pfr email concerning the pavilion project (march 30, 2016)

7/26/2019 PFR Email Concerning the Pavilion Project (March 30, 2016)

1/4

PFR Email Concerning the Pavilion Project (March 30, 2016)

The following email was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. The request concerned the results

of the Public Feedback that finished on March 8, 2016. It should be noted that Councillor Grimes office

holds no records for the Public Feedback and thus were unable to provide any information.

From: Daniel McLaughlin

Sent:Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:32 PM

To:Meri Newton

Cc:Michael Schreiner; Janie Romoff; Susan Korrick; Dave Nosella; Doug Bennet

Subject:Humber Bay Park enquiries

Hi Meri,

Further to our conversation yesterday afternoon, the history on the development of the project is laid out

in the details below. At the bottom of the summary I have included a general script of for responding to

enquiries. Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Background

On February 16th, a public meeting was held to announce and consult on two projects in Humber

Bay Parks (HBP) East and West; a Master Plan and construction of a Pavilion.

The meeting was attended by approximately 100 people. The meeting included a short

presentation to introduce project scope and the design team. Following the presentation the public

were invited to share ideas and comments at staff facilitated stations; Vision and Outdoor

activities, Natural Environment and Ponds, Circulation, Parking and Accessibility, Pavilion and

related activities.

An additional comment period (web site) was open until March 8, 2016. The public was also

invited to apply to be a part of a Community Resource Group (20-30 members) who would advise

on both the Masterplan and the Architectural projects through the design phase.

Significant opposition to the idea of a pavilion in Humber Bay Park East was registered at the

public meeting and subsequently through online social media, an online petition and comments

submitted to the City.

Despite the information and materials shared at the public meeting, the public reaction was based

on the misperception that the proposed building was to be used as a banquet hall, that it was a

"done deal" and the public was not consulted earlier in the process.

On February 26, Councillor Grimes announced via a Facebook post that if there was a majority

opposition to the pavilion he would be willing to cancel the project. The comment period is now closed. A total of 75 comments form and emails were received. A

draft summary of the responses indicate: a priority for preservation of the natural environment

and habitat within the park; significant support for park improvements and upgrades; improved

access and circulation; no additional parking. The majority of respondents (60 out of 75) are

opposed to a building in Humber Bay Park East as proposed. However, even many of the

negative responses indicated a desire for a limited/smaller form of built program within the park.


2/4

Key Points:

City Council approval is not required for the Master Plan or Pavilion to proceed as both are

within the current approved capital budget.

As the landowner and regulatory agency, TRCA board approval of both the Master Plan and

Pavilion will be required in order to proceed to eventual construction, and is contingent onthorough public consultation, substantial public support and PFR management support.

The Master Plan and Pavilion Projects are separate and have two independent consulting teams,

working in coordinated schedules. The Masterplan will advise the pavilions location. The

delivery of the building could precede the build out of the Master Plans development plan.

A community resource group is being established.

Review of the comments and responses reveals that much of the opposition to the Pavilion was

based on misinformation circulating within the community about the size, scale, and program of

the building.

Even among those opposed to the Pavilion, there is some support for building

improvements/architecture within the Humber Bay Parks, however a more thorough internal andpublic consultation on the site, scale and program of the building is required in order to establish

public consensus and to satisfy TRCA requirements for approval.

PFR are refining the communication plan.

The following is the general script for responses to enquiries regarding the project.

We understand that there are many differing opinions regarding this project. The project team is sensitive

to the concerns about function, scale and placement of facilities in the ecological setting of the park as

those concerns have been expressed consistently and clearly, by yourself and others, and we are working

hard to find common ground and build consensus as the idea moves forward.

The project team understands the importance of public input in a project of this significance, and take

your feedback very seriously. We have posted information at:http://www.toronto.ca/humberbayparks and

are confident that we will be receiving meaningful feedback from area residents, the local community and

park users.

As part of the planning process we are looking at how this public facility will compliment the natural

setting, not detract from it and are consulting to get ideas about its use and how that would best work.

Your input is valued and will be taken into consideration as the concept is developed in more detail. In

addition, throughout the community engagement process there will be on-going opportunities for your

input.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts about the pavilion and Humber Bay Parks.

Daniel McLaughlin

Manager, Capital Projects/Construction Management

Parks Development and Capital Projects

Parks Forestry and Recreation

Office 416 395 7908
http://www.toronto.ca/humberbayparkshttp://www.toronto.ca/humberbayparkshttp://www.toronto.ca/humberbayparkshttp://www.toronto.ca/humberbayparks


3/4


4/4

pfr email concerning the pavilion project (march 30, 2016)

Documents