people attended the public meeting .
The public was invited to attend the meeting through a newspaper advertisement (see Exhibit 7 . 5) in The Toronto Star on January 6 , 1988 . Notices regarding the meeting were also sent out through the MTRCA' s mailing list to interested individuals and groups .
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board , after consideration of some 36 delegations and the staff report , recommended approval of the Master Plan to the full Authority see Exhibits 7 . 6 and 7 . 7) .
I Exhibit 7.5 Notice of Public Meeting Tommy Thompson Park
Master Plan - Phase IV
Toronto Star
January 6, 1988 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TOMMY THOMPSON PARK MASTER PLAN PHASE IV
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVA- TION AUTHORITY, Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board, as part of the public consultation process in Phase IV has.arranged a public meeting for: DATE: Thursday, January 14, 1988 TIME: Starting at 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Mgdical Science Building Auditorium, Main Floor, 1 King' s College Circle, ( between University Avenue and St. George Street just north of College Street).
The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan, based on the Con- cept Plan approved by the Authority on January 23, 1987, will be presented for public comment. Copies of the Master Plan have been distributed to all interest groups and public on the Authority's mailing list. Copies of the Master Plan are available at the Authority's offices during business hours — 8:30-4:30.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL: Larry Field, M.C. I. P. Manager, Waterfront Planningg Engineering& Development Sectlon Water Resource Division
Telephone No: 661- 6600, Ext. 243 Exhibit 7. 6 Staff Report - Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board 8/ 87 TO: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, Meeting # 8/ 87
FROM: J. C. MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION
RE: TOMMY THOMPSON PARK MASTER PLAN
The Authority, at its January 23, 1987 meeting, after consideration of the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan and the public comments, adopted the following resolution:
1) The recommended Concept Plan, as presented by the Authority staff for Tommy Thompson Park and appended as schedule ' C" of these minutes, be approved.
2) Staff be directed to proceed with Phase IV - Master Plan Report as outlined by the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Process.
3) An advisory committee be established, with representation from the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, The Canadian Wildlife Service, Local Universities, The Federation of Ontario Naturalists, The Toronto Ornithological Club, The Friends of the Spit, and related groups, to prepare detailed implementation recommendations for the natural resource area with itemized budget estimates attached.
4) The letter, dated January 20, 1987, from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, on the issue of long- term tenure for the Community Sailing Clubs on the north shore and/ or on the north shore of the T. H. C. Marina Spit of the Outer Harbour be received for information.
5) The pedestrian and bicycle paths be separated.
The major effort in 1987 was to prepare a Master Plan - Phase IV, in the five phase planning process for Tommy Thompson Park. Staff undertook the following efforts in preparing the proposed Master Plan:
Meetings with the Natural Area Advisory Committee.
Meetings with the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee on the proposed landfill configuration, access and sailing use areas.
Retention of a consultant - E. D. A. Collaborative in association with Ecoplans Ltd. and Al Freedman and Associates.
Preliminary coastal engineering review of the sailing use landfill area and configuration including reviews with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners.
Reviews of the plan with the Boards of Education, Toronto Urban Studies Centre and formulation of potential environmental
programs.
Reviews with the Ministry of Natural Resources, City of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto.
Preparation of a phasing program for the Master Plan and updating of the Capital Costs to 1987 dollars.
Staff, in accordance with the Authority' s direction, established the Natural Area Advisory Committee in April, 1987 with membership including The Friends of the Spit, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Field Botanists of Ontario, Toronto Field Naturalists, Botany Conservation Group Canadian Wildlife University of Toronto) , Toronto Ornithological Club, Service, Ministry of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, Aquatic Park Sailing Club/ Outer Harbour Sailing Invitations were Federation, and Chairman - J. C. Mather ( M. T. R. C. A. ) . also sent to the Ontario Field Ornithologist and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. 2 _
The Natural Area Advisory Committee provided valuable input which resulted in modifications to the management direction set out in the Concept Plan. In summary, the Committee indicated;
majority in agreement on the various community types - lake/ island system, pallustrine marsh, lacustrine marsh, wet/ dry meadow, cottonwood/ aspen/ willow, shingle beach, shoreline/ pond; l
majority in agreement with the concept of natural succession aided by surface preparation;
majority in agreement that the plan provides for more marsh habitat;
majority in agreement that the success or failure of the Tommy Thompson Park natural area plan will depend on an educational/ interpretive program and facility;
majority in agreement on the path system concept including replacing the existing straight, paved spine road beyond the interpretive centre with reservation about detailed alignments which can only be resolved at the detailed design stage;
Agreement that a small van service is critical to public access eg. one per hour.
NOTE: Refer to Natural Area Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes # 1/ 87, 2/ 87, # 3/ 87, # 4/ 87 and # 5/ 87 for the exact record of the Committee' s recommendations.
The Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee was established to provide input on the proposed sailing area with representation from the Aquatic Park Sailing Club, Toronto Multihull Cruising Club, Outer Harbour Centreboard Club, Mooredale, St. Jamestown, Westwood, Toronto Catamaran Club, Toronto Sail, Toronto Windsurfing Club and Ontario Sailing Association. This Committee has provided the Authority staff with majority in agreement on the landfill configuration, vehicle access and general area allocations for the sailing activities and the addition of a board sailing facility and an increase in parking by 50 spaces adjacent to the proposed sand beach.
I Consultation with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners has resulted in general approval of the proposed landfill configuration.
The Ministry of Natural Resources, Regional and District staff noted that the concept plan did not mention angling, access for public fishing or enhancement of fish habitat. Staff also advised that the demand for fishing in the Toronto area is greater than current facilities can handle.
The City of Toronto is preparing, as per council ' s direction, an open space/ recreation plan for the north shore of the Outer Harbour including access to the Spit ( Tommy Thompson Park) . The Master Plan is consistent with the proposed Central Waterfront land use plan for Tommy Thompson Park Environmental Resource and Open Space designations.
Metropolitan Toronto Works Department staff supported the concept plan in principle noting it is becoming increasingly important to ensure that the area east of Leslie Street be reserved for ultimate sewage treatment plant expansions to meet the increasing demand for water quality improvements by all levels of government.
The Toronto Urban Studies Centre/ Toronto School Board views Tommy Thompson Park as a main focus of its recently initiated "urban ecology program" to compliment the science curriculum to include - history, shoreline processes, natural succession, pollution, habitat studies, micro- climate, wildlife, snow studies, wetland studies, energy and sensory awareness. The key needs of these programs include shelter, classroom, washroom facilities and transportation to the interpretive facility. 3 -
The Authority staff presents for the Board' s approval a Master Plan ( see attached sheets 1 and 1( a)] which reflects the significant input of the Natural Area Advisory Committee, Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee, municipal and provincial departments, school boards and the Authority' s consultant - E. D. A. Collaborative with assistance from Ecoplans Ltd. and Al Freedman and Associates.
The Recommended Master Plan provides the following components, phasing and costing.
Components
i Master Plan offers the direction based on the natural succession or ecological approach augmented by minimal intervention and management to achieve a unique urban wilderness park;
preservation of significant species - Caspian Tern, Common Tern and Black- crowned Night Heron,
protection of environmentally significant areas amenities,
creation of significant marsh/ wetlands habitat,
some surface/ site preparation on the outer headland to allow natural succession ( willow/ aspen/ cottonwood) to occur.
I Interpretive centre and education program as a focus for environmental resource programs for the various school boards and the public' s education of ecology and natural succession.
In excess of 12 km of a separate major/ minor pedestrian path system and a 7 km separate bicycle pathway and future linkage to the Martin Goodman Trail;
Private vehicular access to the Interpretive Centre with 100 public parking spaces and provision for an additional 200 public parking spaces at the park entrance based on future park use levels if warranted.
a The retention of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club, relocation of the Toronto Multihull Cruising Club ( 65 boats) , an area for the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation/ Community Club activities and boardsailing. A total of 300 parking spaces are allocated for the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation and the boardsailing use.
A park transportation unit is proposed to operate from the interpretive centre to the lighthouse with extension to the park entrance during peak park use periods subject to review of user demand and operating costs.
i The Plan includes extension of municipal services - sanitary, water, electricity, telephone to the interpretive centre and boundaries of the sailing lease areas.
Phasing
1987 - 1991
Environmental Assessment Approval
Pedestrian trail and bicycle path to interpretive centre
Public parking area ( interpretive centre)
Lakefilling in Outer Harbour for sailing facilities
Temporary facility for the public, education groups and environmental programs. 4 -
1992 - 1996
Marsh creation Cell 1
Interpretive centre
Site services
Soil/ site preparation for Cottonwood/ Aspen/ Willow, Dry Meadow and Wet Meadow Communities
1997 - 2001
Marsh creation Cell 2, Embayment A, B, C
Major/ minor pedestrian system in natural area
Service building
Public parking lot at park entrance.
2002 - 2006
Completion of pedestrian systems
Park transportation
Island development Cell 3
Minimum service washrooms ( 2) .
Cost Estimates
Natural Area Restoration 1, 000, 000
Site Services ( sanitary, water 11100, 000 electricity, telephone)
Site Facilities ( interpretive centre, 111001000 parking areas, service building)
Pedestrain System ( pedestrian, bicycle path, 450, 000 pedestrian lookouts)
Landscaping and Site Restoration 260, 000
Lakefilling and Shoreline Protection 840, 000
Park Transportation 100, 000
TOTAL MASTER PLAN COSTS ( 1987 dollars) 4, 850, 000
RECOMMENDATIONS
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report and public input on the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan be received
AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
1) The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan be approved;
2) The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment Report be submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval under the Environmental Assessment Act as per Phase V - Report and Approvals of the Study Approach. 5 -
3) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Minister of Natural Resources approval of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan be requested as part of the government review within the Environmental Assessment approval process as per Phase V - Report and Approvals.
4) The Authority continue to utilize committees similar to the Natural Area Advisory Committee and the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee in an advisory capacity during the detailed design and implementation stages of thle Master Plan.
LF/ ap Attachment i
Exhibit 7. 7 Water and Related Land
Management Advisory Board Minutes Meeting # 8/ 87 January 14, 1988 D- 7O
the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 14- JANUARY- 1988
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Medical Science Building Auditorium, University of Toronto on Thursday, January 14, 1988 at 7: 00 p. m.
PRESENT Chairman William G. McLean Members Milton Berger Kenneth Campbell Catherine Dowling Lois Griffin Lois Hancey Bryn Lloyd Jim McGuffin Ronald Moran Chairman of the Authority William T. Foster
MINUTES
Res. # 104 Moved by: Ronald Moran Seconded by: Milton Berger
THAT the Minutes of Meeting # 7/ 87 be approved. CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
Mr. W. G. McLean, Chairman stated that the delegates listed as speakers would be given up to 5 minutes for each presentation.
The following were heard as delegations in connection with agenda Item 3( 1)( a) - Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan:
1. M. T. Kelly, Annex Neighbourhood Association 2. Mrs. Marion Bryden, M. P. P. , Beaches- Woodbine 3. Mr. John Carley, Friends of the Spit 4. Mr. Jim Younker, Commodore, Aquatic Park Sailing Club 5. Wendy Joscelyn, Commodore, Outer Harbour Sailing Federation 6. Kevin Kavanaugh, Botany Conservation Group 7. Bruce Withrow, Commodore, Mooredale Sailing Club 8. Ms. Jean MacDonald, Toronto Field Naturalists 9. Louise Brooks, Community Sailing Club 10. Sylvia Hvidsten 11. George Fairfield 12. Steve Varga, Federation of Ontario Naturalists 13. Prof. Verna Higgins, Botany Conservation Group, University of Toronto 14. Frank Loritz, St. James Town Sailing Club 15. Victoria Carley, Friends of the Spit 16. Kittie Fells, Mid City Naturalists Group 17. Cinthia Rutherford, Westwood Sailing Club 18. Alf Jenkins, Ontario Sailing Association 19. Wilma Harniman 20. Larry Bowden, Toronto Multihull Cruising Club 21. Kevin McNeil, City of Toronto Cycling Committee 22. Dwayne Tulloch 23. Jake Smythe 24. Sheila De2waan 25. Denys Beames, Ontario Cycling Association D- 51 2 _
26. Dick Pratt, Windsurfer 27. John Darling, Toronto Windsurfing Club 28. Bob Bonner, Toronto Boardsailing Club 29. Paul Grant, Toronto Board ailing Club 30. John Reddick, Aquatic Park Sailing Club 31. Michelle Mayhew 32. Larry Whatmore, Commodore, St. James Town Sailing Club 33. Jacqueline Courval, Friends of the Spit 34. Nick Gobel, Toronto Boardsailing Club 35. Randy McVittie, Toronto Bicycle Network 36. Gabor Szucs, Toronto Multihull Cruising Club
Some of the delegates which spoke to the Board provided copies of their comments and these are attached to these minutes. Attached, as well , are written submissions received by the Board that were presented to the Board. These additional written submissions included:
1) Mary Lemyre, President Toronto Area Council of Women
2) Margaret Willis
3) Doris Moffatt
4) Petition with 468 names for the Committee for a Metro Boardsailing Centre and Toronto Outer Harbour Boardsailing Committee.
3. TOMMY THOMPSON PARR MASTER PLAN
Res. # 105 Moved by: Jim McGuffin Seconded by: Kenneth Campbell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT:
1) The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan be approved.
2) The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment Report be submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval under the Environmental Assessment Act as per Phase V - Report and Approvals of the Study Approach.
3) Approval of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan be requested from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Minister of Natural Resources as part of the government review within the Environmental Assessment approval process as per Phase V - Report and Approvals.
4) The Authority continue to utilize committees similar to the Natural Area Advisory Committee and the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee in an advisory capacity during the detailed design and implementation stages of the Master Plan.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Jim McGuffin
THAT Item 3( l) ( a) , Clause 4 be amended to include after the words " Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee" the following and seek the input of cycling experts on the cyclists' needs".
I THE AMENDMENT: WAS ------CARRIED.
THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED WAS ------CARRIED. 3 - D- 52
OTBER BUSINESS
The Chairman of the Board announced that Meeting # 9/ 87 of the Authority will be held on January 29, 1988 to consider the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board' s recommendations on the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan. The Chairman also indicated that those persons wishing to address the full Authority, on this matter, at the above- noted meeting should forward their requests, in writing, to the Secretary/ Treasurer no later than January 21, 1988.
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 10: 30 p. m. , January 14, 1988.
W. A. McLean W. G. McLean Chairman Secretary- Treasurer
AP D- 53
SCHEDULE " A-"
COMMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS BY DELEGATIONS
RE TOMMY THOMPSON PARR MASTER PLAN p AQUA TIC PARK SAILING CL UB BOX 86 STATION " G", TORONTO, ONTARIO M4M 3E8
January 14, 1988
DEPOSITION TO THE MTRCA WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. Chairman, the Board, Ladies and Gentlemen :
Thank you for the opportunity to present this brief.
My Name is Jim Younker, Commodore of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club. I represent the general interest and concerns of our club membership. Our effective membership with family and friends is 500 people, involving 100 boats. We are a cooperative, labour sharing club, and have co- existed peacefully with the other users of the spit for more than ten years.
I would like to make the following points
1. The Aquatic Park Sailing Club supports the Concept Plan, with the landforms and space allocations as recommended.
2. We support the planned access route which separates the sailing clubs from the other users of the Spit.
We do, however, make the following recommendation :
With the uncertainty of costs, and consequent spreading of those expenses over membership, we suggest that a specific number of parking spaces not be defined at these early stages, as we are unable to predict future needs.
The area to be used by the sailing clubs is less than 5 percent of the total land area of the Leslie Street Spit. We are located less than one third of the way along the Spit - just past the neck, which will provide very little habitat for wildlife in any event. Our club has not interfered with the ecological development of the Spit; there is a bank beaver lodge 50 yards from our main dock, foxes have been seen on the property, and many birds use the bay. Our members enjoy the wildlife setting and are environmentally conscious. We do not want to see over- development of the Spit; indeed we prefer that, as outlined in the Plan, i the majority of the Spit be maintained as a natural area.
We do however, wish to have security of tenure for ourselves and the other sailing clubs. We promote the provision of affordable, environmentally sound recreational opportunities. We therefore request that you give approval to the Concept Plan as amended.
We would like to thank and compliment the MTRCA and all others who have participated in, and furthered, the preparation of this
Concept Plan. This Plan is excellent, and is sensitive to all
users' needs. OUTER HARBOUR SAILING FEDERATION OHS F BOX 313 ADELAIDE POSTAL STATION T M5C 2, 14
396 Wellesley St . E. , Toronto M4X 1H6, Ont . , January 14, 1988
The Water and Related Land Management Board, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Dr. , Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
COMMENTS ON TOMMY THOMPSON PARK MASTER PLAN - PHASE IV
Dear Members of the Board,
I would like to comment on the Master Plan Phase IV of the Tommy Thompson Park on behalf of the Outer Harbour Sailing Feder- ation, the group of small, low budget, self help sailing clubs that presently use the outer harbour. The Federation and its mem- ber clubs have been providing input for the Tommy Thompson Park planning process over the past decade.
In the early 1970' s the original federation clubs were allowed to occupy vacant industrial land on the north shore of the Outer Harbour while a permanent site was created for them by the Toronto Harbour Commission on the Leslie Street spit or Aquatic Park, as the Tommy Thompson Park was originally known.
It i s witht somem relief that this small sailing community wel- comes the MTRCA Master Plan for the Tommy Thompson Park, after so many years of political effort to achieve a permanent home and the assurance of an ongoing existence. The space provided on the new landfill area is adequate to accommodate the existing sailing com- munity. A Physical Facilities Committee has liaised with the MTRCA to modify the landmass to a configuration that can be used, and that is safer than an original proposal .
I would, however, like to stress, that although the sailing community is willing to accept the proposed landform, it is a far cry from our first choice. We do have some ongoing concerns over safety. Two years ago all land east of embayment C was promised for active recreational uses . This allocation of land has been totally eroded. The sailing clubs have now been sited on a new landfill area that not only cuts into the area of the outer harbour that is left for sailing, but also gives us access directly into the mouth of the largest marina in the entire Metro region.
The most suitable area for the north shore dry sailing clubs on Tommy Thompson Park in terms of access, cost of servicing and safety, is a small area around the eastern edge of Embayment D. 2
Such a site would allow dingies to disperse before having to cross the busy marina access channel . Because this area was promoted by the `friends of the spit' as the only area that terns would inha- bit, the sailing community has been pushed into a far less suitable location. Ironically, the terns moved out of embayment D in 1987 with the low water levels.
Despite the fact that the reason the sailing community has been pushed to a new landfill area, is only to accommodate the demands of an exceedingly vocal, and elitist small group of so called friends of the spit' , we have heard at other public meetings that they now object to the costs of new landfill. For the record, I would like to emphasise that the landfill has been necessitated to accommodate the demands of the- friends of the spit' and not to accommodate the demands of the sailors.
Landfill itself is a revenue generator. The sailing clubs will also generate revenue to help defray the operating costs of the remainder of the park that other park visitors will probably use cost free.
The north shore clubs include three community clubs which offer non boat owners the opportunity to learn to sail, and, when quali- fied, to use club boats for an entire summer of healthy, environ- mentally sensitive recreation, close to downtown Toronto at an affordable cost . The north shore also accommodates a sailing school that trains in the order of 1500 youth and adults annually, dry sailing clubs ( that is to say, clubs for boats that are small enough to store on land) , and the Toronto Multihull Cruising Club, which is the largest club in the world of these delicate homebuilt craft . The Aquatic Park Sailing Club, which has operated in harmony with other users of the Tommy Thompson park over the past decade, is also a member of the federation.
All these clubs use former school portables or trailers , gen- erate their own electricity, and carry in their own water. They operate on an entirely self help basis, in order to keep sailing costs low and affordable.
The clubs want physical facilities at their new home on Tommy Thompson Park to be simple, low cost and to blend estheti- cally with the landscape of the park. They have a strong prefer- ence for having seperate club houses to maintain their unique iden- tities . The clubs would like to be located within one or two sites to facilitate common fencing and shared toilets, showers and park- ing. The fact that the sailing clubs race on different evenings and that they must schedule regattas not to overlap, means that shared parking is practical among the sailing clubs. It may, how- ever, be necessary to differentiate this parking from the board sailing parking. 3
May I also stress that the clubs do need vehicle access to carry safety equipment to their dingies . Our heaviest time of use is weekday evenings when public transit will not be provided.
Not every large city has access to an enclosed body of protected water such as the outer harbour which is suitable for the training of novice dingies sailors. The clubs cannot exist without access to the water and they have no secure tenure at their north shore location. This sailing community is a unique resource for Toronto. We must not let a small group of fanatics who persis- tently distort the true image of the nature of our clubs and their membership, create a situation of genocide for this very special sailing community.
The Outer Harbour Sailing Federation looks forward to continued co- operation with the staff of the MTRCA as we all work to create a Tommy Thompson Park that will satisfy the recreational needs of a diverse cross section of the city. We too are " FRIENDS OF THE TOMMY THOMPSON PARK, FRIENDS OF THE OUTER HARBOUR AND FRIENDS OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
Yours very truly,
Wendy Joscelyn, Commodore, OHSF ST. JAMES TOWN SAILING CLUB low P. O. BOX 984, STATION O, TORONTO, ONTARIO M4T 2P1
January 14, 1988
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
Dear Member :
St . James Town I am speaking tonight on behalf of the low Sailing Club, a non- profit sailing club which has provided cost dinghy sailing to the Toronto community since 1968 . We are North Shore of the Outer Harbour on currently located on the lands leased from the Toronto Harbour Commission. We are members Federation and have been of the Outer Harbour Sailing participants in the planning process of the Tommy Thompson Park since it began in 1983 .
We would like to express our support for the efforts of the MTRCA in achieving a MASTER PLAN for this area. We firmly believe that a recreational presence is both a desired and necessary
application of this valuable resource on behalf of the citizens and the of Toronto . We believe that non- motorized watercraft natural reserve of the Park are entirely compatible and the past proven this history of our activities in the Outer Harbour has point . The provision for parking is important not only for access to the sailing facilities but also for full participation by the of urban general public . Most of our membership is comprised dwellers who have no access to country cottages and who enjoy the appreciate serenity - that the Outer Harbour provides . They will bicycle the interpretive centre and the mix of pedestrian and trails proposed in the wilderness area .
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the planners from the MTRCA for an impressive design in achieving a compromise We agree between recreational and wilderness uses of the Park . that the MASTER PLAN is a realistic option and will be successful space which will in providing "a unique, water- oriented open recreational needs" . We look forward assist in meeting regional to future participation as the MASTER PLAN unfolds .
FRANK LORITZ ST. JAMES TOWN SAILING CLUB
MEMBER OF THE ONTARIO SAILING ASSOCIATION WINTARIO SPONSORED Address by Victoria Lister Carley, January 14, 1988
I will not dwell on my opinion that this plan is misguided and inappropriate.
Nor am I going to reiterate my belief that I am one of the majority of Spit users who feel that less is more and no development is the best future for the Spit.
Rather I wish to draw attention to a few points in the phasing of the future development of the Tommy Thompson Park as outlined in the Master Plan.
I presume you are all aware that survey after survey has shown that the majority of Spit users like it as is, car- free and natural. Statistically the most wanted amenities are out- houses - " minimum service washrooms" - and an improved parking lot at the base - that is to say Unwin Avenue- and a park vehicle ( or continuation of the interim service) . I also presume that you are aware that a minority of the public - who also happen to be at present not members of the large user group - 40, 000 plus per year - of the Spit, wish to have yacht clubs on the Spit.
Realizing these points, I wish to draw your attention to the " Outline of Phasing for Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Components based on the
Authority' s 5- year projects"
Phase I 1987- 1991 - Lakefilling in Outer Harbour for sailing facilities. Public Parking Area ( Interpretive Centre)
1992- 1996 - Site Services - sewer, water, electrical, telephone to interpreting centre area' and SAILING FACILITIES
Shore line protection for new lakefill area - SAILING
FACILITIES
1997- 2001 - Public Parking at Park Entrance
2002- 2006 - Park Transportation
Minimum Service Washrooms
2 Page 2 Address by Victoria Lister Carley, January 14, 1988
Frankly, it is extremely annoying - to say the least - to see expensive
facilities which will diminish the enjoyment of the Spit for the majority
of the users put ahead of the few desired facilities.
The parking lot at the proposed interpretive centre will turn the neck of
the Spit into a main road and make it unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists.
Lake filling for sailing clubs will wipe out an E. S. A.
Next we see spending of $400, 000, for servicing the sailing clubs. After which we get a better parking lot at the base. And finally 10- 15 years after building the new yacht clubs, we get park transportation reintroduced and the " minimum service washrooms"( a. k. a. " Portolets") back into service.
To me this shows a blatant disregard of the needs of the present, enthusiastic, user group in favour of a small minority. It distresses me that because my needs are so basic - a place to walk and show nature to my daughter, minimal sanitary facilities if needed, and transporation back to the base if we become over- tired. or suffer from a sudden change in the weather - they can be postponed for 15 to 20 years, while you build yacht clubs.
i
I hope that if you cannot bring yourselves to reject this plan, you will at least get your priorities straight and start with the simple necessities of a day in the outdoors, and take your time in proceeding with expensive additions and facilities which will irreparably alter the ambiance of Tommy Thompson
Park. 35 Nanton Avenue , Toronto M4W 2Y$ Jan. 14, 19$$
Mr. W. T. Foster, Chairman , Metropolitan Toronto & Regios Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsv iew , Ontario M3N 1S4
Dear Mr. McLean :
REGARDING THE LESLIE STREET SPIT :
I represent the Inner City Naturalists' Group-- a network of people who come together to save urban wildlands from development. I am a resident of mid- city Toronto. Also I am one of many naturalists and artists who appreciate what mature is creating on the Spit , without requiring any plan let alone Master Plan Phase III or Phase IV.
In earlier years we were involved in opposition to what was considered at the time synonymous with progress and development that was the destruction of the Old City Hall and St. Lawrence Hall before that. These " developments" were not allowed, to our relief. More recently the return of a ravine to its natural wildland state , protected, we hope , in South Rosedale ( below Craigleigh Gardens) is now enjo,, ed by all, despite the threat several years ago by the installation of hydro cable, machine- groomed lawns , and an ' improved' service road.
I mention the above to illustrate the point that my interest in this City id broad. It could be that the VARIETY and QUALITY of LIFE we may be able to sustain, contribute to Toronto' s reputation as an internationally famous City
We are surprised, frustrated and angry. After a decade, after countless repetition of a plea from thousands in all walks of life that the Spit be kept as an UNDEVELOPED PROTECTED URBAN WILDERNESS , the MTRCA is STILL NOT LISTENING.
On April 17th, 1984, we spoke and wrote of the pressure from boaters-- one relatively small but disproportionately influential user group. We wrote that boaters consume and demand spade Spit or no Spit . We wrote about the international reputation the Spit had already acqu.ired. . .how magazines in Britain and Europe were describing this miraculous way a huge City had accidentally acquired an unspoiled haven and that tourists from crowded places peered in wonder. page 2
Three years later on January 19th , 1987 , we wrote to you, this time in disbelief that still, despite delegation after delegation, year after year , you were still in the process of creating a plan which did not protect The Spit from the intrusion of ears , boat- users with their accompanying services; that in fact , you were seriously considering the exact opposite. Your Master Plan then seemed to us, not a compromise , but a capitulation to influential minorities.
Now, here we are with Master Plan Phase IV. Phase III calls for 415 parking spaces* - Phase IV has 600. Now Boardsailing with 50 more parking spaces has been added to the Plan. Refreshment facilities and food services. Privatization of a large area ( for boating) is confirmed by a control gate barring Enbayment D , which is now a public beach, and also Dredger' s Bay. An interpretlive Centre is sug ested, just like a Museum or a Zoo, which would be estimated at ; 600. 000 plus another $640, 000 service expense. The Plan says that 90 percent of the park will be ntained in its natural state. How is this possible when half the length of the Spit is open to car traffic? Are sidewalks, parking lots , asphalt and loading ramps defined as natural areas?
How is it possible to make the MTRCA understand that all the above destroy rather than add to this urban wilderness co . cept, left ev-#n more unprotected.
Can the definition of the word conservation be put right for the MTRCA? Or will it continue to be distorted to mean: consume, manage and develop?
We thank you in advance for a reply to this letter and a re- assurance.
Is it not ironic that a few miles away at the Metro Zoo millions of dollars are spent to recreate natural habitats of North Ameacian species while the MTRCA wants to spend $ 4. 9 million in an area which, if left protected on its own, could, without any expense, continue to reproduce a special if not unique habitat of native species?
Thank you. Looking forward to your reply. . . .
Yours truly,
cc to Premier Peterson Ian Scott mpp St. Bavid Kittie Fells MayrEggleton Mid- City Naturalistts Group Alderman June Rowlands
l The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario. M3N 1S4
Attn: Mr. Larry Field , Manager , Waterfront Planning
Dear Mr . Field:
The Westwood Sailing Club has been contributing to Metropolitan Toronto for over twenty years. We are a Community club - a non- profit organization that provides a low- cost opportunity for the people of this city to sail and to learn to sail .
We should like to congratulate the M. T. R. C. A. for the recent Master Plan- that has been issued. We believe that the proposed land formation provides a fair and equitable usage of Tommy Thompson Park for all parties. It does a good job of accomodating both recreational and environmental activities, without compromising either.
In particular , we commend the Authority for its plan to provide proper vehicular access for recreational sailing activities. This will enable the organizations of the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation to continue to maintain a safe and proper environment in which to conduct its activities.
The Westwood Sailing Club enthusiastically endorses this Master Plan. We look forward to our future home in Tommy Thompson Park. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours truly,
Roy Scott Commodore
L January 14, 1988
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY W-=-:
The Ontario Sailing Association is pleased to comment to the
MTRCA oo the Tommy Thompson Park master plan as issued December
1787. Ire providing it' s input on behalf of the sailing
community, we are pleased to note that in 1987 the sailing
presenLe iri the Outer Harbour area of the Toronto Waterfront has
been significant.
The Dua- dsailing Community have prepared and presented a
very creditable proposal for use of facilities and land in the I L, mmy T:, cmp_-un Recreational Sector
Aquatic Park Sailing Club has shown great strength and
organizcitio; ial ability in its ongoing operations on Tommy ,
Thompson, Park.
T+:e OLIte- Harbour Sailing Federation which includes its
var-icus clubs, sailing school and community clubs has
coat-LMUU ; to plan and evaluate its future direction in regards to
To.iimy Thompson Park
ir: couperation with the MTRCA a physical facilities
pla:i.-lin, g;- uap as: cumpassing all sailing entities in the Outer
Ha. acur ;,,iv,- ,..-epared and submitted a responsible land use and
a_ ilit; FJi f-jr integration into the Tommy Thompson Master Plan
r ll of these directions have indicated a strong and responsible Lhe cai l ing community. BOARDs4°- They Ontario Bailin; A:Lsociation in reviewing the Master Plan must commend the MTRCA on its presentation. of Phase IV in dealing with berth the naLural and recreational zones of Tommy Thompson Park in
a very sensitive rtE.nner. Conte observations which we would draw tG the at i. L•rltio l OF the co Tlmitteo would be as follows:
1. R1L due consideration mu=_t be givern, to the waterway channel betweeii tilt:' p:'-oj. o -,ed O lter Harbour Sailing Federation Day
c ; l baynten t 1)" anC the south westerly port) on of the Toronto
Hai- bour Coif-miissio n MCA- ina. Saf ' paSSagle for all VeSSL: S ml_lst be
a paramount consideration in this and the surrounding area.
C. As the land fill is developed by the Toronto Harbour
C•r i. lr?ii-i_ iC li ift L iC? cUit trllC%-.L area t0 thC SL1Ut=ls the Ontario
S' E. ilin A=_sOCiatiUri wishes to conSUlt with the MTRCA and the
rIL--Lr' C ul lt'Ltlt T u..-or-f Lo Ya. ks.- etnd PropL'r_y Depart-orient on the future
lai-'C!• c! ses and shoreline propertiez for a future recreational I dove l opmen t.
c. That provisions be made to E:: eep this area as a low cost
fling presence now and in the future for thz benefit of the
citizeii' L LJ :(_ gr•e:•ater Metropolitan Toronto are-Et.
4. Pr• o•/ *Lsion be always available to the MTRCA and other
gr" oups ' oi t>>rllcrc ehlc y accc s<_ to i_11 parts of Tommy Thompson Park: .
The MTRCA and its committee_ must be prepared to provide
a i IexiLi lity n t - Ntci.l ities for parking and ctc Leas as it I-Jill r_ iztz to Tut. ir e by groups using the site on a lease basis.
ti. I C:' C.
tj-1_-, F•c. r r
L- . Tl, e Ontario Sailing AssociLition corlmends the
inte- ph- etivL3 centre location and purpose and Se+= it as
to the f L1tUre USG' G f .Li tnty '; tU(Lpsor-. 7"c3i- E: v
cut. clu" icxl Mr. Chairwon, the Ontario Sailing Association wishes to p, aise the efforts of the MTRCA, and its Water and
ROISLOW !/` " S'` aoamenl Ajvivo.' y Bovrd arc especially its staff on prenenti/.g to us t|/is evening a proposal which has overcome the m,'. y no v^ rjaj issues in an other wise very sensitive area.
L'. E // sLu'' alinLs and thl recreaLiona%ists groups should be
s& L! S71cj wit LKW Arodwowl puL forth. The Ontariu sailirg
AWWuLiaLimP OPWaki" U cx. br|`alf oT its 240 sailirg associations _ passage of this a" d clubs can only urgelhe earliest possible p, wpoycI by the Yuji board of the MOCA at its meeting later in jn warv. ?' h&'. yuu fu/' Chu opportu/' ity o7 commenting on beha:- f
of Ms province.
Respectfully submitted,
A. H. Jenkin
SaM ing Association 1
QA z IM S
p rrirrc
January 14, 1988
The Chairman The Metropolitan Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority 6 Shoreham Drive North York, Ontario M3N 1S4
Dear Sir/ Madame:
In addition to our earlier comments on the proposed development of Tommy Thompson Park, ( see attached) we would like to make the following recommendations at this time.
1. The bicycle path should be expanded to follow the primary pedestrian trail . Cyclists will ride on the pedestrian trail if they do not have this option and accidents will occur as a result.
2. There could be a number of points on the bicycle trail where accidents could occur involving pedestrians and/ or motor vehicles given the current design.
3. The Toronto City Cycling Committee ( TCCC) continues to oppose motor vehicles being allowed on the spit itself.
4. The TCCC strongly recommends that the bicycle planning staff of the City of Toronto Planning Department be consulted with respect to bicycle path development. Future safety problems will be prevented if this expertise is contacted at this stage.
Sincerely yours,
K. W. McNeil Vice- Chairperson - TCCC
The Toronto City Cycang Committee
19th Floor, East Tower City Hall Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 416) g+ rtes' 3 Y.Z ' Jsy Z owl RAC iii, J q commirree 3 1988 i
December 5, 1986
Mr. W. T. Foster Chairman The Metropolitan Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York, Ontario M3N IS4
Re: December 5, 1986 MTRCA Water Board Meetinq i
Dear Mr. Foster:
The purpose of this communication is to provide you with the views of the Toronto City Cycling Committee on the alternative concept plans being considered for the development of Tommy Thompson Park. In particular, the Committee' s assessment of the concept plan Alternative Concept Plan 0) recommended to the Metropolitan Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority (MTRCA) by their consultants, EDA Collaborative Inc. , will be given. At the M_TRCA' s November 27," 1986 public meeting on Tommy Thompson Park development plans, the Cycling Committee' s opposition to Concept Plan D was indicated. In this correspondence, I will elaborate on the reasons for this opposition.
Background
Before getting to the specific comments on Concept Plan D, some background comments on the Cycling Committee will serve to put our input and role into context. The Cycling Committee is a permanent committee of Toronto City Council composed of elected and appointed members from the City of Toronto. The Cycling Committee' s goals are to promote the increased use of the bicycle within the City and improve, through education and the development of appropriate services, the level of safety associated with cycling. Our involvement with Tommy Thompson Park development emanates from this mandate.
The Toronto City Cycling Committee
19th Floor, East Tower City Hall Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 416) 947- 7185 11YYlTiEE
Mr. W. T. Foster December 5, 1986 2
At MTRCA public meetings, it'-is the frequent tactic of various interest groups to describe the extent of their membership and the historic use of the Park by this group. If these factors are indeed critical in determining how the Park should be developed than the views of cyclists should be preeminent. The vast majority of the current and historic users of the Park are cyclists : MTRCA statistics estimate that over 30, 000 of the 40, 000 users of the Park in 1985 were cyclists. We also expect this number will increase in the years to come given recent studies that indicate cycling is the fastest growing mode of transportation in Toronto. A study completed for the City of Toronto by Ryerson' s School of Urban and Regional Planning estimated that there are currently 105, 000 adult cyclists (age 15 and older) in the City of Toronto and an additional 250, 000 in the rest of Metro. Of the 355, 000 adult cyclists in Metro, the Ryerson study indicates that 325, 000 are leisure or recreational cyclists. The 1981 Canada Fitness survey shows that cycling is the second most popular recreational activity. MTRCA can anticipate, therefore, that as the attractive features of Tommy Thompson Park become more widely known, increasing numbers of cyclists will use the Park.
Assessment of Alternative Concept Plans
Previously, the Cycling Committee has formally communicated its views on the developmental plans for Tommy Thompson Park to the MTRCA and to their consultants EDA Collaborative Inc. You will recall that we recommended three positions be incorporated in the future developmental plans for the Park.
1 . Bicycle paths should be an integral part of any future development of the Park;
2. The use of motor vehicles should continue to be restricted within the Park; and
3. The Park should be maintained as a relatively natural environment . s
MMITTEE
Mr. W. T. Foster December 5, 1986 3
We are pleased to note that q11 four concept plan alternatives establish bicycle paths within the Park. As well , the Cycling Committee supports EDA' s recommendation that the Martin Goodman Trail be re- routed to follow the shoreline across Toronto Harbour Commission property at the east end of the outer harbour and around the lake side of the sewage treatment planiand Ashbridges Bay. ^- e However, t it is not clear from the concept plan alternativesmo&w whether bicycle paths in the Park will be separate from ,jogging/ walking paths. We strongly recommend that bicycle paths be separate from ,jogging/ walking RGA paths and be a minimum of three metres (ten feet) wide to P accommodate a two- way flow of cycling traffic. Accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians are likely to occur otherwise.
We must oppose adoption of EDA' s recommended Concept Plan D. While this development option placates the interest groups involved, it jeopardizes, the future of the Park. Concept Plan D allows cars onto the Spit well beyond the current parking area and permits developments to occur which are not conducive to maintaining the Park as a natural environment. Allowing private vehicles beyond the current parking lot and establishing parking lots on the Spit to accommodate 600- 700 vehicles, mostly for the Y• service of private clubs which are currently prohibited in the Park, is a great mistake. This action coupled with allowing private clubs to build roads, drainage and waste treatment systems, clubhouses, etc. within the Park will destroy the natural integrity of the unique public asset. ( A major side issue here is whether these private clubs will be able to pay for all the costs associated with these facilities - roads, parking lots, support systems, etc. and, as well , the cost to lease or buy the lands involved) .
In closing I would like to point out that cyclists are attracted f*the P" rI because it is a pollution- free ( city noise, automotive emissions, etc. ) environment where they do not have to contend with motor vehicles. This should continue to be the case. It is hoped that S I
CowrIrrEE e
Mr. W. T. Foster 4 December 5, 1986
this input is incorporated unto the final development plan for Tommy Thompson Park. As mentioned above, cyclists have been, are and will be the largest users of the Park. Cycling is a non- it is polluting, healthy activity which should be encouraged and an activity which does not interfere with the natural environment of the Park.
Sincerely yours, ZE
Kevin McNeil Chairperson Services Planning Sub- committee
cc: Mayor Art Eggleton Members of Toronto City Council Members of Metro Council Members of City Cycling Committee
1986 MTRCA PS: As I will be unable to attend the December 5, Water Board meeting, it will be appreciated if you would read this letter into the record. 4 Briarfield Drive Don Mills , Ontario M3B 1B3
Mr. Larry Field Manager, Waterfront Planning MTRCA 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1J4
Dear Mr . Field:
Re : Tommy Thompson Park
I have been an active dinghy sailor and user of the Leslie Street Spit for the past 10 years . As well, I have attended many of the public meetings as part of the consultation process for the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan.
It seems clear that the final plan will be a compromise which will not suit everyone. Hopefully it will be one which we can all be proud of.
The one compromise I would strongly recommend is to allow the sailors to remain at their present site on the north shore.
It is clear that most sailors I talk to do not want to move over to the Spit . They agree to the move only because of the threat of losing their present location.
The community sailing clubs are not made up of people with a lot of money who own big boats . My club, Mooredale, doesn ' t have the funds to add new boats which are really needed due to the heavy use of new people wanting an inexpensive opportunity to learn to sail . How can the club afford to pay for new club house facilities on the Spit?
Clearly allowing the Community Clubs to remain where they are would best satisfy their needs as well as the interests of the other users of the Spit who want to limit the use of cars and parking areas on the Spit.
The Master Plan will be a compromise, let us do everything we can to ask the Toronto Harbour Commission to allow the north shore sailing clubs to remain where they are .
Thank you.
Sincerely, Jt-
Ja Smythe v I' USU` `'; ( lF ;' UDC!( Git i nSC G AND THE CH. RY BEACH SURF CLUB it Chem Bauch• Downtown Toronto 318 Richmond Street, West Toronto, Ont. M5V 1X2 461- 7078 596- 8015
November 18, 1986
J. Craig Mather, Director, Water Resource Division Metro Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Dr., North York M3N 151 K Dear Sir:
We wish to recall that on October 10/ 86 we issued a Press Release in which we drew attention to the fact that meaningful access seemed to be dropped in all options put forward regarding the development of Tommy Thompson Park, to proposed Sailors' and Boarsdailor' s facilities. We also mentioned that we would be attempting to mobilize the considerable but diffuse support in the boardsailing community for a board- sailing centre, with appropriate access, to be built in the Park. We herewith enclose a core of our appeal to members of clubs and commercial boardsailing representatives. We enclose an initial batch of 4-;L2- 1 sheets of names for your consideration. It should be noted that the vast majority of these names are active practictioners of our sport, solicited on various beaches in Metro during September, October and( this month. rvo ow bL` We hope that this demonstration of support for boardsailing facilities in Tommy Thompson Park will aid you in the planning of the develop- ment of the Park. We would require as a minimum parking facilities for 150 cars, a substantial area of grass for rigging near the beach, and whatever building facilities are: deemed appropriate for an area adjacent to iailderness zones.
We wish to add to the stated purpse of a boardsailing centre, especially as regards youth participation in the sport, our desire to be of service to unemployed youth as well as the employed and student youth. During the summer, our sport could serve as an enrichment to their lives on weeknights and weekends; a growing need for the City and its suburbs at present.
Yours truly,
John Darling, TWC teow"-. ` 0 CBSC J Sandy Gow, Nicholas Gobel, TWC Encl.
I Committee for a Boardsailing Centre in the Outer Harbour 318 RICHMOND ST. WEST, TORONTO, ONT. M5V 1X2 416) 596- 8016
PATRONS January 14, 1988 David Danks Eric Goddard John Ham Steve Jarrett Pam Juryn Raines Ko by J. Craig Mather Paul J. Pape, LL.B. Director, Water Resource Dividon Dick Pratt Alan Redfern Metro Toronto Region Conservation Authority, Glenda Rosen 5 Shoreham Drive Phil Sande North York Henry Schefter M3N 1S4 Peter Young Derek Wulff
OFFICERS Dear Sir: John Darling, TBC Pres.' 88 We Sandy Gow welcome this opportunity to express our viev6 in TBC vice-Pres.' 88 supportPP of the Master Plan for the developmentpment of TommyTo Nicholas Gobel Thompson Park. TBC Treasurer' 88 In the fall of 1986, members of the Toronto Windsurfing Club and the Cherry Beach Surf Club joined forces to mobilize the opinions of the local boardsailing community by means of a Petition, in favour of a boardsailing centre in the Outer Harbour.
On November 18, 1986 we submitted the initial results: 21 sheets with 237 names of active sailors, gathered for the most part on local beaches up until that time ( it was a fine, windy fall.)
Today we take the opportunity of submitting all the names we received, some additional 23 sheets with 178 names, for a total of 415 names. These additional signatures were gathered We also enclose during the spring and early summer, 1987.* 71 reply cards and represent returned to the These names are largely very active sailors, a small fraction of the total number of recreational sailors, Committee from t many of whom do not begin their season until June. Jan. to April 87. These sailors support the concept of the Master Plan with enthusiasm, preferring public access to the boardsailing sector as a facility meeting an urgent need servicing of this low—cost watersport, the only one readily available to the Metro Region' s youth and working people as well as general walks of life. This Petition we therefore respectfully submit,
Yours ' truly,
Nicholas Gobel for the Officers) NICK My name is Nick Gobel, I' m an officer of the Toronto Boardsailing Club.
On behalf of members of the aexRN xAxxi3iut9x233dK Committee for a Boardsailing
Centre in the Outer Harbour ===including members of the Toronto Bopardsailing Club and many active windsurfers in the Metro Toronto area, I' d like to thank the Metro Toroto Region Conservation Authority for this opportunity to hear our friews on the question of the future development of kJm Tommy Thompson Park.
And on behalf of 415 more boardsailors, who have signed the petition sheets I would like to prescient to the MTRCA tonight, I' d like to emphasize that there is support from hundreds of other sailors who' ve heard about the Petition during last summer, too, for the idea of a a boardsailing launching beach add facilities in Tommy Thompson Park.
THE SITE ON THE PARK IS IDEAL for launching THE SITE ON THE PARK IS THE SAFEST launching site ==THE ONLY REAL SM SITE IN METRO
WHY? THE PREVAILING WINDS
STORY) In gales, I*ve had to beach temporarily on the spit, and even had to walk off the spit once or twice. THE TIME I RESCUED A SAILOR drifting towards the spit in high winds
There is no other ideal, safe place for sailboards and dinghies on
Lake Ontario in the Metro area.
Practically all Metro' s sailors have learned to sail or have sailed at one time or another in the Outer Harbour, at the clubs or public beach at Cherry Beach.
After learning, they move on to Lake Simcoe, the cottmage, one of Ontario' s many lakes to practice their sport. On x average, buying a board and a couple of sails, wetsuit or drysuit or both, they spend $ 2500 each, Serious, habitual sailors spend $ 1500—$20® every year they sail on equipment. The sport is developping at a steady rate and deserves recognition by Public Authorities == a site on Tommy Thompson Park, And there should be facilities at Cherry Beach, too. I' d like to take this opportunity to present our Petition forms to you, names we gathered in October and November 1986 and in the early spring of 1987, from active sailors din the beaches in Metro Toronto. We have some 44 sheets of names, with a total of 415 signatures supportikng a boardsailing beach and facility.
We hope this Petition will make the adoption of the Master Plan including boardsailing facilities a reality.
Thank you for you attention. a
F
NYI Ilk
s PETITION FOR A PERMANENT BOARDSAII.ING LOCATION& FACILITIES IN METRO TORONTO The Toronto Windsurfing Club and the Cherry Beach Surf Club want to obtain an agreement from the Metro Toronto Region Conservation Authority that will provide Metro Toronto with a permanent boardsailing location and facilities for public use.
This location is on the south shore of the Leslie Street Spit in Toronto' s Outer Harbour known as the Tommy Thompson Park), chosen because it offers the best location for safety and ability to sail in all wind directions.
This building would provide for storage, security, washrooms, change rooms and meeting rooms that can be used year around for recreational and expert sailors, racing events, lessons, and promotion of the sport.
We would greatly appreciate your signature below if you support this petition.
Signature Name Address
v 114 LV
0 IC;? NAlF rb ev TWT r>'/ d />/zi1 c inn/ Ci/ Lcc q. 9 3 a-c- f-
I
L
010 Te
Please return this form with signatures to: Committee for A Metro Boardsailing Centre 318 Richmond St. West, Toronto, Ont. MSV 1X2
INFORMATION: Contact Sandv Cow L760- Inn.11 N;rhniac r,nhpl r429- a.ann1 Boardsailing in Toronto' s Outer Harbour COULD BECOME A THING OF THE PAST..... At.- 1' The Harbour Commissioners refuse to grant even semi-permanent status to Boardsailors' Clubs at 2 Cherry Beach, and plansfor the proposed sailingfacilities on the Leslie Street Spit do not asyet in-. clude any specific launching and rigging areas, or clubhouse, for the region' s many boardsailors.
Join us in our Petition to the Metro Toronto Conservation Authority, who are now determining the future of boardsailing in Toronto' s Outer Harbour. Current development plans do not include facilities or access for board- sailors to the Leslie Street Spit in Toronto' s Outer Harbour. This is an ideal location to sail safely in all wind directions. If our appeal is successful we will have a suitable locationwith free parking, a permanent clubhouse, change rooms & lockers. Show us your support by signing below.
PRINT NAME P'.IV L C
r ADDRESS D ,,'' P' Ei 6' 6 L4+• . LS t. 4+.' R f SIGNATURE IAj y
1441 : z 64 DATE ', phone 62 6'
PLEASE RETURN PETITION TO TORONTO OUTER HARBOUR BOARDSAILING COMMITTEE, 318 RICHMOND ST. WEST, TORONTO, ONT. M5V 1X2 ( 416) 596- 8015 JAN 15 198
M. T. R. C. A.
w-
t l
1
t
p -{-t- . J mow w Z ROOM 212. NORTH WING SM® CONSTITUENCY OFFICE LEGISLATIVE BUILDINGS Ontario 2118 DANFORTH AVENUE TORONTO, ONTARIO M7A tA2 TORONTO. ONTARIO M4C 1J9 966- 4726 LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY 421- 1810
MARION BRYDEN, M. P. P. BEACHES- WOODBINE
14 January, 1988
To: Chairman and Members of the MTRCA Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Re: MASTER PLAN FOR TOMMY THOMPSM PARK
1 am pleased that the M. T. R. C. A. is providing an opportunity for public comment on the Master Plan for the Tommy Thompson Park published in December 1987. The Master Plan details the actual facilities which are proposed to implement the Concept Plan adopted by the Authority almost a year ago.
The Authority adopted four goals for the Master Plan listed on page 10. Unfortunately I think The Master Plan does not meet these goals.
The goal of conserving and managing the natural resources and environmentally significant area of the site is destroyed by allowing private car access to virtually all areas of the Spit and providing 600 parking spaces up from 415 in the adopted Plan D) .
A similar fate is in store for the goal of providing a unique water oriented open space which will assist in meeting regional recreational needs. This unique wilderness area where Southern Ontario can enjoy opportunities for passive recreation and study of natural processes is to be turned into a car filled spine road with huge closed areas for private boating clubs.
The goal of developing public awareness of Tommy Thompson Park and the waterfront sounds like good public relations but what will the Master Plan be selling? - an overcrowded multi use Spit with facilities which will encroach on the environmentally significant areas and discourage growth of wildlife habitats and migratory bird stopovers!
Finally, the goal of developing a Master Plan which is cognizant of the policies and development proposals within the planning area has not been met because the plans for the whole waterfront are in a state of flux right now.
That is a very compelling reason for the Authority to postpone adoption of the Master Plan until the new initiatives for the waterfront being considered by all levels of government are finalized and studied.
We now have an Intergovernmental Committee on the Toronty Waterfront made up of Premier David Peterson, David Crombie, M. P., Metro Chairman Dennis Flynn and Mayor Art Eggleton working on co- ordinated planning. We have the Toronto Parks and Recreation Commissioner Herb Pirk proposing a North Shore park from Cherry Beach to Ashbridge' s Bay with space for wiling, multi- hull and boardsailing clubs. We have the Toronto Harbour Commission lakefilling for a 1200 slip marina but access plans are not completed for it, nor are environmentalists convinced that lakefilling materials are free of 2 M
contamination. We have the City of Toronto investigating the possibility of special Official Plan policy and Zoning for this marina and municipal land use regulation of the water lots in the Suter Harbour.
We also have the Toronto Harbour Commission' s plans for an industrial or business park at the base of the Spit but still under discussion with the City' s Economic Development Committee. We have unspecified plans for expansion of port facilities and the Ashbridge' s Bay sewage plant. And we have an uncompleted programme for dredging the Keating Channel and disposing of the dredgeate on the Spit.
It may be that these initiatives will result in sufficient land on the north shore becoming available to accommodate all the boating and sailing clubs now proposed on the Spit in the Master Plan. I certainly believe we should recognize the burgeoning demand for boating facilities but it could be met so much more efficiently on the North Shore where car access and serviced land is already available. The only sailing club that should be on the spit is the one that has been there for 10 years and has not disturbed the wilderness environment and has managed to operate with limited car access.
If space is found on the North Shore for both boating clubs and more active recreation, most of the $ 5 million dollars in the Master Plan could be diverted to development of North Shore facilities. Considerable savings would result if the $ 1. 1 million provided for extension of municipal services to the boating clubs and the Interpretive Centre on the Spit were unnecessary. If the Interpretive Centre was moved to the gate and possibly reduced in scale, Road improvements to provide separate bicycle, pedestrian and car lanes on the Spit would be unnecessary, Parking lots and snack bars could be confined to the gate area. Public transit could ensure access to all Spit users and school groups wishing to observe natural processes beyond the Interpretive Centre.
Having participated in the public planning process for the Spit for the past three years, I feel that the Authority has not been listening to the majority of the Spit users. It has not really met the needs of the thousands of hikers, cyclists, ,joggers, naturalists and photographers from the whole region who enjoy a car free wilderness experience. Nor has it developed an adequate measure of potential future demands for this kind of experience. These underserviced users will be shortchanged if the multi use concept goes ahead because in my opinion it will destroy this unique natural resource in the region for which there is no substitute.
I therefore urge the Board to recommend to the Authority that the Master Plan be put on hold until further attempts are made to find suitable long term leases for the boating fraternity on the North Shore and/ or other parts of the Waterfront, and to enhance the Spit by encouraging development of more wetlands and natural habitats.
Yours sincerely
Marion Bryden PP Beaches- Woodbine New Democratic Party MHB/ kmb opseu: 593 Toronto anb rrzt Tounril of Women p" CRS AS sMOULo IN AFFILIATION WITH
Mic
D° 4h' o ProVinrial, Knflonnl, Jnternational l. Tounrils of Women
Founded in 1893
30 Strathcona Avenue Toronto, Ontario M4K 1K7
January 12, 1988
The Chairman, Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board MPRCA 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
Tommy Thompson Park has provided an opportunity for city dwellers to experience nature, without leaving the Metropolitan Area. One could walk or bicycle from the parking lot to the tip of the spit where a lighthouse is located; ( a distance of approximately three miles). At intervals it was possible to leave the main path and explore other trails and areas.
A TTC bus provided transportation part way to the lighthouse point for those who did not wish to walk. Bicycle riders could feel safe and many families took ad- vantage of the opportunity to explore the area with school age and pre school children. All carried their own refreshments in back packs.
Hours could be- spent away from city traffic fumes, congested neighbourhoods, yet be within easy reach of public transportation. Air was fresh, breezes exhil. - harating, while one observed the natural growth, insects, birds, etc. not normally viewed in a metropolitan area. To sit and look out over the lake can provide a special form of relaxation.
Tommy Thompson Park is unique. Why spoil it by adding five additional parking lots? A centre for the use of Metro' s school boards to enable them to expand their science programs soutiis. good on paper. But why are classrooms necessary on the site? Let the children really experience nature. How many bird and plant species will be left for anyone to study after so much construction, and after automobile traffic is established?
A metropolitan area as large as Toronto needs a place where people can escape from daily pressures. The Sunday Star, dated January 10, 1988, interviewed several prominent Torontonians who indicated, by their choice of local getaways, a desire to be closer to nature in a quiet place. z -
Let us retain Toad Thompson Park as is, and give people a chance to enjoy nature without numerous parking lots, refreshment stands, roads, traffic, noise. Let us retain one quiet, peaceful oasis, for the health and well being of the people of Toronto.
Mary L4 myre President
I', TORONTO FIELD NATURALISTS
January 14, 19g8
SINCE 1923
Members Water and Related Land. Management Advisory Board The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
I am speaking to- night for the Toronto Field Naturalists. As you know, we are a group with about 1500 members interested in all aspects of nature.
The Master Plan Presented in December has many interesting goals which will result in the Provision of a variety of habitats which, in turn, will encourage a diversity of Plant, bird and other animal species in the Park. We would request that Preparation and creation of these areas proceed slowly in order to harmonize and complement the natural succession, a continuing process which will change with the Passing years.
The Toronto Field Naturalists have, since 1923, conducted outings in the urban area to learn and to teach about all facets of the environment whether it be Plants or birds, insects or amphibians, rock formations or river valleys. We have special indoor meetings for study, and monthly illustrated lectures. The most rewarding of these activities are the outings where participants are where the action is. This is where what we read about, or hear about, comes to life. This is where you may see two garter snakes in a bush, or Monarch Butterflies, ready for migration, clustered in trees. There is a thrill that can only be felt by experiencing these things live. For this reason we urge the Board to simplify the plans for the Interpretive Centre. It should be little more than a gathering Place, a shelter with washrooms from which individuals and groups can start out to explore. It seems wrong to bring People to a Place because it is special and then enclose them in an auditorium to describe what should be encountered and shown in its natural setting. Laboratories and auditoria belong in schools and museums. Your lab. should be the out- of- doors, your auditorium the sky- vaulted spit.
We are disappointed that the location of the Interpretive Centre is Planned for the south end of the neck of the Park. Established at the Park entrance it would Provide for the bus shelter and could easily be incorpor- ated with the Public Parking. This would reduce traffic on the neck. Anyone who has been in Wilket Creek Park on a summer Sunday knows the bumper to bumper traffic cruising up and down the road. A road into Tommy Thompson Park will encourage this kind of sightseer. A potential of 600 cars up and down this road is simply beyond imagination. The open space on the east side of the neck would, as it does now, Provide additional and different habitat for visitors to enjoy. A simple arrangement such as this would be less costly than the two proposed sites and would be more flexible in case of changing future needs.
Now is also the time to consider high- speed bicycle use. You are to be commended for separating bicycles and Pedestrians. However, bicycles used at racing speeds could seriously interfere with the enjoyment of other cyclists and could even pose a hazard. The Park is for relaxation and cyclists should be encouraged _ and required _ to respect this environment.
Miss) Jean Macdonald Immediate Past President
88 Parklea Drive Toronto, Ontario M4G 2J8 1
I
1
44/ V
U' I
I!
Ono
Oq r a.,-
Ilk BOTANY CONSERVATION GROUP
c/ o Department of Botany, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
mil..
January 14, 1988
To: Metropolitan Toronto -and Region Conservation Authority
From : Verna J. Higgins, Botany Conservation Group, University of Toronto
RE: Master Plan for Tommy Thompson Park
As a member of the Natural Areas Advisory Committee, I should first comment on the plan for the natural areas. Overall, we are pleased with the general emphasis of the plan on wetland areas and on the other types of habitat that might be expected to evolve on this site. However, we share the concern expressed by Kevin Kavanagh that MTRCA appears to think that the natural evolutionary process should be speeded up by giving nature a hand. We think that the significance and educational value of allowing natural evolution and succession to occur far outweighs any advantage that MTRCA might see to interferingg ith the Pprocess; however, as it appearsPP that we will be allowed more imput on this matter via the advisory committee, I will not dwell on it now.
Far more important, at present, is the detrimental effect that the establishment of car access on to the Spit proper will have on the natural areas and on the park as an urban wilderness area. Currently, the absence of all but a few private vehicles, allows the neck of the Spit to act as a buffer zone for the . natural areas and at the same time gives the cyclist or walker what Walter Kehm would call "a sense of arrival" or what I would call "getting away from it all". Now, our sense of arrival will be to see parking spots which miraculously in the past year have taken on life and started to reproduce even before they were born!
Equally important is the fact that the master plan includes destruction of an area previously designated by MTRCA as an Environmentally Significant Area ESA). This designation was made partially because one island is a nesting area for common terns and, now that lake levels have fallen, it may once again become a major nesting area ( see attached letter of Dec 6/ 86 for discussion of this issue). I would remind the committee members that, in 1987, the reproductive success of the common terns on the Spit was poor and that the Authority is committed to making every effort to maintain the colony.
Both the vehicle access and ESA destruction problems can be resolved by moving all facilities back to the base of the Spit and to the north shore, but we should not look at the Spit in isolation. Like many people in Metro and suburban areas, we are astounded at the rate at which development is occurring in the areas surrounding Metro and the failure of appropriate lands to be purchased for park use. Such lands must be acquired in the next few years or they are gone. As a partial solution to all three of these problems, I am presenting the following alternative to acceptance of this Master Plan.
1) That further discussion of the Master Plan be delayed indefinitely, and that meanwhile, the current interim user program be continued.
2) That, during this delay, any funds that might have gone to the planning and the development of facilities on the Spit be used by MTRCA, or bq the various councils contributing to the MTRCA, to acquire new park lands. J
3) That at such time that, a) a final decision on the use of the lands on the north shore is completed by the Toronto Harbour Commission and the city, plans which we think will accommodate the community sailing clubs and board sailors, and that, b) funds are no longer needed for rapid acquistion of park land elsewhere, the Master Plan be reconsidered.
Meanwhile, the public is quite happy with the Spit in its present form, and the Interim Control By- law for the area should allow the community sailing clubs to remain where they are.
Thank you.
l J , 1
i A PC- A Nke IV- r ` T - I-)
BOTANY CONSERVATION GROUP
t c/ o Department of Botany, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
December 6, 1986
Craig Mather ropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
Dear Craig:
At the meeting of the Water- and Related Land Use Committee on December 5, 1986, you were asked to clarify whether the islands that are proposed to be covered with landfill in Concept D of the Spit plans were environmentally significant areas ( ESA' s). Your reply was that as the common terns had not nested there since 1982 they were not longer ESAs. This information was not correct and I attempted at that time to inform the committee of this (rather rudely, for which I apologize, but I had no other option under the circumstances and I thought it an important point). The following information should clarify this point and so I would like a copy of this letter to be distributed to the committee members and to be added to the records of the meeting.
In 1985, common terns nested on the biggest of the two islands, called Big Blokpoel Island on some maps. I know of the nesting from personal observations as well as from information acquired via the Canadian Wildlife Service ( CWS). As you should remember, the fate of these terns was one of our concerns during the first year ( 1985) of the hydroplane races. On the week of the races, the CWS counted about 37 nests of common tern on the island, and my report (October 2/ 85, copy enclosed) to MTRCA on the effects of the races outlines my observations of these terns. In Ulrich Waterman' s report " The ring- billed gull Jr 6 2 control program at Tommy Thompson Park, 1985", it is recorded ( page 15) that one hes{ s common tern chick hatched on Blokpoel Island on June 20, 1985. It is my ga2 understanding that once hatching begins in tern colonies that neither CWS nor MTRCA staff enter the colonies to make further observations because of the disturbance that this would cause. As a result, data on the success of the 37 Qom nests is not available.
It is my understanding that in 1986 high water levels in Lake Ontario prevented the terns from nesting on this island; however, if water levels return to 1985 levels in the coming season, we can expect them to attempt nesting again. Indeed, we might expect more nests since the high water levels should have decreased the growth of vegetation on the island. Thus it seems rather premature of MTRCA to have changed the ESA status of these islands, if in fact that was ever officially done. I also think that if you check the ESA documentation that you will find that the common terns nesting was not the sole reason for the ESA designation.
May I ask if the same misinformation was used by Mr. Kemp when he designed Concept D, or did he know it was an ESA?
Sincerely,
Verna J. Higgi
i 7 . 6 AUTHORITY MEETING # 9/ 87 ( JANUARY 29 , 1988 )
The Authority meeting was held on January 29 , 1988 at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitors Centre to consider the
Board' s recommendations on the Master Plan ( Figures 7 . 3 and
7 . 3a) . Twenty- four delegations were heard with respect to the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan ( see Exhibit 7 . 8 ) .
The Authority adopted the following resolution:
Res . # 228
THAT:
1 . The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan, as appended as Schedule ' A' of these Minutes, be approved;
2. The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment Report be submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval under the Environmental Assessment Act as per Phase V - Report and Approvals of the Study Approach;
3. Approval of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan be requested from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Minister of Natural Resources as part of the government review within the Environmental Assessment approval process as per Phase V - Reports and Approval;
4. The Authority continue to utilize committees similar to the Natural Area Advisory Committee and the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee, and seek the input of cycling experts on the cyclists' needs, in an advisory capacity during the detailed design and implementation stages of the Master Plan. I
Exhibit 7. 8 Authority Minutes Meeting 9/ 87, January 29, 1988 13x
the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
minutes
AUTHORITY MEETING 29- JANUARY- 1988 9/ 87
Meeting # 9/ 87 of the Authority was held on Friday, 29 January, 1988, 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 Frank Andrews Milton Berger Kenneth D. Campbell William B. Granger Lois E. Griffin Brian G. Harrison Don Jackson Lorna D. Jackson Clarence W. Jessop William J. Kelly Eldred King Emil V. Kolb Bryn Lloyd John A. McGinnis Jim McGuffin William G. McLean Ronald A. P. Moran Beverley Morgan Richard M. O' Brien Gordon W. Patterson Joyce Trimmer Helen White
ABSENT
Members Catherine Dowling Robert S. Gillespie Rocco Maragna Howard Moscoe Nancy Porteous Mafia Prentice Al F. Ruggero
MINUTES
Res. # 227 Moved by: William McLean Seconded by: Brian Harrison
THAT the Minutes of Meeting # 8/ 87 be approved. CARRIED.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER
The Chairman welcomed Mrs. Beverley Morgan as a Member of the Authority, appointed by The Regional Municipality of Durham to replace Mrs. Norah Stoner, now a Member of the Provincial Parliament. A- 139 2-
DELEGATIONS
The following delegations made presentations in regard to Agenda Item 46 - Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan.
1. Mr. M. T. Kelly, Annex Residence Association 2. Mr. John Carley, Co- Chairperson, Friends of the Spit 3. Ms. Helen Hansen 4. Mr. Ray Blower, Sierra Club of Eastern Canada 5. Dr. Verna Higgins, Botany Conservation Group, University of Toronto 6. Mr. John Darling, President, Toronto Boardsailing Club 7. Mr. Derek Quin, Friends of the Spit B. Ms. Jean Macdonald, Immediate Past President, Toronto Field Naturalists 9. Mr. Roy Scott, Commodore, Westwood Sailing Club 10. Mr. Jim Younker, Commodore, Aquatic Park Sailing Club 11. Ms. Alison Barlow, Aquatic Park Sailing Club 12. Ms. Jacqueline Courval, Friends of the Spit 13. Mrs. Wilma Harniman 14 . Mr. Denys Beames, Ontario Cycling Association 15. Ms. Donald Wright, Toronto Bruce Trail Club 16. Ms. Pam Juryn, Toronto Boardsailing Club 17. Mr. Berry DeZwaan, Friends of the Spit 18. Ms. Peg Lush, Friends of the Spit 19. Mr. Steve Varga, Chairman, Conservation Committee of The Federation of Ontario Naturalists 20. Ms. Wendy Joscelyn, Outer Harbour Sailing Federation & Mooredale Community Sailing Club 21 . Mr. Alf Jenkins, Ontario Sailing Association 22. Mr. Larry Whatmore, Commodore, St. Jamestown Sailing Club 23. Mr. Larry Bowden, Toronto Multihull Cruising Club 24. Mr. Dave Bloor, Outer Harbour Centreboard Club
Motion Moved by: Lois Griffin Seconded by: Joyce Trimmer
THAT four late submissions be heard.
ON A RECORDED VOTE - VOTING YEA: 7 VOTING NAY: 14
Foster, W. T. Andrews, F. Griffin, L. E. Berger, M. Hancey, L. Campbell, K. D. Morgan, B. Granger, W. B. O' Brien, R. M. Jackson, Don Patterson, G. W. Jessop, C. W. Trimmer, J. Kelly, W. J. King, E. Kolb, E. V. Lloyd, B. McGinnis, J. A. McGuffin, J. G. McLean, W. G. White, H.
THE MOTION WAS ------NOT CARRIED.
Agenda Item # 6 - REPORT OF MEETING # 8/ 87 OF THE WATER & RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD - Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan - was brought forward for consideration at this time.
J. C. Mather, Director, Water Resource Division, gave a brief introduction of the procedures leading to submission of the Master Plan to this meeting. Mr. Mather introduced Mr. Walter Kehm, Consultant for the project, member of EDA Collaborative and Landscape Architect, and Dean of the School of Landscape Architecture of the University of Guelph, who made an oral and slide presentation of the Plan.
I
i 3- a ' 4 :
Amendment Moved by: J. Trimmer Seconded by: L. E. Griffin
THAT a separate vote be taken on Item 1 of the Board' s recommendations. 1 ON A RECORDED VOTE - VOTING YEA: 8 VOTING NAY: 12
Andrews, F. Campbell, K. D. Berger, M. Foster, W. T. Griffin, L. E. Hancey, L. McGinnis, J. A. Jackson, Don McGuffin, J. G. Jackson, Lorna O' Brien, R. M. Jessop, C. W. Trimmer, J. Kelly, W. J. White, H. King, E. Lloyd, B. McLean, W. G. Morgan, B. Patterson. G. W.
THE AMENDMENT WAS ------NOT CARRIED.
Res. # 228 Moved by: William McLean Seconded by: Richard O' Brien
THAT the following action be taken:
1) The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan, as appended as Schedule " A" of these Minutes, be approved;
2) The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment Report be submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval under the Environmental Assessment Act as per Phase V - Report and Approvals of the Study Approach;
3) Approval of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan be requested from The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Minister of Natural Resources as part of the government review within the Environmental Assessment approval process as per Phase V - Report and Approvals;
4) The Authority continue to utilize committees similar to the Natural Area Advisory Committee and the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Physical Planning Committee, and seek the input of cycling experts on the cyclists' needs, in an advisory capacity during the detailed design and implementation stages of the Master Plan.
ON A RECORDED VOTE - VOTING YEA: 18 VOTING NAY: 2
Andrews, F. Griffin, L. E. Berger, M. Trimmer, J. Campbell, K. D. Foster, W. T. Hancey, L. Jackson, Don Jackson, Lorna Jessop, C. W. Kelly, W. J. King, E. Lloyd, B. McGinnis, J. A. McGuffin, J. G. McLean, W. G. Morgan, B. O' Brien, R. M. Patterson, G. W. White, H.
THE MOTION WAS ------CARRIED. i
1°_
E
U'-
l? Na__
pEIgT SHEET RE
0- wMrcw. 1- ieoR d
Ift .- INC. M.
t— TRML r...... MA111 Polt- r.. fM[ V nW- ruruRE COLLABORATIVE a- r. . EDA MMTM 6' the ENnRrwcE/ Lti•, RK.a. aev°. r .
y se* ' IL C. PLAN IileT M.,, o r,,.r°",
q'° s'!_.. MASTER OECEMEER yy.'. in fnl
I 1'17"
Y` i.•'
aWRn. IIILI 1 s Me<. A.. THIOMPSON PARK 1
rr/',-.,` TOMMY
v.,
nr. '- ..' rr
r.,. Plan C Master Itu_\•\ wa r. R> IwfLn-CLUB a m.. QIII ptoNTO fI • MM.rtowTlw aRRalta CUTERwLRa Approved 1988)
1"'' kb
v Q` r`'
r....
l e,,G fir` •..• _ IED ti O I{ lit _ "\\ January, 0 I`, Authority
T 9OAARSW o•' 3a CENTf.'/ 7.
i _— — — .\
MOb/ iI ,• CL RME T.
s INTERPRETIVE a fA1LOG ff Figure w 1
r
f
I
I
i
t
t
r j L t t ••._. i L 1 t s - `Vj
t t
L
INTERPRETIVE CENTRE ®•••[•• ROWSTrME MARSH TOMMY THOMPSON nl. R» IroPoltw toronto and regAm LOOKOUT L MASTER PLAN conwr• Ilon oU1NaNy L ISLAND PARK DOCK'RDDI' p DRY MEADOW SURFACE/ 91TE PARKING OP PREPARATION WET MEADOW MAINTENANCE DEPOT SHORELINE/ POND PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN TRAI 44TURANAruRAiED BT SECONDARY PEDESTRIAN TRAI O BEACH/ OUNE SUCcEWIKW EDA COLLABORATIVE INC DECEMBER IBBT BICYCLE PATH 0 SNNIGLE BEACH PRIVATE VEHICLE ACCESS O COTTONWOOD/ ASPEN/ WILLOW® SHEET No. REST RKTED VEHICLE ACCESS " O"' Figure 7.3 Authority Approved Master Plan January, 1988) I
II
I