[1:15] I was in a band like that once.

[1:34] Check. Good evening. I'd like to open the Tuesday August

[1:40] 11th City Council meeting. In a few minutes we'll hear

[1:43] our National Anthropo formed by Isabella Jankowski, but first I'll

[1:46] turn it to Councillor Asino for our land acknowledgement. Please,

[1:51] Stan, if you're able. We acknowledge we have the privilege

[1:57] to live and work on the traditional lands of the

[1:59] Anishinabe peoples of Fort William First Nation Signatory to the

[2:02] Robinson Superior Treaty of 1850. This land has been a

[2:06] place of gathering, learning and sustenance for indigenous people since

[2:10] time in Memorial. We recognise the enduring presence and deep

[2:13] traditional knowledge of First Nations inuit and may tea peoples

[2:17] and the ways that they have shaped and continue to

[2:19] shape our community. We acknowledge the effects of colonization, including

[2:23] displacement, loss of culture and intergenerational trauma. And we commit

[2:27] ourselves to Reconciliation through respectful Relationships, Truth Telling, and shared

[2:32] action for a better future. Let us pause and reflect.

[2:49] Welcome, Isabel Jankowski to the front.

[4:45] Thank you, and please be seated. Deputy Kirk Walters, what's

[4:55] our next order of business? Speaker, before we proceed, I

[4:58] just want to again want to apologise for the technical

[5:00] issues that we've had this evening. We're going to do

[5:01] our best to have presentations showing on the screen this

[5:05] evening. But again, apologies to those watching at home, they

[5:08] may not be able to see the presentations as they

[5:10] normally would. They'd have to view them a bit more

[5:12] in the background. So once again, apologies on my behalf.

[5:16] The net sum on the agenda, are there any distorters

[5:17] of interest. I'm seeing none. Next, please. Are there any

[5:23] announcements. Again, we have none. Next question. We do actually

[5:27] have one from Apton City Manager. Acting City Manager, Martian,

[5:31] please, sorry. Thank you, Speaker. After nearly 16 years of

[5:36] dedicated Public Service, today is our City Solicitor, Patty Robinette's

[5:41] Final City Council Meeting. Solicitor Robinette joined the City in

[5:46] late summer 2010 as the Deputy City Solicitor and went

[5:50] on to become the City Solicitor in October 2017. Some

[5:56] of her greatest accompliments accomplishments are things none of us

[5:59] will ever fully know about because careers and municipal law

[6:03] are not measured by headlines, but by integrity, sound judgment,

[6:07] and steady leadership. As a trusted advisor to successive councils,

[6:12] mayors solicitor Robinette protected the City's interest while respecting Democratic

[6:18] decision - making, helped navigate legal risks before they became

[6:22] legal problems and provided candid advice even when it wasn't

[6:26] the easiest advice to hear. Her guidance has been woven

[6:30] through many of the city's most significant moments, including significant

[6:34] legislative changes, major development projects, and emergencies like the COVID

[6:40] - 19 pandemic. As a highly respected colleague she mentored

[6:44] staff, built strong relationships, both internally and externally, and has

[6:49] some of her and has been someone her peers could

[6:53] consistently rely on. Solicitor Robinette on behalf of Administration, thank

[6:58] you for your service. We will miss you greatly. Your

[7:03] influence will continue long after today. You've helped this organisation

[7:07] become stronger. You've made the people who work here better

[7:10] at what they do, and we wish you every success

[7:14] in your career and hope that you look back on

[7:16] your time with the City with as much pride. And

[7:19] as we have gratitude for your service. Thank you.

[7:41] Very good. Listen to Robin Eterstand. You have a few

[7:44] words to add? I do, and I'll try to keep

[7:47] it short. I know we have a long night ahead

[7:49] of us. Mayor members of Council. Tonight, I'm not only

[7:53] saying goodbye to the City, but to the practice of

[7:56] law together, after almost 22 years of practicing law, it

[8:00] is bittersweet in both respects. In the past 16 years,

[8:03] as a city of solicitor for the City of Thunder

[8:05] Bay, I have had the privilege to learn from and

[8:08] work alongside some of the smartest. Most dedicated individuals who

[8:12] work tirelessly for the Public Good in this organisation. Serving

[8:16] in the Public Sector is a profound honour, and I

[8:19] am deeply grateful for the opportunity to make a meaningful

[8:22] difference alongside you, City Council. The Executive Leadership team, the

[8:27] senior leadership team, and all of City Administration. My days

[8:31] of trying to solve all our biggest problems may be

[8:34] over, but I remain terribly proud of the work I've

[8:37] been able to accomplish here alongside you. And most importantly,

[8:40] the legacy I leave behind, my team at Legal Services,

[8:44] who I often refer to affectionately as the Wolfpack. Each

[8:48] embodies a strong commitment to ethics, the rule of law

[8:51] and speaking truth to power. Even in the face of

[8:54] misunderstanding, misinterpretation, perhaps even pressure. They hold strong to this

[8:59] commitment. In today's world, this role has become increasingly challenging

[9:04] for lawyers where people desire sometimes and overabundance of information,

[9:09] but not necessarily the corresponding truth, facts, or signs behind

[9:12] that information. I know that they will continue to uphold

[9:15] these values in their daily practice, continuing to work hard

[9:18] behind the scenes. For this organisation, the Public, and yes,

[9:22] the Public Purse, as well as that greater, more nebulous

[9:26] concept, we lawyers refer to as the administration of justice.

[9:30] I hope to take these lessons with me as I

[9:33] pursue the academy of law while teaching the upcoming Generation

[9:36] of Lawyers in this next chapter of my life, my

[9:39] career. And I thank you all. Thank you. Thank you,

[9:47] and we also have a few comments from Mayor Boschkoff.

[9:49] Mirror Boschkov, please. Thank you very much. The Council Not

[9:57] Very often comes to unanimous decisions. But on this, there's

[10:03] something that we all agree, that you were certainly one

[10:08] of the best advisors and solicitors that we've come to

[10:12] know over our time on Council. And for that, on

[10:17] behalf of all the citizens and the administrative team, we

[10:22] thank you so much and wish you all the best

[10:26] in your future endeavours. Congratulations, and truly, uh, we're very

[10:30] proud of what you've done for the City, and we're

[10:33] all glad to know you. Thank you so much. Thank

[10:41] you, Mayor Boschkoff. Deputy Kirk Walter is what's next on

[10:44] our agenda? Peter Johnson, the next name is The Confirmation

[10:47] of the Agenda. We need to move her in a

[10:49] seconder. Seeing Councillor Ayello. Councillor Cotuga. I'd be called the

[10:55] role. Mayor Bolschoff. Yes. In favor. Councillor Ello. In favor.

[11:02] Councillor Bence. In favor. Councillor Trini. In favor? Councillor Folds.

[11:06] In favor. Councillor Cortuga? Yes. Councillor Hamilton? In favor. Speaker

[11:10] Johnson. In favor. Councillor Oliver. In favor. Councillor Pastorino. In

[11:14] favor. Councillor Cecino. In favor. That is passed. And next,

[11:20] please. Deputy Speeder, the United Statem on the Agenda is

[11:25] the Public Median Procedures. This is a Public Meeting Tonight,

[11:28] structured in accordance with the planner not to RSO -

[11:30] 1990 as amended, which requires a Public Mean to be

[11:33] held prior to Council Passage of certain Planning members matters,

[11:36] rather, such as official plans, zoning bylaws, or amendments to

[11:39] them. If they specified person or public body does not

[11:42] make oral submissions at a Public Median or written submissions

[11:45] to the City of Thunder Bay before the bylaw is

[11:47] passed, they are not entitled to appeal the decision to

[11:50] the City of Thunder Bay to the Ontario and Tribunal

[11:52] or OLT. They may not be added as a party

[11:55] to the hearing of an appeal before the OLT, unless

[11:57] the tribunal deems, are reasonable grounds. City Council functions under

[12:01] Procedure Biola 217 - 2025, which includes procedures for electronic

[12:05] meetings. This information is available from the Office of the

[12:08] City Torque, and has posted on the City's website in

[12:10] accordance with the Notice Bywlaw. With that, we will go

[12:14] to the official Plan Amendments. Item 5. 2 on your

[12:16] agenda this evening, the Zoning Bywall Amendment and Consent for

[12:20] Privates and Easements on Rendall Street. There's a number of

[12:23] items associated with this and the Entre Confidential Memorandum, from

[12:26] Director Deputer. Report 324 - 2026 Growth Development Services, which

[12:32] provides a recommendation relative to a site - specific official

[12:35] plan and zoning Bylaw Amendment. There are a number of

[12:38] deputations as well this evening, but we will start off

[12:40] the evening with Open in Commons from Director Deputer. Director

[12:44] Deputer, please. Thank you, Speaker. At tonight's Public Meeting Council

[12:52] will consider two planning applications related to City - owned

[12:55] properties identified for housing development through the call for Proposal

[12:58] Process. At meetings open to the Public Council declared these

[13:02] Land surplus and direct administration to enter into Purchase and

[13:05] Sale Agreements. In considering these applications tonight, Council is acting

[13:09] in its capacity as the Municipality Statutory Planning Authority and

[13:13] must base its decision on sound planning principles and applicable

[13:17] planning policies. The existence of agreements to purchase in sale

[13:21] should not influence Council's decision on planning matters. Speaker of

[13:26] the First Report recommends approval of a site - specific

[13:29] official Plan Amendment Zoning By Law Amendment and consent application

[13:33] to facilitate the development of two seven - story apartment

[13:36] buildings containing a total of approximately 360 homes at 791

[13:42] Arundel Street. Each building includes six stories of residential units,

[13:47] uh, and one level of structure indoor parking at grade

[13:51] with an additional underground level of parking. The applications have

[13:56] proceeded through an expanded public consultation process and are supported

[13:59] by servicing and transportation, environmental and other technical studies. Preliminary

[14:04] studies conclude that the development can be accommodated by existing

[14:07] municipal servicing and transportation infrastructure. Planning Services carefully review the

[14:12] Public Comments received together with supporting technical information. Detailed site

[14:17] design matters will continue to be addressed as the Site

[14:20] Plan Control Process and Development Agreement Processure Council Prove this

[14:24] Application. Planning Services is satisfied the proposal is consistent with

[14:28] provincial policy planning policy and maintains the tent of the

[14:32] City's official plan and zoning bylaw. The proposed development also

[14:35] aligns with the SMART growth action Plan by increasing housing

[14:38] housing supply and supporting sustainable growth on existing infrastructure. Subject

[14:44] to the conditions outlined in the report approval of the

[14:46] application is recommended, and I would now like to invite

[14:49] Supervisor Lopes to provide an overview of the application through

[14:52] presentation. Thank you, and we'll turn it to Supervisor Lopes.

[15:00] Speaker on base. Yeah, thank you. I just want to

[15:04] confirm on the technical side, given that this is an

[15:06] item of Public Interest that we're going to at least

[15:09] be able to have the cameras. We'll be able to

[15:13] see the presentation. I just want to kind of confirm

[15:15] that through you speaker. We're going to be doing our

[15:18] best to show what's on the screen, but I can't

[15:21] guarantee the level of equality that we would usually be

[15:24] broadcasting in, but we're doing our best to get the

[15:26] images there. And thank you for that. So Speaker, I

[15:29] would just, you know, I'm looking for the best possible

[15:31] quality of the presentation, given the Public interest. Best that

[15:37] we can do if we can work with our technical

[15:39] team to make sure that we have the best. Given

[15:42] that we have some issues. Thank you, Cancerton. Uh, Planner

[15:46] Lopes, please. Thank you. Thank you. Good

[15:56] evening, Mayor Speaker, members of Council and the Public. This

[15:59] presentation outlines a proposal plan and Zoning Biomelman Application and

[16:04] Consent for Private Easements for the Property Municipally known as

[16:07] 791er Rendell Street. If approved, these amendments will allow for

[16:11] the development of two new residential apartment buildings. I will

[16:15] provide an overview of the proposal. Policy alignment, Community Consultation,

[16:21] and staff recommendation. Next slide, please. The subject lands are

[16:26] approximately 3. 2 hectares in area. And located east of

[16:30] the Arundel and Toledo Street Intersection with a frontage of

[16:33] approximately 155 metres on a Rundell Street. The Property is

[16:38] undeveloped and partially cleared with some mixed tree types remaining

[16:44] and contains a public trail system connected to the area's

[16:47] broader system. In terms of surrounding land uses, to the

[16:51] north or medium density residential building zoned urban med rise

[16:54] to the west is the boulevard Lake Complex. Further east.

[17:02] To correct to the east is the boulevard Lake Complex.

[17:06] Further east, our natural woodlands and Public Trails also zoned

[17:10] community zone. To the south, our provincially owned lands containing

[17:14] a former hospital and a trail network under a special

[17:17] policy area that is zoned future development. And to the

[17:20] west, the Arius characterized by low density residential development within

[17:24] the urban Lori Zone. Next slide, please. The subject lands

[17:30] our designated community and the official plan and are located

[17:32] within the urban sedimentary. The community designation contains land for

[17:36] parks, recreation, cultural facilities, open spaces, and other community serving

[17:41] uses while promoting accessibility public benefit and connection to surrounding

[17:46] neighbourhoods. The Community Designation also supports trail networks walking in

[17:50] cycling connections. Green Ways and Integrated Neighbourhood Design. The Proposed

[17:56] Development Alliance with the General Objectives of the Residential Policies

[18:00] by providing a broader range of housing options supports efficient

[18:04] use of existing infrastructure and community services and directs residential

[18:08] growth to an established residential area that serves to enhance

[18:11] the amenities such as the Public Recreation Trails potentially increasing

[18:17] usership. The change in designation to residential represents a natural

[18:23] expansion of the current residential designation directly at JACE into

[18:27] the North and to the West. Next slide, please. The

[18:33] applicant is proposing to rezone the lands from Community to

[18:36] UM Urban Mid - Rise Zone. The purpose of the

[18:39] Mid - Rhizone is to encourage urban - scale housing

[18:42] by permitting a variety of multiple unit residential forms, including

[18:46] apartment buildings. The applicants seeks to amend the definition of

[18:49] law to allow for each building to be located on

[18:52] its own parcel and another mammoth to allow the first

[18:54] building to be constructed at the rear portion first. This

[18:58] facilitate the cross - sharing of the two parcels for

[19:03] access and service same by private easements. Hence, the consent

[19:07] application is being sought. The proposal meets all other requirements

[19:10] of the UM Zone. Next slide, please. This rendering illustrates

[19:18] how the requested amendments and consent would allow for the

[19:21] construction of two new 7 - story apartment buildings with

[19:25] a total of approximately 360 residential units contained within six

[19:29] stories in each building. One above ground and one below

[19:33] ground parking levels are contemplated for each building to reduce

[19:36] the amount of surface parking and to allow for more

[19:38] landscaping and amenity areas on the site. Connections to the

[19:42] existing trail system will be a realigned for the continued

[19:45] public access to the trail system within and outside the

[19:49] property. The proposed development complies with the UM Zone requirements

[19:54] and no further changes are proposed. Next slide, please. The

[19:58] statutory Public Consultation Process included the circulation of the notice

[20:02] of application on July 3rd and an updated notice hand

[20:06] delivered on July 10th, which provided an updated preliminary site

[20:09] sketch. A Public Information Session by the applicant was held

[20:13] on July 20th, provided residents with opportunities to review and

[20:17] comment on the proposal. That information session had approximately 140

[20:22] attendees and a developer's consultants collected 48 written common forms

[20:27] during that engagement process and share them with City staff.

[20:30] The Public Media Notice also for the Public with additional

[20:33] opportunity for review and submission of comments. As of July

[20:38] 24, Six Comets have been received from agencies and 44

[20:42] comments received from the Public. All comments receive were provided

[20:45] to the applicant and to members of Council on July

[20:48] 31st. 2026 in a Common Summary. Additional comments received a

[20:54] date were also provided ahead of tonight's Public Meeting. Next

[20:57] slide, please. Comments generally focused on key themes. Transportation and

[21:06] parking. Neighbourhood compatibility, residential amenity impacts, environmental considerations. Loss at

[21:13] Green Space, infrastructure capacity and safety. And lack of need

[21:18] for the development. Public feedback helped inform the review of

[21:21] the application and ongoing discussions between city staff and the

[21:25] applicant. Aspects of the proposal were refined in response to

[21:28] concerns raised by residents, which included the reduction of service

[21:32] parking. Increased setbacks towards the east. Orientation of the buildings

[21:37] and an 11 metre strip routine by the City between

[21:40] the lands and the existing neighbourhood. Next slide, please. Initial

[21:47] studies included stage 1 and stage 2 archaeological assessments and

[21:51] a scoped environmental impact study, which included species at risk

[21:54] and black - ash assessments. To support the applications, the

[21:58] applicants submitted a traffic impact study and preliminary civil site

[22:01] servants the assessment along with updated plans and supporting documentation.

[22:06] Thesetudies were reviewed by relative city departments. Traffic was a

[22:12] key concern raised by residents, and the traffic impact study

[22:15] concluded that the proposed development can be accommodated within the

[22:18] existing and planned transportation network without significant operational or safety

[22:22] impacts. A final traffic impact study will be required through

[22:26] the Site Plan Control Process once additional development details are

[22:29] finalised. The site is also served by transit on Arundel

[22:34] and has access to nearby MENADEs and TRL connections. Staff

[22:39] evaluate the proposed on the course of the Criteria, including

[22:42] provincial policy, the official plan, and the proposed UM Zone

[22:47] Regulations. Particular consideration was given to transportation impacts, compatibility with

[22:52] surrounding land uses, housing objectives, and proximity to transit and

[22:57] active transportation infrastructure. Based on this review, staff concluded that

[23:01] proposal represents an efficient form of development that supports the

[23:04] cities intensification objectives while remaining compatible with the surrounding area.

[23:10] Next slide, please. Administration supports a proposed amendments and recommends

[23:18] approval for the falling reasons. The proposal is consistent with

[23:22] the provincial planning statement. Conforms to the growth plan for

[23:24] Northern Ontario, aligns with the official plan and meets a

[23:28] general intent of purpose of the Zoning Bylaw. The proposal

[23:32] represents a positive contribution to the City's growth and economic

[23:35] Development Objectives by expanding the residential LAN supply and providing

[23:39] enhanced residential opportunities for surrounding neighbourhoods and the broader community.

[23:43] This concludes a presentation. Thank you. Thank you. And at

[23:49] this time I'll invite the applicant to come forward. And

[23:54] Mr. Brazuto, can you introduce yourself again. And I'm quite

[23:57] sure you know how the mic works. You have 10

[24:00] minutes. Yeah, and we just have a couple of people

[24:03] online should be popping on. I'll start when you start.

[24:07] There we go. Good evening, Council. My name is Tyler

[24:10] Rizzuto and I'm the Project Manager with Stantech Consulting. Joining

[24:13] me online this evening is Sharon. She is a urban

[24:17] planner with Stantec. And Arash, who is the senior associate

[24:20] and Transportation Planning Lead with Static. We're here on behalf

[24:24] of the applicant Terlox General Contractors Development Limited to present

[24:27] the proposed development at 791 Arundle. The purpose of tonight's

[24:32] presentation is to provide an overview of the proposed development,

[24:36] discuss the planning framework that supports the application. Summarize a

[24:39] technical studies that have been completed and explain how the

[24:42] proposal has evolved in response to Community and Stakeholder feedback.

[24:46] Next slide. This proposal is for the Development of two

[24:52] apartment buildings under 20 metres in height. Uh, each building

[24:55] will contain 65 one - bedroom units, 100, two bedroom

[24:59] units, and 15 three bedroom units for a total of

[25:03] 180 units, uh, per building. Uh, C. And this mixture

[25:12] of housing and unit sizes will provide additional housing choice

[25:16] for young professionals, young families, and older adults who may

[25:20] be looking for opportunities to downsize. 164 internal parking spaces

[25:25] will be provided for each building, which will be distributed

[25:28] across one level of enclosed at grade parking and one

[25:31] level of underground parking. 61 external parking spaces will also

[25:36] be provided. Most of the parking spaces will be internal

[25:39] to minimize surface parking, which allows for increased landscape area

[25:43] on the subject lands. Next slide, please. There's an existing

[25:50] multi - use trail on the subject lands, which is

[25:52] proposed to be realigned and extended up toward, uh, a

[25:56] rendel street, as shown in the figure to the right.

[25:59] Uh, this will improve trail connectivity for residents north of

[26:03] the subject lands and public access to this trail will

[26:06] be maintained. The proposal includes 50 percent landscaped open space

[26:10] with amenity spaces and a courtyard. The tree line between

[26:14] the proposed developments and the Toledo residences to the west

[26:18] will be maintained. Um, in addition to the extra 11

[26:21] metre buffer, that will be retained by the City as

[26:25] highlighted in yellow on this figure. Um, next slide please.

[26:32] The proposal provides a greater range and mix of housing

[26:35] options within an existing settlement area where growth is directed.

[26:39] And it brings new housing options closer to the existing

[26:42] recreation amenities east of the subject lands. For these reasons,

[26:46] the proposal is consistent with the PPS and the growth

[26:49] plan. Next slide, please. Residential and community uses are recognised

[26:56] as compatible related land uses in the city's official plan.

[26:59] So while an official plan amendment is being proposed to

[27:02] support the development, uh, the proposal still aligns with the

[27:06] broader official plan objectives by directing growth to be located

[27:10] within the urban settlement area. As well as by proposing

[27:13] new housing near existing community areas to form strong linkages

[27:17] and connections between two compatible land uses. Next slide, please.

[27:24] The smart growth action plan was approved by City Council

[27:28] in December, 2025. The proposal aligns with the principles for

[27:32] advancing smart growth through housing with compact built forms, um,

[27:36] infill development and land optimization. Next slide, please. The subject

[27:44] lands are proposed to be rezoned to the urban mid

[27:47] - rhizone, as shown in the table, No Sites specific

[27:50] amendments or provisions are required. Uh, for instance, the maximum

[27:55] height of the proposed permitted within the proposed zone would

[27:58] be 25 metres, uh, whereas the proposed development is less

[28:02] than 20 metres. The lot coverage is also well below

[28:06] the maximum sitting at approximately 20 percent would be permitted

[28:12] Based on the law area, 489 units would be permitted,

[28:16] um, whereas 360 units are being proposed. And under the

[28:21] proposed UM zone, a three metre side gear setback from

[28:24] the Toledo Properties would be required, uh, based on the

[28:27] proposed height of the buildings, uh, whereas a setback of

[28:31] more than 30 metres is provided in addition to the

[28:35] extra 11 metre buffer from the Toledo properties. The UM

[28:39] Zone only requires 20 percent of the property to be

[28:42] landscaped area, but the proposed development provides 50 percent, which

[28:46] is more than double the minimum requirement. Next slide, please.

[28:54] A traffic impact study was completed to assess the site

[28:57] access parking supply and potential effects of the proposal on

[29:00] surrounding traffic operations. The study considered existing conditions and future

[29:05] total conditions through 2034. It also reviewed weekday, um, morning

[29:10] and afternoon peak hour traffic. A safety audit was completed

[29:13] for the proposed site entrance and the multi - use

[29:16] trail crossing. The study determined that off - site road

[29:21] improvements are not required based on the scenarios assessed. It

[29:24] also found that the proposed entrance location provides adequate site

[29:27] distance for turning movements and that the entrance and trail

[29:30] can function safely together and that the proposed parking supply

[29:34] is sufficient. Next slide. Um, another, a number of supporting

[29:40] studies have been completed as part of this application. The

[29:44] Planning Justification Memo Urban Design Brief Shadow Study and a

[29:48] Functional Servicing Memo collectively, these studies can conclude that the

[29:52] proposal is consistent with provincial and municipal planning policy and

[29:55] represents the appropriate form of residential intensification, minimizing shadow impacts

[30:00] through building orientation and can be supported by existing water

[30:03] and sanitary infrastructure. As the Project Advances, more detailed technical

[30:07] review and design work would occur through the future approval

[30:10] stages, including Site Plan Control. Next slide. Next slide, thank

[30:19] you. Um, as part of the application, we also hosted

[30:22] a Public Information session at this event we had over

[30:24] 140 participants signed in and received 48 comments. In summary,

[30:29] feedback focused on trails. Traffic, privacy shadowing and supporting technical

[30:34] studies. The proposal has been refined to address matters while

[30:37] maintaining key connections and reducing potential impacts. While shadowing cannot

[30:41] be completely eliminated in the urban environment, the building layout

[30:45] was revised to reduce its effects. The technical studies completed

[30:48] to date demonstrate that feasibility of development and available infrastructure

[30:53] capacity. Final studies will be sealed by professional engineers and

[30:57] reviewed by city engineering staff. Next slide. Since the City's

[31:02] call for proposals, the Development Concept Plan has evolved to

[31:05] incorporate the feedback that was received. Um, as the project

[31:08] avances into the next stage of planning and design, our

[31:12] objective was to continue incorporating that feedback while balancing the

[31:15] technical and operational requirements, uh, for this residential development. One

[31:20] change that is that the overall development footprint and developable

[31:25] area have been reduced based on feedback received and 11

[31:29] metre wide buffer along the western limit of the property

[31:32] will be retained by the City. Another important change relates

[31:35] to the overall density of the project. The original call

[31:38] for Proposal Concept had 400 residential units, while the current

[31:43] proposal has been reduced to 360 units. The most noticeable

[31:47] change is the increase in buildings in the number of

[31:50] building stories with the original concept proposing a five and

[31:54] six story building, while the current proposal consists of two

[31:58] seven story buildings. This change was primarily driven by the

[32:01] desire to accommodate more parking internally within the buildings. In

[32:06] doing so, surface parking has been significantly reduced, allowing for

[32:10] additional landscape open space, larger buffers, improved amenity areas, and

[32:15] a site design that responds to the feedback received from

[32:18] Council and the Public. It's important to note that while

[32:21] the number of stories has increased, the overall building height

[32:25] remains consistent with what was presented through the call for

[32:28] Proposals Process. The original concept anticipated a maximum height of

[32:32] 20 metres. And this maximum height is still being maintained

[32:35] through this current design. Next slide, please. To conclude, the

[32:42] proposed development is consistent with provincial planning framework and supports

[32:46] the intent and objectives of the City of Thunder Bay

[32:48] official plan. It introduces much - needed housing in a

[32:52] location that can be supported by existing and planned infrastructure,

[32:55] while remaining compatible with the surrounding residential community uses. I

[32:59] want to acknowledge that something that many residents have expressed

[33:01] through this process. There's no way around it. The transition

[33:04] from largely undeveloped land to residential is a significant change.

[33:10] However, this project represents an important first step toward achieving

[33:13] the kind of balance middle density urban form that policy

[33:16] encourages. The rezoning is meant to translate good policy into

[33:21] real housing opportunities. One development proposal will not solve a

[33:26] housing shortage that has been decades in the making, but

[33:28] meaningful and lasting housing affordability requires a sustained increase in

[33:32] housing supply across all neighbourhoods. When we talk about intensification,

[33:37] housing choice, affordability, and more efficient use of existing infrastructure,

[33:42] this is what it looks like in practice. 30 seconds,

[33:44] please. For those reasons, we believe the proposed use scale,

[33:48] form of development, and are appropriate for the subject lines

[33:51] and represent good planning. Thank you. Well time. Thank you

[33:58] for your presentation. Uh, I have Mayor Boschkoff on my

[34:03] speaker's list. A reminder to the Council, we have one

[34:07] round, three questions, five minutes to either the applicant or

[34:12] administration. That's one round. Three questions, five minutes, uh, first

[34:16] up, Mayor Boschkoff, please. Thank you for the applicant. It

[34:20] seems that you're building with less in the maximum allowable.

[34:25] So it's a two - part question in terms of

[34:28] the amount of green space that that will actually make

[34:37] available for the lieutenants or owners. Sorry, can you repeat

[34:46] that? Well, basically the building, you're building less than what

[34:51] you're could as a maximum. So that's allowing you either

[34:56] both more parking or more green landscaping or open areas.

[35:02] Yeah, correct. We significantly increase the landscape space, um, from

[35:08] what's permitted in the zone. Um, and that was a

[35:12] change of putting cars and parking inside the building. Uh,

[35:16] we've freed up that land for landscaping soft space. Amenity

[35:19] space, um, like patios and other pieces of furniture for,

[35:25] uh, the residents. The connection of this property to other

[35:31] parks and walking trails, how many such areas are actually

[35:37] available to who would be the new occupants. Um, we're

[35:45] putting the trail from a rundown to the existing trail

[35:49] network. That's what we've planned so far. So you're going

[35:54] to make that connection? We'll make that connection and I'll

[35:58] be maintained as public access for the residents. For everyone.

[36:02] Thank you. That's, that's good for me. Thank you, Mayor

[36:07] Boschkoff. Any other. Questions from Councillor Folds, please. Thank you,

[36:12] Deputy Speaker. Thanks for your presentation this evening. I am

[36:16] looking at a couple of your technical reports. Um, so

[36:19] I'm looking at, I think it's the one with water,

[36:24] wastewater. Sure. The functional site servicing the functional site service.

[36:29] So, I mean, I'm not an engineer, but reading through

[36:32] that. I do need some clarification. Um, in terms of

[36:36] water, it did stay in that report that no water

[36:41] flows were actually done. It was just modelled. And then

[36:45] it also talked about the wastewater. The only, excuse my

[36:50] simplicity. The only pipe big enough is the one out

[36:54] to Toledo. Um, and I do know that some of

[36:57] the residents along Toledo struggle with backups. So, you know,

[37:02] I guess given the modelling, can you help me through

[37:07] that? Because I need you to know I'm a scientist.

[37:12] I know what models are. Yeah. I know the value

[37:15] in models. And I know how they're used, but I

[37:17] also know their models, not necessarily reality on the ground.

[37:21] Yep. That's fair. Um, so yeah, we know actual hydrant

[37:26] flow tests were completed as this typically for the rezoning

[37:30] application. It's determining capacity of available capacity and feasibility of

[37:34] the site. Um, we know that there's water there. We

[37:38] can model it and see that a loop system. Would,

[37:41] would definitely be beneficial to the site to provide proper

[37:45] fireflows. And domestic cold water to all the buildings will

[37:49] not impact in surrounding neighbours. Um, you know, we, we

[37:55] always advance these studies and that's kind of more the

[37:57] detailed design piece. When we get into the full detailed

[38:01] design of the building, we figure out the type of

[38:05] building, whether it's combustible or not. And all those things

[38:08] kind of go in. You need all that information before

[38:09] you can really finalise it. That's why the studies start

[38:12] as preliminary and go into Site Plan Control and are

[38:16] sealed at that point. Um, but we are aware that

[38:20] there's water and the connection can be made through the

[38:22] to the lethal for both water and sanitary. So, I

[38:26] mean, how would you, I mean, maybe this is a

[38:28] difficult question at this point because you don't have those

[38:30] detailed designs yet. But what kind of guarantees can you

[38:36] provide as the engineer Stantech for neighbouring the neighbourhood that

[38:42] both their water and sewer services won't be impacted? Well,

[38:46] it would be, it'd be approved by the City. And

[38:49] if we can never demonstrate that properly, we would never

[38:52] get Site Plan Control Agreement and we would never get

[38:54] a building permit. It would, without demonstrating it, the project

[38:58] doesn't move on. So that's the assurances to the public

[39:03] that we have to demonstrate it and prove it's going

[39:05] to work before anything ever happens. Okay. So the City

[39:08] Administration has to sign off that it works. Absolutely. My

[39:12] next question is about a different report that you presented

[39:15] and it's the traffic report. And again, I'm not a

[39:18] traffic technologist, but as I read through that technical report,

[39:22] what it tells me is the volume that this particular,

[39:29] um, facility would add to that road. It can handle

[39:33] it. What I'm really interested is the future development. You're

[39:39] in your photograph here. You included 791. You included 755.

[39:46] And of course the future development of the LPH grounds.

[39:50] In your future predictions, you talk about a two percent

[39:54] growth. And that in essence, even at two percent growth,

[40:00] that road can handle it. But my question is, did

[40:02] you take into account the future development of what I

[40:06] can only interpret because you included 755 in the LPH

[40:09] grounds? Is that included in the two percent. Or would

[40:13] that be up and above the two percent? So the

[40:16] 2034 numbers. I'll start and then we'll pass it to

[40:20] Rosh who's online. The traffic study was four 791. He

[40:26] goes into more of what is done in his model

[40:29] for surrounding properties in growth. So maybe I'll pass it

[40:32] to a rush and speak to that. Thank you, Toilet.

[40:37] Uh, can you hear me. Just to confirm? We can

[40:40] hear you loud and clear. Thank you. Well that's great.

[40:43] I appreciate the question. I will provide very quick general

[40:47] discussion about what we did as toiler said. The study

[40:50] is looking at this specific development. And it's looking at

[40:55] the full builds out here and a five year horizon.

[40:59] Uh, in the City of Thunder Bay through some other

[41:01] studies that we did, usually the growth rate and all

[41:05] grocery that we are considering is one person around one

[41:08] person to look at the potential increase in the area

[41:15] in the future. We are not taking a specific development,

[41:18] but two percent is being considered as a conservative that's

[41:23] looking at some of the impacts that coming from neo

[41:26] developments and population growths and all of that. But one

[41:30] thing I want to, um, I want you to pay

[41:33] attention is the study issues that, uh, level of service,

[41:38] which is showing how comfortable the traffic on the road

[41:40] is and on the axis is showing there are spare

[41:44] capacity available at the intersection and at the road. Most

[41:48] of the movement and locations that we looked at. Again,

[41:52] I'm briefly going through it. Level of service is going

[41:55] through A to F. A is the most comfortable. F

[41:59] is where drivers or pedestrine and traffic field, the movement

[42:06] speed is reduced. There are, uh, other impacts on the

[42:09] vehicle. Our study shows that we are on the good

[42:15] side and there are multiple opportunities and a spell capacity

[42:20] is available along the route. So I have to say

[42:22] that the result shows that, uh, no impact is expected

[42:29] along the road. Wanting I also want to add this

[42:32] for any other developments. There will be separate the studies.

[42:37] And the future developments that have data studies, these development

[42:42] will be their background traffic and the accumulated impacts of

[42:46] their trips and traffic will be assessed. So it's not

[42:49] like we added and then, uh, I mean, the combined

[42:56] impact of the trips will not be seen in the

[42:58] future. Thank you Councillor, you have used up your, uh,

[43:04] a lot of time. Um, next I have Councillor Attorney

[43:08] and then Councillor Hamilton. Councillor Attorney, please. Thank you through

[43:14] the speaker. Um. I'm hearing from the community, I think

[43:19] I should speak to you. I'm hearing from the community

[43:21] about a concern about the Canadian shield and the rock

[43:24] that may be under this, uh, building and that the

[43:28] potential concern for blasting that may be required in order

[43:32] to put parking. Um, do we have any indication of

[43:35] that at this time. Um, well, we're definitely aware of

[43:41] Rock in that area for sure. I mean, no specific

[43:44] tests have been completed as part of this development. You

[43:47] know, pending up if the product gets approved. Yes, we

[43:50] would go do a geotechnical investigation. And we would have

[43:53] a better understanding of plastic. If blasting is required or

[43:57] not, I would say that, you know, we don't know

[44:02] that answer, but if there was blasting, it would be

[44:04] a temporary. Requirement, but we're not committed to having to

[44:10] blast or do anything at this time. Thank you. Thank

[44:13] you for that. And then, um, I want to go

[44:15] back to the landscaping and the green space piece. There

[44:18] was a, um, part of the presentation indicated something about

[44:21] 50 percent of the property will be maintained landscaping will

[44:25] be maintained. Could you collaborate a little bit more on

[44:26] that please? Yeah. Um, so kind of two parts, what

[44:30] we heard from the public, um, and, and to the

[44:33] call for proposal was to maintain the existing, uh, tree

[44:37] buffer that's there already. Yeah. Um, we fully intend to

[44:42] maintain that buffer. And that's why we set everything off

[44:45] to the east. Outs of that, we would be the

[44:49] remainder of the site would be landscape to equal to

[44:51] 50 percent. So it's a combination of both hardscape and

[44:55] softscape where there's amenity space. It's not just going to

[44:58] be just grass and nothing. It's, you know, there's some

[45:03] care is going to go into the design and provide

[45:05] a real amenities for the residents. Thank you. Um, my

[45:09] third question that space is actually smaller than the chart

[45:12] well property across the street. It's about two thirds the

[45:15] size. Um, I know there's a map floating around that's

[45:19] showing that it's much bigger and there was lots of

[45:22] talk about going all the way to lions boulevard. But

[45:25] there is somewhere an indication that of straightening lion's boulevard

[45:29] to potentially come up, uh, beside this. But that's not

[45:33] being taken to account at this time. That's future development.

[45:36] Is that correct? Um, yeah, I would say it's, it's

[45:39] future development, um, we were aware of the transportation master

[45:43] plan that shows a potential road there. Um, I think

[45:46] that's, you know, truthfully, that's why we showed a feature

[45:50] access is to ensure that the building, we left space

[45:53] for an axis if it were to come. We're not

[45:56] planning on. There's no intentions for that. But, um, it

[45:59] would make, it would be a poor planning decision to

[46:01] enclose that whole side of the western or eastern property

[46:04] line and not provide access to this if it were

[46:06] to come. Um, but no, not as part of this

[46:09] application. Is there anything to do with anything outside of

[46:12] the, this property. Thank you for that. And I appreciate

[46:16] the future plans for Lyon Boulevard. I went to that

[46:18] school. There were many accidents online boulevard because the twistiness.

[46:23] And then once that tree was gone, then it became

[46:25] even more of a safety issue. So thank you so

[46:27] much for your responses. Thank you, Councillor Hamilton, please. Yeah.

[46:34] Thank you, Speaker. And through you, uh, appreciate the presentation.

[46:39] I got to say, I appreciate the sensitivity to the

[46:40] concerns of the community. Um, at 360 units down from

[46:45] 400, I think initially 600. Are we finally at a

[46:50] spot? Is this basically, um, the layout, um, like are

[46:55] we, are we there yet? I know technical drawings. There

[46:58] needs to be architectural work probably. But is this basically

[47:01] what the project looks like? Um, I would say generally,

[47:04] yes, it's, it's kind of at the point, uh, I

[47:08] think, you know, small refinements to the building, um, still

[47:12] maintaining the bylaw, but we're talking facade and kind of

[47:15] architectural details are still in the works. And, you know,

[47:19] hopefully they don't have impacts on reducing units. But we

[47:24] don't, we don't know that until we finish the building

[47:25] plans. Through you speaker, is there a

[47:35] expiry date on that? Is that for a certain 15

[47:38] years, like, I mean, I, I, I just want some

[47:40] assurance that, uh, some of those principles will be adhered

[47:44] to longer term. Yeah. I mean, I, I personally can't

[47:47] speak to that, uh, the financing agreement on, on that.

[47:51] But I'm, I'm, I'm told that it is a set

[47:53] time for it. It's I don't have the exact date.

[47:55] But there's an expiration on that. Maybe correct. And through

[47:59] speaking, I just my final question kind of picking up

[48:01] on Councillor Foles is, do you model when you do

[48:04] traffics that he's like, um, different demographics scenarios where if

[48:07] you had a, uh, you know, maybe working families or

[48:13] potentially older adults might have different traffic patterns. Do we,

[48:17] do we look at all the whole gamut of like

[48:20] when you look at the traffic modelling, do you look

[48:21] at a whole spectrum of use based on demographics? Yeah.

[48:27] I'd probably pass that to a rush. I think it'd

[48:28] be best suited for it. Sure. Uh, general answer is

[48:33] yes again. We are at this stage that we are

[48:36] looking at the high level impact of the development. But

[48:40] when we are going to the side plan and when

[48:42] we are going to look at the access, sidewalks, crosswalks

[48:46] and all of that, we are looking at the demographics.

[48:51] For example, if you have to expect, I mean, demographics

[48:56] that are leaning toward the older age, or if there

[48:59] is a school and we have, uh, school kids that

[49:02] are travelling on the sidewalks and crossing the roots, we

[49:06] are taking that in impact. But again, I'm saying vid

[49:09] the traffic study that we have at this stage because

[49:12] it's looking at the impact of the trips, vehicle or

[49:16] trips that are coming out of the side and their

[49:19] impact on the roads. I have to say that we

[49:22] just looked at the general, I mean, general trend of

[49:29] growth in traffic volumes. And I mean, anything that we're

[49:32] looking for the specific demographic around the side, we'll be

[49:37] on the side plan stage. And when we are looking

[49:39] at the cell, more vulnerable users of the site. Well,

[49:44] thank you, Speaker. And not a question just the reason

[49:47] why I'm asking that is I want to make sure

[49:48] we're looking at a high watermark scenario. Um, four vulnerable

[49:52] users. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Eggo, please. Thank you

[49:59] very much, Speaker. Um, I have a few questions. My

[50:07] concern, I wasn't aware that you had not done a

[50:10] geotechnical study yet. And I just found that outright. Now

[50:15] my concern is blasting because we, we know when the

[50:19] blasting happened up on Huron, that they'll friction lines hit

[50:25] down quite, quite a distance and went into some basements

[50:28] on royal and dawn in that area. There were some,

[50:32] some damage to the foundations there. If blasting has to

[50:38] happen here, it's not just for parking. I would assume

[50:41] that you would do blasting for your foundational, for your

[50:47] underground parking, for your servicing. So there will be substantial

[50:52] clearing that's going to be needed. To get all that

[50:56] done. How, um. With, with the amount of, um, Canadian

[51:02] shield, which is like the hardest rock in the world,

[51:05] friction is, is, um, is very, I believe very common.

[51:11] And very concerning. Yeah. I think that's a fair concern.

[51:18] I would, I would kind of just. Do you mean

[51:22] the tablast today, there's more to it than blasting in

[51:26] the past. I think, um, pre - development surveys would

[51:30] happen. There's a program. And I'm sure it's governed by

[51:33] the province and not just anyone with dynamite gets to

[51:36] go blast these days. So it's, I would say it's

[51:38] a regulated industry and professionals would be doing it. And

[51:41] they would be taking all the precautions needed to ensure

[51:43] that no damage or minimal damage is ever going to

[51:46] happen. We would trust a professionals to come up with

[51:49] the blast plan to get this done properly. Um, that's

[51:54] pretty much all I can say to it now. I

[51:55] think after the geotechnical investigation, we'd have a better understanding

[51:58] of what's going to be involved in that. And, um,

[52:02] you know, if, if it looks like it's too much,

[52:06] then we have a maximum height and we wouldn't go,

[52:10] we wouldn't go above it. And we'd probably have to

[52:12] go lower. Well, the two ways to do it as

[52:16] under my understanding through you speaker is one is to

[52:19] raise the ground. And put, put your foundation above the

[52:23] ground at or you chip it. Or you blast it.

[52:29] Now the blasting that I just spoke of was done

[52:32] last year, the year before. I don't know if standards,

[52:37] as I'm not an engineer or blasting expert, I don't

[52:39] know if the standards have changed in the last year

[52:42] of requirements because that was in close proximity. It was

[52:46] just up on the corner of Huron and Balsam that

[52:49] that blasting had occurred. Um, so that concern of that

[52:53] friction lines, because now we've got housing right to the

[52:57] West and other housing that's to the north. With the

[53:03] shield, we don't know exactly where the shield is going

[53:06] without the geotechnical. Is that correct? Correct. And not a

[53:09] blasting expert. So, um, I would imagine that the proper

[53:13] permits would be in place. And the professionals would be

[53:16] making that decision. On blasting requirements. Okay. If I may

[53:21] throw the speaker, I can, I can add to the

[53:24] response and note that, um, within once the geotechnical study

[53:29] is completed and should blasting, uh, be required or, you

[53:33] know, that would be elected to be a path forward.

[53:37] That is covered under the Site Plan Control Agreement. So

[53:40] the Athlens noted that your blasting is something that's highly

[53:43] regulated does require qualified persons, a pre - blast survey

[53:49] vibration, monitoring, and through the Sight Plan Control Agreement, the

[53:54] city's ensuring that all of the necessary professionals and plans

[53:57] are in place and is reviewing the program's capacity as

[54:01] the City. I am not aware of foundation damage that

[54:05] had occurred. As occurred. And the other example, uh, that's

[54:09] not an item that's been brought forward to an administration.

[54:13] Uh, thank you. And through you speaker, you have one

[54:16] minute remaining. Okay. Um, my next one, have you done

[54:21] the shadowing? Because shadowing is, um, one of the biggest

[54:26] concerns for the wellbeing of people. Right? For the shadowing

[54:31] studies. Now that the building's gone higher. The shadowing studies

[54:35] would be more impactful for the morning sun. Which is

[54:39] the most prevalent that we need to have safety for

[54:44] the peoples. Correct. Yeah. Uh, shadowing, study was done. Um,

[54:50] you know, the building didn't go, it was, it's still

[54:53] 20 metres. Um, we didn't increase the building height. It's

[54:56] still 20. So that point aside, we did do the

[54:59] shadowing study. We look at the summer and winter solstice

[55:04] for the longest and shortest days of the year. Um,

[55:07] you know, shadows, we can't stop shadows. There's every building

[55:12] cast as a shadow. What we can do is mitigate

[55:15] it. Um, we did do an urban design brief to

[55:18] kind of find a way to mitigate it. And that's,

[55:20] that's one of the reasons what we saw a Sight

[55:23] Plan change from the buildings from the west to the

[55:25] east is that minimize the impact of shadows on the

[55:29] neighbouring properties. Um, the shadows do cast slightly into some

[55:35] of the existing properties. Um, that's during the worst case

[55:40] scenario, nine o'clock in the winter. 9 a. m. in

[55:44] the winter. And it's typically dark at that time. Not

[55:47] to minimize it, but we just don't have a way

[55:50] to remove shadows. Okay. I think my time is up.

[55:55] Thank you. Any other questions from Council. And as Council

[56:04] knows, we do have an opportunity later in the meeting

[56:06] to follow up, uh, if the need to do so,

[56:09] uh, to our presenters, thank you. And we'll turn now

[56:13] to the portion of the meeting where I'll ask for

[56:17] calls for speakers from the public gallery. I'll have three

[56:21] calls from the Public Gallery. And we have a list

[56:23] generated already. Uh, on behalf of Council Administration, I am

[56:28] asked, remind presenters that what is being debated tonight is

[56:32] the rezoning. The rezoning of the land, not the sale

[56:36] of the itself of the parkland. So when you do

[56:39] speak or provide comments or concerns, please speak to the

[56:42] planning issue. Uh, not the loss of green space. And

[56:46] I will also ask to on behalf of Council Administration

[56:48] that if you are providing commentary, you please provide new

[56:54] information, concerns, uh, your thoughts rather than possibly reiterating what

[57:01] has been already set. And I'll remind speakers as that

[57:04] as we go forward. So for my first call from

[57:07] the gallery, um, I understand we have Stephanie Patron. Apologies

[57:13] patrony. Please make your way to the speaker stable. The

[57:23] Mike there is on the base. Please introduce yourself and

[57:28] you have 10 minutes. Thank you. Good evening Mayor Bosch

[57:34] Goth and members of Council, thank you for the opportunity

[57:37] to speak tonight. My name is Stephanie Patroni. I'm a

[57:40] current river resident with a background in Community Economic and

[57:43] Social Development. Much of my work involves examining evidence and

[57:47] questioning how policy decisions affect communities. Over the past several

[57:52] months, I've closely examined the proposed rezoning of 791 a

[57:56] rundell. And what I've learned has left me deeply concerned

[57:59] about both the proposal and the process that brought us

[58:02] here. Tonight, I'd like to speak to those concerns before

[58:06] you cast what may become one of the most significant

[58:09] planning votes in the history of Thunder Bay. Provincial changes

[58:14] to the planning act mean residents no longer have recourse

[58:18] through the Ontario Land Tribunal Process. And Council's responsibility has

[58:23] never been greater. The decision you make tonight could permanently

[58:27] remove Community's own Parkland from Public Ownership and establish a

[58:31] planning precedent future council's well - inherit. If you vote

[58:36] to rezone a rundell tonight and wake up tomorrow morning

[58:39] regretting that vote, the province can't step in and undo

[58:43] it. You've sealed the fate of not only this Parkland.

[58:48] But made it much easier to develop the next Parkland

[58:51] or Greenspace that looks good to a developer. That responsibility

[58:55] demands more than simply accepting the recommendation before you. I've

[59:00] heard several members of Council acknowledge that they aren't knowledgeable

[59:03] on matters such as planning and therefore trust the experts.

[59:08] I find that very alarming. Given recent responses from councillors

[59:13] and what has publicly demonstrated what has been publicly demonstrated

[59:17] about Council's understanding of this file, I am reasonably concerned

[59:20] that council is about to vote on a matter it

[59:23] does not fully understand. Mayor and Council, this isn't a

[59:27] Conversation about Parks versus housing. This is about good planning

[59:33] due diligence, a degree of common sense and the evidence.

[59:37] After months of attending meetings, read and reports filing FOIs

[59:41] and examining the city's planning documents we have reached one

[59:45] conclusion. Thunder Bay does not need to build housing on

[59:50] community's own parkland and the City supports that finding. The

[59:57] City's housing in land needs strategy identify capacity for nearly

[1:00:00] 20, 000 units while projecting a need for fewer than

[1:00:03] 9, 000 by 2045 under the highest population growth scenario.

[1:00:08] Neither 791 nor 755 Arundel was required to achieve that

[1:00:13] capacity in that report. Those findings should have fundamentally changed

[1:00:18] this discussion. Communities own Parkland was not and is not

[1:00:23] needed to meet Thunder Bay's housing needs. Since then, the

[1:00:27] City has moved forward with the 100 - acre Central

[1:00:30] Avenue Development targeted for more than 1, 200 homes with

[1:00:34] the City owning more than 60 acres of that project.

[1:00:38] Other opportunity sites remain available and the provincially owned former

[1:00:42] LPH Land's represents another significant and eventually redevelopment opportunity. Thunder

[1:00:48] Bay is not running out of places to build housing.

[1:00:52] We should not even be here tonight. Planning staff will

[1:00:56] likely tell you Council has already declared this property surplus,

[1:01:00] declaring land surplus does not answer the planning question before

[1:01:03] you. Council must still decide whether this Parkland is the

[1:01:07] right place for housing and intensification and whether removing Communities

[1:01:12] Owned Parkland serves the broader interest. You'll also hear that

[1:01:16] this proposal is supported by the official plan. It isn't,

[1:01:21] which is why you're being asked to amend the official

[1:01:23] plan tonight. 791 Arundel is designated community and you're being

[1:01:28] asked to change that designation to residential to accommodate a

[1:01:32] developer that wants to build on green space. On public

[1:01:37] green space. Staff point to the official plans housing intensification

[1:01:43] and infrastructure policies to justify that change. But those aren't

[1:01:47] the only policies in the official plan, environmental stewardship, healthy

[1:01:52] communities, public green space, and natural areas are in there

[1:01:55] too. Good planning doesn't mean pulling out the policies that

[1:01:59] support the development and ignoring the ones that don't. Council

[1:02:03] has to consider the plan as a whole. Another argument

[1:02:07] you'll likely hear is that traffic servicing drainage and infrastructure

[1:02:10] can be addressed later through site plan control. But Sight

[1:02:14] Plan Control follows rezoning. Questions have already been raised about

[1:02:19] water pressure, traffic, sidewalks, and surrounding infrastructure. If upgrades are

[1:02:24] necessary, Council should understand what they are and what they

[1:02:28] could cost taxpayers before the Zoning Changes, not after. Environmental

[1:02:35] Impacts have also been described as something that can be

[1:02:37] mitigated mitigation reduces impact, but it does not recreate mature

[1:02:42] parkland, restore decades of ecological growth or reconnect habitat once

[1:02:47] fragmented. Environmental losses are permanent and Council must decide whether

[1:02:51] those losses are justified. Some members of Council in City

[1:02:56] staff have called those who oppose developing Parkland Nimbees. A

[1:03:02] little unprofessional, but more importantly, it suggests these individuals do

[1:03:06] not want to debate the issue or even willing to

[1:03:08] know what they do not know. Public Parkland, Environmental Impacts,

[1:03:15] Infrastructure, Planning Policy, and Housing Alternatives are legitimate planning questions

[1:03:20] that have not sufficiently been answered. One issue has followed

[1:03:25] this proposal from the beginning and deserves far more attention,

[1:03:30] public trust. Confidence in this process has steadily eroded because

[1:03:34] too much of what residents needed to know came to

[1:03:37] light only after key decisions were already set in motion.

[1:03:41] Communities - owned Parkland was identified for possible surplus before

[1:03:45] most residents knew 791 Arundel was under consideration. Council accepted

[1:03:51] the survey results involving only 142 participants across the opportunity

[1:03:56] sites initiative with just 52 comments relating specifically to a

[1:04:00] rundown. Without seriously questioning whether those numbers represented meaningful engagement

[1:04:05] in a city of more than 100, 000 people. Of

[1:04:08] those 52, only eight supported increasing housing development on the

[1:04:14] Arundel Parkland. These flimsy findings were used in part by

[1:04:18] the City to justify the recommendation to Council to surplus

[1:04:22] 791 a rundel. FOI requests revealed information residents had never

[1:04:28] been shown. Information many Council members haven't even seen or

[1:04:32] asked for. The Proposal changed four times. New reports continue

[1:04:37] to appear and instead of providing clarity, they raised even

[1:04:40] more questions. Public trust wasn't lost because people opposed housing.

[1:04:46] Public trust was lost because this process has been misleading

[1:04:51] and disorganized. Why, for example, is there a potential access

[1:04:55] road pointed through 755 a rundell, the Park land between

[1:04:59] 791 and Boulevard Lake Trails. And what about the surprise

[1:05:04] announcement in May of a large development at the smaller

[1:05:07] multiple sclerosis park within Juno Park. Planning staff may tell

[1:05:13] you tonight that your decision concerns only 791 a rundell,

[1:05:18] respectfully there isn't anyone in this room who believes that.

[1:05:23] Council is deciding whether community's own Parkland can be resoned

[1:05:26] for private residential development. Future applications involving communities, zone, Parkland

[1:05:33] will inevitably be viewed through the lens of this decision.

[1:05:36] Tonight will be precedent setting. Finally, I'd ask Council to

[1:05:43] think beyond tonight's vote. This decision will outlive every report

[1:05:48] you've read. Every presentation you've heard. The ecology of Boulevard

[1:05:54] Lake Greenspace will be disrupted forever. The character of Current

[1:05:58] River will be permanently altered. And Public Trust once lost

[1:06:04] is remarkably difficult to rebuild. Is this the legacy that

[1:06:09] Council wants to leave behind. When the City's own housing

[1:06:14] land needs strategy, identified capacity for nearly 20, 000 homes

[1:06:19] against a projected need of fewer than 9, 000 up

[1:06:23] to 2045, when Central Avenue, when the Central Avenue Development

[1:06:29] Lands, other opportunity sites, and major redevelopment properties such as

[1:06:33] the former LPH lands provide still thousands more of opportunities

[1:06:38] for housing. Why are we even considering sacrificing communities -

[1:06:43] owned Parkland? You have one minute remaining. What housing need.

[1:06:48] Does the Arundel Parkland solve that Thunder Bay cannot otherwise

[1:06:52] meet. After months of reading and researching and asking questions,

[1:06:57] I have never heard a convincing answer. For that reason,

[1:07:01] I respectfully ask you to reject the proposed amendment to

[1:07:05] the official plan. To reject the proposed rezoning of 791

[1:07:10] rundell and to leave this community zone Parkland Protected. Thank

[1:07:14] you. Thank you, order please. Order, please. Ask you to

[1:07:20] keep your seat. There might be some questions from Council.

[1:07:26] Fulds, please. Thank you, Speaker. Just two questions. Uh, you

[1:07:31] had mentioned in the opening of your presentation about the

[1:07:34] ability to appeal tonight's decision and how that has changed.

[1:07:39] In the past two tonight. What is your understanding of

[1:07:43] Oatizen's ability to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal? It's

[1:07:47] almost impossible. It's the developer and municipalities that primarily have

[1:07:53] the ability to pursue recourse through OLT. Tonight, this is

[1:07:59] it. You guys are our last opportunity. So this means

[1:08:06] your decision is important. If you don't understand the proposal,

[1:08:10] if you don't have all the details, if you haven't

[1:08:12] looked into the nuances, if the outstanding, any questions that

[1:08:18] haven't been answered, you cannot rezone this land. If you

[1:08:22] don't know what questions to answer, that means you don't

[1:08:25] know enough about this proposal. And you should not be

[1:08:29] voting on this. Okay, thank you. And then you had

[1:08:35] made reference to the housing land needs strategy. And the

[1:08:43] 20, 000. So it's your understanding that a rundown wasn't

[1:08:48] part of the 20, 000 for some clarity there. Yes.

[1:08:52] Neither 791 a rundell, nor 755, because we're pretty sure

[1:08:55] that's going to be next. Especially with the potential future

[1:09:00] road access. And the precedent that could be set tonight

[1:09:03] if you vote to rezone Community Parkland that, what was

[1:09:10] the question? Is it about the 20, 000 and was

[1:09:12] there a render was 200, 000? The 20, 000 units

[1:09:15] of housing identified in the housing land needs study was

[1:09:19] a number that was did not include 791 or 755.

[1:09:25] Thank you, Speaker. Thank you Councillor Foles. Councillor Agua, please.

[1:09:31] Sorry, Councillor Agua, before I turn to you, I just

[1:09:34] remind the gallery to withhold their applause, maybe to the

[1:09:38] end of the meeting. Um, or not at all. Um,

[1:09:41] we're trying to get a few questions answered. Um, administration,

[1:09:45] the applicant. So please withhold your applause. Thank you. Thank

[1:09:50] you very much, Speaker. And through you, um, can you're

[1:09:56] pretty proficient in urban planning and your studies that you've

[1:10:01] been done here. Can you please, um, enlighten us on

[1:10:04] what the community zone allows today. So today as it's

[1:10:08] known, what are we allowed to use in that area.

[1:10:12] You can use parks, uh, cemeteries, uh, any park cemeteries.

[1:10:21] You could probably put a nursery school in there. I

[1:10:24] mean, it's community zone. So it means it's for the

[1:10:27] public. So in a broad case, it would be public

[1:10:35] school, private school, or whatever it might be. But for

[1:10:39] use for massive people to use for recreation green space

[1:10:44] and what have you. That's what we're zoned today. Yes.

[1:10:47] Um, how many times have you seen in your, with

[1:10:52] your urban planning designations, how many times have you seen

[1:10:56] this community zone or anything of similar being converted for

[1:11:02] housing? Well, I'm not an urban planner. Oh, okay. I'm

[1:11:05] a health policy analyst. Oh, sorry. I thought you said

[1:11:07] you had a. My background is in Community Economic and

[1:11:11] Social Development. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. I thought there was urban.

[1:11:15] That's okay. Okay. Okay. So in your research, let's let

[1:11:19] me rephrase speaker. In your research, have you, did you

[1:11:22] research anything to see if there was any precedent set

[1:11:25] anywhere with communities zones being converted into residential? I haven't

[1:11:31] looked into specific case studies, but I'm sure they're out

[1:11:35] there. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you.

[1:11:42] Thank you. Any other questions from council. Very good. I'm

[1:11:48] seeing none. Thank you for your deputation. You can retire

[1:11:50] to the gallery place. Thank you. Next on the list,

[1:11:55] I have Robert Moore. Calling for a Robert Moore.

[1:12:07] Last time for Robert Moore. Next up then is Michelle

[1:12:13] Laporte. Michelle Laporte. Again, to our deputants, I ask that

[1:12:21] you please try not to repeat information that was already

[1:12:24] presented. Uh, and possibly if you can provide new information.

[1:12:29] So could you please press the mic on the base,

[1:12:32] introduce yourself? I believe it's the one. Okay. And you

[1:12:36] have 10 minutes. Okay. Uh, Mayor Boschkoff and members of

[1:12:41] Council, my name is Michelle Laporte and I am a

[1:12:44] resident of Toledo Street. I'm here today as a concerned

[1:12:49] citizen. Neighbour and resident of Thunder Bay. I chose to

[1:12:55] live in this area because of its natural beauty. It's

[1:12:59] quite character and it's close connection to nature. Like many

[1:13:03] residents in this neighbourhood, I valued the green spaces, trails,

[1:13:08] and natural areas that make this part of Thunder Basel

[1:13:11] Special. The Property at 791 Arundel Street is not just

[1:13:17] an unused land. It is a valuable community asset. It's

[1:13:23] trail network is used by seniors from nearby residences, dog

[1:13:28] walkers, cyclists, mountain bikers, hikers, joggers, families, and many other

[1:13:33] who simply just want to enjoy the outdoors. As part

[1:13:37] of the broader boulevard Lake Trail Experience, this green space

[1:13:41] contributes greatly to the Quality of Life of Residence across

[1:13:44] Thunder Bay. These trails are not new. They were established

[1:13:52] many years ago by local boy scouts who have, okay,

[1:13:58] local book and have been enjoyed by generations of residents.

[1:14:02] The fact that these trails still exist today is evidence

[1:14:06] that they continue to be actively used and valued by

[1:14:10] the community. If they were not being used, nature would

[1:14:14] have reclaimed them long ago. And they would have overgrown

[1:14:19] and been difficult to access. Instead, they remain well -

[1:14:24] travelled pathways that connect people to the outdoors and to

[1:14:28] one another. I understand that housing is an important issue,

[1:14:33] however. I strongly question the decision to consider building two

[1:14:38] large residential buildings on an existing public green space and

[1:14:42] Parkland, especially in an area where infrastructure is already a

[1:14:48] concern. If the infrastructure issues exist today, why would council

[1:14:54] consider adding more strain to the neighbourhood through increased density

[1:14:59] and development. Thunder Bay has other opportunities to address housing

[1:15:05] needs without sacrificing established green spaces that residents already use

[1:15:11] in cherish. Development should be directed to areas where infrastructure

[1:15:17] services transportation and amenities are already planned or better suited

[1:15:23] to support growth. Council is already moving forward with development

[1:15:28] in the central core and central avenue corridor, where significant

[1:15:33] government funding has been provided to support infrastructure, housing, growth,

[1:15:38] and broader development. The City has received funding for road

[1:15:43] trail water, wastewater, stormwater improvements in that area. With the

[1:15:49] goal of opening up new development opportunities and creating better

[1:15:53] access to amenities, services, and connected neighbourhoods. To me, it

[1:15:59] makes far more sense to focus on development where infrastructure

[1:16:04] investment is already planned and funded rather than to place

[1:16:08] additional density in an established neighbourhood where existing infrastructure may

[1:16:13] need to be ripped up. Replaced or rebuilt at a

[1:16:17] greater cost. If Public Money is already being directed, prepared

[1:16:23] land for growth and development, then why are we also

[1:16:26] being asked to give up, Public Green Space and Parkland.

[1:16:31] At 791 a runde. While Thunder Bay is very different

[1:16:36] from New York City, Boulevard Lake Park serves as a

[1:16:41] similar purpose to the community in many ways. Thunder Bay.

[1:16:49] Is what Central Park is to New York. A cherished

[1:16:53] Public Green Space where people gather exercise connect with nature

[1:16:58] and enjoy the outdoors. It reflects the spirit of our

[1:17:02] city's motto, Superior by nature. That model should mean something.

[1:17:09] Beyond Recreation, this green space provides environmental benefits that are

[1:17:15] often overlooked. Mature trees help improve the air quality. Reduce

[1:17:20] urban heat. Absorb stormwater and provide habitat for birds and

[1:17:26] wildlife as cities. As Ciddies across

[1:17:36] Canada were to increase urban tree cover and protect natural

[1:17:40] areas. It seems contradictory to remove an existing green space

[1:17:45] that already provides these benefits to our community. The meadows

[1:17:51] at 791, a rundell Street are also important part of

[1:17:56] our local ecosystem. They provide habitat and feeding grounds for

[1:18:00] deer and other wildlife that are frequently seen in the

[1:18:03] area. These open natural spaces together with mature trees and

[1:18:08] vegetation support of biodiversity and contribute to the ecological health

[1:18:14] of the neighbourhood. The meadows are not a vacant land

[1:18:17] waiting for development. They are part of a functioning ecosystem

[1:18:21] that supports wildlife, pollinators, and natural processes that benefit our

[1:18:26] community. Once this habitat is lost, it cannot simply be

[1:18:31] recreated anywhere else. Protecting the space is not only about

[1:18:36] preserving trails and recreation opportunities. It's also about safeguarding the

[1:18:41] natural habitat and ecological functions that have existed here for

[1:18:46] generations. I am also concerned about the president that this

[1:18:51] decision will set. If a well - used green space

[1:18:55] connected to Boulevard Lake can be declared surplus today, what

[1:19:01] assurance do residents have that other parks and natural acres

[1:19:07] would not face similar pressures tomorrow. Public Parkland should be

[1:19:12] viewed as long - term community investment. Not simply a

[1:19:16] vacant land waiting for development. The Conversation should not be

[1:19:22] about choosing between house and green space. Thunder bait can

[1:19:27] support responsible housing growth while also protecting the natural assets

[1:19:32] that contribute to our quality of life. These goals are

[1:19:36] not mutually exclusive. Good planning means finding solutions that achieve

[1:19:42] both. Since July 24th, we invested our efforts. No, we

[1:19:49] intensified our efforts to collect signatures because we knew this

[1:19:53] was bigger than current river. This issue affects all of

[1:19:57] Thunder Bay. The response was overwhelming. In just two and

[1:20:03] a half weeks, we gathered 1, 666 additional signatures, bringing

[1:20:13] our petition total to 2, 624. What is particularly significant

[1:20:20] is that the vast majority of those signatures were collected

[1:20:24] during a short period. Two and a half weeks. Those

[1:20:30] numbers speak for themselves. They show that people across the

[1:20:35] city care deeply about this issue and want their voices

[1:20:39] hurt. The speed and scale of support demonstrate that this

[1:20:44] issue resonates far beyond the immediate neighbourhood. We firmly believe

[1:20:49] that given more time and greater public awareness of this

[1:20:53] proposal, thousand more residents, thousands. Would have signed their names.

[1:21:02] I would also ask Council to carefully consider the Public

[1:21:06] Consultation process that was used to support declaring this property

[1:21:11] surplus. The City's survey considered four separate properties and received

[1:21:16] only 142. Responses from across the Sith Thunderbig. Of those

[1:21:24] responses approximately 84 people supported the broad question about infil

[1:21:29] housing. However, that question did not specifically ask residents whether

[1:21:34] they supported the development on public parks, Green Space Trail

[1:21:40] Networks or Natural Areas. A response of that size to

[1:21:44] question frame so broadly cannot reasonably be viewed as a

[1:21:50] strong evidence of public support on developing. You have one

[1:21:54] minute remaining. Okay. I only got one minute. Okay. So

[1:22:02] I will. Okay. The residents gathered outside today. At the

[1:22:07] rally. Our further evidence that concern. The represent the people

[1:22:13] who are tired of feeling that their collective voices are

[1:22:16] not being heard. They are not here because they oppose

[1:22:20] a responsible development. They are here because they believe parks

[1:22:23] and green spaces should be protected. And that residents deserve

[1:22:28] meaningful consultation before decisions affecting community assets are made. During

[1:22:33] the petition campaign, I personally spoke with hundreds of residents

[1:22:37] across Thunder Bay. The overwhelming majority of feedback was positive

[1:22:43] again and again. I heard people say leave our parks

[1:22:47] for our children. On our, please. Okay. Well, anyways, I

[1:22:54] still have more to say on this. But I can

[1:22:57] honestly say that 791 Arundel Street should not be rezoned.

[1:23:03] When I was out there, there was a lot of

[1:23:06] people that, um, told me that it was something we

[1:23:10] needed to protect. And I think you for listening. Thank

[1:23:14] you. And I'll ask that you hold your seat. We'll

[1:23:16] maybe have some questions from Council. Couga. Thank you,

[1:23:26] Mr. Speaker. Thank you for all the work. I know

[1:23:29] that the work putting in, uh, with the petition, um,

[1:23:34] but I talked to quite a few people who have

[1:23:36] told me that when they were explained about this petition,

[1:23:40] that it was involved Lake and LPH properties. Just. And

[1:23:46] can you just comment on that. Um, I don't think

[1:23:50] I commented when people ask me about the LPH properties.

[1:23:54] I said that was provincial. I was very honest with

[1:23:57] my. Okay. And Boulevard Lake, I mean, Boulevard Lake, that

[1:24:03] is part of the network. Okay. All right. Thank you.

[1:24:07] I mean Boy Scott put in those drills. Thank you.

[1:24:11] Any other questions from Council. Deputy Kirk Walters. Speer, I

[1:24:17] just wanted to add, uh, we did receive the petition

[1:24:19] that was being mentioned. I sent a memorandum on this

[1:24:22] matter on August the 7th. Uh, we did receive the

[1:24:24] petition. It contains approximately 2, 600 signatures relative to this

[1:24:28] report. Uh, I just also want to mention that we

[1:24:30] did receive two written deputations on this matter that are

[1:24:34] included in your agenda package, uh, for your information. There's

[1:24:37] also memorandums from senior planner Lopes relative correspondence received on

[1:24:42] this report. Uh, it's information that was distributed separately to

[1:24:45] Council only on Friday August, the 7th as well as

[1:24:48] additional, uh, information that was sent, uh, yesterday as well.

[1:24:53] Thank you. I'll ask, thank you for your deputational. Lassie

[1:24:56] retired to the gallery. Next up on the list we

[1:25:00] have is Lori Holden. Lori Holden.

[1:25:27] One last time for Lori Holden. Very good. I moved

[1:25:33] down the list. Apologies if I mispronounce this. Ivan Bach.

[1:25:55] Okay. Yeah. I might need them. Thank you. I just

[1:25:57] stick them on my head, eh? You do. Okay. I

[1:26:04] think I can hear. Yeah. Is there a volume test

[1:26:09] or something. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Buck. Um, hopefully

[1:26:16] you heard my instructions of earlier about not repeating information

[1:26:20] that's already been presented. Um, would you please introduce yourself

[1:26:24] and you have 10 minutes when you start. Yes. Very

[1:26:27] good. Please do start. Okay. Ready. As you can see,

[1:26:35] I'm hearing impaired. So it's a bit of an issue

[1:26:37] here. Thank you. My name is Ivan Buck. I'm a

[1:26:43] retired secondary school teacher principal and I retired in 1999.

[1:26:50] After I retired, my wife and I started to look

[1:26:53] for a home that we would call our dream home.

[1:26:56] And we found it at 408 Polito Street. We purchased

[1:27:01] our home in 2007. Our house is only one house

[1:27:06] away from the pathway going down into the 491 Arundel

[1:27:11] area. Over the years, I've seen incredible variety of people

[1:27:18] from all over the city. Utilising and enjoying this environment

[1:27:23] that's waiting for them. It's hard for me to believe

[1:27:28] that after going around the sun 84 times, I am

[1:27:32] here asking my city council to not declare 791 a

[1:27:37] rundo as surplus. As that would create an apartment complex

[1:27:42] eventually that would destroy the green space that we enjoy

[1:27:46] so much in our backyard. This decision will decrease significantly

[1:27:51] the value of our home, which is our only investment.

[1:27:57] There's no question that if any of you were facing

[1:27:59] this dramatic scenario, you too would be sitting here sitting

[1:28:05] here sincerely asking the powers that be to not destroy

[1:28:10] your investment. Mayor Baschkov and councillors of Thunder Bay, please

[1:28:18] lead the 791 Ronald Parkland as community. So that we

[1:28:23] citizens can continue to enjoy all the amenities it has

[1:28:26] to offer. A colleague of mine stated that 791 Parkland

[1:28:32] is to the citizens of Thunder Bay, what central park

[1:28:36] is to the citizens of New York City. On how

[1:28:40] true that is. The greater Toronto home pros published a

[1:28:46] study that ranked the top 29 cities in Canada for

[1:28:50] greenery. Thunder Bay ranked 10th. Ranking 10 in Canada is

[1:28:58] something to be proud of. Our city can hold its

[1:29:03] head high every April of 22nd when the world celebrates

[1:29:07] Earth Day. Because we rank so high, though, does not

[1:29:13] justify eradicating the parklands we have to create apartment buildings.

[1:29:20] Furthermore, the City's house land needs study identified sufficient land,

[1:29:25] availability for development and Thunder B. 791 Arundel was not

[1:29:32] included nor recommended in the study to satisfy housing needs.

[1:29:37] The City Zone study concluded. That of the 19, 803

[1:29:42] potential housing units available on potential development land. Only 8,

[1:29:49] 82 new units will be needed by 2045. There is

[1:29:55] more than enough of city - owned land for the

[1:29:57] next decade without destroying any of our parklands. The city

[1:30:04] holds a lot of committee of the whole sessions. And

[1:30:07] that is why sometimes it's so difficult for the taxpayer

[1:30:10] to get any de - dealed information that I believe

[1:30:13] entitled to. Singh's at tax dollars being spent eliminate our

[1:30:17] parklands. For example, I made an inquiry with several councillors

[1:30:22] regarding the process used to determine Terralox as a chosen

[1:30:26] one to destroy our parkland. I never even got a

[1:30:30] response acknowledged of my inquiry. There was no public competition.

[1:30:36] On April the 7th, 2026, our City Council approved the

[1:30:40] direct land sale of three parties to Terlox General Contractors

[1:30:45] for 5. 2 million dollars. And I'm sure I just

[1:30:48] a question I have. Why did Terroluck get such special

[1:30:51] treatment. Councillors. Do you have any idea how significant is

[1:31:00] a number of citizens who are strongly opposed to the

[1:31:03] possible selling of the park lands for urban apartment buildings.

[1:31:08] Especially among the ones who know there are so much

[1:31:11] land available according to your own house land needs study

[1:31:15] that does not include a rundown nor any other Park

[1:31:19] land for consideration. You have been presented with the petition

[1:31:23] that shows 2, 624 signatures that have stated clearly to

[1:31:30] leave the 491 Rundell Parkland as community, not as surplus.

[1:31:36] The signatures represent we the people all over Thunder Bay.

[1:31:44] They are dog walkers and joggers and cyclists skiers, families.

[1:31:50] Many experienced disabilities that confine them to electronic seating devices.

[1:31:55] There is one individual whose disability is blindness. This incredible

[1:32:02] walker uses a white cane and listens to the countless

[1:32:06] bird species in the trees. And the rustling of the

[1:32:09] tree leaves and appreciates a sense that the greenery gives

[1:32:12] to her. All of these citizens will enjoy our Parkland

[1:32:17] in winter. With a snow and the summer with the

[1:32:20] rain. They have all signed the petitions that you have

[1:32:25] received. For their future enjoyment and that of our sons

[1:32:31] and daughters and your sons and daughters, all of our

[1:32:35] grandchildren and our great - grandchildren please leave 791 -

[1:32:40] Rundell Parkland for them and not the developers. And thank

[1:32:44] you for your time. Thank you for your deputation. I

[1:32:48] ask that you hold your seat, please. There might be

[1:32:51] some questions from members of Council. Chatty, please. Thank you

[1:32:56] through the speaker. The deputant asked a question about why

[1:32:59] Terelyx was awarded properties. Is this the appropriate time for

[1:33:03] me to ask administration to, um, answer that question. Yeah,

[1:33:09] I think we're asked to ask follow - up questions

[1:33:12] with a deputy then. We can ask that, um, later

[1:33:14] rounds to administration. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other

[1:33:19] questions from Council. No, no, thank you. Very good. Thank

[1:33:26] you for your deputation. I ask that you retire to

[1:33:29] the gallery. Mr. Bach, thank you for your deputation.

[1:33:40] Really. You're done now. You're done. Now. Oh, I'm done?

[1:33:45] Yeah. Nobody's got any questions all of this. Thank you

[1:33:51] again for your time. Thank you. I'll make a call

[1:33:55] to the gallery for Catherine Cortin.

[1:34:09] Thank you. I'll ask that you introduce yourself a reminder

[1:34:11] that, um, ask, maybe you've heard my comments a few

[1:34:15] times about not repeating previous, uh, material or concerns. Um,

[1:34:20] please again, introduce yourself and you have 10 minutes. I'm

[1:34:25] Councilman Cortine. I'm part of the Tibet Green Space Preservation

[1:34:30] Group. Thank you, Speaker and Mayor Boschkoff and members of

[1:34:34] Council. I'll try not to repeat information, but, um, I

[1:34:42] have to say that some of the information. Are real

[1:34:48] concerns of mind. So I will repeat very briefly some

[1:34:51] parts of them. Thank you for listening to us. Uh,

[1:34:58] so the concerns that I have starts with the consultation

[1:35:02] process, which has been already addressed, but I want to

[1:35:06] add that T - Bay Green Space Preservation is very

[1:35:11] lucky to have in its mised experts who have spent

[1:35:17] confess hours researching city documents, infrastructure issues and environmental impacts

[1:35:25] and also communicating with city stuff and councillors. So they

[1:35:31] haven't been considered in your previous decisions such as selling

[1:35:35] the land or declaring it surplus. So I just want

[1:35:39] to say that I hope that research will be considered

[1:35:42] this time today. Another concern I have is that after

[1:35:48] working so hard on the earth care committee in the

[1:35:52] past, I'm now faced with the possible loss of a

[1:35:57] space that we present exactly what Earthcare was all about.

[1:36:04] Such assisting ability, physical, mental health. Well - being, climate,

[1:36:10] rate read readiness, preservation of ecosystems. So it's very disappointing

[1:36:16] for me to be here again after we went through

[1:36:21] so much time discussing how Thunder Bay can be a

[1:36:28] sustainable planet. City, sorry.

[1:36:38] I also want to say that Thunder Bay, I mean

[1:36:44] 794 Aroundo provides habitat and a home to species of

[1:36:50] special concern among the myriad of wildlife. We have the

[1:36:56] Grey Fox, a species that is classified as threatened under

[1:37:02] both provincial and federal legislation. The Canadian Warbler and a

[1:37:07] variety of bees. So these species will be disrupted by

[1:37:13] the process of building. You can offer and promise all

[1:37:20] kinds of accommodations after building, such as maintaining green space

[1:37:27] or trails. You can make all these promises, but the

[1:37:32] disruption that will happen during the building is not something

[1:37:37] that cannot, can be avoided.

[1:37:47] There is also a repair in forest that offers flood

[1:37:52] present, not only because of its trees, but also because

[1:37:58] of a sandy structure. People have even seen painted turtles

[1:38:03] cross around the street. To the meadow. So what the

[1:38:09] applicant calls partially cleared land, I call it a very

[1:38:15] important part of an ecosystem. Because turtles, they eggs and

[1:38:20] sand. So it's not only Cindy, but it's also a

[1:38:26] meadow. And it's not partially cleared. It's part of an

[1:38:30] ecosystem. I believe that safeguarding wildlife and ecosystem. That we

[1:38:38] all rely on should include our own local community's, like

[1:38:43] the Parkland that mayor and council are targeting for destruction.

[1:38:49] At 791 around the Street. I'm also concerned about important

[1:38:56] city documents that have been produced. Which all mentioned the

[1:39:05] importance of protecting environmental environment and ecosystems. The official plan

[1:39:14] is one of them. The housing land needs study. Is

[1:39:20] one of them. The urban forestry management plan is one

[1:39:26] of them climate adaptations. Strategy is one of them. Green

[1:39:31] space, it identifies green space as a critical infrastructure for

[1:39:36] climate resilience. And I think we all need that. Especially

[1:39:40] after the fires that we've experienced. Anyways, all these documents

[1:39:45] have been produced by the City. With our money. And

[1:39:49] now they're being contradicted because of developer, a developer, prefers

[1:39:56] to build on green space rather than building where the

[1:40:00] community needs building. Which would be for the good of

[1:40:05] all, right? To build where we need it. We're in

[1:40:10] some neighbourhoods that do need building. I'm concerned also that

[1:40:15] if this rezoning is allowed, other parks and green spaces

[1:40:19] may follow suit. The land near Boulevard League should be

[1:40:25] considered sacred sacred and untouchable. Preserve for future generations. I'm

[1:40:32] also very concerned about the well - being of our

[1:40:36] elderly who live in Chartwell and rely on 791 for

[1:40:42] an accessible green space. They may not only lose the

[1:40:47] space, but they also be faced with a huge increase

[1:40:50] in traffic that will endanger their lives and quality of

[1:40:54] life. I'm also concerned with the cost, which will be

[1:41:00] incurred by the Mini, which is us, the taxpayers. To

[1:41:06] accommodate the wish and interests of one. Terralox. I'm concerned

[1:41:13] that with one decision such as the one you'll make

[1:41:17] today, so many consequences may happen that may not be

[1:41:22] reversed in the future. I'm asking you to consider this

[1:41:26] very carefully. The decision you make today. Will have irreversible

[1:41:33] consequences. And may create a precedent for the future. So

[1:41:39] I'm asking you, will your decision help preserve what the

[1:41:43] community values? And you know what the community values. You

[1:41:47] have done many, many surveys and studies. Will it help

[1:41:52] to preserve green spaces and community spaces. For the future?

[1:41:58] Or will it set a precedent for more losses. Will

[1:42:03] your decision today show the many voters that you actually

[1:42:07] consider their concerns. Or will it show that one developer

[1:42:13] interest are more, have more weight. I heard many comments

[1:42:18] saying, don't bother their mind was already made up a

[1:42:22] long time ago. But I chose to believe in the

[1:42:25] democratic process anyway. One more time. So your vote today

[1:42:31] will reveal where your allegiance stands. I hope it stands

[1:42:36] with the many with the community. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:42:44] Thank you. Are there any questions of the deputy. Sing

[1:42:52] none, ask you, retire to the gallery, please. Thank you.

[1:42:56] Next up on the list is Joe DeBolt.

[1:43:12] Joel. Sorry. Apologies for the Bispernution of your name. Hopefully

[1:43:19] you've heard my comments to other deputates to please not

[1:43:24] reiterate. Said information. Or concerns. And please introduce yourself. You

[1:43:31] have 10 minutes when you begin.

[1:43:44] Thanks. My name is Joel Debolt. Gravisee. I'm okay to

[1:43:48] stand. Or do you want me to do it? I

[1:43:49] can set. Sure. Nice to see you guys here. How

[1:43:54] many? 13. Beautiful souls. Thank you. I appreciate it. Um,

[1:44:01] I live in Thunder Bay up on Lady Avenue. I

[1:44:04] spent some time in this area we're talking about the

[1:44:07] Lions Boulevard East Trail, Arundel. And I spend time there

[1:44:14] with my friend Cooper quite a bit. And, um, I

[1:44:17] love playing in that area. Specifically that area, The Lion's

[1:44:21] area. And I love playing there with Cooper and he.

[1:44:26] Loves playing there as well. And when we were playing,

[1:44:28] you know, going back and forth and running to and

[1:44:31] fro and chasing. And yelling and laughing and all that

[1:44:34] good stuff you do when you're playing. Ado is amazed

[1:44:37] at the tapestry of right in front of me. The

[1:44:39] tapestry. The picture, the view called nature. Nature is living

[1:44:46] art. It's alive. Breathing and speaking. So I'm not here

[1:44:55] to change your opinions or your beliefs or your viewpoints.

[1:45:00] My intent here is to bring her nature. Her living

[1:45:04] art to this council right here, right now for this

[1:45:06] moment that we're in together. That would get to share.

[1:45:09] As a team, a community. And because she's art and

[1:45:15] her art, nature's art and spoken word has the ability

[1:45:19] empowered to remove layers. So that President of Motions may

[1:45:24] come forth at our exists within us. Nature is this.

[1:45:32] We are nature. This is us. So just before I

[1:45:39] read these words, I want your permission to share them

[1:45:41] with you, the Council. Because words have power. Yes, okay.

[1:45:47] Thank you. Um, so this is my spoken poetry. Nature's

[1:45:51] Art. Energy and words from nature, from experience. Golden Caribou.

[1:46:00] The dye is cast. Blue and orange. Worlding through space.

[1:46:08] Time pauses to reflect. Trajectory. Peaking at Apex. Liminal and

[1:46:17] pondering. Signing before dissent. Oxygen tugging on the surface. Spinning

[1:46:27] clockwise. The space between blue and orange. Dissolves. He knows.

[1:46:36] He pauses that side. Honch is twitching. Whipped phone on

[1:46:42] his mouth. Fourth in saliva. His muscles charging his pulse.

[1:46:49] He quivers on the mound. He scrits. He strains. A

[1:46:54] growled stay. His ignition and suspends his rocket a desire.

[1:47:03] He coils down. Inevitability in his wine. Pausing. Pausing. Pausing.

[1:47:13] Fetch ruptures the field. A blur of weight draws in

[1:47:17] gold. Green slivers, wail and protest as claws grunt on

[1:47:22] earth. Forward and faster he drives. The spinning orb. Glowers

[1:47:28] and sunlit energy. Framing its vortex. Down into the unknown.

[1:47:33] The orb consenting to gravity. Nesting into caribou lichen. That's

[1:47:40] for my friend Willow. The blue collared white tooth friend

[1:47:47] close on the coloured Comet. Follows, nose down tail up.

[1:47:52] He worbles on instinct. His umbridled heart. Wagging his dance.

[1:48:01] In play of many. Knowing the teaching began with the

[1:48:08] intent. So my friend Cooper.

[1:48:18] Who was always in plague, he's always led with his

[1:48:20] heart and followed his heart. Want me to show that

[1:48:23] message today. So when we make big decisions and vote

[1:48:26] on important things when we leave with the heart right

[1:48:29] here and not here because this leads this. And when

[1:48:32] you vote from here and you think from here like

[1:48:34] Cooper does and he's curious and he plays. We can

[1:48:38] make decisions from in here. And he asked me to

[1:48:41] show that today. So thank you council. My appreciation to

[1:48:44] Cooper. The friend Dross and Gold. And to myself and

[1:48:53] the people behind me and my appreciation to the birds

[1:48:57] who always speak the truth. Thank you. Is there any

[1:49:00] questions? Thank you. I was about to ask. Is there

[1:49:02] any questions from Council. None asked, they retired to the

[1:49:08] gallery. Next on the list I have Lori Santing.

[1:49:20] Thank you. And again, I reiterate the plea to not

[1:49:23] repeat information that's been already provided or concerns. Could you

[1:49:28] please introduce yourself and you'll have 10 minutes when you're

[1:49:31] ready.

[1:49:41] Good evening. Mayor Boschkoff and members of Council. My name

[1:49:45] is Lori Santink. My husband Nick and Iona home on

[1:49:48] Toledo that backs onto the Parkland at 791 a rundell.

[1:49:52] My background in the legal system. And as a policy

[1:49:54] analyst, as well as being a member of a Planning

[1:49:57] and Development Committee for the Community Association while I lived

[1:50:00] in Calgary provides me with the necessary skills and experience

[1:50:04] to review and comprehend the City's own planning and Development

[1:50:07] documents, provincial legislation. And the various reports and studies that

[1:50:12] have been prepared for this development. As you've already heard,

[1:50:16] there have been changes to the Planning Act. And it's

[1:50:20] incumbent upon you, I say, as the final arbiters to

[1:50:23] ensure that you have done the necessary due diligence, which

[1:50:26] includes reading all the reports and studies and being well

[1:50:29] - versed in the city's own planning documents. In order

[1:50:32] to make an informed decision this evening. Unfortunately, based on

[1:50:37] many engagements I have had over social media as well

[1:50:39] as in person with members of Council, it's an apparent

[1:50:42] that many of you may not have done that due

[1:50:44] diligence. I therefore question whether you are in a position

[1:50:48] to make an informed decision about the application before you

[1:50:51] this evening. My comments will be directed to why this

[1:50:55] development and the decision by Council to Surplus and Sell

[1:50:58] this Parkland contravenes the purpose and principles of the City's

[1:51:01] own planning documents. The housing strategy has already been mentioned,

[1:51:05] but I like to point out a few dates. The

[1:51:08] Study and Strategy was likely commissioned in 2022 because the

[1:51:12] first stakeholder sessions were conducted in January of 23. I

[1:51:16] have read this report in its entirety and its very

[1:51:18] comprehensive. Council decided in March 23 to start looking at

[1:51:23] City Owned Lands, including Parkland for Development. I submit that

[1:51:27] there was no necessity for Council to act at that

[1:51:30] time prior to receiving the extensive and detailed analysis HTFC

[1:51:34] was commissioned to provide. Even in June of 2024, irrespective

[1:51:39] of the housing strategy that counseled by then had received,

[1:51:42] you continued to push your own plan instead of utilising

[1:51:44] the well - researched strategy incorporating significant stakeholder feedback and

[1:51:49] which provided a detailed analysis of Thunder Bay's Land and

[1:51:52] Housing needs. The same cannot be said of your plan.

[1:51:55] The City's official plan includes purposes and principles, many of

[1:51:59] which are echoed in the smart growth and transportation master

[1:52:02] plan. And as such, my comments will refer to all

[1:52:05] three documents. For example, the official plan is designed to

[1:52:09] meet the needs of the community by creating an attractive,

[1:52:11] accessible walkable city, guiding principles include a complete and connected

[1:52:16] urban design, being accessible and active, providing a variety of

[1:52:20] transportation choices with priority given to walking cycling and transit.

[1:52:25] It states new developments shell provide for adequate and appropriate

[1:52:29] pedestrian access. This development and this location does not comply

[1:52:34] with any of these purposes and principles. It does not

[1:52:36] provide year - round walking or cycling choices. The Parkland

[1:52:40] is in a car dependent neighbourhood which lasts basic urban

[1:52:43] infrastructure such as sidewalks along Arundel and Hudson. And even

[1:52:48] continuous and connected sidewalks on Toledo, the existing neighbourhood is

[1:52:52] neither complete nor connected. The act of living corridor is

[1:52:56] not year - round infrastructure and as such cannot provide

[1:52:59] functional and safe passage or act as a significant mode

[1:53:02] of transportation to pedestrians and cyclists outside of the summer

[1:53:06] months. As for Public Transit, this development is not well

[1:53:11] served. The lone bus runs every 30 to 45 minutes

[1:53:14] at a bus stop without a shelter and does not

[1:53:17] travel east along a runde to the closest shop at

[1:53:20] a rundel and hotter. As a result, few, if any

[1:53:23] of the new residents would ever consider public transit as

[1:53:26] their primary mode of transportation. The plan states the City

[1:53:30] will market residential lands to assist in the supply of

[1:53:33] development lands. 791 Arundels designated community, not residential. It never

[1:53:38] should have been marketed for development. The Planned State's Densor

[1:53:42] Housing Forms will be encouraged in all newly developing areas

[1:53:45] and in areas where major employment, commercial and institutional activities

[1:53:49] exist. Further, affordable housing will be encouraged to locate in

[1:53:53] close proximity to shopping, community facilities, and existing or potential

[1:53:56] public transit and active transportation routes. This development doesn't meet

[1:54:01] either of these two principles. The planned state's residential intensification

[1:54:06] includes the development of vacant or underutilized laws. 791, a

[1:54:11] rundell is not a vacant or underutilized lot or infil.

[1:54:15] It is Parkland, literally the very western tip of Boulevard

[1:54:18] Lake Park. The official plan states compatibility with existing built

[1:54:23] form with the existing and planned character of an area

[1:54:25] should be sensitive to the height - scale massing and

[1:54:28] architectural character of buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood. In fact,

[1:54:32] the official plan even states high - rise housing includes

[1:54:35] apartment - dwellings or mixed - use buildings that have

[1:54:38] a height of five stories or more. At seven stories

[1:54:43] and 360 units, this development is not only high density,

[1:54:47] but according to the official plan, it's also high -

[1:54:50] rise. For those reasons alone, this development is in no

[1:54:53] way, shape or form compatible with the existing neighbourhood. I

[1:54:57] submit that a development which is the largest apartment complex

[1:55:01] in the history of our city and which appears to

[1:55:03] allow for further encroachment into the adjacent park land to

[1:55:06] the east with a potential of a new collector requires

[1:55:09] a secondary plan be prepared. The fact that city administration

[1:55:13] is recommending a site - specific provision be applied to

[1:55:16] the rezoning indicates that a more detailed direction for land

[1:55:19] - used urban designer similar issues are required. As such,

[1:55:23] on this point alone, rezoning should not be approved until

[1:55:26] such time as a secondary plan is prepared and the

[1:55:29] proper public and fulsome public consultation has been undertaken. The

[1:55:35] province's growth plan for Northern Ontario states that our city,

[1:55:39] as an economic and service hub, should encourage a significant

[1:55:42] portion of future residential unemployment Development to locate an existing

[1:55:45] downtown areas, intensification corridors, Brownfield sites and strategic core areas.

[1:55:51] Council has chosen location for this massive development is not

[1:55:54] what is envisioned by the growth plan. And like many

[1:55:57] other Planning documents, it also states the City should provide

[1:56:00] a range of transportation options, something that's development in this

[1:56:04] location cannot provide. The need to respond to and mitigate

[1:56:08] climate change is oppressing issue the City's Net Zero strategy

[1:56:12] sets out a number of targets which included intensification area

[1:56:19] near the central city, planting 100, 000 trees within the

[1:56:24] Municipal Boundary by 2050. The development at a rundale is

[1:56:28] not near the central city, and will require the denuding

[1:56:31] of almost the entire parcel. Why are we removing mature

[1:56:35] stands of trees, destroying existing metals in biodiversity, especially in

[1:56:39] this age of severe climate change? In an effort to

[1:56:42] reduce gas emissions, 65 of trip, 65 percent of trips

[1:56:46] within the City will be done by transit, walking and

[1:56:49] cycling by 2030, less than four years from now. Why

[1:56:53] then is the City considering allowing the largest development in

[1:56:56] the history of our city to be built in a

[1:57:00] car dependent community where the majority of trips require the

[1:57:03] use of a personal vehicle. I have other concerns. Terra

[1:57:09] Lux is completely different versions of the development, the incomplete,

[1:57:13] and somewhat misleading information and StanTechs reports, the Environmental Impact

[1:57:18] Study that doesn't reference any mammals, including our resident Grey

[1:57:21] Fox, who appeared on my deck. But unfortunately my time

[1:57:25] is limited. Many of you were on Council in January,

[1:57:29] 2020 when the Climate Emergency was declared. Some of you

[1:57:32] served on the Earth Care Advisory Committee, Mayor Boschkoff, you

[1:57:36] yourself are an ambassador for the Wilder Institute whose purpose

[1:57:40] is to safeguard wildlife and the ecosystems we all depend

[1:57:43] on. The destruction of Parkland and Wildlife Habitat for a

[1:57:47] massive development in a car dependent neighbourhood goes against everything,

[1:57:51] every one of you alleged to support. Was this just

[1:57:54] greenwashing for political points? I ask you to carefully consider

[1:57:59] my comments. Chair, I asked for personal slurs, not necessary

[1:58:04] at this time. Thank you, Mayor Bosch Kavasti. Keep your

[1:58:07] comments and articulation parliamentary, please. Understood. Thank you. I asked

[1:58:12] you to carefully consider my comments and those of my

[1:58:14] fellow residents here tonight, including those who have sent you

[1:58:17] emails or made phone calls. I ask you to consider

[1:58:20] the 2600 plus residents who signed the petition against this

[1:58:24] development and the likely 100 people who showed up tonight

[1:58:28] at the rally. Thousands of residents have spoken. We do

[1:58:32] not want this Parkland used for residential development. It sets

[1:58:36] a terrible precedent as others have said. It opens the

[1:58:39] door to more encroachment into Boulevard Lake Park, one that

[1:58:43] will have a lasting negative impact on current and future

[1:58:46] generations. Is this really the legacy you wish to leave?

[1:58:50] Thank you. Thank you. I asked that you remained in

[1:58:53] your seat. There might be some questions from Council. Foles,

[1:58:58] please. Thank you, Speaker. You thank you for your presentation.

[1:59:04] You went through a lot of information there. Towards the

[1:59:07] end, you had mentioned a couple of things that I

[1:59:10] wanted to dig into a little bit. You said you

[1:59:13] had some concerns about changing of the development over time.

[1:59:18] Just wondering, I think you said concerns. I'm just wondering

[1:59:21] if you could expand on that place. Yes, four different

[1:59:24] versions of this development were prepared and presented. The first

[1:59:28] was an extremely poor quality concept proposal of three massive

[1:59:32] buildings, 600 units. And that was presented in the fall

[1:59:35] of 2025. It did not conform with the urban mid

[1:59:39] - right zoning, the City required, completely ignored other zoning

[1:59:42] by - law and official plan requirements for this type

[1:59:44] of build. In this particular setting. Um, but it was

[1:59:49] still presented to the public as if it was something

[1:59:52] that was possible. The second version in January 26th was

[1:59:58] at least professionally done. It appeared to be prepared by

[2:00:02] Brooks McElroy, a firm that the City is used on

[2:00:04] a number of occasions. It also provided a lengthy memo

[2:00:07] on the significant feedback. That was received for the Development,

[2:00:12] and it included, this is the feedback received. This is

[2:00:15] how we're mitigating the development. The conceptual drawing, though, in

[2:00:19] January 2026, was misleading. It showed two smaller buildings set

[2:00:23] to the east side of the property. Those two buildings

[2:00:27] could not have helped hold 400 units. And it was

[2:00:33] very, it was beautifully done. Lots of trees, lots of

[2:00:36] green space. So it's very misleading. It looked like most

[2:00:38] of the space at 791, and Rundrell was going to

[2:00:41] be left untouched. So it's concerning to me because all

[2:00:48] of these versions, you know, people are looking at them

[2:00:51] and they're making, they're believing a certain concept as being

[2:00:56] presented, and that's going to be the reality. And all

[2:00:59] of us know that concept proposals are just that concept.

[2:01:03] The third version was issued with the City's Nose of

[2:01:05] Application. I believe it was July 3rd. It disregarded all

[2:01:10] that previous feedback that was received. And placed the development

[2:01:14] immediately behind the houses on Toledo. And to be honest

[2:01:17] with you, it was like a big screw you. We

[2:01:19] don't care what you said. We don't care about the

[2:01:22] residents. And obviously it got everybody up in arms. So

[2:01:27] that site sketch was sent out only to local, you

[2:01:31] know, the nearby residents within 120 metres. So the reaction

[2:01:35] was swift. Then not a week later. Version four shows

[2:01:38] up. And this is a version that you have in

[2:01:42] your city council report this evening. It included a notice

[2:01:45] of application notice of Public Meeting and information about the

[2:01:50] Public Information session. And what's also concerning about that fourth

[2:01:55] version is the introduction of the new road on the

[2:01:58] east side. This road was never discussed at any point

[2:02:02] in time since the beginning of this whole process, which

[2:02:05] I might add Council and Administration had a huge hand

[2:02:10] in. You were a partner in this because it was

[2:02:12] done through the opportunity Sites Process. So all of a

[2:02:16] sudden we're looking at a road on the east, obviously

[2:02:20] encroaching into further park LAN at some point in time.

[2:02:24] Right? Possibility of lion boulevard getting realigned, which was never

[2:02:27] discussed with anybody. But the transportation master plan does show

[2:02:33] a road in that plan that was from 2019. So,

[2:02:38] I mean, it just depends on who you ask. But

[2:02:40] obviously it looks to be like there'd be more and

[2:02:42] more development in current river. So I just question why

[2:02:47] Terlox, you don't come to the table with a proposal

[2:02:51] that's like so far out there, the initial proposal of

[2:02:54] 600 units. Didn't even comply with the mid - rise

[2:02:58] zoning. And then you turn around, you have the fourth

[2:03:00] version. Oh, we're going to add a road. And people

[2:03:05] are just up in arms about it. And their concern,

[2:03:08] what actually is happening. Okay. Thank you, Speaker. Have another

[2:03:15] question here. Um, you did mention about some of Stantex

[2:03:19] reports. And you made the suggestion. And I just briefly

[2:03:23] please, you said that some of them were incomplete. And,

[2:03:28] uh, we have an opportunity to ask the applicant Stan

[2:03:31] Tech later. So briefly please, you know, how are they

[2:03:34] incomplete? One of the things they mentioned is, for example,

[2:03:38] the traffic study. The traffic study used data from July

[2:03:41] 31st of 2023. July 31st happens to be major vacation

[2:03:46] period. The study area for that traffic study was only

[2:03:51] the intersection of Toledo Arundel Hudson. There was no mention

[2:03:55] of further down the line Hudson and Huron Balsamon and

[2:03:58] Huron. That was completely left out. So it's very misleading

[2:04:02] because obviously traffic just doesn't stop at that one intersection.

[2:04:05] It doesn't mention anything about the need for sidewalks. It

[2:04:08] only infers that there's a multi - use path, which

[2:04:12] is what they're referring to was the act of living

[2:04:14] corridor. And the active living corridor, as I've already stated,

[2:04:18] is not year - round infrastructure. It cannot be considered

[2:04:22] usable for pedestrians and cyclists outside of the summer months.

[2:04:27] The flexi bollards that get put up along the, uh,

[2:04:31] Arundolin Hudson were only installed June the 3rd of this

[2:04:34] year. The rest of the time, you're walking at grade

[2:04:38] level with traffic, travelling at 50K an hour or more,

[2:04:42] because there's often speeding. And so it's just not, it,

[2:04:46] the report, like I said, inferred that this was somehow

[2:04:50] a multi - use trail that's available year round. It

[2:04:54] is not. Um, there was concerns about the sewer, the

[2:04:59] capacity, the main sewer capacity that I brought to the

[2:05:01] attention of, uh, the City Planner. He did get back

[2:05:05] to me. Uh, the sewer line at part of a

[2:05:08] rundoll is much smaller than the 300 millimeter sewer pipe

[2:05:12] that's required. We've had issues on the street. You've already

[2:05:15] heard about that. And Stantec is now doing camera work

[2:05:19] along to leado street, which if there isn't any issues,

[2:05:23] according to Stantex report, there's no issues, enough capacity. The

[2:05:27] sewer pipe is the right size. Why then is the

[2:05:30] need to do camera work. Along Toledo at this point

[2:05:33] in the game? All of this should have been done

[2:05:36] ahead of time. And we need to make sure that

[2:05:38] the infrastructure is in place. Because if we have to

[2:05:41] build sidewalks, when I say we, the City, has to

[2:05:44] build sidewalks. Have to replace that sewer. If there's any

[2:05:47] issues, that's going to cost the taxpayer heck of a

[2:05:50] lot of money. Thank you. Councillor China, please. Thank you

[2:05:54] for your presentation tonight. I have said publicly, as we've

[2:05:57] gone through this planning process for this particular property that

[2:06:00] I really feel that it needs to be examined with

[2:06:03] all the pieces that you've spoken about tonight, um, is

[2:06:06] something that I'm going to be working with administration on.

[2:06:09] And hopefully we can bring that, I'm looking at administration.

[2:06:12] Hopefully we can bring that resolution forward at our next

[2:06:14] Council meeting. Um, I mean, this is a great example

[2:06:17] of how some communication pieces could definitely be improved. Um,

[2:06:21] that's what I can see. And my question to you

[2:06:24] would be, and I think it's important to have some

[2:06:25] public input of people who have gone through this process.

[2:06:30] I know I have in my own community, but my

[2:06:32] own area of the city, but would you be interested

[2:06:34] in, um, giving some input to administration and actually dissecting

[2:06:40] the process so we can improve the process. Because I

[2:06:43] think that's, that's necessary. Um, we, we, we did a

[2:06:47] zoning about a month ago and had similar frustrations from

[2:06:52] the community around that area. And I'm hearing the same

[2:06:56] similar frustrations from, from the people in this area. So

[2:06:59] people who know me know I'm processed and policy based.

[2:07:03] And I'd really like to know if you'd be interested

[2:07:05] in supporting that work. Oh, definitely. I'd always would be

[2:07:09] willing to speak with the city and sit down and

[2:07:12] provide some feedback. Thank you. And be part of that

[2:07:15] process. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oops.

[2:07:19] Councillor Egger, well please. Thank you. Thank you through youth

[2:07:23] speaker. Um. Ms. Stanteck? Is it? Santink. Dante, sir. Fan

[2:07:29] pink. Okay, Santique, sorry. Can you, um, you mentioned you

[2:07:33] did urban work in Calgary. Can you expand on your

[2:07:39] professional designations in your history of what you have? Cause

[2:07:43] your report was quite extensive and you had covered a

[2:07:47] lot of different topics that were very prevalent to this,

[2:07:50] um, this lot. Yes. And others. I don't hold myself

[2:07:53] out to be an urban planner. However, in Calgary, they

[2:07:56] have very large community associations with her funded by the

[2:07:59] City. And on those community associations, they have a board

[2:08:02] of directors. I was on the executive for the board,

[2:08:05] well as the planning and development committee. And in that

[2:08:09] capacity, we would actually receive a development applications. And we

[2:08:14] would have an opportunity development applications for our community. And

[2:08:18] we would have the opportunity to actually provide feedback. Look

[2:08:22] at them. Reach out to residents and say, do you

[2:08:26] have any concerns about them, right? So we looked at

[2:08:29] everything from basement apartments, backyard suites to, I even dealt

[2:08:33] with a large shopping mall complex that was being built.

[2:08:39] So I also did a course with the City of

[2:08:42] Calgary on urban planning and development. And I recognise that,

[2:08:46] um, cities have different policies and the regulations provincially as

[2:08:51] well. But I can apply what I learned there. To

[2:08:54] what the city is doing here and the province as

[2:08:57] well. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you.

[2:09:02] Any other questions. Or a good scene none. I ask

[2:09:05] you to retire to the gallery. Thank you for your

[2:09:07] deputation. Next on the list is Ben Date.

[2:09:24] Very good. Thank you. Um, for your participation. Hopefully you've

[2:09:27] heard my message of earlier to please not simply repeat

[2:09:31] information or concerns already said. You have the microphone on

[2:09:34] and you have, would you please introduce yourself? You have

[2:09:36] 10 minutes. Thank you. Good evening. Uh, my name is

[2:09:40] Ben Date and I am a current river resident and

[2:09:43] I would like to thank elected municipal representatives for the

[2:09:46] opportunity for concerned citizens such as myself to voice our

[2:09:50] perspectives regarding the proposed development for 791 Rundel Street. As

[2:09:55] the City is likely now aware the proposed development has

[2:09:57] been met with passionate resistance when with good reason. The

[2:10:01] optic surrounding the project have been misleading and at times

[2:10:04] downright untrue. I would like to address the rhetoric several

[2:10:07] city representatives have been promoting round Thunder Bay's need for

[2:10:10] affordable housing and its relevance to the proposed development at

[2:10:14] 791 Rundle. Affordable housing is needed within this community. There

[2:10:19] are very few people who would dispute this fact. However,

[2:10:22] the city is maintaining a narrative that is a classic

[2:10:25] example of a red herring. The housing crisis and Thunder

[2:10:29] Bay's need to increase housing supply have repeatedly been used

[2:10:32] to justify opening public park lands such as 791 Rundle

[2:10:36] to residential development. The problem is that these are two

[2:10:39] separate questions, whether Thunder Bay needs more housing and whether

[2:10:43] that need requires developing on this particular green space. This

[2:10:46] is a misleading conflation of two very different issues. The

[2:10:50] property of 791 Arundel covers a total of 7. 82

[2:10:53] acres of land. This is by no means the only

[2:10:56] location to build housing. The City's own housing land needs

[2:10:59] study identified capacity for 19, 803 housing units on vacant

[2:11:05] underutilized land already zoned for development. Even under the highest

[2:11:10] growth projected, Thunder Bay only needs 8, 825 additional units

[2:11:14] through 2045. That is a capacity for nearly 11, 000

[2:11:18] more units than the City projected we will need. And

[2:11:21] this is without developing on 791 a rundell. It is

[2:11:26] important to note that 791 Rundle was not factored into

[2:11:29] the study findings. Additionally, the City is currently investing in

[2:11:33] infrastructure at the central avenue Development Lands intended to enable

[2:11:37] approximately 1, 260 housing units. The central avenue Development Lands

[2:11:43] offers a viable space to build and it is geocaries,

[2:11:47] but I like to ask you to stay on topic.

[2:11:49] We're dealing with the Arundel and zoning rezoning over Rundell.

[2:11:53] Thank you. Sure. Uh, the narrative that Thunder Bay can

[2:11:56] either preserve our green space or develop housing is simply

[2:11:59] not true. The concentrated effort to surplus and build specifically

[2:12:03] on 791 a rundell is particularly concerning when coupled with

[2:12:07] the cities portrayal of Public Support. The opportunity site survey

[2:12:12] received merely 142 responses. And of those respondents, 84 supported

[2:12:17] residential development on vaguely defined infil sites with no indication

[2:12:21] that infil could mean Parkland or Greenspace. The city turned

[2:12:25] those 84 responses into a percentage to portray 59 percent

[2:12:30] in support of developing on 791 rundown. However, those 142

[2:12:34] respondents combined represent only 0. 13 percent of Thunderbase population.

[2:12:41] Additionally there were merely 52 comments related specifically to a

[2:12:45] Rundle and only 8 of those comments expressed support for

[2:12:49] increased housing development at that location. Despite this, administration concluded

[2:12:53] there was general public support for developing those sites for

[2:12:56] housing. Eight supportive comments about developing on 791 a rundell

[2:13:01] in a City of 108, 843 people is not general

[2:13:05] public support and support for infill is not consent to

[2:13:09] build on Parkland. This is particularly troubling given that City

[2:13:12] Administration itself identified 791 a rundell as the most politically

[2:13:18] and neighbourhood sensitive of the identified opportunity sites. The City

[2:13:22] knew this parcel of land was contentious. That makes the

[2:13:25] decision to characterize such limited consultation as general public support

[2:13:29] even harder to justify. As a reminder, the proposed development

[2:13:33] is not housing design for people experiencing homelessness or severe

[2:13:36] housing insecurity. Yet the housing and affordability crisis continues to

[2:13:40] be invoked in defence of developing this parkland. That is

[2:13:43] a red herring. Thunder Bay needs all types of housing,

[2:13:47] but that does not establish a need to rezone the

[2:13:50] Arundel Parkland for predominantly market rent development. Virtually everyone I

[2:13:56] have met who has become aware of this proposed development

[2:13:58] is in opposition to it. The mayor and members of

[2:14:01] City Council are elected to represent the people of Thunder

[2:14:04] Bay and our entrusted to safeguard the interests of the

[2:14:07] community they serve. 791 Arunde holds intrinsic value, both in

[2:14:12] terms of natural biodiversity and is a place of natural

[2:14:14] and therapeutic recreation. When I first moved to this city

[2:14:18] several years ago, I was shocked to see the amount

[2:14:20] of visible crime, addiction, homelessness, and dilapidation of infrastructure. The

[2:14:25] silver lining of this community has been access to nature.

[2:14:29] One of the fundamental pillars of the social determinants of

[2:14:31] health, his neighbourhood and physical environment. This includes safe and

[2:14:35] affordable housing, but it also includes access to recreational opportunities

[2:14:39] and green spaces. Green spaces, parks, and walking trails fall

[2:14:43] directly under the physical environment umbrella and are believed to

[2:14:46] have a direct impact on the overall well - being

[2:14:49] of community members. Boulevard Lake and the Connecting a Rundell

[2:14:53] Green Space provides a particularly accessible form of recreation, maintain

[2:14:58] trails and pathways in a natural setting that can be

[2:15:00] used by children, seniors, families, walkers, runners, cyclists, and people

[2:15:04] with varying levels of mobility. It allows people to experience

[2:15:07] nature without requiring them to navigate difficult terrain and that

[2:15:11] accessibility is part of the value it has in this

[2:15:14] community. Access to natural environment also provides opportunities for physical

[2:15:18] activity, social connection, stress reduction, and improve mental well -

[2:15:22] being, all of which contribute to healthier individuals and subsequently

[2:15:26] healthier communities. The 791 A Rundell Parkland is valued by

[2:15:30] many residents of Thunder Bay. As mentioned, Walkers, runners, cyclists,

[2:15:36] people of all ages and mobility abilities are all regulars

[2:15:40] around Boulevard Lake and the connecting trails to the Arundel

[2:15:43] Parkland, paving over this green space to build predominantly market

[2:15:47] rate housing does not benefit anyone other than those seeking

[2:15:50] to make a greater profit margin. In conclusion, the Arundel

[2:15:53] Parkland is not an appropriate location to build. The consistent

[2:15:57] use of Thunder - based housing and affordability crisis to

[2:16:00] justify the development of this green space is not just

[2:16:02] misleading. It is the Red Herring. The existence of a

[2:16:05] housing crisis established the existence of a housing crisis establishes

[2:16:09] the need for housing, but does not establish the necessity

[2:16:13] of building these market rate apartments on the Arundel Greenspace.

[2:16:17] Other locations that would have far less of an impact

[2:16:20] on biodiversity and recreational opportunities have been identified by the

[2:16:24] City and the need for housing remains a compatible goal

[2:16:27] alongside protecting city parks and green spaces. I believe the

[2:16:32] City New Public approval of such a development would be

[2:16:34] incredibly low, hence the misleading public attitude survey. The Red

[2:16:38] Herring being presented in tandem with the concentrated effort to

[2:16:41] specifically build on the Arundel Parkland is alarming and has

[2:16:45] shaken my confidence with elected representatives of the City. I

[2:16:49] have yet to hear a single logical persuasive or reasonable

[2:16:52] argument as for why this development ought to occur specifically

[2:16:56] on the Arundel Parkland. I have only seen rhetoric of

[2:17:01] the housing crisis being used to justify this particular development.

[2:17:06] And there is a lot of concern about green in

[2:17:09] this debate, but I'm not convinced green space is the

[2:17:12] green everyone is thinking about. I would encourage elected representatives

[2:17:16] to listen to what their voters are passionately expressing. My

[2:17:20] vision is simple. Vote no to rezoning the Urandal Parkland

[2:17:24] preserve Thunder Bay's green spaces and build the housing we

[2:17:27] need with the substantial development capacity the City has already

[2:17:31] identified. Everyone can win. Thank you for your time, consideration

[2:17:36] and patience. I appreciate municipal efforts to better this community

[2:17:40] which I call home. If you are still in favor

[2:17:43] of developing 791 a rundell, I would strongly encourage you

[2:17:47] to reconsider or at the very least provide a counter

[2:17:50] argument grounded in facts, reason, and logic, not the misleading

[2:17:54] suggestion that by acknowledging Thunder Bay's need for housing, somehow

[2:17:58] answers the question as to why the Arundel Parkland must

[2:18:01] be developed. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions. See none,

[2:18:08] thank you for your deputation. I'll ask you retire to

[2:18:10] the gallery. Next on the list, and I do apologise.

[2:18:15] Um, it's a difficult handwriting. First name is Malcolm. Last

[2:18:20] name, possibly might be ruggerson. Apologies. Rogerson. Thank you again.

[2:18:30] And I, uh, remind Deputance to hopefully speak to new

[2:18:36] information or concerns. Um, you have the Mike on. Please

[2:18:39] introduce yourself and you have 10 minutes when you start.

[2:18:42] My name is Malcolm Rogerson. Um, previously in a former

[2:18:46] career, I sat on the Planning Board for the Municipality

[2:18:48] of Tanchipa Terris Bay for 10 years. Um, I'm not

[2:18:52] going to repeat any of the Planning stuff that's been

[2:18:54] spoken of, but I will talk about trust. Because the

[2:19:00] Administration, City Council, and the mayor have been entrusted. With

[2:19:05] the management and protection and development of the City of

[2:19:09] Thunder Bay. If you vote for rezoning this Parkland, you're

[2:19:14] in breach of that trust. And I will hold you

[2:19:17] accountable for that breach of that trust. In fact, what

[2:19:20] I would do is, uh, I would bring on a

[2:19:25] Bill of Rights and Charter Challenge legally against you. For

[2:19:29] the following reasons, that breach of trust violates and deprives

[2:19:35] the life, liberty, and security of the person, except in

[2:19:38] accordance with fundamental justice. So thereby you breaching your trust

[2:19:44] to your community, you are depriving your community of that

[2:19:49] life, liberty, and use of that Parkland. So that would

[2:19:53] be the first step. So I'm placing you on notice

[2:19:57] that if you do vote for rezoning this, that, um,

[2:20:03] the sovereign legal fund will partner with the Justice Centre

[2:20:06] of Constitutional Freedoms. And we will present a charter challenge.

[2:20:10] And that's my presentation. We're being very much speaker. Councillor

[2:20:14] Trenny. Uh, we're being threatened. Well, given order. Yeah. Thank

[2:20:19] you. Um, Mr. Rogerson, has finished his deputation. Um, I'll

[2:20:25] leave it at that. Is there any questions that we

[2:20:28] have. Thank you, Mr. Rogerson, for your deputation. I'll ask

[2:20:33] you retire to the gallery. Working down my list, I

[2:20:38] have Norman Sponsha. And again, to the

[2:20:47] deputy, please consider bringing forward new information. Also ask that

[2:20:52] you stay within order and have parliamentary conversations or dialogue,

[2:20:57] please, and thank you. Please grab a seat. You have

[2:21:00] the mic on and introduce yourself. You have 10 minutes.

[2:21:04] Mayor Boschkoff. And esteemed councillors. I have great respect for

[2:21:11] all of you here, and I will not disrespect any

[2:21:14] of you. I believe your vote each one of you

[2:21:17] your votes represent so many people. In Thunder Bay. And

[2:21:21] for that, I respect you even more. You were voted

[2:21:24] in to do the job of the people. Um, I

[2:21:28] just want to say, uh. I just caught, I'm a

[2:21:33] retired businessman at Thunder Bay and I'm a local artist.

[2:21:38] I'm a singer - songwriter and a painter. I just

[2:21:40] got back from the Red Rock Folk Festival. I don't

[2:21:43] want to get off subject, but I would just like

[2:21:45] to say we should be very proud of the artists

[2:21:48] that played there this weekend. They stood up against all

[2:21:52] the national and more professional players toe to toe. And

[2:21:58] it was just so proud to see. I know Ken

[2:22:00] that you, I mean, Mayor, you would appreciate what I'm

[2:22:03] saying. Uh, very much. Um, now Haven said that one

[2:22:10] of the things I do believe is that sometimes as

[2:22:15] I've heard them, uh, the concerns being referred to as

[2:22:21] NIMBY, not in my neighbourhood. Or backyard. But this space

[2:22:29] is definitely a Thunder Bay space. I've lived there now

[2:22:33] for 14 or 15 years. I've seen how much it's

[2:22:36] been used by all this, uh, this community. And, um.

[2:22:44] With that in mind, I believe that this particular place

[2:22:49] with a largest development ever done. I believe that there

[2:22:53] should have been a referendum to the people of Thunder

[2:22:56] Bay to get their view of this historic place relevant

[2:23:01] to this historic development. Um, I'm sorry that that hasn't

[2:23:06] been done. I'm hoping perhaps in some way in the

[2:23:08] future on the subject that it can be done and

[2:23:11] let the people speak, um, it's kind of horrible to

[2:23:15] throw away that kind of legacy. I'm not against

[2:23:25] the development of housing. I have listened to some of

[2:23:30] the councillors and I am 100 percent with you. These

[2:23:37] developments need, we need housing. My question always is what

[2:23:40] these people who have come before me have said so

[2:23:43] eloquently, um, that development of community is in the health

[2:23:49] of a community has. Parameters that are important. Getting rid

[2:23:56] of things that bring health to a community like a

[2:24:00] green space is a big thing to lose. And it's

[2:24:03] a big thing to lose to this whole town. So

[2:24:08] I'm, I'm not here to say that we shouldn't be

[2:24:10] doing development. I think we should be doing as much

[2:24:13] development that is needed. We should be using the grant

[2:24:16] money that has been afforded through our tax dollars for

[2:24:20] the City. And I think what we need is to

[2:24:24] put development where it does the most good. Not where

[2:24:28] it hurts. I see no reason to put it in

[2:24:32] a green space. The second thing I would like to

[2:24:34] say, um, Councillor, you thought that you were being threatened.

[2:24:43] I was going to mention that, um, I've done some

[2:24:46] research about, um, lawyer associations that are, that are specifically,

[2:24:51] um, will do for free fight for, uh, ecosensitive spaces

[2:24:57] that are being, uh, presented with development, um, and I

[2:25:01] believe that, uh, that is the way to go. And,

[2:25:06] uh, I would suggest to the, to use, do the

[2:25:10] developer a favor and not tie them up with litigation.

[2:25:16] Let them build their, their, the developments that we need.

[2:25:20] Why put them in a place where there's a long

[2:25:22] timeline holding up their developments. Um, that's not a threat.

[2:25:27] I'm just saying that that's a, that's a thing that

[2:25:28] I think, um, is inevitable. There's too much. When there's

[2:25:34] 2, 600 and some on people signing a petition in

[2:25:38] less than two weeks, that hour means to me that

[2:25:41] there's many, many, many more. This is an election issue.

[2:25:48] This will be an election issue. We ask you to

[2:25:51] consider that, that the people of, like I say, 2,

[2:25:55] 600 people signing in two and a half weeks, we

[2:25:58] know that there's many, many more. Um, haven't said that.

[2:26:06] The one of the things that I was wondering about

[2:26:09] is. Schools. Has there been no conversation here so far

[2:26:14] about what that will do, uh, for the schools in

[2:26:17] the area. One of the things I do know about,

[2:26:20] uh, the boards of education is one of the biggest

[2:26:24] bills and the toughest things to deal with because they

[2:26:27] have to pay for busing, um, and they have to

[2:26:30] make very difficult decisions to eliminate, um, programs. But because

[2:26:36] of the budget, uh, because of the expense of buzzing,

[2:26:40] I'm concerned about what that will add, um, to that

[2:26:45] budget of busing from this location to the high schools,

[2:26:49] to the Public Schools, to the Catholic schools. So that's

[2:26:54] a concern of mine, whether it's been looked at or

[2:26:56] not. You know, these are things that are going to

[2:26:58] cost us in our education system, perhaps. Um, I just

[2:27:03] haven't heard anybody talk about it. I might, I might

[2:27:05] be wrong about this, but I know that busing is

[2:27:08] a really big budget issue for the boards of education.

[2:27:12] So I'm concerned about that. Um, the other thing that

[2:27:17] I ask you is you've all voted so wonderfully and

[2:27:21] you've done such great work in developing the port Arthur

[2:27:25] downtown. If you don't mind me saying that in the

[2:27:28] South side of Fort William where I grew up, we

[2:27:31] spent so much money in the reincarnation of our gun

[2:27:36] spent so much money on the reincarnation of both those

[2:27:39] downtowns, especially the south side. I'd ask that you remain

[2:27:44] on topic with 791 a rundo, please. Thank you. Um,

[2:27:49] it is. And what I'm saying is that instead of

[2:27:51] on a rundoll, um, sir, thank you that we put

[2:27:55] our, we've already put our money in other areas to

[2:27:58] develop down cores millions of dollars. Let's now support those

[2:28:04] with residential development that will support those downtown cores. Um,

[2:28:10] I feel that that's a very important thing to do

[2:28:12] when we've already spent so much money developing them. Um,

[2:28:16] it will help, you know, very much. Look how much

[2:28:19] it's helped. The Algoma Bay Street area with all the,

[2:28:23] uh, the, the development residential, the Development there. It's a

[2:28:28] perfect example. Uh, other than that.

[2:28:39] I was all due respect my last thing that I

[2:28:42] will say is this is a huge decision. We've all

[2:28:49] indicated, and everyone's indicated how important that space is and

[2:28:53] how big this development is, both of them historical. I

[2:28:59] don't mean to call you lame. Council, but that's what

[2:29:03] they call at this point of the game. And I

[2:29:07] think this is just too big of an issue to

[2:29:08] be. Voted on, actually, at this point of the game.

[2:29:13] When some of you won't be here, um, and I

[2:29:17] ask that it be. I just felt that it would

[2:29:21] be better if we waited to make that decision. But

[2:29:24] if we're not, I with all respect, ask you to

[2:29:29] please consider from your heart, where it's coming from me

[2:29:34] and with no disrespect, I ask you to think about

[2:29:36] this again. Give it a chance in your heart and

[2:29:40] your head what makes sense to you. Um, developing a

[2:29:46] city is not just about building, developing a city is

[2:29:49] about building a healthy city. And, uh, putting things in

[2:29:53] the right place, supporting, uh, downtown cores like we have

[2:29:57] developed. And I will end with that. And I thank

[2:30:00] you so much for the opportunity to speak about this.

[2:30:03] Thank you. Any questions. Councillor Trenny. Thank you through the

[2:30:08] speaker. I thank you for your presentation today. And you

[2:30:12] are right. We're putting a lot of money into our

[2:30:13] downtown cores. One of the properties actually is in the

[2:30:16] downtown core, but that's not the one we're discussing this

[2:30:19] evening. Um, we, you were talking about schools. And I

[2:30:22] think many of us are very familiar with where the

[2:30:24] schools lying within our community, but when we talk about

[2:30:27] the downtown cores, that's where we don't see the schools.

[2:30:30] We don't see the high schools there. And so there'll

[2:30:32] be a busing issue. Did you think about that when

[2:30:34] you were talking about pushing this development into the course.

[2:30:39] Um. That's a really good point. And I stand, let

[2:30:45] me think about that, that makes sense. But may I

[2:30:48] put back to you. One, they're both wrong then, aren't

[2:30:52] they? So what can I say about that? I don't

[2:30:56] want to debate. I went to Lakeview and I lived

[2:30:58] at the top of Curt River. So I managed to

[2:31:00] make it to Lakeview, no problem. And I think this

[2:31:02] is probably close to this. Remember the days when we

[2:31:04] used to walk. Yeah. Yes. And bus. But that's not

[2:31:07] the, that's not the issue now because there are rules

[2:31:09] and regulations about how far a student should be before

[2:31:12] they get on a bus, as you know. Yes. Yes.

[2:31:15] Yeah. But you brought up a good point. Or order,

[2:31:18] please. Councillor Trede? Yeah. The other difficult part of the

[2:31:20] downtown cores is that the developers will want, will need

[2:31:24] to want to build there. So the process that was

[2:31:27] done, um, if I can speak to the process a

[2:31:30] little bit, 10 pieces of property were offered to the

[2:31:34] developers. Um, to ask them where they would want to

[2:31:37] build. So, you know, there has to be an interest.

[2:31:41] There needs to be a size. There's a bunch of

[2:31:42] other pieces that I'll ask. I think it was, uh,

[2:31:45] Ivan who asked that question. I'll ask a little later

[2:31:47] on when we get a chance to ask questions of

[2:31:50] admin. But we need to recognise that. And so that

[2:31:53] was, that's why the approach was changed. The lists were

[2:31:56] thrown out. And administration did that and then came to

[2:31:59] us with the Councillor Chinese. Do you have a question?

[2:32:03] No. So my, my question is the difficulty of building

[2:32:06] in the cores, we can only build with the developers

[2:32:09] are interested in building. That. Well, that's a very, that's

[2:32:13] a Councillor Chatty. Maybe you want to reiterate that question.

[2:32:17] Yeah. I was just argued up to 791 a rundo,

[2:32:19] please. Yeah. Yes. So the developer chose this piece of

[2:32:26] property with all the developers at the table to make

[2:32:28] the choices, which again, administration will get into later. But

[2:32:32] that's part of the reason why this was chosen. The

[2:32:35] downtown South Corps, there was no interest. It will accept

[2:32:38] for one piece of property. So we can only, do

[2:32:42] you understand that developers won't build where they don't want

[2:32:46] to build. I think developers will build where the money

[2:32:51] to be made. And Developers have to build. And I

[2:32:56] think that I'll go 50 - 50. I think the

[2:32:59] City and the people that you represent should be 50

[2:33:03] percent of that decision. And the other part can be

[2:33:06] the developers. But developers will, you know, why give them

[2:33:11] all the cherry places, the concern I have, the police

[2:33:13] cherry places. Is nobody want, everybody will want to live

[2:33:16] in the cherry places, which will push up the prices

[2:33:19] of those and what follows from that. Is those places

[2:33:22] become very expensive and what follows is the rest of

[2:33:25] the market. It's not going to do the opposite where

[2:33:28] it's going to push prices down. What it will do

[2:33:31] is getaways more areas. That's what we'll do in my

[2:33:34] humble opinion. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you

[2:33:37] for that. Thank you. See no other questions. Oscar retired

[2:33:43] to the gallery, please. Next up on the list is

[2:33:47] Dr. Willow. Kerthoy. I apologise if I have that mispronounced.

[2:33:58] I see the mic is on. And again, I ask,

[2:34:01] you bring forward new information or concerns, uh, please introduce

[2:34:05] yourself and you have 10 minutes. Thank you, Speaker. And

[2:34:10] thank you, honourable. Mayor Boschkoff and members. Of Council. For

[2:34:17] this opportunity to speak. My name is Dr. Willow Kerthois.

[2:34:22] I hold a PhD in land conservation with 28 years

[2:34:26] experience as a researcher and faculty member at Lakehead University.

[2:34:32] Previously, I worked for the Municipality of Lethbridge. But more

[2:34:37] importantly, I'm a grandmother of three children and I speak

[2:34:41] on their behalf this evening. I asked my nine -

[2:34:51] year - old. Granddaughter Rose. What message to put on

[2:34:57] the rally sign without any hesitation at all? She said

[2:35:02] nature is our future. Nature is our future. Every single

[2:35:10] land use decision. Shapes the kind of future our children

[2:35:14] and grandchildren will inherit. Every land use decision, even for

[2:35:20] a mere 3. 2 hectar parcel determines whether Thunder Bay

[2:35:25] will achieve its stated vision for environmental stewardship and smart

[2:35:30] growth. Or fails. Peace by peace by peace. Nietzsche is

[2:35:36] either recognised as valuable. Or it's discarded. Growing up in

[2:35:44] a large city. I lived the painful experience of witnessing

[2:35:49] urban nature slowly disappear. The City became ever more noisy

[2:35:55] and polluted place where people were increasingly angry. In my

[2:36:00] experience. And it wasn't a place we wanted to raise

[2:36:03] our children. So we left. And putting nature back is

[2:36:09] expansive. In Europe cities are spending billions upon billions of

[2:36:14] dollars trying to put nature back. Thunder Bay has a

[2:36:20] chance to do it right from the beginning. We're in

[2:36:23] a good position. Page four, the City of Thunder Bay's

[2:36:28] official Plan explicitly commits this administration to maintain a healthy

[2:36:33] ecological relationship between human activity and environmental resources. It states

[2:36:41] that protecting and enhancing the Natural Environment through wise management

[2:36:47] and efficient land use patterns will promote long - term

[2:36:51] sustainability. Converting 791er Rundle into a residential zone, fundamentally goes

[2:36:58] against this guiding principle. True smart growth requires us to

[2:37:03] protect existing natural assets, not dismantle them. Taken away Community

[2:37:11] Green Space and Natural Assets undermines the integrity of the

[2:37:15] very framework. To guide our cities sustainable future. But isn't

[2:37:23] 791, just vacant land. To label this land as vacant

[2:37:29] as vacant is inaccurate. Calling Land Vacant implies its empty

[2:37:34] unused and devoid of value. Looking at aerial photos of

[2:37:39] 791 Arundel, especially the ones take you in the land

[2:37:42] was dormant. I can see why someone might assume the

[2:37:46] land empty. But if you take the time to explore

[2:37:51] 791 Arundel and get off the trails and really look

[2:37:54] around, you find the exact opposite. Far from being empty,

[2:38:00] the area contains a highly functional ecosystem of open meadows

[2:38:04] with hundreds of plant and fungi species. Some of these

[2:38:08] meadows are actively transitioning back to forest with at least

[2:38:12] seven native species of robust young trees. They are deeply

[2:38:17] rooted grasses. Many pollinators buzzing about wildlife species and numerous

[2:38:23] medicine plants. And there is a mature wooded areas which

[2:38:28] offer home to different plants and animals, thereby contributing to

[2:38:32] the overall biodiversity and wildlife viewing opportunities. Winding through all

[2:38:40] of this natural richness is a public trail system which

[2:38:44] receives year - round use on a daily basis. That's

[2:38:48] what you'll see if you take the time to look,

[2:38:51] but the more going on that is invisible. Invisible work

[2:38:54] that is contributing thousands of dollars annually to the city's

[2:39:00] economic vitality. This unseen work is called ecological services. Free

[2:39:07] services providing life supporting benefits to all people and saves

[2:39:12] the city money. For example, the four. Water regulation and

[2:39:17] flood control. It's estimated financial contribution is 2, 500 dollars

[2:39:25] absorb heavy rainfall, lower the urban stormwater infrastructure load and

[2:39:31] prevent downstream property damage costs. Number two, carbons, sequestration, estimated

[2:39:38] value of 700 dollars per hector of meadow per year.

[2:39:43] Meadows capture atmospheric carbon into deep roots, providing climate change,

[2:39:49] resiliency. Number three, pollination in habitat support, economic value approximately

[2:39:57] 1, 200 dollars. Sustained local B and insect populations protecting

[2:40:04] urban biodiversity and supporting food security. Number four, air quality

[2:40:13] and ambient cooling estimated values filter urban particulate matter and

[2:40:23] mitigate the local heat island fact caused by paved services

[2:40:26] and buildings. So the total estimated annual, economic asset value

[2:40:31] for meadows is approximately 5, 300 per hectare. You multiply

[2:40:37] that by 2. 6, just approximate area of the Open

[2:40:41] Meadows at 791 Arundel. And you get an estimated 14,

[2:40:46] 000 dollars in free municipal services every year. And that

[2:40:51] adds up. That's a good investment. If you bring in

[2:40:56] the wooded areas and also consider social benefits, the yearly

[2:41:00] economic contribution would be even higher. And with a devastating

[2:41:06] impacts of climate change, we are experiencing firsthand the economic

[2:41:10] value of natural areas is only going to increase. With

[2:41:18] natural areas are paved over the ecosystem is bankrupted in

[2:41:22] the City eventually absorbs the cost of free ecological services.

[2:41:28] Currently 791 are Rundell provides an important ecological buffer for

[2:41:33] the boulevard Lake Natural Areous Complex. Rezoning this Community Green

[2:41:39] Space means that this larger ecosystem will also be negatively

[2:41:43] affected. Every time an ecosystem is fragmented by roads, parking

[2:41:49] lots, housing, the land community becomes less viable. So essentially

[2:41:55] the smaller and ecological area becomes the less healthy it

[2:41:59] is. Other he had not ecological services relate to mental

[2:42:04] health and well - being. Sir Robert Watson, he's the

[2:42:08] chair of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and

[2:42:14] ecosystem services said. Nature's contribution to people are of critical

[2:42:20] importance. Nature underpins every person's well - being and ambitions.

[2:42:26] From health and happiness to prosperity and security. People need

[2:42:32] to better understand the full value of nature to ensure

[2:42:36] its protection and sustainable use. Strong mental health is another

[2:42:42] asset. Currently a rundo offers a peaceful mixed meadows and

[2:42:50] wooded areas. A place where you can get away from

[2:42:53] the noise of traffic breathing fresh air. Hear the bird

[2:42:58] Sing Watch Butterflies, see wildlife. Enjoy flowers. Have a space

[2:43:02] to reflect. To release stress and recharge. Strong mental health

[2:43:09] also has economic benefits and is essential to building a

[2:43:13] resilient and vibrant Thunder Bay. Apologies, but you have one

[2:43:17] minute remaining. Okay. It's not too late to recognise that

[2:43:23] 791 or Randall Street is neither surplus nor vacant. The

[2:43:29] ecological social and economic value of this land. Which is

[2:43:33] vital, which is a vital functional part of broader boulevard

[2:43:38] Lake Complex is significant. And these values benefit all of

[2:43:41] Thunder Bay now and in the future. And they also

[2:43:44] benefit the more than human wildlife that live there. In

[2:43:50] conclusion, smart growth puts nature first. I'm there for asking

[2:43:55] Council to take the following forward thinking actions tonight. Vote

[2:43:59] no deny the application to amend the official plan and

[2:44:02] zoning by - law for 791 to run the park.

[2:44:06] In the short term maintain this valuable land's designation as

[2:44:09] a community zone to preserve its public use and ecological

[2:44:13] services and even be as bold to consider adding a

[2:44:18] more protective designation in the future. Apologies I'll ask you

[2:44:26] to wrap up please. Thank you. Thank you. For your

[2:44:29] time, your consideration and your service. Thank you. We have

[2:44:34] a question from Mayor Boschkov for you. Thank you very

[2:44:38] much. That was quite fulsome and appreciated. Are you aware

[2:44:44] that Thunderbi out of 5600 municipalities in Canada is in

[2:44:50] the top 10 for percentage of land that are dedicated

[2:44:54] to Parkland and Greenspace? Yes, and that's why I said

[2:44:58] we're ahead of the game. You know, like we have

[2:45:01] a chance to do it right. When you said it,

[2:45:04] I would just pleased that someone that actually acknowledged it.

[2:45:08] So I just wonderful. So you're understanding a Biodiversity and

[2:45:15] with the number and size of the acreages of the

[2:45:19] parks that we have, uh, are you thinking that there

[2:45:24] are still some areas that within the city proper, uh,

[2:45:28] that we still need to protect in view of this

[2:45:32] debate tonight. Well, I looked for a plan on the

[2:45:40] natural areas for the City of Thunder Bay. I couldn't

[2:45:42] find one. Um, you know, showing the designated lands that

[2:45:47] are protected. So that would be helpful. Um, and, you

[2:45:53] know, call me an extremist, but honestly, every natural area

[2:45:57] has these same values and contributes in the same way.

[2:46:01] So that's the third question would be in terms of

[2:46:04] then the conservation authority. And their designations of lands as

[2:46:10] opposed to municipal properties. Mayor Bosch Cabrera, too, uh, snuggle

[2:46:14] this up to 791 Arundle this question? Uh, so what

[2:46:19] I'm trying to figure out what the impact of a

[2:46:24] rundown on the lands that are being protected would have

[2:46:30] because it's such a, actually minute piece of that puzzle.

[2:46:39] Well, it does buffer up against the larger boulevard lake

[2:46:43] complex. And so it's contributing there. And, um, there's numerous

[2:46:47] studies showing even these small areas are making significant contributions.

[2:46:53] Obviously biggers better, but, but they are important. And I,

[2:46:59] there again, there's numerous studies now with cities that just

[2:47:02] have little fragments left here and there and they're fighting

[2:47:05] to save those. I hope I answered your question. Thank

[2:47:10] you. I can't debate you. So I will, uh, I

[2:47:13] thank you for your perspective. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you,

[2:47:16] Mary Boschkoff. Any other questions. I'm seeing none. I'll ask

[2:47:20] you to retire to the gallery. Thank you for your

[2:47:22] deputation. Sorry. Council Hamilton. Oh, apologise Dr. Cortwait. And I

[2:47:29] did not a question for you. I just said one,

[2:47:32] one quick question on, on an element of the proposal.

[2:47:36] And I apologise, Speaker, for coming in late. Um. The

[2:47:39] one main feature of this proposal is the fact that

[2:47:42] it's vertical. Um, and when it comes to urban infil

[2:47:45] and building vertical, you spoke a lot about nature, you

[2:47:48] spoke, you know, I'm sure you understand that in Parkdale

[2:47:50] and Cherry Ridge, like the City is building out, uh,

[2:47:54] forest is being cleared to make room for new subdivisions.

[2:47:57] Uh, this, uh, proposal is at least vertical. It's a

[2:48:01] lot of units in a very short, uh, small amount

[2:48:03] of space. I just want, if you could just give

[2:48:05] a comment on the fact that we're building vertically, dense,

[2:48:09] uh, not out into suburban and taking over more and

[2:48:12] more forest land at the city's perimeter. Yeah, it's definitely

[2:48:16] part of smart growth. Part of me, you know, building

[2:48:19] up, um, but essential fundamental value, our guiding principle is

[2:48:25] smart growth is not taken away existing natural areas. Thank

[2:48:30] you. Very good. Thank you. Next up on the list

[2:48:36] is Dr. Harvey Lemelin. Thank you. As you see, the

[2:48:45] mic is on. Again, I ask of all deputants to

[2:48:49] please bring forward any new information or concerns. Um, please

[2:48:54] introduce yourself and you will have 10 minutes. All right.

[2:48:58] My name is Renal Harvey Lamnae. Bonjour. Hello. Uh, to

[2:49:04] the speaker mayor and Council members. I know some of

[2:49:08] you mentioned Lakehead. I am a Prof and outdoor rec

[2:49:10] parks and tourism. I do feel like I've been teaching

[2:49:12] the seven to 10 class and maybe enthusiasm is a

[2:49:16] bit hard to garner it now. So I'm going to

[2:49:19] try to build on some of the presentation. Mr. Speaker,

[2:49:22] I'm going to apologise in advance. I could say that

[2:49:24] will stole most of my ideas for her speech. But

[2:49:27] I am talking about biodiversity. Let's view it as a

[2:49:30] walk and places that we don't need to spend any

[2:49:32] time on. I'll just move along very quickly. So I

[2:49:35] apologise in advance with that. I'm a researcher with over

[2:49:40] 33 years of experience in Ontario Northern Canada. I have

[2:49:43] published in co - published over 50 peer - reviewed

[2:49:46] journal articles. Many of them pertaining to wildlife management in

[2:49:49] Ontario and throughout Canada. From 20, 10 to 2012, I

[2:49:53] was a member of the Fort Seven First Nations Delegation

[2:49:57] Team for the Interjuris Dictional Engagement Session on the Protection

[2:50:01] and Recovery of Polar Bears and Ontario. In 2022, I

[2:50:05] was invited to grandfather Mountain and North Carolina to help

[2:50:08] develop a management strategies regarding the management of a fly

[2:50:12] - fly sanctuary. Last, I am also a resident of

[2:50:16] current river and an act of cyclists and hiker who

[2:50:19] wreck in the LPH lands Boulevard Lake, the bluffs, centennial

[2:50:22] park and Throwbridge forests. Lately Biodiversity in native plants have

[2:50:29] been on some councillors and on some city employee's mind.

[2:50:34] Highlighting the importance of providing food sources for pollinators, whether

[2:50:38] it is on City Boulevards or through no mozones, these

[2:50:42] messages in an era of habitat fragmentation when global insect

[2:50:48] populations are estimated to have decreased by 70 percent view

[2:50:53] and colleagues in 2026 or when North American bird populations

[2:50:57] are done by 2. 9 billion breeding pairs since the

[2:51:02] 1970s, Rosenberg. So those strategies should be commended. While I've

[2:51:09] noted many of my concerns regarding the proposed 7091, a

[2:51:13] rundo project to the standing committee and separately to individual

[2:51:15] city council members. And I thank those members who took

[2:51:18] the time to write back and address some of my

[2:51:20] concerns. The focus of this deputation is regarding the potential

[2:51:24] in environmental ramifications of the rezoning of this site. As

[2:51:31] researchers like Rey and Kraus observed the decline of wild

[2:51:34] species represents one of the most urgent crisis of our

[2:51:37] time. Strategies at mitigating this loss includes the establishment of

[2:51:43] protected areas, endangered species, legislation, and pledges to protect nature.

[2:51:48] That's why governments at the federal and provincial levels have

[2:51:51] initiated the 30 by 30. So we need to set

[2:51:53] aside 30 percent of protected areas in Canada and in

[2:51:57] the province by the year 2030. Or looking at urban

[2:52:01] national park strategies to slow and hopefully stop this decline.

[2:52:05] And municipal levels cities like Toronto and Hamilton Burlington have

[2:52:09] initiated strategies to aim that protecting biodiversity and or migratory

[2:52:13] species. Another situations, governments have instituted endangered species legislation. Now

[2:52:20] the role of environmental groups with governments like the nature

[2:52:25] conservancy of Canada and these conservation strategies are citizen project

[2:52:32] are key. To biodiversity protection. And as stated earlier, some

[2:52:37] cities like Thunder Bay have declared the support by pledging

[2:52:39] their allegiances to various environmental initiatives, many of them mentioned

[2:52:42] here tonight, and the mayor is Monarch Butterfly pledge. Park

[2:52:48] Green Space's Park lands an essential component of all of

[2:52:52] these strategies. The 791 Rundell Environmental Impact Assessment conducted on

[2:52:58] August 12th, 2024, and again, on July 17, 20, 26,

[2:53:02] mentioned the possible presence of Yellow - Banded Bumblebee and

[2:53:05] the Canadian warbler. To these observations, I would like to

[2:53:08] add that monarch butterflies and Grey Foxes have been observed

[2:53:12] by citizens who frequently use this area. The reason why

[2:53:16] I'm mentioning these species is the yellow - banded bumblebee,

[2:53:19] Canadian warbler, and monarch butterflies are species of special concerns

[2:53:24] in Ontario, while Grey Fox are considered a threatened species

[2:53:28] in Ontario. As stated earlier, advocating for the planting of

[2:53:33] food sources is an important component of biodiversity protection. But

[2:53:38] it's only one component. For along with food sources, wildlife

[2:53:43] requires habitat when we heard that today and shelter. This

[2:53:47] is why the protection of green spaces and Parkland is

[2:53:51] so crucial to biodiversity. Furthermore, far from being anti -

[2:53:56] meadows or anti - spaces devoid of species diversity and

[2:53:59] richness, urban meadows as MADA and colleagues in 2023 and

[2:54:03] 2019 demonstrated our critical habitat in urban spaces. Now the

[2:54:10] term Nimby was addressed, so I won't address it, but

[2:54:13] I would like to address it because there are some

[2:54:15] creatures that don't have a voice in any of these

[2:54:18] sayings. That is the flora and fauna, which is currently

[2:54:21] residing there. So, on their behalf, let's address this Nimid

[2:54:27] Label. Since they don't have a voice, they might have

[2:54:31] been given the opportunity state the following. No development in

[2:54:34] my habitat. Canadian and Thunder Bay residents often assert that

[2:54:41] nature is an essential component of our identity. And we

[2:54:45] take great prides in believing that we have really, really

[2:54:47] enormous amounts of it. Now beside some of the challenges

[2:54:54] associated to considering what our protected areas in the city

[2:54:59] and throughout the province and throughout the country, the notion

[2:55:03] that we have numerous green spaces and that these green

[2:55:07] spaces will not be really impacted by developers landscape promises.

[2:55:13] Nor impacted by other regulatory changes or other natural impacts

[2:55:17] currently affecting the planet. Think of the forest fires this

[2:55:19] summer. Is sadly outdated. And as the caller and as

[2:55:26] the scholar and activists, Empire Ham highlighted, misguided for, and

[2:55:30] I'm paraphrasing him here. A country, a province, a city

[2:55:35] that believe and promotes nature but does not feel powerful

[2:55:39] enough to protect it from corporations and other interests will

[2:55:43] not make the necessary sacrifices the political choices or the

[2:55:49] cultural investments that this land needs. Furthermore, the decisions taken

[2:55:57] by Council when not only transform natural habitat and further

[2:56:01] fragment this habitat, but may, and I stress me, enforce

[2:56:06] a growing, parlessness that many Canadians and young residents of

[2:56:11] Thunder, young and old of Thunder Bay Field when it

[2:56:14] comes to political action. I urge you on behalf of

[2:56:18] all residents. Human or otherwise, to not rezone 791 Arrendel.

[2:56:25] Thank you, Nasi. Thank you. Uh, any questions from Council.

[2:56:33] Mayor Boschkov, please. On 791 Arundel, thank you. Yes on

[2:56:36] 791, I appreciate your presentation very much. The City by

[2:56:45] decision about three years ago, uh, decided that what we

[2:56:50] had to do to sustain ourselves as a community and

[2:56:55] understanding our large territorial area of the community. And the

[2:57:01] large rural component of it, uh, that we needed more

[2:57:04] population to provide a tax base, considering how expansive the

[2:57:10] municipality is and our road network. So with that came.

[2:57:17] A housing push to accommodate people in proper housing and

[2:57:22] do it. So, uh. There are limits to growth understanding

[2:57:27] that. So what are municipalities to do such as ours,

[2:57:32] uh, in terms of our sustainable approach to both growing

[2:57:38] and developing proper jobs and revenue. Okay, I don't want

[2:57:48] to get in the debate here, but there are some

[2:57:50] researchers saying we need to examine this concept of growth

[2:57:53] and everlasting growth and sustainability. So perhaps that would be

[2:57:56] one of the things that we start examining from that

[2:57:59] perspective. I understand that people need housing. And I am

[2:58:04] not against it. But I think that some of the

[2:58:07] previous presentation that spoken more eloquently and more insightfully on

[2:58:11] how we can address this. Again, I'm presenting you with

[2:58:15] a perspective that no one else has talked about. And

[2:58:17] I do believe that they deserve a voice. It's a

[2:58:19] real shame in democracies that creatures that inhabit these areas

[2:58:25] have no voice. That is my perspective. I know I'm

[2:58:28] not answering your question. Maybe I'll make a good politician

[2:58:31] one day, but I'm sticking with what I want to

[2:58:33] present. And who I'm defending. I appreciate that. Thank you.

[2:58:37] Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Agwell, please. Thank you very

[2:58:43] much, Professor, for Deputation. Just a question for you. You're

[2:58:50] mentioning the Biodiversity and the Protection of some of these

[2:58:54] species that are near extinction. Or can you go further

[2:58:58] into that and explain that. On this land here, um,

[2:59:03] cause I heard the Grey Fox now. What does it

[2:59:06] mean to us. As a community or as a country

[2:59:10] about the Grey Fox or the yellow banded bubble year,

[2:59:17] the wobbler? Canadian Marble. Um, if you could, uh, explain

[2:59:22] that a little bit better to me to understand what

[2:59:25] you're meant there. Okay. Thank you for that opportunity. Um,

[2:59:28] Species richness is a key component of biodiversity. I didn't

[2:59:31] go into the technical definition. I would have needed two

[2:59:34] hours, not 10 minutes to do that. So it is

[2:59:37] a key component of to try and protect all of

[2:59:40] these animals are again, addressing the previous question within a

[2:59:44] sustainable fashion. Uh, I'm just pointing out some of the

[2:59:47] animals that were listed in the environmental impact assessment. And

[2:59:51] the reason why they're protected is there may not be

[2:59:53] enough habitat for them or breeding pairs. Further studies would

[2:59:57] have to be done. That's one of the reasons why

[2:59:58] they are monarch butterflies, one of the most important thing

[3:00:01] is not only protecting their habitat here, but protecting their

[3:00:04] migratory roots back to Mexico. And when they come back

[3:00:07] in the spring. So that is one of the key

[3:00:10] components I believe warblers. Yes. Warblers are also migratory. So

[3:00:13] it's very important to recognise that it's not only local

[3:00:16] habitats, but transnational habitats because they go through the U.

[3:00:19] S. and Mexico. Okay. So, um, through you, the speaker,

[3:00:26] are you saying that they're on the verge of potential

[3:00:28] extinction or reduction of their numbers have been reduced? How

[3:00:34] is the impact? Councillor Eggwell. If you could please, uh,

[3:00:38] rezoning or planning of 791 Arundo, please. Yeah. It's to

[3:00:41] deal with the environmental on 791 because the doctor has

[3:00:45] brought that forward as a species. If you could, please.

[3:00:47] Thank you. Speaker, do you want me, can I address

[3:00:52] Denlor? Well, I don't think we had a question. Well,

[3:00:55] the question is, how is that impacting on this piece

[3:00:58] of land with the Environmental He's mentioned the Environmental Studies

[3:01:02] are incomplete. And that biodiversity is essential for these pieces

[3:01:07] on this particular piece of land is where they've seen

[3:01:09] them. Right? I don't know what a wobbler looks like.

[3:01:13] I don't know all these things, but these are things

[3:01:15] that have been impacting that's possible parcel, and that's where

[3:01:18] I'd like to know what the long - term effect,

[3:01:22] if any. Okay, thank you for that question. I didn't

[3:01:24] say the Environmental Impact Assessment was in complete. What it

[3:01:28] did note is yellow bent Bobo B, Canadian warblers and

[3:01:31] Monarch Butterflies, all species of special concern in Ontario, which

[3:01:35] are listed under our endangered species actors, also the species

[3:01:39] at risk act in Canada, which will cover monarch butterflies.

[3:01:44] So in other situations, I know, and I can't, this

[3:01:47] is not my area of expertise. I know that studies

[3:01:50] have been stopped and developments have been stopped when these

[3:01:52] species have been found on these areas, or in similar

[3:01:56] areas, but I'm usually talking about forestry projects and different

[3:02:00] type of projects. Precautionary principle here is always the best

[3:02:03] thing to do. But. Okay, thank you very much. Thank

[3:02:09] you. Seeing no other questions. Alassy retired to the gallery.

[3:02:13] Thank you for your deputation. Next up on our list,

[3:02:16] we have Felipe Hamel. Again, apologies if I pronounce that

[3:02:20] incorrectly. As you can see, the mic is on. Again,

[3:02:29] as you've heard from previous Deputate, new information or concerns,

[3:02:36] please introduce yourself, and you'll have 10 minutes when you

[3:02:39] begin. Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mayer, considers. Yes,

[3:02:45] opponents, your pronunciation was correct, Mr. Speaker. My name is

[3:02:48] Philip Amel. I reside on Fabric Crescent. I've been Tony

[3:02:54] B. C. Citizen and resident for 30 plus years. And

[3:02:59] I'm here as a private resident. About the concern about

[3:03:04] 791 Arendel Development, and especially the long - term effects

[3:03:08] of rezoning that parcel there. So understood that.

[3:03:19] Community meeting explanations for the proponent to give explanations to

[3:03:25] the Community on July 22nd, and that some of the

[3:03:30] comments from the Community were taken into account, amongst others

[3:03:33] like bringing the parking on the knee to the building,

[3:03:35] which is a good thing, avoiding a development that would

[3:03:39] be a patch of asphalt with the smallish building in

[3:03:41] the middle. And two, that there was some affordable housing

[3:03:45] in the project. It's also a good thing. I'm wondering

[3:03:50] how good it will be with the Affordable Housing in

[3:03:53] the middle of food desert. My biggest concern was, however,

[3:03:58] about the traffic. Miss Tent already mentioned the shortcomings of

[3:04:02] the Traffic Study, only at one point. I won't go

[3:04:06] long. I want to go back there. However, there was

[3:04:09] a comment on July 22nd that was, oh yeah, we

[3:04:12] might have two straightened up lion boulevard. And that raise

[3:04:18] a huge concern in the person that grew up in

[3:04:21] Quebec City, basically me. And Ms. Councillor Atreini mentioned that

[3:04:27] comment again tonight. Like there was in Quebec City. I'll

[3:04:32] take the example to see the consequence I'm talking long

[3:04:35] - term consequence of the rezoning of 791 ARNDL. And

[3:04:41] the impact of the online boulevard. The NK - BX

[3:04:45] City was a little boulevard along the river that they

[3:04:50] decided to strain it up. To East Traffic, exactly the

[3:04:54] same words that we heard tonight. And at the meaning

[3:04:57] on July 22nd. Street Enemy means also widening and ended

[3:05:01] up doing a thoroughfare similar to Water Street on the

[3:05:05] shores of the St. Lawrence. That dedicated that Torah Fair

[3:05:09] to only one thing automobile traffic. So with that concern

[3:05:15] of straining line boulevard, Toro family, but not to do

[3:05:19] many truth of Water Street, but that would be coming

[3:05:22] a thoroughfare. We be dedicated solely to automobil traffic. And

[3:05:27] the park that we know as like the boulevard Lake

[3:05:32] Park with cease to exist, basically. So in Quebec City,

[3:05:36] the admitted the mistake, and 30 - 40 years down

[3:05:39] the road, the corrected it by bringing back the curves

[3:05:43] that eliminated, and the interruptions that were there by adding

[3:05:47] up street lights and pedestrian crossings to give access to

[3:05:51] the park that was there or the communal line that

[3:05:53] was there in our park. Along the shore of the

[3:05:57] river. So, and needless to say that was an extremely

[3:06:00] expensive proposal to correct the mistake that was done like

[3:06:05] 50 years ago. So to avoid that mistake, my recommendation

[3:06:11] would be to avoid a large development in the Parkland

[3:06:18] that's there, and no, that's not an infill. That's building

[3:06:21] on Parkland. So to be clear on that too. And

[3:06:25] finally, okay, what do they do in Quebec City that

[3:06:28] we could do here to alleviate the housing issues that

[3:06:32] we have? Well, they're building brown field, like very desirable,

[3:06:37] but of course the ways available brownfield, or like kind

[3:06:43] of an industrial area that we could be convert to

[3:06:47] housing. Well, the identified mall there. And in concert between

[3:06:56] the city, that kind of brokered the deal and facilitated

[3:07:01] the deal. The existing owner of the shopping mall, the

[3:07:06] existing shopping mall tenants, and an external contractor, they're redeveloping

[3:07:11] the whole area to build multiplex housing multiplex with many

[3:07:19] units between luxury condos to affordable housings and some office

[3:07:26] space. And a lot of the things in that area.

[3:07:30] And I'm sure that we have internally here some shopping

[3:07:35] malls that could be that are basically building in a

[3:07:39] major patch of asphalt that could be redeveloped in the

[3:07:41] same way. So again, to reiterate, to avoid casually mentioned

[3:07:51] streetening of the Lion Boulevard is 791 Arundele, the first

[3:07:56] domino of a lot of other developments that will happen

[3:08:00] and force those streetening of Laien Boulevard and sacrifice Boulevardley.

[3:08:07] My recommendation to this Council is to vote against the

[3:08:12] rezoning of 791 Arendelle. Thank you. Thank you. Looking for

[3:08:18] questions from Council. I'm Sing None. Thank you for your

[3:08:22] deputation. Please retire to the gallery. Next on our list

[3:08:25] is Paul Paulrini.

[3:08:40] Thank you. And the Mike is on, as you see,

[3:08:42] and I'll reiterate my ask that you please present new

[3:08:44] information or concerns. Uh, and that you introduce yourself. You

[3:08:48] have 10 minutes when you start. My name is Paul

[3:08:52] Paul Lee. And I'm here this evening to make a

[3:08:55] deputation on the housing project for 791 Rundell Street. Um,

[3:09:01] and the last one, I guess, tonight. And so I

[3:09:03] don't want to be repetitive. I will try to respect

[3:09:06] your guideline on that. If you could please approach the

[3:09:10] mic a little bit more. Thank you. Yes. Uh, and

[3:09:13] I just want to mention quickly that I've got, I

[3:09:17] spent a better part of my adult life and working

[3:09:20] in the field of community development, travelling all over Northwestern

[3:09:24] Ontario working on nonprofit organisations, uh, trying to encourage their

[3:09:28] participation in the decision - making process of government at

[3:09:31] all levels, and also their interaction with institutions. Lake Municipal

[3:09:36] Governments. So, uh, I have some experience in this area,

[3:09:41] and I'm particularly familiar with Public Consultation Process. They fascinate

[3:09:46] me and how they work and whether or not they

[3:09:49] work properly. And so, uh, that's my background. I want

[3:09:53] to mention that I'm here to speak only to give

[3:09:58] my own opinion at this point in time. But I

[3:10:01] do belong to the group of individuals that have been

[3:10:05] making presentations tonight. The Green Space Preservation Thunder B. Green's

[3:10:11] preservation. I'm going to say that I have two parts

[3:10:14] to my presentation, Deputation. And, uh, quite a few of

[3:10:20] the pieces in the first part of it, already been

[3:10:23] spoken to, but I want to just touch on them

[3:10:25] quickly. There's some value in the bit of repetition. And,

[3:10:29] uh, so, uh, one of the first things I want

[3:10:32] to mention is the size of the project. When people

[3:10:35] incurriver first saw the pictures of these buildings, they were

[3:10:38] horrified. That's the work. They said the C can't possibly

[3:10:42] be serious. About putting these huge apartment buildings in our

[3:10:46] neighbourhood park. So the size of this thing is one

[3:10:50] issue for sure. And, uh, and also it does, doesn't,

[3:10:56] it's not consistent with the City's official plan. And I

[3:10:58] think one of my other colleagues have spoken to that

[3:11:00] tonight. The traffic issue is the second issue. And the

[3:11:04] people have spoken to that as well. But the one

[3:11:06] point that hasn't been mentioned here is the Rundell Street

[3:11:09] is the secondary Street. It's two lanes, not four. Hotter

[3:11:13] is a primary lane. And, uh, the other thing that

[3:11:17] has been mentioned is that the room to expand a

[3:11:20] Rundell Street from the bridge down to the corner, we're

[3:11:25] hotteres. And so it'll always be a secondary street because

[3:11:29] there's no room to expand it. And we can have

[3:11:32] all the parking, we can have all the traffic studies

[3:11:34] in the world. It's not going to fix that. That's

[3:11:37] what we got. And there's a lot of traffic on

[3:11:39] a rundo already at this point in time. We're talking

[3:11:42] about adding at least a thousand more vehicles to that.

[3:11:45] So there's not that you don't have to be a

[3:11:47] rocket scientist to know that that's going to create problems

[3:11:50] in our, in our neighbourhood. There is going to be

[3:11:53] a traffic problem there. And it's not going to be

[3:11:55] fixed with its study. My third point is the acting

[3:12:00] living court or in the current river ward. If this

[3:12:04] project goes ahead, the active living corridor, it's going to

[3:12:09] spell the end of that corridor. People are not going

[3:12:11] to be able to use that acting living corridor anymore

[3:12:15] because there's going to be so much traffic there. It's

[3:12:18] not safe. That's why we already have bullards there, uh,

[3:12:22] in that area. That's a recognition that the problem. And

[3:12:26] also people have been complaining for some time about, uh,

[3:12:29] speeding drivers. People don't respect the speed limit there. That's

[3:12:34] why we have those signs up. Shows you how fast

[3:12:36] you're going. The destruction of trees and wildlife on this

[3:12:42] property is a particular concern to me. And I want

[3:12:46] to mention the fact that this park is not just,

[3:12:48] it's not the same as other parks in the city.

[3:12:52] Parks that have been engineered and they've been engineered by

[3:12:55] human hands. They've been engineered by our parks division. This

[3:13:00] is actually natural forest. This is typical of the Northern

[3:13:05] boreal forest of Canada. And, uh, it's, and it's, but

[3:13:09] it's biodiverse. It's got all kinds of biodiversity to it.

[3:13:13] Uh, the destruction of that forest would get rid of

[3:13:16] that by a diversity. It's lost forever. It's gone. We

[3:13:19] can't. We'll never recover that. And I don't want to,

[3:13:24] uh, I don't want to understand the value of our

[3:13:28] urban force. I think everybody around this table understands that

[3:13:31] in terms of climate, moderation and what have you. So

[3:13:34] I don't want to continue to speak on that. It's

[3:13:36] going to lead to hotter summers if all of our

[3:13:39] parks are in green spaces are taken up. The climate

[3:13:43] is going to, it's just going to get hotter. And

[3:13:45] it's already hot enough at this point in time for

[3:13:48] seniors in particular. Um, I still have some questions about

[3:13:52] whether the black cash trees on that property. I know

[3:13:54] the city has made a commission to report. Internally and

[3:13:59] they paid for that report. But I'm not sure that

[3:14:03] that report is completely reliable. The issue of stormwater, the

[3:14:09] removal of all the trees on that property, the water

[3:14:11] table is going to drop. There's no question about that.

[3:14:14] The soil is not going to be able to retain

[3:14:15] the water any longer. And I think one of the

[3:14:18] councillors around this table did say at one time that

[3:14:20] it's impossible for us to out engineer tree. Okay. And

[3:14:25] we agree. Any stormwater management plan that the city is

[3:14:28] going to prepare is no match for trees. It's simply

[3:14:32] no match for trees. Trees are the trees of the

[3:14:35] answer. The grey fox family, I won't go back into

[3:14:39] that too much except to say that the legislation covering

[3:14:42] it. Okay. So if the habit titled that great Fox

[3:14:46] family is destroyed by the City or the developer is

[3:14:49] a criminal offence. There's a law. In place. Historic trail

[3:14:55] network. The trails in that area Boulevard Lake. We're not

[3:15:00] talking about two decades, but they've been there since early

[3:15:03] 1920s. Over a hundred years a century. Those trails have

[3:15:08] been there. And. We don't really want those trails altered

[3:15:14] in any way. We don't want them moved. They're there.

[3:15:18] They've been there forever. So they should stay the way

[3:15:20] they are. Walkable neighbourhoods. I think we should be looking

[3:15:25] at creating walkable neighbourhoods and started a car dependent ones.

[3:15:29] Somebody's already made that point. And I don't want to

[3:15:31] be labour of that. The parking issue will remain. I

[3:15:36] don't think there's going to be enough parking spaces in

[3:15:39] those buildings under those buildings. Uh, to be able to

[3:15:42] combinate everybody. We have to remember here that the average

[3:15:45] family in this city doesn't have just one vehicle. They

[3:15:49] have two. And sometimes if children are living with their

[3:15:52] parents, there's four. So my question is where's the overflow

[3:15:56] going to go? Where are the, where's the overflow from

[3:15:58] that going to go? Uh, is there any plan for

[3:16:01] that? I don't see a plan for that at all.

[3:16:03] I think parking is going to be serious issue there.

[3:16:05] Water pressure. There's no question at all that water pressure

[3:16:10] is going to be a problem. There's going to be

[3:16:11] huge impact on water pressure in that neighbourhood. You can't

[3:16:14] add 360 units of housing to the existing system and

[3:16:18] not expect it. It's not going to have any impact.

[3:16:21] So we are concerned about water pressure. And we're also

[3:16:24] concerned about water pressure and the fire hydrants. Fire hydrogens

[3:16:29] have to have enough water pressure to protect our homes

[3:16:32] and our properties and our lives. It's not difficult. So

[3:16:36] that's an issue. The existing infrastructure in that area is

[3:16:40] completely outdated. And totally inadequate to handle a project of

[3:16:45] this size. Some of the sewer means in that area,

[3:16:48] I suspect are as small as four inches. I went

[3:16:52] through this process one time before. We found it in

[3:16:55] Current River that there are some means there that are

[3:16:57] four inches. And the standard now is eight. So that

[3:17:02] doesn't meet, you know, we have to be conscious of

[3:17:04] that. Also the question of the bedrock, some discussion about

[3:17:08] the, uh, blasting operations. That may take place there. I'm

[3:17:13] pretty sure the bedrock there. Because you can see bedrock

[3:17:15] everywhere around there. The DOS and apartments building that, Sarah,

[3:17:19] the property that's across the road that belongs to the

[3:17:22] City that's been for sale forever. Nobody wants it because

[3:17:25] you can't do anything with it. It's all bedrock. Um,

[3:17:30] the Study of Thunder B, I think we've mentioned that

[3:17:33] the City of Thunder Bay spent 30 million dollars on

[3:17:36] updating infrastructure downtown course. That's where this project belongs. We

[3:17:42] should not be spending another 30 million dollars. Fixing the

[3:17:46] infrastructure in our neighbourhood to accommodate this project. That's ridiculous.

[3:17:51] There's a limit to taxpayers'money. We need to be conscious

[3:17:55] of that. Short - sighted planning. I think the planning.

[3:18:01] The city's planning on this is a really short -

[3:18:03] sighted. I spent a lot of time working with indigenous

[3:18:07] organisations all over Northwest Ontario. You have less than a

[3:18:11] minute remaining. Okay. How much? Well, 45 seconds. Okay. Um,

[3:18:18] I think the indigenous organisations, when they plan their projects,

[3:18:22] they plan them with seven generations in mind. I'm going

[3:18:25] to ask this council to think about the children of

[3:18:28] the future. Okay. This issue, this is not just a

[3:18:32] decision for today or the current generation. It's for the

[3:18:34] future. Building and design illustration, I want to go to

[3:18:39] that. Affordable housing. I just want to mention quickly here

[3:18:41] that this is not about affordable housing. We're not talking

[3:18:45] these buildings. They're not going to add our address. So

[3:18:48] issue affordable housing. It's got nothing to do with affordable

[3:18:50] housing at all. Uh, high density housing projects. It seems

[3:18:58] to me like the city is entirely focused on high

[3:19:00] density housing project. We have no problem with that. I'd

[3:19:04] ask the wrap up, please. Um. The housing study 2024,

[3:19:13] we said, uh, I think somebody's mentioned that already. And

[3:19:16] the targets. I don't think we need to develop. 791

[3:19:20] or Street. We don't need to doubt it. We don't

[3:19:24] need to develop that to meet our housing targets. We

[3:19:27] can meet them with all the other projects that are

[3:19:29] already in the two. Last, I want to mention the

[3:19:32] fact that there's really the lack of public support for

[3:19:36] this project. I think we've seen that there's been a

[3:19:39] lot of pushback on this project. 2, 2, 624, uh,

[3:19:44] 2, 624 sages. That tells us the lot of pushback.

[3:19:48] I'm going to respectfully suggest that there's no public support

[3:19:53] whatsoever for this. For this particular project, in this particular

[3:19:57] location. Thank you. Um, seeing if the questions from Council.

[3:20:08] No, just one for me. Mr. Polarina, your name did

[3:20:11] look familiar. Do I have it correct that you've provided

[3:20:14] a few written responses to council over the last couple

[3:20:18] of months? And we received one today too. Is that

[3:20:20] correct? Yes. That's correct. And I want to thank Council.

[3:20:25] I have had an opportunity to have my sea. I've

[3:20:28] been involved in this thing all along. I have nothing

[3:20:31] personal against anybody here. Not at all. Yeah. I wanted

[3:20:35] to, um, according to the rules, I get my point

[3:20:38] across with a question. And so I would just say

[3:20:40] in future, you should add your email address and your

[3:20:43] phone number so that we can get back to you.

[3:20:45] I don't have any online presence. Well, then there you

[3:20:48] go. Oh, sorry. Mary Boschkoff has a question. Yes. Uh,

[3:20:53] Mr. Polderene, uh, your points from a planning standpoint. Are

[3:20:59] appreciated notwithstanding that. Do you think there will still be

[3:21:05] demand for people who want to live in the plan

[3:21:10] facility. In this particular facility. I think

[3:21:21] that's not the, I don't, Remite, that's not the issue.

[3:21:24] Cause this project could be built somewhere else. Okay. It

[3:21:26] doesn't have to be in a Rundall Street. We have

[3:21:28] lots of land. And if this building, we're built, for

[3:21:31] example, in the central avenue development area people, would probably

[3:21:41] want to live in those apartment buildings if they can

[3:21:44] afford it. All right. Well, I appreciate. I was, I

[3:21:49] was just, you made some accurate points in terms of

[3:21:52] walkability and stuff. So I was, uh, I was concerned

[3:21:55] about. Thank you. Thank you for your deputation. I'll ask

[3:21:59] you to retire to the gallery. And next up on

[3:22:04] our list is Ernie Catanen. I apologise. If I have

[3:22:09] that incorrect, these pronounced. Ernie Catanen. Welcome. I see the

[3:22:19] mic is on. Again, I'll reiterate if you could please

[3:22:21] bring forward any new information or new concerns that hasn't

[3:22:25] previously been said already. Please introduce yourself and you have

[3:22:30] 10 minutes. Thank you very much. My name is Ernie

[3:22:36] Katainen. I am a lifetime resident of the City of

[3:22:42] Thunder Bay. I grew up for the most part. After

[3:22:48] the age of two in the current river area. It's

[3:22:53] beautiful and wonderful area. And it is with Boulevard Lake

[3:23:00] there and everything. It's a real gym for the city.

[3:23:05] And I think, and of course, this is my, just

[3:23:09] my own opinion, but I think that building anything on

[3:23:13] that green space is not going to. Increase the value

[3:23:17] of this gym. Quite the opposite is going to degrade

[3:23:21] it. This whole, uh, area is a wonderful and beautiful

[3:23:27] area. And we should do everything we can to preserve

[3:23:31] it. But what I was going to say is the

[3:23:34] world in general is in a really difficult situation right

[3:23:37] now because we have a lot of serious problems. We

[3:23:40] got forests are burning. We got floods. We got hurricanes

[3:23:43] that are super hurricanes. And everything gets tied in, even

[3:23:48] a little city like this on the worldwide scope of

[3:23:51] things. Is we must do our thing to be able

[3:23:56] to preserve nature and have, have, uh, a world for

[3:24:01] our children, our grandchildren to live in. People have spoken

[3:24:07] about, uh, ecosystem and everything else like this. I don't

[3:24:13] know if a few people are aware of this, but

[3:24:16] every minute, every minute of every day, the worldwide, we

[3:24:21] are losing. A football fields worth of space. Because it's

[3:24:27] been cut down for various reasons. Mr. Katana, could you

[3:24:31] back up from the mic just a little bit. Thank

[3:24:34] you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, we're losing a lot of

[3:24:38] space because of development or so - called development. They

[3:24:44] estimate that we are losing every year 20, 000 different

[3:24:50] species every year. And I implore to you people. I

[3:24:57] implore Boschkoff and City Council. Please, please do the right

[3:25:03] thing. Do not start chopping down forests. If there are

[3:25:08] other places we can build these facilities, we must by

[3:25:12] all means go and build them in other places because

[3:25:15] we do not know what's going to happen. If we,

[3:25:18] if we start building that, whether other areas of that

[3:25:22] whole area will be developed or so - called developed.

[3:25:29] And the City, I think, will remain richer to have

[3:25:32] more green space. Than, uh, than if we start chopping

[3:25:36] it down. It's, it's just not right. If the other

[3:25:38] places to build it by all means, we should be

[3:25:40] building it in those other places. And, uh, I think

[3:25:45] that it's the best thing that we can do is

[3:25:47] to preserve these green spaces. They are, they are wonderful,

[3:25:51] beautiful spaces. And that's what makes the City a beautiful

[3:25:55] place. And I think we should, by, by all means

[3:26:01] not. Degrade the City by taking away our green spaces.

[3:26:09] And we don't know what's that's going to mean for

[3:26:11] the rest of that area around Boulevard Lake to have

[3:26:14] this development done, you know. Virtually everybody I've spoken to

[3:26:20] is against this. Just as they were against this development

[3:26:24] over at, uh, at the waterfront with those buildings, the

[3:26:28] people who live around there. Right now I'll tell you

[3:26:31] right now that's going to, in my opinion, that's going

[3:26:34] to degrade the value of your property. So I would

[3:26:38] urge you please to let the people decide, let the

[3:26:43] parks are for all the people. They're not just for

[3:26:45] the city council. They're not for developers or anybody else.

[3:26:49] They belong to the city. And one, one city council

[3:26:54] should not have the ability to make decisions that's going

[3:26:58] to affect negatively the future of the City of Thunder

[3:27:02] Bay. So I think that we should strive

[3:27:13] to let the people decide either by plebiscite or just.

[3:27:19] Delay this board right now. So that it becomes an

[3:27:24] electoral issue. And I'm saying this not for myself. I'm

[3:27:30] saying this for you. I'm saying this for the City,

[3:27:36] the citizens of the City and Thunder Bay. I'm saying

[3:27:38] this for your children. I'm saying this for your grandchildren.

[3:27:43] Please do not do this because I think the City

[3:27:47] will remain much more valuable, much more desirable. If we

[3:27:54] keep our green space, it's just, it's just not right

[3:27:59] in my opinion. So that's about all I have to

[3:28:01] say. And I know everybody's probably getting very anxious to

[3:28:05] get going. And we've got to continue on. So I

[3:28:08] thank you very much for allowing me to just say

[3:28:10] the few words that really concern me. And, uh, I

[3:28:15] wish you people all well. And I certainly hope that

[3:28:18] you make the right decision. Thank you very much. Thank

[3:28:21] you. Um, looking around for questions from council. Mayor Boschkoff,

[3:28:27] please. Thank you. Is it Mr. Kiten? Kitainen. Ketinen. Yes.

[3:28:35] Uh, is your prime issue one of the height or

[3:28:42] the number of units or the livability or just that

[3:28:48] are just plain against it. So I'll give you that

[3:28:52] range of. Well, I'm definitely against it. As far as

[3:28:56] the height, I think that's the people there should decide

[3:29:01] whether it should be built there, you know, but, but

[3:29:04] it's a, it's an issue for all the people up

[3:29:06] there. Because, uh, like I just live on Ogden Street

[3:29:13] down there. I spend a lot of time walking down

[3:29:15] back lanes and stuff like that. And they're in just

[3:29:18] terrible condition. There's dirt and there's garbage and there's plants

[3:29:22] growing up. There's potholes there. And they're just not well

[3:29:25] taken care of. I think the city should would be

[3:29:28] much better off to take care of what we have.

[3:29:32] And develop. In areas where we could build high rises.

[3:29:38] I'm not against high rises. We could develop. And but

[3:29:41] I don't think that we should be cutting down green

[3:29:44] spaces. I think it's just wrong. I appreciate your passion.

[3:29:48] Thank you. Seeing no other questions. Thank you for your

[3:29:53] deputation. I'll ask you retire to the gallery. Thank you.

[3:29:56] And thank you. Thank you for listening to me ladies

[3:29:59] and gentlemen. Next on our list, I only have first

[3:30:05] name Stephanie. Thank you. The mic is still on. Again,

[3:30:12] I'll reiterate my ask that you bring forward new information

[3:30:15] or new concerns. Please introduce yourself and you have 10

[3:30:18] minutes when you're ready. Good evening everybody. My name is

[3:30:22] Stephanie Denelgo. I am born and raised in Thunder Bay.

[3:30:28] I'm 50 years old now. I have chosen that I

[3:30:32] want to live in this city. I've never moved out

[3:30:34] of the city. And the reason why I have stayed

[3:30:37] here, the only reason why I've stayed here is because

[3:30:40] of the green spaces that we have and all the

[3:30:43] beautiful places that surround the city. So I am a

[3:30:50] nature girl. I go hiking almost every single day. I

[3:30:55] will drive hours to get to a hiking place. And

[3:30:59] what I can tell you is that area 791 a

[3:31:04] rundow. I have, I think the only place I've ever

[3:31:08] come across something so beautiful like that, that was so

[3:31:12] biodiverse was in Poland when I was in an area

[3:31:16] that had never been, you know, clear cut, had never

[3:31:20] been developed. And you can see the natural beauty. And

[3:31:23] people have spoken about the biodiversity of that area. And

[3:31:29] we like was so important. Like I know a lot

[3:31:33] of people don't go hiking. A lot of people don't

[3:31:35] go walking. They stay within the city. But sorry, let

[3:31:40] me get my train of thought back. A lot of

[3:31:46] the other places that we can go to and go

[3:31:49] for hikes and walks, those places that have been clear

[3:31:53] cut, even if it was a hundred years ago, it

[3:31:56] does not offer a biodiversity with several different ecosystems in

[3:32:02] the way that 791 or Rundell does. And I'll tell

[3:32:06] you that when I was at the Council meeting, that

[3:32:09] was that current river. I don't know, maybe it was

[3:32:11] a year ago. And it was standing room only. And

[3:32:18] everyone there except for one person was against. Building there.

[3:32:25] I am not opposed to building. There are a lot

[3:32:29] of places that we can build, but we really need

[3:32:32] to protect these areas. Because if, if we don't protect

[3:32:37] them, like we are here speaking, but you all are

[3:32:43] representing us. So when we look at the developer and

[3:32:49] Councillor Attrini had told us that the developer wants that

[3:32:53] area. So if we move forward with this, that quite

[3:33:00] literally sets a black and white line of a precedent.

[3:33:06] That developers have a say now. Because you can't go

[3:33:10] back. Once we do something like that, we get rid

[3:33:13] of this area that's very old. The paths are over

[3:33:16] a hundred years old. We can't go back with that.

[3:33:22] You know, and just using an analogy, like so the

[3:33:24] developer wants that land. They say we want this and

[3:33:27] look at how far we've come because a developer wants

[3:33:30] this land. So using an analogy, when our teenagers say

[3:33:35] that they want this or that, do we give them

[3:33:38] everything they want? No. We don't. We use our intelligence.

[3:33:44] When we make those kind of decisions. So the representative

[3:33:49] for Terahlox, he was asked a question. And that was

[3:33:53] about blasting the Canadian shield. So. I have a little

[3:34:00] bit of experience with that. What I can say, I

[3:34:03] grew up in the Stanley Park. Area. On Morgan Avenue.

[3:34:09] So for those that don't know where Stanley Park is.

[3:34:12] So that's a cross from the Thunder Bay Mall. So

[3:34:14] that would be right across from O'Vaudi. It's a very

[3:34:16] old neighbourhood. So living on Morgan Avenue, we had Landale

[3:34:21] right across the street. And then later Landyal moved. So

[3:34:24] they cut off Morgan Avenue. They moved Landale. Tim Hortons.

[3:34:31] So I can tell you that they didn't do any

[3:34:33] blasting over there. However, just developing over there, it went

[3:34:38] three blocks back. So Morgan Avenue, Willroy Avenue, Sifton Avenue.

[3:34:42] There were cracks in foundations. When they redid the road,

[3:34:49] the same thing happened. There were cracks in foundations. You

[3:34:54] know, so no one can say that blasting through the

[3:34:58] Canadian shield is not going to cause massive, massive problems.

[3:35:04] And why this is not coming forward to be discussed

[3:35:08] or addressed literally ball goals my mind. Um, so I'm

[3:35:17] just going to read a quote. It's only two sentences.

[3:35:22] So look, okay. So there is no question that residents

[3:35:26] care deeply about their parks and open spaces. This is

[3:35:30] also true of city council and city administration who notably

[3:35:34] are your neighbours too. Brian Hamilton wrote that. So he

[3:35:38] publicly posted that on his personal page. So he wrote

[3:35:44] that on behalf of all of you. So if that

[3:35:48] is really true, then that means that you stand with

[3:35:54] the people. Who. Must change that

[3:36:04] decision and choose to build elsewhere because the other places.

[3:36:08] I watched documentaries from the United States where they have

[3:36:13] cities like Memphis, Tennessee that is so, so sad to

[3:36:17] see how far down they've gone. But developers that really

[3:36:21] care about people, they care about the culture. They have

[3:36:24] come forward and started building and all these areas that

[3:36:29] were derelict. And now it's, it's beautiful. You know, like

[3:36:35] that exists. Like what I asked city council. Just to

[3:36:40] explore if we know that there's certain cities in Canada

[3:36:45] or in the United States that are successful with building

[3:36:48] and redeveloping areas that are just so dilapidated. Why are

[3:36:55] we not exploring those options. You know, and just to

[3:37:01] speak about mental health for a minute. So we can

[3:37:04] all agree. Mental health now as opposed to 20 years

[3:37:08] ago where when I was young, it's a massive thing.

[3:37:11] Lots of people have to take off time from work

[3:37:13] for, for mental health. We all experience it. Stress, anxiety.

[3:37:18] So when this came forward to build there, thousands and

[3:37:22] thousands of people are experiencing some sort of mental health

[3:37:28] over this. I am. I don't live in current river.

[3:37:33] So no one can say I'm a nimby. I live

[3:37:36] in the end, but that area is precious to me.

[3:37:39] And I can tell you that I've walked there thousands

[3:37:42] and thousands of times on my own with my children,

[3:37:46] with my dogs. So I'm almost done here.

[3:37:57] Nature is our future. And without nature, there is no

[3:38:02] life and quite literally there is no future. I ask

[3:38:09] that your decision regarding 791 a rundole is a true

[3:38:13] representation of what your constituents hold dear two our hearts.

[3:38:20] Thank you. Thank you. Looking for questions from Council, Mary

[3:38:28] Boschko, please. Thank you very much for your presentation. Uh,

[3:38:37] as someone who. Understands the hiking association and the walkability

[3:38:42] of the city, uh, over the past number of years,

[3:38:46] uh, our administration and all sorts of groups wrote the

[3:38:50] community have done enormous amount of work in terms of

[3:38:53] developing trails and booklets to make sure people, uh, knew

[3:38:59] what the new walking paths are and all those kinds

[3:39:01] of things. So why wouldn't I'm trying to figure out

[3:39:09] how this development of people who want to live near

[3:39:13] Boulevard Lake, uh, who want to walk there, uh, how,

[3:39:19] how you would, why would that be perceived as a

[3:39:22] detriment? Because to me, it would be an ideal place

[3:39:26] in which to live. Well, you're forgetting the fact that

[3:39:32] we would be getting rid of an area. That is

[3:39:37] naturally biodiverse. So you're not talking about building in a

[3:39:43] place that you don't have to get rid of all

[3:39:46] these animals. Like we've discussed the birds we've discussed the

[3:39:51] Grey Fox. Like I live 20 minutes away from there.

[3:39:55] So 20 minutes there, 20 minutes back. Most people have

[3:39:57] a vehicle nowadays, if not, you can write a bike,

[3:39:59] you can walk. You can take a bus. If anyone

[3:40:01] wants to go for hikes in current river, like me,

[3:40:05] there's a means to do that. You don't have to

[3:40:07] live there. Okay. I'll ask my question about what the

[3:40:12] footprint of this building will be. So that's something that

[3:40:16] you don't have to answer. So thank you. But we'll

[3:40:19] get it answered before the night is done. Thank you.

[3:40:22] Councillor Attorney. Thank you through the speaker. Um, so in

[3:40:26] the design, the trail's not going away. And I appreciate

[3:40:29] all the trails there. I live there for a period

[3:40:31] of time. Um, but we were talking about, I was

[3:40:34] going to, I thought the mayor was going to go

[3:40:35] there with his question. Um, but you were really focused

[3:40:38] on the trail piece. And I wasn't sure if you

[3:40:40] were aware that the trail is not going away. The

[3:40:43] trails will still all be there. The act of corridor

[3:40:45] will be there and the trail is just going to

[3:40:47] be rerouted. But all the trails are still going to

[3:40:49] exist. Nothing's leaving. It's not just about the trails again.

[3:40:55] It's about the biodiversity of the area and the animals

[3:40:57] and the birds and the insects that live in those

[3:41:00] ecosystems. Thank you. Very good seeing no other questions. Thank

[3:41:06] you for your deputation. Lastly, retire to the gallery. Thank

[3:41:10] you. Next up on the list is Dear Jaspane.

[3:41:22] Good to see you again. Um, again, I'll reiterate that,

[3:41:25] uh, we're asked to speak to new information or concerns.

[3:41:29] Please introduce yourself and you'll have 10 minutes when you're

[3:41:32] ready. Okay. Good evening Mayor and Councillors. And thank you

[3:41:37] for your patience. I'm being pretty patient too. One of

[3:41:41] the later speakers. And, uh, the associated or affiliated with

[3:41:47] any of the groups. I'm here as a person who

[3:41:50] cares deeply about the city's decisions and how they see

[3:41:54] the future of Thunder Bay. I'm a taxpayer. I moved

[3:41:59] to Thunder Bay 50 years ago. I lived in Windsor,

[3:42:03] London and Ancaster. All beautiful places. And Thunder Bay had

[3:42:08] the best and most beautiful parks. And I'm not talking

[3:42:13] about the Lakehead Conservation areas where you have to pay

[3:42:17] or you have to have a car to transport yourself

[3:42:20] there. I'm talking about in the City, you could walk,

[3:42:25] take a city bus, and they were all connected. Everything

[3:42:28] from Trowbridge, Centennial Park, the behind the houses on Toledo

[3:42:36] Street where there's now a beautiful meadow that if you

[3:42:39] have never walked it in the fall when it turns

[3:42:42] golden, you're missing out on something really beautiful. And it

[3:42:46] connects, as you follow the trails along, it connects to

[3:42:50] Boulevard and you can go all around there. And that's

[3:42:53] a precious, beautiful area. By building a huge high -

[3:42:58] rise apartment. And by the way, the ones that the

[3:43:01] waterfront, they're seven stories high. Okay. But by, by, um,

[3:43:09] going ahead with this proposal that you have the responsibility

[3:43:14] to vote on is something that I think diminishes and

[3:43:19] destroys the very essence of what makes Thunder Bay a

[3:43:24] tourist destination. And I say that because I've brought people,

[3:43:29] um, friends and family, my uncle lived in Louisiana. He

[3:43:33] came and he was 85 years old. He walked all

[3:43:38] through the trails. He walked for an hour all by

[3:43:41] himself. It was like a spiritual meditation for him. And

[3:43:45] he said, wow, you're so lucky. And you can just

[3:43:49] walk here. And you don't even have to pay. And

[3:43:54] that's something that's really important for people to understand is

[3:43:57] the paying part. Now the other thing that I wanted

[3:44:00] to mention is I think, um, with all sincere humility,

[3:44:08] I would say the people on Council, 360 units. That's

[3:44:15] at least 360 cars or trucks. Now, have you ever

[3:44:20] been by Oliver Road and looked at the parking lot

[3:44:24] for the hospital. They're supposed to be putting some of

[3:44:29] these underground, it says. That's a huge amount of traffic.

[3:44:34] Have you ever ridden your bike along the bike trails?

[3:44:37] I don't mean the bike trail around boulevard. I mean

[3:44:40] the one that the city established and put money into

[3:44:43] with all these other groups to have the bike trails

[3:44:45] go across the City from the other end of town

[3:44:48] all the way across the city. I mean, you're looking

[3:44:54] at something on, on that street with the traffic pattern

[3:44:57] that's going to create a real, a real danger. And,

[3:45:03] um, when they talk about the area of a rendel

[3:45:06] street that accesses according to the map, the planning map

[3:45:10] on a flat surface, it looks pretty, doesn't it? Well,

[3:45:13] I would challenge anyone who hasn't actually walked around and

[3:45:17] looked, a rendell Street is a raise Street. It's raised

[3:45:22] because there's a deraneage of water. And the streams under

[3:45:25] there that go all the way down to Boulevard. Okay.

[3:45:29] So the road is up high and there's huge ditches

[3:45:33] on either side. There's huge cypress trees along that absorb

[3:45:39] the water for most of the water along there. But

[3:45:43] are they considering that? Um, so there's drainage, high ditches.

[3:45:47] And the services. So this is another example as I

[3:45:51] see it. Where the taxpayers are paying rather than the

[3:45:59] city working out with developers and saying, Hey, developers, what

[3:46:03] can you do for the City of Thunder Bay within

[3:46:07] our plan, our beautiful plan. The no services. Who's going

[3:46:14] to pay for all the sewers? Who's going to pay

[3:46:18] for all the traffic modifications? And, um, with all due

[3:46:24] respect, uh, Ms. Attraney, but when you said the trails

[3:46:28] aren't going to be changed, maybe you haven't been on

[3:46:30] the trails in a while. It's called, um, The Health

[3:46:35] Corridor, the integrated health corridor. And they have all the

[3:46:38] trails that have been paved. And then they have some

[3:46:41] that are the dirt trails that people use as well.

[3:46:43] They all connect in. There is no way that you

[3:46:46] can have, um, a health corridor for people safely when

[3:46:51] you've got to cut through the back. I saw that

[3:46:53] plan. Like you're going to pave a new trail to

[3:46:57] a rendel. Like have you been to that corner? Tibete

[3:47:00] Transit makes the turn at the corner. Then they had

[3:47:03] to put in the electric flashing light crossing for the

[3:47:07] seniors and the other apartment there. And I'm telling you,

[3:47:12] if you go there and walk, nobody walks that way.

[3:47:15] They all try to go through the city, uh, pathways.

[3:47:20] They cut through the, um, this property at 971 Rundell

[3:47:25] Street. They cut through there to get into Boulevard or

[3:47:28] to get a so they don't have to walk in

[3:47:31] a rental. It's, it's not an easy thing. And saying

[3:47:34] you're going to put in a sidewalk. My God, you

[3:47:36] know how much money that's going to cost. They couldn't

[3:47:38] even put the sidewalk all the way up to Lito

[3:47:40] Street. So I have a lot of concerns about this.

[3:47:45] I also think of tourists. I mean, when people come

[3:47:48] to Thunder Bay, they like the nature. They like going

[3:47:50] to the park. They say, Oh, them arenas. You say,

[3:47:54] Oh, well, let's go to the sleeping giant. That smiles

[3:47:57] away. That's a provincial park. It got to pay money.

[3:47:59] Okay. Let's go to Cabecca. Oh, you got to have

[3:48:02] a car. You got to pay my need to go

[3:48:04] there. You've got now the waterfront, whether or not you

[3:48:07] like the condos there, whatever, but you've got, um, an

[3:48:11] area for people to congregate. You've got boulevard Lake Park

[3:48:16] all connected in. It's all a huge, big, beautiful area.

[3:48:20] And it should be promoted. There's so many wonderful things

[3:48:25] that when Mr. Amale talked about things people can do.

[3:48:28] Like, you know, like, um, the imagination and creativity. And

[3:48:34] the lots of money in Thunder Bay too. And, um,

[3:48:37] I'll just, uh, I don't have it, but I know

[3:48:40] some people do. I was a little worried when I

[3:48:43] heard someone talk about realigning a road around lying boulevard.

[3:48:47] Are you kidding me? The speed limits, uh, let's see

[3:48:50] 30 kilometers an hour. It's a park road. It's a

[3:48:53] park. All right. A parks for people. It's for relaxing.

[3:48:58] It's for having, um, like when they talked about mental

[3:49:02] health things and how, you know, for stress and any

[3:49:05] kind of, uh, you know, have people with addictions and

[3:49:08] all the rest of it. And they say, take a

[3:49:09] walk in nature. Forest bathe. Right. Well, that's what we

[3:49:15] have now. Why don't we promote that. Why don't we

[3:49:19] take the beautiful meadow area and make it even more

[3:49:23] beautiful. As part of that. There's lots of places to

[3:49:27] build apartments. And I got to tell you, people want

[3:49:30] houses. The people, those, those apartments, I looked at them

[3:49:34] and they're going to look like those terror looks or

[3:49:36] whatever they are on golfings rode their cross from near

[3:49:42] the, before you get to the hospital. They put a

[3:49:44] traffic light in there. And I bet you it wasn't

[3:49:46] the developer who paid for that traffic light is the

[3:49:49] taxpayer. And some other ideas for the City of Thunder

[3:49:53] Bay, like you keep it moving the city farther out

[3:49:56] and wanting people to have busts, the sidewalks, but they

[3:49:58] don't want the developer to pay for it. So that

[3:50:02] was just an aside on that. Sorry. I'll stick to

[3:50:04] the topic. Okay. So, um, that's how I see it.

[3:50:12] I echo everyone who spoke. I thought everyone was awesome.

[3:50:18] I echo all their comments and sentiments and all their

[3:50:22] professionalism and expertise. And I would say to people here,

[3:50:27] I hope that you understand that people have taken a

[3:50:31] lot of their time and effort just to make it

[3:50:33] here. I feel this is really rushed. I didn't even,

[3:50:37] when I first heard about this, I thought, Oh, something,

[3:50:40] you know, whatever. And it seems to be really pushing,

[3:50:41] pushing, rushing on it. You do not have to make

[3:50:45] decision. Here's my one minute remaining. Okay. I'm not against

[3:50:49] change housing development. I'm about the future of our children,

[3:50:53] community, the City, the Quality of Life. It's about a

[3:50:57] vision. Okay. Make it a haven for wellness. It's about

[3:51:02] preservation of a precious resource. And I will say, please

[3:51:08] consider thoughtfully and carefully your vote. I really appreciate your

[3:51:11] patience and tolerance for listening to everyone. And I would

[3:51:15] also like to leave with a Joni Mitchell quote. Pave

[3:51:18] paradise. You don't know what you got. Pave paradise and

[3:51:22] put up a parking lot. Only this time it's for

[3:51:25] multiple apartments. So I hope it's not. Thank you very

[3:51:28] much. Thank you. Any questions from Council. Sing none. Thank

[3:51:36] you for your deputation. Uh, ask the retire to the

[3:51:39] gallery. Next on the list is Zach White.

[3:51:50] You see the mic is on. So again, I'll reiterate

[3:51:53] the ask that you please don't repeat said information or

[3:51:57] concerns. Please do introduce yourself and you'll have 10 minutes

[3:52:01] when you begin. Sounds great. Uh, my name is Zach

[3:52:04] White and I live on the corner of Toledo in

[3:52:06] a Rundell. It's been a long night. I appreciate everyone's

[3:52:08] patience after nearly 20 people. There's not much new information

[3:52:12] to say. So I'll be keeping it pretty brief. Um,

[3:52:16] I did do a deputation back in December when this

[3:52:18] first came out. And I wanted to briefly commend the

[3:52:21] planning administration on some of the changes that were made

[3:52:23] from the initial proposal. Um, moving the 11 metre buffer

[3:52:27] is very nice and addresses some of the encroachments on

[3:52:29] the property owners along Toledo. The setback of the building

[3:52:32] 44 metres from the property line is nice, good distance.

[3:52:37] The orientation of the buildings with the majority of the

[3:52:39] building being on the East part of Property Line away

[3:52:42] from to the Residence to leado residents is nice. And,

[3:52:45] uh, the end face of the building closest to the

[3:52:48] residents on the latest rendering doesn't have any balconies unlimited

[3:52:51] windows. So the real efforts to accommodate the comments that

[3:52:54] have been made so far. And I want to recognise

[3:52:56] those and appreciate those from, from everything that's been done.

[3:52:59] Um, in terms of the remaining concerns that I have,

[3:53:03] much have already been touched on, uh, the traffic study,

[3:53:06] again, the corner of Hudson and Huron and Hurrion and

[3:53:09] Balsam. That's where all that traffic goes. The traffic study

[3:53:12] focused on Toledo and Rundle intersection. Not many cars turned

[3:53:16] there. Most are going to that four - way stop.

[3:53:18] So I'd want to see some more investigation there, which

[3:53:21] might happen through site plant control later. Um, the keeping

[3:53:26] the character of the neighbourhood, the Stantec rationale memo mentioned

[3:53:30] that it would be about three stories taller than the

[3:53:33] apartment buildings across the street. So that's, I would think

[3:53:37] of keeping in line with the neighbouring properties would keep

[3:53:41] it similar height, not three stories taller. So maybe a

[3:53:43] little bit lower would be good. Um, the blasting has

[3:53:46] been brought up, obviously being on Toledo concerned about any

[3:53:50] potential damage to the basement there. Um, and that's basically

[3:53:54] at everything else has been covered. I've closely followed the

[3:53:57] progression of the proposal. I've read every documentation from Stantech

[3:54:01] and others. And the question here is not about if

[3:54:03] something can be built on this site or if it

[3:54:06] can be engineered on this site. The question is if

[3:54:09] it should be built on this particular site. So that's

[3:54:14] it. Keep it brief. Everyone else has been mentioned. Thank

[3:54:17] you. Any questions. Well please. Hi. Uh, thank you speaker.

[3:54:24] So what you are looking at, if I can survive,

[3:54:27] you would like it tweet three stories similar to, uh,

[3:54:32] Toledo 500 Toledo. Or sorry, that's four stories. Yeah. Across

[3:54:37] the street, Department of Building Lacrosse the Street. One of

[3:54:39] the goals was to keep it in line with the

[3:54:41] existing neighbourhood. This would be three stories taller first antext

[3:54:45] report. Than Department Building across the street. So smaller would

[3:54:48] be good. Ideally there'd be nothing but if there is

[3:54:51] something that would be improved as well. Okay. Thank you.

[3:54:58] Thank you. See new other questions. Ask your retired to

[3:55:01] the gallery. Uh, next on the list is Helen Leba.

[3:55:10] Looking for Helen Leba. One more time for Helen Leba.

[3:55:20] Next on the list is Maria. I apologise. Casasola. Maria

[3:55:29] Casasola. One more time for Maria Casasola. No. And that

[3:55:37] completes our list, correct? Yeah. Right. So now I'll go

[3:55:41] to the second call for speakers on 791 a rundown.

[3:55:49] Come forward, please. Thank you. Uh, I see the mic

[3:55:59] is on. Please introduce yourself and you'll have 10 minutes.

[3:56:03] All right. I'll be very fast. Um, my name is

[3:56:06] Andre Gagne. And, um. So Coran River has roughly a

[3:56:14] 900 people per square kilometer. According to statistic Canada, uh,

[3:56:20] and for comparison, Northwood has 2, 000 people per square

[3:56:23] kilometer. The city's densification strategy is in part intended to

[3:56:28] address our infrastructure deficit. Like our severe infrastructure deficit. Given

[3:56:33] that disparity and density, I find it incredibly frustrating that

[3:56:37] an area of the City with considerably more green space

[3:56:39] would be unwilling to contribute some of that land toward

[3:56:42] responsibly addressing a problem that affects the entire city. In

[3:56:46] my view, Council needs to support this agenda item and

[3:56:49] the next one together or oppose them both. Anything else

[3:56:52] is not equitable. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions.

[3:57:03] Mayor Boschkop, please. You've made a pretty dramatic statement in

[3:57:12] terms of, uh, understanding, um. That, uh, more people in

[3:57:20] the building doesn't necessarily create a population explosion. So, uh.

[3:57:30] The people seem to be more concerned with the height

[3:57:33] and perhaps the traffic. And what it might do to

[3:57:36] the view scape. So how would you answer those people.

[3:57:41] Well. I mean, the trade - off to all decisions

[3:57:45] that you have to make, um, there's been a pretty

[3:57:47] big effort by this council. To really, um, geared towards

[3:57:53] growth. And, um, and address the infrastructure deficit. So.

[3:58:02] Like, there are people, like the people in this room

[3:58:05] are going to be the most affected by this decision.

[3:58:07] And it's a difficult thing. But, um, but like consider

[3:58:13] who loses when we don't address our infrastructure needs. I

[3:58:15] mean, the places that are the most dense are almost

[3:58:17] lifting up, um. Other areas, like some areas, I don't

[3:58:23] know if I'm answering your question. Is that, uh, does

[3:58:28] that answer your question at all? Well, I think that

[3:58:31] the concern of the neighbourhood is the carrying capacity of

[3:58:34] a, of another structure, but it seemed the mathematics of

[3:58:38] the acreage means that it probably could. So my question

[3:58:43] to you is it seems that you're leaning towards that

[3:58:46] way. I don't know. Well, I think it's my, my

[3:58:51] support would be conditional. I mean, there's another item. I

[3:58:55] don't know what the rules are of talking about. But

[3:58:58] they're all kind of, I can't. Yeah. So I'm not,

[3:59:01] I'm not trying to, but I see them as part

[3:59:04] of the same plan right there on the same night.

[3:59:08] And, um. It just doesn't seem fair. When there's such

[3:59:13] a disparity in density and density will resolve or will

[3:59:18] help improve our infrastructure deficit because the more concentration of,

[3:59:24] uh, taxable area, the more, the better economics for servicing

[3:59:31] the area. Right. Cause if you have more people concentrating

[3:59:33] in a smaller area. So, um, so there's winners and

[3:59:36] losers with all decisions. Um, and you want to make

[3:59:39] the best. I'd see the best and highest utility decision

[3:59:43] is to, is densification. And this has been the direction

[3:59:47] of council. But I, and I appreciate everything that everyone

[3:59:51] here has said. And I know the costs and they're

[3:59:52] the ones who are carrying it. Um, and it's, um,

[3:59:56] but it's a tough. It's always, it's just tough no

[3:59:59] matter which way you go, but I think the, um,

[4:00:02] the densification is a sound strategy. To really improve our

[4:00:09] infrastructure situation. Um, that's just what I believe. No, thank

[4:00:15] you very much for that. Thank you. See no other

[4:00:21] questions. Lastly, we retired to the gallery. I'll continue with

[4:00:23] my second call for speakers. Sing nobody, I will go

[4:00:33] to my third and final call for speakers. Third and

[4:00:39] final call for speakers. They're in fond call for a

[4:00:43] speaker. Um, David Kirk Walters. So next on this topic

[4:00:49] is essentially asking questions of administration or the applicant, correct?

[4:00:54] Okay. Uh, I'm getting the nod that we'll have questions

[4:00:58] first for the applicant. So if we could have the

[4:01:01] applicant, uh, make their way to the desk. And we'll

[4:01:06] open it up for, uh, questions. We have one round.

[4:01:11] Three questions or five minutes on this. If there are

[4:01:13] any questions for the applicant and administration. Mayor Boschkov.

[4:01:24] You've heard that the vast majority of the citizens making

[4:01:33] comments feel that this is an overdevelopment in its proximity

[4:01:41] to the lake itself. So you probably, it's a three

[4:01:45] part question in terms of capacity of the building. Um,

[4:01:51] impact on the lake. And is there any possibility in

[4:01:55] terms of either height or size of the building. So

[4:02:00] all three questions in one. Thanks. Okay. How take a

[4:02:04] stab at that. So in regards to, you know, the

[4:02:09] size and scale of it is a too big for

[4:02:11] the, for the property, I would argue that it's, it's

[4:02:14] not too big for the property. There's no site specific

[4:02:17] amendments being requested as part of the rezoning. So basically

[4:02:22] the UM Zone, we don't have to change anything. So

[4:02:25] it size appropriately for it. We've, in our presentation earlier,

[4:02:29] we actually showed that it was, we're, we're underutilizing this

[4:02:34] space. Whereas 489 or so units could be comfortably put

[4:02:40] on this lot. We're down to 360. Um, the comment

[4:02:46] about, uh. How we would impact the lake. I mean,

[4:02:50] I think we're pretty far from the lake. Not sure

[4:02:55] how we would do that. But I mean, if it's,

[4:02:57] if it's a stormwater piece, like we will be managing

[4:02:59] the stormwater appropriately on site. And then I think your

[4:03:04] third question is to, to the ability to lower the

[4:03:08] number of units. Um, I think that's really a question

[4:03:12] of economics. I mean, we need the units to pay

[4:03:15] for the buildings and less unit means the rents go

[4:03:18] up. Um, if we're truly trying to find the balance

[4:03:22] of market and somewhat affordable units, more units means we

[4:03:29] can, we can lower the price. I'll just ask you

[4:03:32] to just explain the fact that you have addressed the

[4:03:36] things within the planning act and the cities requirements, but

[4:03:40] you still, you're not exceeding any capacity or unit according

[4:03:46] to the city's bylaws. So I just had to make

[4:03:49] that understand that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hamilton,

[4:03:55] please. Thank you, Speaker. Um, I only have just a

[4:04:00] couple of quick questions. The last speaker, one of the

[4:04:03] last speakers, um, was talking about peripheral traffics studies. And

[4:04:07] I use that area a lot. Um, I tend to

[4:04:10] agree that probably the little catch halls, like the four

[4:04:13] way stop at the, at Balsam. And I'm just wondering

[4:04:16] if traffic studies would, uh, consider contemplate some of the

[4:04:21] traffic congestion that might happen there. Sometimes, sometimes a day

[4:04:23] it's quite congested. So just, just maybe in a little

[4:04:26] note on maybe some of the areas of study that

[4:04:29] would have been outside of the direct area. I think

[4:04:32] might be helpful for me. Yeah. I'm going to see

[4:04:34] if, um, Arash is still online. There he is. He

[4:04:38] could probably answer that question about peripheral traffic studies. Thank

[4:04:41] you. Sure. Uh, the simple answer is yes, we can.

[4:04:47] But again, the TIS TIS guidelines, they have a specific

[4:04:50] rule. Usually you're looking at the intersections that the percentage

[4:04:57] of traffic, new traffic that comes to that is above

[4:05:00] a certain percentage. And I have to say, uh, for

[4:05:04] this development, the maximum directional traffic that was expected, that

[4:05:10] was estimated was less than 120 threat vehicles per hour.

[4:05:15] So again, based on that, the intersection was selected. And

[4:05:19] if there is any specific intersection that expected to be

[4:05:24] impacted by the development, this is something that we and

[4:05:27] City and CT traffic team can agree. And again, I

[4:05:30] don't want to commit to anything. This is something that

[4:05:34] has to come from the City and has to be,

[4:05:37] I agree with the developers. So it's not my role

[4:05:40] to commit to that. But in general, yes, we can

[4:05:44] look at appropriate concerns about traffic and traffic that will

[4:05:50] be impacted by the new development. So usually if there

[4:05:53] is an intersection that has some issues and the traffic

[4:05:57] of the new development is not expected to be, uh,

[4:06:01] considerable on that intersection, again, the way it has to

[4:06:04] be a status is different from a scope of Ethereus

[4:06:07] on a new development, but again, this is something that

[4:06:10] can be IP. It can be discussed with the CT

[4:06:13] and with the developer. And we can for sure looking

[4:06:15] into that. Okay. No, that's fair. And thank you, Speaker.

[4:06:19] And, and maybe that is a little bit more of

[4:06:21] a question for our city staff. Appreciate that. Um, just

[4:06:24] my, my only other question though, is based on some

[4:06:26] of the comments that we heard from one, uh, another

[4:06:29] member of your team about, um, we're only required to

[4:06:35] do 20 percent minimum, but we're 50 just around the

[4:06:37] green and the integration. A lot of obviously commentary about

[4:06:41] green, the importance of actually, um, you know, nature. And

[4:06:45] I really saw this proposal when it was first presented

[4:06:48] as a real integrated kind of sensitivity to that desire

[4:06:52] to have that integration. When you're doing other projects, I

[4:06:55] don't want to imagine this is your only project or

[4:06:57] file you're working on. What is the general expectation? Is

[4:07:00] this project more or less? Is this a real integrated

[4:07:03] community project? I see a lot of sensitivity actually. To

[4:07:07] what the community, the community desires. And the consultation. I

[4:07:10] attended most of them, uh, from what I remember. And

[4:07:13] I'm just wondering overall, uh, how does this compare maybe

[4:07:17] to other developments you've worked on. Um, yeah. I would

[4:07:23] say, typically, and I would say, you know, people are

[4:07:28] developers are usually looking for the minimums. That's, that's common

[4:07:32] practice. They're trying to play within the bylaw. And we

[4:07:34] often go to Committee of Adjustment for, for variances to

[4:07:37] reduce it. Um, this project is, is a little different.

[4:07:41] I think the fact that it came to the call

[4:07:43] for proposals, um, it has a little bit more, um,

[4:07:48] sensitivity to it and the developer wants to become a

[4:07:52] member of this community with a development and be good

[4:07:55] neighbours and increase the landscape. That's, that was a goal.

[4:07:59] It was, you know, we don't want to just pave

[4:08:02] the whole site and go for minimums. It's make this

[4:08:06] a meaningful development for people that want to live there.

[4:08:11] You know, being more attractive at landscaping, you know, helps

[4:08:15] the marketability to selling those units as well. It's not

[4:08:17] just for the neighbours. It's the people that want to

[4:08:20] live there as well. They're going to want to use

[4:08:22] that space. Thank you. Thank you. Working down on my

[4:08:27] list. I have Councillor Attorney. Councillor Tranny, please. Thank you

[4:08:30] through the speaker. Um, there was some, some of the

[4:08:33] deputants talked about parking and the underground parking and the

[4:08:36] number of spaces for parking. Can you speak a little

[4:08:39] bit about that. Please. Yeah. Um, so we're, we're meeting

[4:08:45] the bylaw. There's no, no parking reduction. Um, you know,

[4:08:50] we've comfortably fit the parking within the building and then

[4:08:54] additionally at grade. You know, sometimes again, we go in

[4:08:58] for reductions in parking. This was, you know, we wanted

[4:09:02] to maintain the bylaws. We found a way to accommodate

[4:09:05] the entire requirement and parking ratio. Thank you. Um, water

[4:09:11] pressure, I mean, we hear from a residence, it's a

[4:09:13] concern of mine as well. Are there more studies that

[4:09:16] are coming after this? This isn't our final step. This

[4:09:18] is a rezoning day. Correct. What's still to come to

[4:09:22] us? Um, it would be, um, the final functional site

[4:09:26] servicing study, which is basically the detailed design of, um,

[4:09:31] we get down to pipe sizing, um, does the building

[4:09:34] require pumps or fire, any additional measures to help maintain

[4:09:39] pressure. It also looks at, um, the need for additional

[4:09:45] fire hydrants on site. Are they required? But that, that

[4:09:48] gets the level of detail where it's, we know, we're

[4:09:50] down to the pipe size, number of valves we need

[4:09:55] chasing back to see how far the water pressure, if

[4:09:58] the issues with water pressure. If there'll look at that.

[4:10:03] Okay. Thank you for that. And then, um, there was

[4:10:05] another comment made, um, about who's paying for the pipes

[4:10:09] and who actually pays for the pipes to, um, link

[4:10:12] into what the city exists infrastructure now. Yeah. If it's,

[4:10:16] if it's cost related to this development, it's across any

[4:10:19] development in Thunder Bay. It's, it's up to the developer

[4:10:21] to pay for those offsite improvements. If it's needed to

[4:10:24] support the development, it's, you know, if we're talking looping

[4:10:28] water mains, uh, that's up to the developer to loop

[4:10:31] it, including restoring the road back to its city standard.

[4:10:37] You know, if, if we determine that the sanitary pipe

[4:10:40] was in large enough in Toledo or wherever the developer

[4:10:44] is responsible to pay for that. Um, to satisfy their

[4:10:48] development. So no costs are shared from that perspective. So

[4:10:55] no cost to the taxpayer. No. If any of the

[4:10:58] studies, um, I think I have just a few more

[4:11:00] minutes. If any of this studies show issues, is there

[4:11:03] still an opportunity for, or potential for this development to

[4:11:07] become smaller because of those issues. For sure. Um, so

[4:11:12] we're designing and we're showing the maximum as part of

[4:11:15] this rezoning, if hypothetical situation, if we came back and

[4:11:20] said, Oh, we can't meet the water demands for this

[4:11:22] many units. Or without having to do massive upgrades to

[4:11:26] water treatment plans and whatever hypothetically, um, the alternative was

[4:11:31] the lower, the number of units. Well, we would, we

[4:11:34] would do that. Thank you. Thank you for your answers.

[4:11:38] Thank you, Speaker. Thank you. Uh, next is Councillor Agawa.

[4:11:44] Thank you very much, Speaker. I have a question. I'm

[4:11:48] not quite understanding. Why are there private easements over this

[4:11:53] land? And what were those private easements be. Um, because

[4:11:58] typically what I've seen is public easements for utilities. But

[4:12:03] what are the private Easements over the parcel of land?

[4:12:07] Existing easements? I don't know the wording is saying private

[4:12:11] is medicine. Um, I would say that's, that's because, um,

[4:12:14] the development is, a part of this application was a

[4:12:17] severance. Um, so that you'll say the Southern most building

[4:12:23] is building B. They'll have to cut through lot A

[4:12:29] to get out to a Rundell. So it's really just

[4:12:31] a shared East Minds for parking to facilitate on each

[4:12:36] other. Each property for services that kind of loop through.

[4:12:39] We just do a blanket easement as well. Um, just

[4:12:42] so you don't have to define each pipe by these

[4:12:45] bin have a legal survey. They would just be blanketed

[4:12:48] across the entire development. Okay. So through you speaker. So

[4:12:53] what I'm understanding here is that the whole thing will

[4:12:55] have a blanketise mitchell Lau for development. That could eventually

[4:12:59] be severed off. And could be sold or be dealt

[4:13:03] with by another owner in the future and the one

[4:13:06] in the front would be another unit. Hypothetically, it could

[4:13:11] be sold off, but the intent is to keep them

[4:13:13] both. But one doesn't know what they're future holds, right?

[4:13:17] For anything. But so, uh, may I have a question

[4:13:20] to administration. Of course. But then the motion has the

[4:13:25] floor. There's also an opportunity to follow up with other

[4:13:28] questions. I would just like to know, um, where would

[4:13:30] the frontage be then? If you could ask you for

[4:13:33] the frontage for the, um, the lot in the back

[4:13:36] end, the south side, the property. I'm thinking Sharon might

[4:13:42] have that information to her. So the frontage would. She'll

[4:13:49] have the plan in front of her. I don't. I'm

[4:13:54] sorry. Could you repeat that question frontage for the entire

[4:13:58] section? Yeah. Thank you very much. Um, Through you speaker.

[4:14:01] The, the question I have is, um, being that the

[4:14:03] lot would be severed. That means that the, the lot

[4:14:07] frontage that would be required for the rear Southern exposured

[4:14:11] lot would need its own front edge accessible off of

[4:14:15] the city road, which would be a rundown, or sorry,

[4:14:20] and where is that frontage? I didn't see that. Being

[4:14:23] severed off or right away or how, cause we all

[4:14:27] need accessibility. So where is that frontage? Um, we have

[4:14:31] a full frontage of the property. That's what we've been

[4:14:33] given. But being that two properties now within the same

[4:14:38] property. Do we have that descriptor there? We would have

[4:14:44] the frontage because there's no, we're not replying for any

[4:14:46] reduction in it. So we know that the front edge

[4:14:49] is there. If the frontage couldn't be there, we'd be

[4:14:51] asking for amendment to reduce this amount of front edge.

[4:14:55] Through the speaker, uh, administration can answer this question. I'll

[4:14:58] go to supervisor lopes. Thank you, Speaker. If I make

[4:15:03] clarify one of the amendments proposed with this application is

[4:15:08] to amend the definition of lot to mean more than

[4:15:11] one ownership. So that essentially does. It allows the Southernmost

[4:15:15] building to have its own parcel as well as the

[4:15:18] northernmost building to have its own parcel. And by redefine

[4:15:21] a lot to mean the entire, um, holding, the frontage

[4:15:25] for essentially the defined lot is that on a rundle,

[4:15:31] essentially building B that has a Southernmost parcel has no

[4:15:34] frontage, but it's taken care of through amending the definition

[4:15:38] of Lot to mean both parcels working together. Um, through

[4:15:44] you speaker, have we done this before redefine the definition.

[4:15:49] Of lot? The Thru Speaker, this has been done in

[4:15:51] the past on different projects. Of a similar nature. The

[4:15:57] one classic example would be the Thunder Centre site. There's

[4:16:00] four ownerships there. Um, the property occupied by Home Depot

[4:16:04] is technically landlocked. But however, it all functions as one

[4:16:08] defined lot despite the fact that there's four ownerships. And

[4:16:12] that example, there's many cross - shared easements covering the

[4:16:17] access, the servicing, and essentially the cross - sharing of

[4:16:20] the traffic. And just people movement through there. Okay. Um,

[4:16:26] Councillor, I have yet three questions asked. But you can

[4:16:29] follow up with administration in the next round once it

[4:16:31] hits the motionist for at this point I have Councillor

[4:16:35] Bence next, but we have 11 o'clock resolution. So Deputy

[4:16:39] Kirk Walters, do we have a mover in a seconder?

[4:16:41] We do. It's Councillor Oliver and Councillor Trini for the

[4:16:44] secondary. And of course, the motion is being that the

[4:16:46] hour being 11 o'clock, but we continue with the business

[4:16:48] at hand. Please call the roll. Yeah. Councillor Airwall. In

[4:16:54] favor. Councillor. In favor Bent. In favor. Councillor Tree in

[4:17:00] favor Councillor Folds in favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Speaker, Johnson.

[4:17:07] In favor. Councillor Oliver in favor. Councillor Pastorino. In favor.

[4:17:12] And Councillor Cecino in favor. That is passed. I'll give

[4:17:17] you a moment. And we'll turn to Councillor Bands, please.

[4:17:21] Thank you Speaker. First question is regarding entrance and exit

[4:17:26] from the Property. I understand there's one driveway into this

[4:17:29] complex. First of all, is that correct? And should we

[4:17:33] have any concerns about traffic patterns in and out of

[4:17:36] facilities like this. Yes. There's one entrance and perhaps I

[4:17:41] can have a Roche speak to the Traffic Study that

[4:17:43] reviewed that. Sure. Uh. Just again, I want to start

[4:17:53] with trips. The three estimation, as I said, is saying

[4:17:56] that the maximum directional trips will be 100. Less than

[4:18:01] 120. One axis will be sufficient. We know that the

[4:18:05] axis has to cross the multi - use paths. But

[4:18:08] again, for the multi - USP, we have a special

[4:18:12] treatments. These special treatments are coming based on what's becommended

[4:18:19] by Ministry of Transportation and the Access Treatment for this

[4:18:25] type of facilities. I have to say the VR looking

[4:18:29] at treatment that we are taking the residential treatment. But

[4:18:34] we are 44 enhancing it by adding some specifics from

[4:18:39] high volume or commercial access treatment. So I have to

[4:18:44] say the study that VD shows that this intersection, the

[4:18:49] access intersection will work. And it's sufficient. But again, for

[4:18:54] the future, we have also have a potential for a

[4:18:57] second axis. But without considering it, I have to say

[4:19:03] for the future horizon that we have, almost in eight

[4:19:07] years, this is working sufficiently. And there are no concerns

[4:19:10] about that. So it lines out enough. And I mean,

[4:19:13] everything can work. Well at the, at the proposed intersection.

[4:19:18] Okay. Uh, second question is, what does the current zoning

[4:19:23] on the property allow and how did it become to

[4:19:26] be zoned that. S all supervisor Lopes to answer the

[4:19:34] question? Through the speaker, the current zoning of community, um,

[4:19:43] essentially. Implements, uh, the official plan from 2019, which designated

[4:19:49] for community designation. The Zoning Bylaw allows in the Community

[4:19:54] Zone. I'll provide the list. Cemeteries and Crematoriums, daycare centres,

[4:20:00] indoor recreational uses. Minor institutional uses. Um, which includes elementary

[4:20:05] schools and religious institutions. And of course, if it's a

[4:20:10] property that fronts on water, there's water related uses that

[4:20:12] are also permitted. Okay. So it sounds like in 2019,

[4:20:17] there was a change made. I don't know what it

[4:20:19] was previously. It doesn't really matter at this point. Um,

[4:20:22] finally, is this actually Parkland as being claimed? Was it

[4:20:27] ever designated as potential Parkland in any official plan. I

[4:20:34] can answer that. Uh, so, so this land is part

[4:20:37] of the Boulevard Lake Park area. It is not, uh,

[4:20:44] let's say program for improved Parkland as if in comparison

[4:20:48] to a playground, it functions open space and perhaps supervisor.

[4:20:53] Shore wish add to that answer.

[4:21:08] To the speaker. Yes, that area of boulevard Lake Park.

[4:21:13] Is not, it's considered natural area rather than maintained area

[4:21:19] like the playground is that's beside the lake. Thank you,

[4:21:27] Speaker. Thank you. Any other questions. Please. I'd just like

[4:21:36] to follow up on, uh, that question that Councillor Bentz

[4:21:40] said, uh, I didn't want 100 percent understand. That Boulevard

[4:21:46] is considered 650 acres, uh, is that part of the,

[4:21:51] like the boundary of Boulevard or this is associated with

[4:21:55] Bulmar. That, that was my concern with that.

[4:22:05] I'm through the speaker. It really, I believe that number

[4:22:08] is the total. I don't have it in front of

[4:22:10] me. At my fingertips, but the boulevard Lake Proper is

[4:22:17] everything south of Arundel Street. So that would include, um,

[4:22:23] the west side and east side. I believe that that

[4:22:28] total acre you're talking about may include centennial park, which

[4:22:31] is on the north side of a Rundell Street. As

[4:22:36] well. Thank you for that. I just want to make

[4:22:42] a statement. Like I've looked up some of this stuff,

[4:22:44] did some research on it. And, uh, it said that

[4:22:48] Centennial Park is 147 acres boulevard park is 650 acres.

[4:22:55] And I just threw in chipwall park, uh, that would

[4:22:59] be 270 acres. Um, that doesn't include various other parks

[4:23:06] through the city. Vickers Park, Marina Park, Hillcrest Park, Junot

[4:23:10] Park, Heath Park Thorn Lowe Park and Trowbridge Falls. Um,

[4:23:15] so anyways, just those three parks like Centennial Park Boulevard

[4:23:20] and Chippewa. That's over a thousand acres. And then I

[4:23:25] was, uh, looking up at how many acres, uh, per

[4:23:34] person in Thunder Bay. And apparently we are, just hold

[4:23:40] on. I got, we are like number one in Ontario.

[4:23:47] It's like the, um, City that comes up to it.

[4:23:51] I think we're like 19. 7 hectators per person. Um,

[4:23:58] the next one, I believe is, is growth. And there

[4:24:03] are something like nine or something between us. Uh, so

[4:24:08] anyways, uh, we're significantly bigger than other, other areas for

[4:24:15] it. And a lot of it is actually even better

[4:24:17] than most parks because ours are on, they're not manipulated.

[4:24:23] Let's say they're natural parks. So anyways, I'm looking at

[4:24:27] this and it's eight acres that were roughly taking away

[4:24:33] from the area. And it's, it's really kind of tiny

[4:24:37] anyways of that. I think that, uh, like I understand

[4:24:40] the people's concerns because certainly we wouldn't want, you know,

[4:24:45] especially if you're living by there, you wouldn't want to

[4:24:47] go ahead and do it. But I mean, it's not

[4:24:49] like we're shutting down the park, you know, that boulevard.

[4:24:54] So anyways, uh, like I said, um, I just wanted

[4:24:57] to make, that's why I was asking if it was

[4:25:00] actually part of the 650 acres, you know, the park

[4:25:05] or whether this is like a separate part to it.

[4:25:08] But that's okay. It still makes my point anyways of

[4:25:12] what I was trying to say. Thank you very much

[4:25:13] for that. Thank you. Next up, I have Councillor Gattuga.

[4:25:16] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um. I want to talk about

[4:25:20] the 11 metre easement for a little bit. Can you

[4:25:24] tell me the rationale for. Putting that he's been in

[4:25:28] place. Yes. Uh, so along that 11 metre easement, the

[4:25:38] residence along Toledo Street, uh, there are yards are not

[4:25:41] as deep as others that are on Toledo Street. And

[4:25:44] I think that there are many of assume that their

[4:25:47] yards are larger than they actually are going to have

[4:25:49] encroached on city on land. Uh, so retaining this 11

[4:25:53] meter's provides, um, some opportunities to recognise the encroachments and,

[4:25:58] uh, work with the neighbours. Um, so that is for

[4:26:02] that reason that's been kept out of the, uh, the

[4:26:05] reason, we'll say the lands to be rezoned and will

[4:26:07] be retained by the city. Okay. So this is lands

[4:26:13] that the residents have been utilising city lands for the

[4:26:17] last, also not through the speaker, not in all cases,

[4:26:21] uh, but we certainly do find that's case for many.

[4:26:25] Okay. And so would we be looking to sell that

[4:26:28] to the residence. So should this show this planning application

[4:26:35] be. Be approved and the, and the, uh, and the,

[4:26:38] uh, person sale agreement continue Administration will be speaking with

[4:26:43] the owners about, uh, whether there might be interest purchase

[4:26:46] lands. Okay. So, so city property has been utilised for

[4:26:53] many, many years. And, uh, so not, well, legally paying

[4:26:59] taxes. But now we're accommodating by allowing that option to

[4:27:05] purchase that property that's been utilised by the homeowners for

[4:27:10] say 30, 40 years. Correct. So the Speaker of the

[4:27:14] intention has provided the opportunity for the homeowners to purchase

[4:27:17] these lands. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. I

[4:27:22] mean, um, I think that's good that we're doing that.

[4:27:25] I mean, not necessarily good that people have been utilised

[4:27:28] in city property and fenced it in. But I think

[4:27:31] it's good that we're, um, looking to provide that compromise

[4:27:34] for people and additional buffer. So thank you for that,

[4:27:38] Mr. Speaker. Thank you. See no other speakers. Uh, at

[4:27:44] this point Council like to put the motion on the

[4:27:46] floor. You need to move her in a seconder. Moved

[4:27:49] by Council Hamilton. Second by Councillor Gatuga. On this, we

[4:27:56] have three rounds five minutes each. Again, that's three rounds

[4:27:59] five minutes each. Are there any speakers on this round,

[4:28:03] first round. Councillor Hamilton. Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity

[4:28:10] to speak first. Um, I, I need to understand a

[4:28:15] little bit about the housing needs study. It came out

[4:28:19] virtually every, um, uh, deputation that we had tonight. Um,

[4:28:24] so just like a reminder, from what I understand, that

[4:28:27] housing needs study. There's not an abundance of development ready

[4:28:31] land. Um, a lot of that land is actually forested

[4:28:34] would need to be cleared. And because I was actually,

[4:28:39] you know, I believe in the, in preserving nature, that's

[4:28:43] actually why I like this properties because it's seven stories

[4:28:46] vertically. If we were going to actually make this, uh,

[4:28:48] property, uh, horizontal and lateral, maybe that, that, that I'll

[4:28:53] just form that new in my first question. If we're

[4:28:55] going to make 360 units into a lateral, um, development,

[4:28:59] how much space and how much forest and natural area

[4:29:02] would that require. If that's a clear question? Yes. The,

[4:29:11] um. So that this development would be at approximately six

[4:29:15] times the density of a single family single family dwelling

[4:29:19] subdivision. Okay. So, so if we wanted to do this

[4:29:23] in traditional suburban development, we would require at least six

[4:29:27] times the amount of land. Okay. Those speaker, that's correct.

[4:29:30] Yeah. So yeah. And that's just one of my main

[4:29:33] points is that this kind of development actually is saving

[4:29:36] is actually providing more natural habitat for animal species. Um,

[4:29:40] so I just wanted to start there. Um, and then

[4:29:42] the housing needs study. I mean, cause we always hear

[4:29:45] somewhere else. No one ever really tells us we're somewhere

[4:29:48] else. Um, could we just get a little bit of

[4:29:50] a sense of what development radio lands we have that

[4:29:54] are ready that are ready to come online that maybe

[4:29:59] just a little notice if some of those lands required,

[4:30:02] uh, clearing of forest as well. Yes. So the speaker

[4:30:06] just clarify the, um, so as, uh, as Noor Deputants

[4:30:09] noted the housing land needs study did conclude that there

[4:30:14] is a large amount of land within the urban service

[4:30:18] area, that could accommodate additional growth. However, not all of

[4:30:25] that land, well, very, let's say little of that land

[4:30:28] is for sale or shovel ready at this point. So

[4:30:33] much of this land is requires minor service extensions, rezonings,

[4:30:38] our fragmented type essentially contaminated in the case of many

[4:30:41] downtown properties. Um, so we have heard consistently through our,

[4:30:46] um, collaboration with the Development Community that finding development ready

[4:30:51] lands shovel ready lands extraordinarily difficult. Uh, so, uh, with

[4:30:57] the, uh, under leadership of Council, great works have been

[4:31:00] done to establish a pipeline of Lance and to continue

[4:31:04] to bring lands, um, make lands ready for development. You'll

[4:31:10] through the call for proposal process 10 lands where 10

[4:31:13] different properties were brought forward. Um, which were in different

[4:31:16] locations of the city. And these lands and others that

[4:31:23] the Council's directed be sold, uh, for the purpose of

[4:31:26] housing are those that were, um, successful through the initial

[4:31:31] stages, the call for proposal process. Speaker very kind of

[4:31:34] direct question. What, what, how much do we have land?

[4:31:37] Is there land available currently that's Development Ready that could

[4:31:40] accommodate the scale of development currently. Well, there are other

[4:31:48] lands that remain within the call for proposals inventory that

[4:31:54] could support development of this scale. Many of those other

[4:31:57] properties have complications, which administrations work in mitigate. Thank you.

[4:32:02] Uh, Speaker, just on the remediation of land, we knew

[4:32:06] that the Art Gallery Project, they had budgeted a couple

[4:32:09] of million bucks that it ended up coming in at

[4:32:12] almost 10 million dollars for the remediation of that land.

[4:32:15] Could we just get a sense here now about development

[4:32:17] of brownfield sites? Some of the complications around remediation. And

[4:32:21] that additional costure for developers that are already facing significant

[4:32:25] construction costs. As well, complications, uh, take the form of

[4:32:35] costs and also time. Uh, so it's, you have, could

[4:32:40] not provide an estimate on, well, different properties have different

[4:32:46] requirements and different levels of contamination. Uh, some can be

[4:32:50] remediated for less. But the, the, um, the time that

[4:32:55] it can take to, uh, receive the clearances from the,

[4:32:59] uh, uh, uh, uh, from, uh, from MECP can be

[4:33:02] considerable. And, um, for that reason administration is working on

[4:33:06] those properties so that they can be available in the

[4:33:09] future and considered reshuffle ready. Speaker, I do appreciate the

[4:33:12] latitude. That was not based on seven, nine, one, but

[4:33:15] it is kind of, I'm trying to frame around the,

[4:33:18] uh, the somewhere else, um, kind of question. So I

[4:33:21] appreciate the latitude. Speaking of that. Thank you, Councillor Folds,

[4:33:24] please. Uh, thank you Speaker. Um. I think I'd like

[4:33:30] to start my comments, uh, evening, uh, by stating, I

[4:33:34] think everyone in this room believes that we need more

[4:33:39] housing. I mean, I think, um, I don't think there's

[4:33:43] any doubt about that. Um, and I'm not entirely sure

[4:33:46] that the decision this evening, which is a planning and

[4:33:51] a rezoning states whether we are for or against housing.

[4:33:55] Um, colleagues three months ago when we started this process.

[4:33:59] Um, where we declared land surplus and then decided to

[4:34:06] clear them surplus and sold on conditions. I was leaning

[4:34:10] towards supporting, um, this particular development. Largely because I was

[4:34:17] myopic just on housing. And over the last few months,

[4:34:22] the amount of information that I've received has changed my

[4:34:25] mind. And I will not be supporting the rezoning this

[4:34:28] evening. And I, and I have nothing disparaging to say

[4:34:32] about the developer, uh, the responses tonight, um, you know,

[4:34:38] the accommodations, nothing disparaging about our administration and the number

[4:34:42] of reports. And like I said to Director Deputer earlier

[4:34:47] tonight, I mean, I had emails being responded to, uh,

[4:34:50] late this afternoon. And I want to state that I

[4:34:53] appreciate that. But there's really three planning, um, items that

[4:34:59] I'm just frankly not confident in. And one of them

[4:35:06] is on the scoped environmental assessment. And just to get,

[4:35:12] I mean, I'm not sure if everybody's read that, but

[4:35:15] we had a individual visit the site once in 2024.

[4:35:21] And took a look at soils and vegetation. And then

[4:35:25] visit it once. In 2026. Just looking at the boundaries.

[4:35:30] That was the extent of that study. But even in

[4:35:35] that extent of that study, there was identification of potential

[4:35:38] habitat for, uh, bats and potential habitat for this bird,

[4:35:43] the Wurbler. Um, but there was the identification of this

[4:35:48] yellow banded bumblebee. Now it's only, it's only. A species

[4:35:54] of concern, which means legally we actually don't need to

[4:35:58] do anything. Because it's only of concern. But if you

[4:36:01] are in a species of concern, you are in the

[4:36:04] verge of potentially being threatened. I was sent a video

[4:36:08] this past week of a Grey Fox. And thanks to

[4:36:12] staff, it was confirmed the identification of this Grey Fox.

[4:36:17] And it was in this neighbourhood. That is a threatened

[4:36:21] species. But in two day visits, we're not going to

[4:36:26] see it. And have we done the work to identify

[4:36:29] dens and all that kind of stuff. So for me,

[4:36:32] it's just not enough. Just not enough. The traffic study.

[4:36:38] So I voiced my concerns not so much about traffic

[4:36:42] volume because I actually think the traffic study did a

[4:36:44] very good job on traffic volume. And that road can

[4:36:48] handle. That volume. But I was very specific about my

[4:36:53] concerns around safety. And I haven't been satisfied. About the

[4:37:01] safety concerns. In particular, about the sight lines. And in

[4:37:05] particular, about the speeds. This traffic study was based on

[4:37:09] a model. With data from our administration. It doesn't reflect

[4:37:14] what's happening on the ground. The sight lines and the

[4:37:18] speed. And so I have some real concerns about that.

[4:37:23] I also have some concerns with the fact that this

[4:37:27] property is first. Some discussion around whether some 55 is

[4:37:33] next. And then the LPH grounds is rezoned future development

[4:37:38] residential. And the models that were presented were only two

[4:37:42] percent growth. Not looking at future developments. The comment was

[4:37:49] we would have to do further studies in the future.

[4:37:53] So my second issue is really the traffic in that

[4:37:57] issue. And I have to say I am, I was,

[4:38:02] I think explicit early on. Cancer both 30 seconds left.

[4:38:05] Thank you. Thank you. I was explicit and I am

[4:38:08] disappointed that my concerns raised earlier were not addressed. And

[4:38:14] then finally the overall plan, our official plan guides us,

[4:38:20] our administration in its wisdom, designated this community use. If

[4:38:27] you recall, Council actually flipped the LPH grounds. Unfortunately, the

[4:38:33] province flipped it back. The LPH grounds is going to

[4:38:36] be developed. You developed this. 755 and the LPH grounds.

[4:38:44] You fundamentally change this entire area. Thank you, Council. Page

[4:38:49] Grounds developed. We should be leading, please. Order, please. Uh,

[4:38:55] Councillor Fools, I can put you on the second round.

[4:38:57] If you'd like to prefer. Thank you. Um, next up

[4:39:01] I have Councillor Cortuga. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, through

[4:39:05] you to, uh, Adrenal, there's talk about traffic and people

[4:39:10] walking and people are crossing from Chartwell. So I know

[4:39:15] that the warrants don't necessarily, um, warrant a stoplight there

[4:39:22] or potential crossover. Um, but has there been other times

[4:39:26] in other places in the community that council has directed

[4:39:29] administration to put these type of things in based on

[4:39:33] concerns in the community. And such. Thank you. And through

[4:39:39] the speaker. Generally speaking, we have fall to will of

[4:39:43] counsel. So if council give us direction to provide some

[4:39:44] kind of controls at intersection, um, we will follow that

[4:39:47] direction. We haven't so much done it for Signalize Intersection.

[4:39:51] Um, we've done it more for stop controls. Always stops

[4:39:54] or stop on side treats. So historically it's been focused

[4:39:57] on, on those type of controls, um, well, it's not

[4:40:00] warranted. We will follow the Council have given that direction.

[4:40:03] I'll add there is existing PXO on a run to

[4:40:06] let Toledo for pedestrian safety today. Thank you for that.

[4:40:09] Um, so that we can address the traffic issues and

[4:40:12] pedestrian safety issues. As far as future developments, you know,

[4:40:16] coming down the line. And we can't predict what's going

[4:40:18] to happen. I mean, and that's part of growing as

[4:40:20] a community. You know, at one point, you know, the,

[4:40:25] uh, people on auto Street next to Toledo had green

[4:40:28] space in there backyard. And then Toledo Street came and

[4:40:31] they lost their green space in the backyard. And that's,

[4:40:34] that's progress. That's growth. Um, you know, administration's recommending this.

[4:40:39] Um, I understand the concerns of the resonance. I've listened

[4:40:42] to them. You know, I owned my first house on

[4:40:45] Hot Ravenue. And I had a little green space in

[4:40:47] behind my house that I utilised. I didn't put a

[4:40:52] fence on it, but I, and I utilised it with

[4:40:54] my children. And, uh, but I checked into it first

[4:40:56] to find out that it couldn't ever be developed. Um,

[4:41:00] just because I, uh, I liked it there. Um, so

[4:41:03] this is a planning decision. And our decisions have to

[4:41:06] be based on planning rational. You know, and everyone seems

[4:41:10] to want growth and housing and in our community, but

[4:41:13] maybe just not beside us, not beside them. And we

[4:41:17] can't have, um, you know, I look at this overall

[4:41:20] plan and it's, it's got more green space than chart

[4:41:23] well across the street. Much more. You know, we talked

[4:41:28] about traffic. We can address that, you know, and we

[4:41:30] talk about growth. I mean, as a community, you know,

[4:41:33] we're always talking about taxes. We're talking about roads. We're

[4:41:36] talking about policing, reducing crime, improving our infrastructure. How do

[4:41:41] you do that. Without. Going to the taxpayers over and

[4:41:46] over again. How do you use a burden on taxpayers?

[4:41:49] Growth. And that's what this is. A million dollars a

[4:41:53] year roughly in taxes. So the more development you have,

[4:41:58] the more it's spread over more people. If we can't,

[4:42:01] we can't sustain by not growing as a community and

[4:42:04] keep raising taxes. So I understand, um, the concerns, you

[4:42:09] know, and the 33 foot easement, I think that's a

[4:42:13] great compromise. I mean, the developers, I know came in

[4:42:17] at 600 units initially. But we as a city asked

[4:42:20] for the best and highest density use. And that's why

[4:42:24] I'm sure they came in that. And then they dropped

[4:42:26] to 400 and now 360. And it could accommodate. Over

[4:42:30] 400. Um, so this 33 feet easement provides that buffer

[4:42:35] for the residents that have been utilising that. So we're

[4:42:37] not taking away their land like we potentially could. We

[4:42:42] could potentially take down those fences and put up our

[4:42:44] fence. On the 33 feet. I think what we're doing

[4:42:48] is good compromise. And I think it's, it's taking into

[4:42:51] consideration what they've been utilising and giving them an opportunity

[4:42:54] to purchase that, that property to maintain, you know, um,

[4:42:59] their space. And the bars I can see developer has

[4:43:02] moved those buildings around to be the least impactful on

[4:43:06] Toledo Street as possible from what I see. So, um,

[4:43:08] I'm going to support this, um, resolution, uh, I want

[4:43:12] to see our community grow and, uh, I understand the

[4:43:15] concerns of the residents, but we're going to have this

[4:43:18] everywhere. No one's going to want apart me building beside

[4:43:23] them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Uh, next on

[4:43:30] the list, I have Councillor Agual, then Councillor Aiello and

[4:43:33] Mayor Boschkoff. Councillor Agawa, please. Thank you very much, Speaker.

[4:43:39] I have a few concerns with this as we've been

[4:43:42] presented. Number one, we have one entry in and out.

[4:43:49] Parked L has many concerns in many comments have come

[4:43:52] from people who live there because there's only one way

[4:43:55] in. But we're making an exception on this one. We're

[4:43:59] allowing them to do only one way. If there is

[4:44:02] a broken down vehicle that's blocked the road, then we've

[4:44:06] got 360 units of people. That would be compromised. So

[4:44:12] I guess that's why 755 came along as an exhilary

[4:44:16] road to connect down the road for a realignment. But

[4:44:21] development doesn't happen with one access. All developments that I've

[4:44:24] seen have two except for Parkdale, which is very contentious.

[4:44:29] And many people have complained repeatedly about that. To make

[4:44:34] that exception here with only one entrance, which would be

[4:44:39] a share exit. Is concerning for that many units. As

[4:44:44] I look at FANCHA, the one way in and out

[4:44:48] there. And there's half the number of units there. That's

[4:44:53] one concern. The next concern I have is we hear

[4:44:57] that, you know, the 5, 600 municipalities. We're number 10.

[4:45:02] We have in the top 10 percent for parks. But

[4:45:08] we are making one big mistake that we fail to

[4:45:11] recognise that the majority of parks were requested to us

[4:45:15] by families. You look at Bicker's Park. It was a

[4:45:19] family that gave it to us. You look at chapels.

[4:45:22] It was a family. And now you look at boulevard.

[4:45:26] It was James Lyon. Who gave us that acreage for

[4:45:30] the park. And. That was in 1914. After that, Charles

[4:45:39] Ritchie gave us the other side, the north side of

[4:45:44] the, of Arundel at Boulevard in 1979. Why do we

[4:45:49] have all these parks and why do we boast about

[4:45:51] all these parks? It's not because we did something. Is

[4:45:56] because great benefactors of our community chapels, Mr. Clem Chappell,

[4:46:04] The Crown in 1871 gave us Waverly Park. Catherine Vickers

[4:46:10] gave us Vickers Park. So what are we doing? We're

[4:46:13] saying, you know, thanks. You gave it to us in

[4:46:16] the past. However, now we're not going to follow your

[4:46:20] historic generosity. We're going to do with it what we

[4:46:23] wish. They didn't give it to us to sell off

[4:46:27] for land development. How are we giving out this land.

[4:46:33] That was a part of the original donation. In 1914.

[4:46:41] By Mr. Lyon. He wanted a path around Boulevard. Which

[4:46:45] was gravel and paved and upgraded. There were certain things

[4:46:48] that were noted in what he had donated and how

[4:46:51] he sold. He requested that to our community. So international

[4:46:58] friendship gardens. 1967. The surropters group raised the money and

[4:47:04] did that. Do we say, well, we don't want it.

[4:47:06] Now we want to put an apartment building there because

[4:47:08] we can. These are generous donors of our past. The

[4:47:16] historians that built our community. And why do they build

[4:47:19] it? They built it with that green space in mind

[4:47:21] because they wanted that recreation. If we go against their

[4:47:27] will, are we saying to everybody else, donate, give quest

[4:47:32] us, but we'll do what we want with it in

[4:47:33] the future. I don't think that's right. I don't think

[4:47:37] that's right at all. This land was owned with the

[4:47:43] By - Law 2022. It was number one. As Community

[4:47:47] Zone. It was passed by this Council, right as the

[4:47:52] first thing in the first year of our Council. Community

[4:47:57] Zone. It's within our, it was the same year we

[4:47:59] were told that there's a housing shortage. Our administration brought

[4:48:04] it to us saying, this is Community Zone. And we

[4:48:08] passed our official plan based on that. With these members

[4:48:11] of Council sitting at this table. 30 seconds, please. So

[4:48:17] how are we changing your mind when the housing studies

[4:48:20] were at the same time. Nothing's changed. We've got to

[4:48:26] respect the historians of our community. We've got to respect

[4:48:30] the requests that we received. Those are generous requests that

[4:48:34] people left us as legacy for their families. And we

[4:48:39] must respect that. I ask everyone to really think about

[4:48:43] what we're doing here on this land. Of the history

[4:48:45] that was given. Because it was not ours. And they

[4:48:50] didn't have to give it to us. Thank you. Councillor

[4:48:53] Ayala, please. Thank you. And through the speaker, while I

[4:48:58] share pretty much all the sentiments, I'll apologies. Um, administration,

[4:49:05] uh, likes to provide some rebuttals to the Councillor Egge

[4:49:08] walls. Thank you. Speaker. I just wish to go to

[4:49:11] Director Deputer just to clarify these lens and, uh, there

[4:49:15] was a comment made around which lands may have been

[4:49:18] donated. I just wish to go to Director Deputer just

[4:49:21] to confirm the information that we have on the file.

[4:49:24] Very good. Dr. Deputer, please. Yes, just, uh, just, uh,

[4:49:28] want to clarify that these specific lands were not part

[4:49:31] of the lying trust. Those surrounding lands that are part

[4:49:34] of the Boulevard Lake Park area were. We were told

[4:49:42] just earlier. Councillor, I can put you on the second

[4:49:44] round. Yeah. But I just want to clarify, but we

[4:49:46] were told by the administration that this was part of

[4:49:49] the same. Okay. Well, we can clarify further. It was,

[4:49:54] uh, administration stated that this land was part of the

[4:49:58] boulevard Lake Park Complex. This particular land is not part

[4:50:02] of the line trust that was donated to the City.

[4:50:06] Thank you. Thank you. Councillor, would you like to be

[4:50:09] put on the second round. Great. Councillor, please. Thanks. Okay,

[4:50:16] we'll try it again. Thank you through the speaker. Um,

[4:50:19] just going to go back. I share a lot of

[4:50:21] the sentiments of, uh, Councillor Gutuga. I think he's, he's

[4:50:24] right on target. The need for growth. Again, it's something

[4:50:28] that we've been starving for, for years. Um, and we're

[4:50:33] finally getting it. And I do consider it smart growth.

[4:50:37] Um, I think it's really, really important to, um, acknowledge

[4:50:40] the work of the developer. In this case and really

[4:50:45] listening to the constituents as far as, you know, what

[4:50:49] they wanted to see. Um, you know, the overall, the

[4:50:52] overall project, their ability to accommodate really the needs. And

[4:50:59] I believe just, you know, one of the residents stated

[4:51:01] that and that he was very, very much aware of

[4:51:04] it. Um, you know, through, through, through Site Plan Control,

[4:51:12] and, um, you know, other forms of studies and stuff.

[4:51:14] I think everything, everything will be, will be addressed. I'm

[4:51:17] very confident, you know, we've sat through how many of

[4:51:20] these on council where, you know, we, we have zonening

[4:51:24] amendments. And, you know, a lot of times the same

[4:51:27] concerns. And, you know, if you look at the development

[4:51:31] on, on Junot, again, one way in, one way out,

[4:51:34] all it's going to be crazy. It's going to be

[4:51:36] so much traffic, not an issue at all. It's great.

[4:51:42] It's great for the, for that community. Um, it doesn't

[4:51:46] lower property values. All this stuff, all these concerns, just,

[4:51:50] you know, didn't happen, you know, as well as, as,

[4:51:55] uh. Again, John C Road, a series of, of big

[4:52:02] apartment buildings, beautifies the area. Looks very great. Um, just

[4:52:06] a lot of those concerns just never materialized. Um, again,

[4:52:10] and that is done through, uh, cooperation and work between

[4:52:14] our administration, uh, the developer and Site Plant Control. Um,

[4:52:20] we have to have, have faith that all these things

[4:52:23] will get looked at and they are concerns. And I

[4:52:26] understand where the residents are coming from, uh, but fear

[4:52:28] of the unknown is exactly that. You know, you could

[4:52:33] think worst case scenarios, um, but they, they very rarely,

[4:52:37] if ever, ever come to light. So I am in

[4:52:40] support of this. I think it's, uh, it's, it's a

[4:52:44] great movement forward. Um, and again, um, you know, we're

[4:52:48] dealing with a housing crisis for sure. We're dealing with

[4:52:52] a tremendous, uh, shortfall in our, um, in our capital

[4:52:58] and stuff that we need to, uh, our set management

[4:53:02] plan. We need to, we need to repair things. And

[4:53:06] we need money to do that. And, um. Uh, this

[4:53:10] is probably one way to do it. Thank you. The

[4:53:14] start anyway. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, uh, Mirror

[4:53:18] Boschkov. Councillor Tranny and Councillor Benthaschkov, please. Thanks so much.

[4:53:26] Overriding all of this, I'm more astonished that some people,

[4:53:32] some members of Council seemingly do not seem to think

[4:53:36] that we are in a housing crisis. We have a

[4:53:40] housing shortage in which to find good places for people

[4:53:44] to live. We have a proposal with, uh, developers who's

[4:53:50] yielded pretty much to every concern. And, uh, we've got

[4:53:55] the province and the feds patting us on the back

[4:53:58] for our success in building more homes. And, uh, and

[4:54:03] here is a, uh, an amazing compromise on that lake.

[4:54:08] It's not like we're going to pave the whole thing

[4:54:10] or do anything like that. So I, uh, the fact

[4:54:15] that the proponent is listened and agreed to much more

[4:54:20] than, uh, less than max is to me, uh, the

[4:54:25] kind of attitude that you want when you're going to

[4:54:28] be entering into some kind of business proposition with someone

[4:54:31] who's going to invest multi millions of dollars into your

[4:54:34] community. So, but more importantly, what is the message that

[4:54:40] we're sending people to thinking and moving here, uh, when,

[4:54:43] when we're turning down affordable housing or reasonable, we price

[4:54:47] housing. Knowing that they could have a place like this,

[4:54:52] it's a real incentive. We're spending hundreds of thousands of

[4:54:55] dollars trying to get people to move here and get

[4:54:59] people to invest. So, uh, I've listened to this argument

[4:55:04] as we all have for, for many hours, every NIMBY

[4:55:08] argument has been addressed. And if we're going to be

[4:55:13] a welcoming community, uh, then let's build decent homes for

[4:55:17] people. What is wrong with that? And we don't want

[4:55:21] to just want these at homes. We want them to

[4:55:23] love living here. And you know what? That part of

[4:55:26] current river is spectacular. And I, you know what, it's

[4:55:30] as good as we could possibly get. So, uh, and

[4:55:34] I truly believe that those who donated this land to

[4:55:39] build, uh, boulevard Lake would want people to live there.

[4:55:45] And so I'm just going to leave it at that.

[4:55:49] And that they knew that their successors would have people

[4:55:53] who also want it to help people to find decent

[4:55:57] housing housing. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Attraeney, please. Thank

[4:56:04] you. Through the speaker, just because of some of the

[4:56:07] commentary, I just, a development, you know, there was some

[4:56:11] discussion about, uh, a development and the housing and having

[4:56:14] one access. But that's different than an apartment building. Is

[4:56:18] it unusual or uncommon to have one access to an

[4:56:21] apartment building. Uh, through the speaker, it's not unusual to

[4:56:29] have one access. To apartment complex, uh, but definitely the

[4:56:33] concern is noted and something we can examine at the

[4:56:36] Site Plan Control stage. Thank you. And then I want

[4:56:40] to go back to the lion Boulevard piece. I'm sorry

[4:56:42] to, to go back to that, but it was included

[4:56:45] in one, but wasn't included in the others. Um, I

[4:56:49] believe it's future development. It's not in our projected budgets

[4:56:53] for next year or like our budgets right now or

[4:56:56] what roughly three years out projected. Where is this looking

[4:57:00] at for future development? I just, you know, once it

[4:57:03] was added to a plan, whether it be shouldn't have

[4:57:06] been, you know, irregardless, it was. And I just want

[4:57:10] to have a better idea about that. So the conceptual

[4:57:14] road was shown on the plan through the speaker, uh,

[4:57:17] to demonstrate that the development did not interfere with the

[4:57:21] conceptual future road and all turnover to director Medima, uh,

[4:57:26] to provide the background on this future Street. Potential future

[4:57:30] Street. Thank you. Under the speaker, so this north -

[4:57:33] south collector road that would connect a run of Sogoma

[4:57:36] has been long - term plan part of the Cities

[4:57:37] Transportation Master Pining. I would say it dates back to

[4:57:40] 1987 and that transportation plan at the time recommended as

[4:57:44] a whole network improvement for that corridor to have a

[4:57:46] new collector road, the exact alignment and how it configured

[4:57:49] through lands was to be determined as future studies and

[4:57:52] the area growed. But this is kind of a long

[4:57:54] - term plan road that the city's always known about

[4:57:56] and it's been reaffirmed and updated transportation master plan studies

[4:58:00] 2019 with most recent one being kind reaffirming that need

[4:58:03] for that road is still desired to help improve traffic

[4:58:05] flow in that area. Thank you. So this has been

[4:58:08] planned for quite some time as future development. It wasn't

[4:58:11] because of this potential. Building. Three speaker that is correct.

[4:58:15] Thank you. And then, um, environmental assessment and traffic studies.

[4:58:20] Is that it? That's done. We're not doing that anymore.

[4:58:22] We can't do that anymore. Or is there still an

[4:58:24] opportunity to still receive some of that data in case

[4:58:28] some there may need to be some alterations? Like I

[4:58:30] said earlier, something smaller or. Pardon me through the speaker,

[4:58:37] the, uh. We, you know, administration will be, uh, requesting

[4:58:44] an additional look at the, at the, um, Grey Fox

[4:58:48] survey for Dens, uh, recognising some of the concerns I've

[4:58:52] been heard from the neighbours and, uh, pictures that have

[4:58:54] been provided. Of the animal in the area. And, um,

[4:58:57] also the traffic study that is submitted is preliminary and

[4:59:02] would be further refined as the, uh, as a design

[4:59:07] continues, um, and, uh, submitted as a final report to

[4:59:10] the Site Plaft Control Process. Thank you for that. Speaker,

[4:59:14] how much time do I have left. Two minutes. I'll

[4:59:16] go on the second round, please. Thank you. Very good.

[4:59:20] Councillor Bent's, please. Thank you, Speaker. I was impressed this

[4:59:25] evening with, with the people that came forward, both foreign

[4:59:27] against, you know, your passion and your research and the

[4:59:32] time you put into this. That's really important to a

[4:59:34] community. However, this item is decided. I mean, your voice

[4:59:40] is important. And I'm happy that you came out and

[4:59:44] engage in democracy. Um, I guess what this comes down

[4:59:49] to is, is managing change and managing growth for the

[4:59:54] future. Uh, so our assessment, um, growth in this community

[5:00:00] is below a percent. Uh, which is low in the

[5:00:03] province. We're not, we're not a growth community. The result

[5:00:07] of that is a deteriorating infrastructure. And taxation. That's what

[5:00:14] happens when, when you're not growing assessment. And that's why

[5:00:18] this council set out on a growth strategy. Um, we

[5:00:22] see it as a way to manage the infrastructure, uh,

[5:00:26] deficit that we currently have. Uh, we see it as

[5:00:29] a way to, um, attract business. And part of attracting

[5:00:34] business and having people, um, being comfortable in your community

[5:00:38] is for them to have a place to call home.

[5:00:41] Um, you know, I'm very concerned. I'm a fortunate person.

[5:00:46] I have a place to call home. Uh, there are

[5:00:49] some people though that cannot find a place to live.

[5:00:52] And, and I can't imagine how anxiety provoking that would

[5:00:56] be, not to have a place to live. Um, so

[5:01:00] I'm very focused on providing housing. Um, that's not to

[5:01:05] say I'm going to put housing in every park. Um,

[5:01:08] this is a vacant piece of land adjacent to a

[5:01:14] massive park. Um, I am not worried about Thunder Bay

[5:01:18] not having enough Parkland. What I'm worried about is Thunder

[5:01:22] Bay not having enough money to maintain the parks it

[5:01:25] has. Uh, you just have to drive the road of

[5:01:28] Chipwa to see, um, the state of our infrastructure. There's

[5:01:34] more patch on that road than there is pavement. And

[5:01:37] that's what concerns me is, is, you know, I want

[5:01:41] quality on a certain standard of quality of life for

[5:01:45] our residents here. And that's going to take, um, that's

[5:01:50] going to take money. That's going to take money. And

[5:01:52] it needs growth in order to happen. So, you know,

[5:01:56] I think we have to keep all these things in

[5:02:00] mind, uh, as we, as we move forward. Zoning changes.

[5:02:07] That's what these procedures are for, right? That's why we

[5:02:09] have these sessions to decide the merits of whether or

[5:02:13] not we're going to change zoning. I happen to feel

[5:02:17] that, um, not just Thunder Bay, Canada is in a

[5:02:21] housing crisis. And that's one of the reasons why they

[5:02:25] kind of tapped back on immigration. Um, we need immigration

[5:02:30] in this country to succeed. Uh, if we didn't have

[5:02:33] immigration, our, um, our population would be shrinking in this

[5:02:38] country. And we could not, uh, become an economic success

[5:02:42] story. Um, so I see this as part of the

[5:02:45] bigger picture too. We need to provide housing. We need

[5:02:48] to provide, uh, welcoming communities where people are happily housed

[5:02:54] and happy to be in Canada, not just for our

[5:02:57] own residents, but we've got a lot of people joining

[5:03:00] our country. And we have to be cognizant of that.

[5:03:04] There's people, you know, 12 people living in a place

[5:03:08] that should only accommodate six. I mean, there is a

[5:03:12] housing problem. Um, I see this as a benefit, not

[5:03:16] only for people looking for housing at the moment, but

[5:03:19] long term, we need a diversity of housing in the

[5:03:22] community. We're an aging community. Um, there's going to be

[5:03:26] a lot of downsizing and apartments and condominiums are going

[5:03:29] to be important in that mix. Um, so I will

[5:03:33] be supporting this. And I do want to say to

[5:03:39] developers out there, we want, we want growth. We want

[5:03:43] development. And we don't want to be a roadblock. You

[5:03:47] come with a good plan. We'll go through the zoning

[5:03:51] process. And, uh, we have to do, I think our

[5:03:55] part here and bringing the housing that we need desperately

[5:03:59] in Thunder Bay. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you. Uh, Councillor

[5:04:03] Oliver, please. Thank you, Speaker. Um, I want to begin

[5:04:06] by thinking everyone that's come this evening as well to

[5:04:09] a democracy is an important and vital aspect to the

[5:04:12] way our governance works. And so, um, recognising the time

[5:04:17] and effort that you've put in in the studying and

[5:04:20] everything that you've done as well too. I mean, kudos

[5:04:22] to everyone for your passion. Um, further, I just want

[5:04:27] to echo a lot of what Councillor Bentz just said,

[5:04:29] those similar, I was similar line of thought. The thing

[5:04:33] is that, uh, I think is sort of missing from

[5:04:36] this conversation is around the discussion around affordable housing. I

[5:04:40] mean, we were, many, the commentary about what the monthly

[5:04:43] rents are for these apartment buildings. And I think it's

[5:04:45] important to recognise that this is filling a gap that

[5:04:48] we do have where people don't have somewhere else to

[5:04:51] go. So they're staying in their homes longer, which is

[5:04:54] then driving up costs, which is then impacting the ability

[5:04:57] for people to get into the housing market. I know

[5:05:00] that obviously tonight we heard people in opposition, but it

[5:05:04] is important to recognise that I know we've all heard

[5:05:06] from people in support of this program or this project

[5:05:09] rather because they are looking to downsize. They are looking

[5:05:12] for opportunities to stay in their neighbourhood. And as, you

[5:05:15] know, developers have said on a few occasions that we've

[5:05:18] had conversations, um, it they find that creating residential or

[5:05:23] creating housing within residential areas where people have called home

[5:05:26] for a long time. That's where people want to live.

[5:05:29] That's where they've, they've spent their time raising their families

[5:05:32] and creating their memories and looking to downsize into something

[5:05:35] smaller, but staying in their neighbourhood. It's so vital and

[5:05:38] important that developers are investing into our community that way.

[5:05:42] And then further recognising as well too, there are off

[5:05:45] ramps. If the further studies do identify that there are

[5:05:48] issues around, you know, water and sewer lines and, you

[5:05:52] know, even to some extent traffic studies, there are off

[5:05:55] ramps to revisit the design of this property and to

[5:05:58] ensure that it correlates with what's available and making those

[5:06:02] needs making ensuring those needs are met. So, you know,

[5:06:05] recognising how important it is to have people choosing Thunder

[5:06:09] Bay, uh, finding a place to live. We, you know,

[5:06:12] speaking to Councillor Ben's comments around immigration and how vitally

[5:06:15] important it is, while other parts of the country may

[5:06:19] not be experiencing, uh, experiencing the same level of, uh,

[5:06:24] population challengers and barriers like we are, we are going

[5:06:27] to rely on immigration. We do not have the birth

[5:06:30] rates to support the people that we need to work

[5:06:33] in this, uh, in this district. And that's even taking

[5:06:37] into consideration the jobs available today not to mention any

[5:06:39] of the jobs that are coming along with the mining

[5:06:42] sector. And we are going to, to be relying on

[5:06:46] that since 2013, we've been hearing about how our population

[5:06:49] growth is so stagnant and how desperate we are to

[5:06:51] get people to move here and choose Thunder Bay. All

[5:06:54] of this is really important in terms of being an

[5:06:56] attractive place. And so with that in mind, I will

[5:06:59] be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. See no other

[5:07:03] speakers on the first round. I'll go to the second

[5:07:05] round with Councillor Foltz. Councillor False, please. Very good. Councillor

[5:07:11] Hamilton, second round. Speaker, yeah, I just wanted to offer

[5:07:15] some closing comments. Um, obviously, uh, this is a really

[5:07:19] interesting site. It's not in Mikela Ward specifically, but I

[5:07:21] just like to speak about, um, what this means for

[5:07:24] Mikel Award. This project is actually, uh, pegged at a

[5:07:28] B in about 110 million dollars to completion. So this

[5:07:31] means jobs for residents for folks that I represent, uh,

[5:07:35] to Councillor Benza's point. These are, these are taxes. Uh,

[5:07:38] here that are going to be fixing roads in the

[5:07:41] ward that I represent. Um, and ultimately this is, you

[5:07:44] know, housing is good at how we're going to land

[5:07:46] growth. Alsom needs in 27 and 28, 29. They're going

[5:07:49] to be ramping up to hire, I think, 500 workers.

[5:07:53] Um, uh, the, the correctional facility needs three or 400

[5:07:56] new staff. Um, people need homes and places to live.

[5:08:01] And also, uh, people that are aging out of their

[5:08:02] homes need places to downsize. So I think that's really

[5:08:04] important. I also just want to just quickly just reiterate

[5:08:07] the thank you, not only to the folks in the

[5:08:09] gallery tonight that spoke so eloquently to this issue. And

[5:08:12] I do appreciate that. Especially the comments about the critters

[5:08:15] and that's actually really impactful for me. I share that

[5:08:19] same, but also to the people that sent in, uh,

[5:08:21] dozens and dozens of emails, both for and against. And

[5:08:25] I just also want to recognise the value in this

[5:08:27] land. And I think this land is sacred. Um, it

[5:08:30] is. And for that particular reason is actually all the

[5:08:33] more reason that I think that, um, people are going

[5:08:35] to make this place their home. And not forever homes

[5:08:38] too, uh, we're building 360 units here at the developer

[5:08:41] is, but we're probably going to be cycling over the

[5:08:43] next several decades going to be cycling thousands and thousands

[5:08:47] of residents and families through those, uh, particular units. So,

[5:08:51] um, so I just wanted to offer those, uh, and,

[5:08:54] and just make a note about the cascading effect of

[5:08:56] development like this. So, uh, thank you to all the

[5:08:58] speakers. Thanks to administration for your tireless work on this,

[5:09:03] uh, and thanks to everyone for and against, uh, these

[5:09:06] decisions aren't easy. So thank you. Thank you. Councillor Attorney,

[5:09:11] please on the second round. Thank you through the speaker.

[5:09:14] Um, you know, we've had everyone thanking the deputants tonight.

[5:09:19] And of course I would share the same they have

[5:09:21] done a lot of work. We've done a lot of

[5:09:22] work, administrations done a lot of work. Um, really appreciating

[5:09:26] that work. Uh, personally, I love walking Boulevard Lake and

[5:09:30] its paths. It was my home for quite a while.

[5:09:32] And Kurt River was my playground growing up. So I

[5:09:34] understand the connection that people have to this area. This

[5:09:38] decision, it's not easy. Balancing housing, we need the things

[5:09:41] that we have to balance the things that people value

[5:09:44] about their neighbourhood. And it's just not easy to be

[5:09:47] able to just quickly come up with an answer. But

[5:09:50] I do want to say something briefly about how this

[5:09:52] is unfolded. And I've already alluded to that I'd like

[5:09:55] to work with administrations so that we can, I'm going

[5:09:58] to use the word fix, but definitely look at and

[5:10:00] examine this process. For those who might not realise around

[5:10:04] the table, um, I've had personal attacks, threats, milling comments,

[5:10:10] inappropriate names, things that you would never say to your

[5:10:12] mother. Um, some of this has happened on social media

[5:10:15] through phone calls, emails and in person. I welcome disagreement.

[5:10:20] That is part of the job, but threats personal tax

[5:10:23] and accusations that even an accusation that councillors around this

[5:10:26] table have been bribed for this. That's crossed the line.

[5:10:30] And I'm just going to leave that there because I

[5:10:32] really've really given enough air time. But none of that's

[5:10:35] going to determine how I make my decision tonight. My

[5:10:38] responsibility is to listen, ask questions, consider all the information

[5:10:42] brought forward and make the best decision for our community.

[5:10:46] About a month ago, Council voted unanimously on a 41

[5:10:51] single dwelling unit in a much larger green space footprint.

[5:10:56] Why? Because we need housing. Unanimously. Tonight, we're looking at

[5:11:01] approximately 360 units on a much smaller footprint, about one

[5:11:06] third the size. And I hear a concerns about affordability.

[5:11:11] And I agree affordability is an issue. But we need

[5:11:13] housing across the continuum. We've talked about that around this

[5:11:16] table a lot. People who want to downsize professionals looking

[5:11:20] for apartments, families who can't afford to buy and young

[5:11:23] adults who want to move out of their parents'basement. This

[5:11:27] spills that gap. We continue to do the other work

[5:11:31] through the housing of four ability action plan that we

[5:11:34] discussed about a month ago through DSAB and through our

[5:11:37] provincial and federal partners. And finally, I'll go back to

[5:11:40] this process. I really, really want to see this process

[5:11:44] examined and I'll be working with administration. And hopefully we

[5:11:48] can bring something forward at our next council meeting. We

[5:11:52] need to learn from what happened and improve how we

[5:11:55] communicate when concepts change. And as a proposal moves through

[5:12:00] the planning and moves through and gets community input. There's

[5:12:03] definitely some lessons learned this time around. Thank you. Thank

[5:12:08] you. On the second round of Councillor Agwell, but before

[5:12:11] we get to Councillor Echwal, I'm told we have to

[5:12:14] do the 12 a. m. resolution. So we need a

[5:12:18] mover in a seconder. Move by Council Gratuga. Second named

[5:12:22] by Mary Boschkoff. Deputy Kirkwalters, I'll have you call for

[5:12:27] the vote. General Sercino. In favor. In favor Councillor Oliver

[5:12:34] in favor. Speedr Johnson in favor Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councilorduga.

[5:12:38] In favor. Councillor Folds in favor Councillor Tree in favor

[5:12:42] Councillor Benz in favor Councillor in favor Agrowall. In favor

[5:12:49] your worship. Yes. That is passed. We're now to round

[5:12:54] two Council Raggawa on round two. Thank you. Thank you

[5:12:59] very much. Um. My concerns. I voiced earlier, but there's

[5:13:03] also another thing we've heard. Housing crisis. We're not in

[5:13:07] a housing crisis in Thunder Bay. We have a shortage

[5:13:11] of housing, but it's not deemed a crisis. We're the

[5:13:15] crisis is, is the low income affordable housing. I'm looking

[5:13:21] at a report that we received two weeks ago. From

[5:13:25] our administration. In 2025, we had a three percent vacancy.

[5:13:30] In Thunder Bay. For rental apartments. A crisis was in

[5:13:35] 2022. When we were under that value. We were at

[5:13:39] two percent. The lowest that we have gotten. Was in

[5:13:46] 2012 where it went to one and a half percent

[5:13:50] vacancy. So we have housing. They're not all occupied. So

[5:13:58] if all the rental units we have. So a crisis

[5:14:03] would be the other way. The issue we have based

[5:14:08] on the report that we received two weeks ago at

[5:14:10] the Growth Committee is the housing, the Affordable housing that

[5:14:16] meets the average income. Of up to 62, 000 dollars.

[5:14:23] So a person, a household that earned 62, 000 dollars

[5:14:27] and based on the math of 32 percent can be

[5:14:30] used as the gross debt service ratio. And you divide

[5:14:34] that by 12 months. That's the amount of rent they

[5:14:36] can afford. That's what's missing. So to say to the

[5:14:43] public and cry out that we are of a crisis,

[5:14:47] it's really wrong. It's the low income. It's the supportive.

[5:14:52] It's the transitional housing. That's where our crisis is, not

[5:14:56] on the upper end. There's no crisis there. And that's

[5:15:01] all from this report that we received. It's a very

[5:15:04] lengthy report with great statistics coming from reliable sources. So

[5:15:13] what do we need? Yeah. We need small apartments. We

[5:15:17] need to house our seniors. But we need to go

[5:15:20] within their income bracket. Are they making over 62, 000

[5:15:23] dollars a year. If they're on fixed income? They're not.

[5:15:31] They're making 2, 200 dollars a month. So we have

[5:15:37] a problem, yes. But this is not the problem. I

[5:15:41] can't support this project only for a couple of reasons.

[5:15:46] It's Parkland Community Use. It's got an active corridor in

[5:15:52] front of it. Where people have biked, I can go

[5:15:56] there at any time during the summer. From May to

[5:15:59] October. And you will see families pushing a baby carriage.

[5:16:03] Kids on Bicycles, family going into tandem on that act

[5:16:07] of court or side. To get to Boulevard to get

[5:16:10] to Centennial to get to that side from the senior

[5:16:14] area. There's not a time that I don't see anyone

[5:16:17] there. And I too grew up in Current River. I

[5:16:21] know that area. I walked it. I hiked it. I

[5:16:23] biked it. I ate the apples out of people's backyards.

[5:16:29] But we have to be honest with what the problem

[5:16:31] is. Right? The problem is not high - end housing.

[5:16:37] And we need to make it safe. We've got one

[5:16:40] entrance. That's all we proposed. Thankfully, administration is going to

[5:16:43] look at that and make it a two entrance if

[5:16:45] they do it. But I don't think we need to

[5:16:47] give up precious park land or green space in order

[5:16:50] to create housing. The housing we need. And also we

[5:16:55] have to remember anything built after 2018. Has no cap.

[5:17:02] Anybody can raise the rent as much as they wish.

[5:17:06] As long as they wish. And as often as they

[5:17:09] wish. So what we need to do and focus on

[5:17:12] is to get our older stock to be brought up.

[5:17:17] To house the people that need housing. Anything built before

[5:17:21] November of 2018. Because we were actually not looking at

[5:17:26] the true picture. The provincial law. Which supersedes us in

[5:17:33] our decisions. Councillor, you have 30 seconds left? Says very

[5:17:36] clear. Thank you. Says very clearly. I can build this

[5:17:40] and I can charge you 1, 500 this month. And

[5:17:44] six months from now I can charge you 2, 000.

[5:17:47] That's not a problem. There's no law against it. There's

[5:17:50] no 2. 1 percent increase like everybody else who has

[5:17:53] properties that were built prior to 2018. So I can't

[5:17:57] support taking away precious green space. And give it for

[5:18:02] housing. And when it was lined that was requested because

[5:18:07] what I've studied, I saw that land came from James

[5:18:11] Lyon. It was a part of the same parcel back

[5:18:14] in 1914. But that's contrary to what I hear from

[5:18:18] administration. Um, so I don't know which one's correct. What

[5:18:22] I've studied or what they've studied, but something is a

[5:18:25] mess. Councillor, would you like people on the third round?

[5:18:28] No, I'm good. I just, I cannot support taking away

[5:18:31] green. For something. That we don't need right weight. Very

[5:18:36] good. Your time limit is up. Thank you. Uh, Mayor

[5:18:39] Boschkov, please. On the second round. Sure. And, uh, as

[5:18:42] a city that has, uh, probably the most green space

[5:18:46] of any municipality, uh, of the 5, 500 in Canada,

[5:18:51] uh, that has a housing crisis. Any housing stock that

[5:18:56] comes forward to address any part of that will help

[5:19:01] the other parts of it. So the construction industry, uh,

[5:19:06] means that they can grow here, which means that they'll

[5:19:09] have more, uh, capacity to keep building. And, uh, this,

[5:19:15] uh, again, help us with our federal and provincial grant

[5:19:19] system. So everybody in the community wins, including those who

[5:19:25] don't have. So this will allow the community to support

[5:19:29] even more people in need. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor

[5:19:33] Boschkoff. On the second round, Councillor Foles. Um, I sense

[5:19:40] how the vote's going to go this evening. So I'm

[5:19:42] not going to belabor this, but I do want to

[5:19:44] say, I'm a little bit frustrated by some of the

[5:19:46] commentary, um, this evening. To suggest that one either supports

[5:19:52] or doesn't support this somehow doesn't support growth. I'm sorry

[5:19:56] I take exception to that. Um, if you don't, this

[5:20:01] is a planning meeting. On this specific property. If you

[5:20:06] don't support this, I mean, I really take exception to

[5:20:09] those that would insinuate or had innuendo that you don't

[5:20:14] support growth. Again, I get the impression on how the

[5:20:20] vote is going to go tonight. I do, um, I

[5:20:23] just wanted to say I suspect that Councillor Benson and

[5:20:26] I are not going to vote the same way this

[5:20:28] evening, but I did appreciate his commentary about not looking

[5:20:32] at developing on parks. I mean, he has a different

[5:20:35] view of this. And that's fine. But I'll tell you,

[5:20:40] um, certainly. I have some concerns. Of what's happened over

[5:20:47] the last number of years. You know, we received a

[5:20:51] number of reports. Planning reports on parquets. You know, there

[5:20:57] was this situation on Juneau Avenue. There's this, and I

[5:21:03] understand that there's perhaps an argument either way. I have

[5:21:08] some real concerns about what's next. I have some real

[5:21:14] concerns. And I think the next council is going to

[5:21:17] have to really wrestle with that. There's been commentary about

[5:21:22] parks and where we rank. How dare we be ashamed

[5:21:27] if we rank number one for parks. That's something to

[5:21:31] be proud of. And the deputant said, right? Anyway, so,

[5:21:36] I mean, this is something that we should be proud

[5:21:38] of. And we should aspire to. Thank you. So important

[5:21:45] to voter. I don't recall anybody saying we're ashamed of

[5:21:49] parks. Councillor Gertuga, please. That was just going to be

[5:21:53] my point. I haven't heard anyone say that we're ashamed

[5:21:56] of the monarparks we have. I just, I don't know

[5:21:59] where that came from. At all. It wasn't stated at

[5:22:01] all tonight. Okay. Any other speakers through this topic. It's

[5:22:11] been a very good, a very lengthy conversation. I think

[5:22:14] we all have an understanding of what the resolution is.

[5:22:18] I don't think we need Deputy Kirk Walters to read

[5:22:21] it out, but I'm happy to be corrected. If anyone

[5:22:24] wishes for it to be read out. If not, we

[5:22:26] can go right to calling the vote. Very good. Uh,

[5:22:30] Deputy Walters, please call for the vote. Your worship in

[5:22:34] favor. Council Raider Wall. Opposed Councillor in favor. Councillor Bence

[5:22:41] in favor Councillor Trini in favor Councillor Folds opposed Councillor

[5:22:46] Curtuga? Yes. Councillor Hamilton. In favor. Outsorted or Speedr Johnson

[5:22:50] rather? In favor. Councillor Oliver in favor Pastorino in favor

[5:22:55] Councillor Jacino. Opposed. That is carried. Deputy Kirk Walters. What's

[5:23:04] next on our agenda? It has been requested by administration

[5:23:07] because we have some things that we've just changed over

[5:23:09] between the next item that we have just a five

[5:23:11] minute recess. Very good. I need to go in a

[5:23:14] seconder. We would buy Councillor Trinity. Secondly by Councillor Folds.

[5:23:18] I do need to call the role on that. We

[5:23:20] are calling the role on this Councillor Asino. In favor.

[5:23:23] Squino. In favor. That's where Oliver in favor. Johnson in

[5:23:26] favor Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councillor Gertuga? Yes. Councillor Folds. Your

[5:23:35] favor. In favor. That's where I will. In favor. Edgar

[5:23:40] Wool in favor. Your worship. Opposed. That is carried. We

[5:23:44] are on a five minute recess. Five minute recess. Thank

[5:23:47] you.

[5:36:12] Colleagues, I'd like to call the meeting back to order,

[5:36:15] and I'd like to just recognise Deputy Speaker Johnson for

[5:36:19] sharing that first part of seven hours of that meeting,

[5:36:24] appreciated. City clerk, next item please. Speed with the nuts,

[5:36:31] I'm on the agenda, it's item 5. 3, it's a

[5:36:33] Zoning Bylaw Amendment for 144 Fan Chastreet, Confidential Memorandum dated

[5:36:37] to Audis IV from Joel Deputer, Director of Development Services

[5:36:40] Relative to the above noted, also report 315 - 2026

[5:36:43] growth development services planning services provider recommendation relative to this

[5:36:47] Zoning Biolaw Amendment on the Lands Municipally known as 144

[5:36:50] Fanshaw Street, which is for Council's Consideration. Also memorandum from

[5:36:54] senior planner Desea Lopes dated August 5th, 2026, I believe

[5:36:59] that's Supervisor. Deseal, whoops, relative corresponds regarding this report, who

[5:37:05] is distributed separately to City Council on Friday, August the

[5:37:08] 7th. We have Open Comments this evening from a director

[5:37:11] deputer. Acting Commissioner Deputer, please. Thank you. Through the Speaker,

[5:37:19] this report recommends approval of Zoning Bylaw Amendment to permit

[5:37:23] in approximately 150 unit apartment building at 144 Fanshaw Street.

[5:37:29] The application is preceded through expanded Public Consultation and Technical

[5:37:33] Review, including servicing, environmental and transportation studies. The preliminary traffic

[5:37:39] study concludes that the existing road network in support the

[5:37:42] Development. Longer - term anticipate traffic volumes driven by growth

[5:37:46] and surrounding areas will be stuttering, monitored, and should future

[5:37:50] improvements be warranted. Those improvements would be subject to potential

[5:37:53] developer contributions and recommended to council through the budget process.

[5:37:59] After careful consideration, planning services has concluded that the proposal

[5:38:03] is consistent with provincial policy conforms to the official plan

[5:38:07] and supports council's smart growth action plan objectives by increasing

[5:38:10] housing supply and making efficient use of existing infrastructure. I

[5:38:14] now invite Planner Ingram to provide an overview of the

[5:38:16] application. Thank you. Is it Planner Ingram. Planner, please go

[5:38:23] ahead. Good evening, Mayor Speaker. Members of Council and the

[5:38:28] Public. This presentation outlines a proposed Zoning By - Law

[5:38:33] Amendment Application for the Property Minister Pleaknown as 144 Fanfaw

[5:38:37] Street. If approved this amendment would allow for the Development

[5:38:41] of One New Residential Apartment Building. I will provide an

[5:38:45] overview of the proposal, Policy Alignment, Community Consultation, and staff

[5:38:49] recommendation. Next slide, please. The subject lands are approximately 1.

[5:38:55] 23 Hectors in size and are located between L. Ron

[5:38:58] Crescent and Golf Link's Road with approximately 105. 2 metres

[5:39:02] of frontage along Fincha Street. The Property is currently undeveloped

[5:39:07] and consists of a mixed wood - treed area. Hydroezmith's

[5:39:13] but both the eastern and western sides of the subject

[5:39:16] lands. In terms of surrounded land uses, the lands to

[5:39:19] the north contained four to six - story apartment buildings

[5:39:22] under condominium ownership and are zoned urban mid - rhizome.

[5:39:27] To the east is the McIntyre River Corridor with natural

[5:39:30] heritage features and is zoned environmental protection. Also located to

[5:39:34] the east are the Confederation College Campus Lands, which are

[5:39:38] zoned institutional. To the south and west, the surrounding area

[5:39:43] is characterized by low - density residential development within the

[5:39:46] urban Lori Zone. Next slide, please. The subject lends are

[5:39:51] designated residential in the official plan and are located within

[5:39:54] the urban settlement area boundary. The proposed development aligns with

[5:39:58] the general objectives of the residential policies by providing a

[5:40:02] broad arrange of housing options supporting the efficient use of

[5:40:06] existing infrastructure and community services and directing residential growth within

[5:40:11] an established residential area. Next slide, please. The applicant is

[5:40:16] proposing to reason the lands from UL Urban Lowrise Zone

[5:40:20] to UM Urban Midhizome. The purpose of the UM Zone

[5:40:24] is to encourage urban - scale housing by permitting a

[5:40:27] variety of multiple unit residential forms, including apartment buildings. The

[5:40:32] proposal meets all requirements of the UM Zone. Next slide,

[5:40:35] please. As shown in the rendering, the requested amendment would

[5:40:40] allow for the construction of one new Six - Story

[5:40:43] apartment building with approximately 150 residential units contained within five

[5:40:47] stories. The proposed building includes one above ground parking level

[5:40:52] and one below ground parking level. The two indoor parking

[5:40:56] levels are intended to reduce the amount of service parking

[5:40:59] to allow for more landscaping and amenity spaces for the

[5:41:02] future residents. The proposed development is designed to comply with

[5:41:06] the UM Zone requirements for related to the building height,

[5:41:09] setbacks, access, landscaping, and parking. Next slide, please. The statutory

[5:41:15] of Public Consultation Process included the circulation of a notice

[5:41:18] of application on June 30, 2026. A Public Information session

[5:41:23] by the applicant was held on July 9th and provided

[5:41:26] residents with opportunities to review and comment on the proposal.

[5:41:30] The Public Meeting Notice also afforded residents additional opportunity for

[5:41:35] review and comment. The Developer led information session had approximately

[5:41:40] 25 attendees. The developers consultants collected 12 written comments, forms

[5:41:45] during that engagement process and shared them with City staff.

[5:41:49] As of July 24, 2026, three comments had been received

[5:41:53] from agencies and 24 comments were received from the public.

[5:41:57] All commons received were provided to the applicant and members

[5:41:59] of Council on July 31, 2026 in a comment summary.

[5:42:05] Additional Cummins received to date were also provided ahead of

[5:42:08] tonight's meeting. Next slide, please. While Comments covered a range

[5:42:16] of topics, the generally focused on 10 key themes. Transportation

[5:42:20] and parking, building form and neighbourhood compatibility, residential amenity impacts,

[5:42:26] environmental considerations, loss of green space, infrastructure capacity, ownership structure,

[5:42:33] mixed - use consideration, hydro - quarter safety, and public

[5:42:37] consultation process. Public feedback helped inform the review of the

[5:42:41] application and ongoing discussions between city staff and the applicant.

[5:42:45] As part of the process, aspects of the proposal were

[5:42:48] refined in response to concerns raised by the residents. Next

[5:42:51] slide, please. Initial support and studies included a stage 1

[5:42:57] archaeological assessment and a scoped environmental impact study, which incorporated

[5:43:01] species at risk and black - ash assessments, as well

[5:43:04] as the supplementary ecological assessment focused on how will habitat.

[5:43:10] To support the application, the applicant submitted technical studies, including

[5:43:14] a traffic impact study, and a preliminary civil site servicing

[5:43:18] assessment. These studies along with the updated plans in supporting

[5:43:22] documentation were reviewed by relevant city departments. Traffic was one

[5:43:26] of the primary concerns raised by residents. The traffic impact

[5:43:30] study concluded that the Golf Lynx Road and FanTR Street

[5:43:33] Intersection is expected to continue operating at an acceptable level

[5:43:37] of service and that the proposed development can be accommodated

[5:43:40] within the existing road network. A final traffic impact study

[5:43:44] will be required through the Site Plan Control Process as

[5:43:47] additional development details are finalised. The site benefits from access

[5:43:52] to traffic long golf for Lynx Road as well as

[5:43:54] nearby Public Amenities and Trail Connections. Staff evaluated the Application

[5:44:00] in accordance with the applicable criteria, including Provincial Policies, the

[5:44:05] City's official plan, and the proposed regulations as set out

[5:44:08] under the UM Zone within the Zoning By - Law.

[5:44:12] Particular attention was given to transportation impacts, compatibility with surrounding

[5:44:16] land uses, housing objectives, and the Sites location near Transit

[5:44:20] and Active Transportation Infrastructure. Based on this review, staff concluded

[5:44:24] that the Proposal Represents an Efficient Form of Development that

[5:44:28] supports Cities Intensification Objectives while remaining compatible with the surrounding

[5:44:32] area. Next slide, please. Administration supports the proposed amendment and

[5:44:39] recommends approval for the following reasons, the proposal is consistent

[5:44:42] with the Provincial Planning Statement conforms to the growth plan

[5:44:45] for Northern Ontario, aligned with the official plan, and meets

[5:44:49] the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw. The

[5:44:52] proposal represents a positive contribution to the City's Growth in

[5:44:56] Economic Development Objectives by expanding the residential landscape supply and

[5:45:00] providing enhanced residential opportunities for surrounding neighbourhoods and the broader

[5:45:04] community. This concludes the presentation. Thank you. Thank you very

[5:45:10] much for your presentation. Is the applicant present and wishing

[5:45:14] to make a presentation. Welcome once again. Thank you know

[5:45:20] the drill. Introduce yourself in 10 minutes, please. Good evening.

[5:45:24] My name is Tyler Rizzuto, the Project Manager with Stantec

[5:45:27] Consulting. Joining me online is Sharon. She's never been planner

[5:45:32] with Stantec and Arash, the senior associate, and Transportation Planning

[5:45:35] Lead with Stantec. We're here on behalf of the applicant

[5:45:40] Terra Lux General Contractors and Development Limited to present the

[5:45:43] proposed development at 144 Fanchise Street. The purpose of tonight's

[5:45:47] presentation is to provide an overview of the proposed development

[5:45:50] discussed a planning framework that supports the application, summarize the

[5:45:54] technical studies that have been completed and explain how the

[5:45:57] proposal has evolved in response to community and stakeholder feedback.

[5:46:01] This proposal represents an opportunity to introduce new housing choices

[5:46:05] within an existing serviced area of the City while making

[5:46:08] efficient use of available land and infrastructure. Throughout the design

[5:46:11] process, careful consideration has been given to the Site Layout

[5:46:15] Access Landscaping and Compatibility with Surrounding Area. Next slide. This

[5:46:23] proposal is for the development of one apartment building under

[5:46:25] 19 metres in height. Uh, the proposed department includes five

[5:46:29] residential stories for a total of 150 units comprising 45

[5:46:35] - 1 bedroom units, 82 - bedroom units, 25 -

[5:46:41] 3 - bedroom units. will be affordable as defined by

[5:46:47] CMHC. This mixture of housing and unit sizes will again

[5:46:50] provide additional housing choice for young professionals, young families, and

[5:46:55] older adults who may be looking for opportunities to downsize.

[5:46:58] Next slide please. A total of 188 parking spaces will

[5:47:06] be provided, including 160 in closed spaces across one level

[5:47:11] of AtGrade parking and one level of underground parking, as

[5:47:15] well as 28 outdoor surface parking spaces, which will provide

[5:47:18] more parking spaces than the number of units proposed. Most

[5:47:22] of the proposed parking spaces will be enclosed to minimize

[5:47:25] surface parking and increase the amount of landscaped area on

[5:47:29] site. The orientation of the building will also help screen

[5:47:32] the surface parking area from street view. And vegetated buffers

[5:47:37] will be maintained and provided along the north and east

[5:47:40] property lines to increase privacy and reduce traffic noise from

[5:47:44] Van Jaw Street and Golf Lynx Road. The Hydro Corridors

[5:47:49] on the West and East of the Subject Lands will

[5:47:51] provide an additional buffer area from the existing low density

[5:47:55] residential uses west of the subject lands. Next slide please.

[5:48:01] The Proposal introduces a greater range in mix of housing

[5:48:04] options through intensive vacation and infel within previously developed areas.

[5:48:09] And the proposal represents efficient land use within an existing

[5:48:12] settlement area where growth is directed for these reasons, the

[5:48:16] Proposal is consistent with the PPS and growth plan. Next

[5:48:20] slide please. The smart growth action plan was approved by

[5:48:23] City Council in December 2025 and similar to the Arundel

[5:48:27] Street Project. This proposal aligns with the principles for advancing

[5:48:31] smart growth through housing, um, with compacts built form, infill

[5:48:36] development and land optimization. Next slide please. The subject lands

[5:48:42] are currently designated residential in the city's official plan. And

[5:48:46] within this designation, residential intensification, including infill development, is encouraged

[5:48:51] where possible. The proposal introduces new housing types within an

[5:48:54] established neighbourhood providing additional housing choice and flexibility along an

[5:48:59] existing transit route where higher density development is encouraged. As

[5:49:04] such, the proposed ZBA would permit the type of development

[5:49:08] encouraged by the city's official plan. Next slide please. The

[5:49:14] subject lands are proposed to be rezoned to urban MidRise

[5:49:18] as shown in the table, no site - specific amendments

[5:49:21] or provisions are required. For instance, the maximum height within

[5:49:24] the proposal would permit 25 metres, whereas the proposed development

[5:49:29] would be less than 19 metres. The lot coverage is

[5:49:33] also well below the maximum sitting at approximately 24 percent

[5:49:41] based on this lot area. 200 units would be permitted.

[5:49:46] Whereas 150 units are proposed. And under the UM Zone,

[5:49:50] a 3 metre side yard setback is required from the

[5:49:53] West Property line facing the existing residences, um, based on

[5:49:57] the proposed height of the building, uh, with the proposed

[5:50:01] development, a setback of more than 16 metres is provided.

[5:50:05] Whereas the UM Zone would typically require 20 percent of

[5:50:08] the property to be landscaped area, The proposed developments would

[5:50:12] provide close as well. Next slide please.

[5:50:24] Our transparent, our transportation planning team completed a comprehensive traffic

[5:50:28] impact study in support of the application. The study assessed

[5:50:31] existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions, projected vehicle trips, generated

[5:50:36] by the development, site axis operations, site distances, and parking

[5:50:41] demand. The results indicate that the development is expected to

[5:50:44] generate relatively modest traffic volumes to the surrounding road network

[5:50:47] and as efficient capacity to accommodate those trips. The study

[5:50:51] also concluded that no geometric roadway improvements are required and

[5:50:54] that the access to the site is expected to operate

[5:50:57] efficiently. And that parking supply proposed for the site is

[5:51:00] adequate and will meet anticipated demand. Next slide. In addition

[5:51:05] to the transportation analysis, several supporting studies were completed, including

[5:51:09] the Planning Justification memo, an urban design brief, a shadow

[5:51:12] study, and a functional site servicing memo. Together these studies

[5:51:18] confirm the proposal aligns with planning policy represents appropriate residential

[5:51:23] intensification considers potential shadow impacts and can be supported by

[5:51:27] the existing municipal services. Next slide. Um, we also completed

[5:51:33] a Public Information session for this project. Um, 25 Sign

[5:51:38] Ins, several common themes emerged the discussion with stakeholders and

[5:51:42] members of the Public. Questions raised regarding municipal servicing capacity.

[5:51:47] Traffic parking. Privacy, noise and preservation of green space. These

[5:51:52] are, these are important considerations and each, we're carefully evaluated

[5:51:56] through the technical studies and completed as part of this

[5:51:58] application. The studies indicate that the adequate servicing capacity exists,

[5:52:04] anticipated traffic impacts can be accommodated. And the proposed landscaping

[5:52:08] and setbacks help address compatibility considerations with neighbouring properties. Public

[5:52:12] feedback played an important role in refining this proposal to

[5:52:15] ensuring that concerns were fully considered. Next slide. Since the

[5:52:21] City's call for proposals, the development concept has been evolved

[5:52:25] to incorporate the feedback that was perceived. Key themes include

[5:52:28] maintaining neighbourhood character, preserving landscaping and buffers, providing adequate parking

[5:52:34] and creating an appropriate transition between existing development and future

[5:52:38] growth. The development concept has since been refined to address

[5:52:41] this feedback while balancing the functionality of the site. One

[5:52:45] of the more noticeable changes is the addition of an

[5:52:48] extra story to the building. The reason for this change

[5:52:51] was to accommodate the additional structured parking within the building.

[5:52:55] And by moving more parking indoors, we were able to

[5:52:57] reduce the amount of surface parking required on the site.

[5:53:01] And to dedicate more space to landscaping amenity areas and

[5:53:04] buffering. The revised design also includes greater setbacks from the

[5:53:08] hydrocorridor, enhanced landscaping, and the retention of vegetation along property

[5:53:13] boundaries. These elements help strengthen the separation between the proposed

[5:53:18] development and the neighbouring properties while improving the overall appearance

[5:53:22] of the site. It is also important to note that

[5:53:24] the proposed building height is comparable to the existing condominium

[5:53:29] developments in the immediate area. And so in that regard,

[5:53:33] the proposed will maintains the established character for this portion

[5:53:37] of the neighbourhood while continuing the pattern of mid -

[5:53:41] rise residential development along the golf links road corridor. Overall,

[5:53:46] we believe the revised concept balances new housing opportunities with

[5:53:50] the priorities identified by Council and the Community. Next slide

[5:53:53] please. In closing, we believe this proposal represents an appropriate

[5:54:00] well - supported form of residential intensification within the City

[5:54:04] of Thunder Bay's urban settlement area. The development is consistent

[5:54:07] with the provincial policy direction conforms to the City's official

[5:54:10] plan and can satisfy the requirements of the proposed urban

[5:54:13] mid - rise zoning. Tactical studies demonstrated that the site

[5:54:16] can be serviced with existing infrastructure, the transportation impacts are

[5:54:20] manageable and the proposed design provides appropriate landscaping buffering and

[5:54:24] amenity space. As stunned bay continues to grow and address

[5:54:27] housing demand developments such as this helps provide a range

[5:54:30] of housing options needed while making efficient use of land

[5:54:33] and infrastructure already in place. Thank you. Thank you for

[5:54:39] your presentation. Members of Council. This is your opportunity to

[5:54:43] ask the applicant or administration questions. However, remind you again

[5:54:48] an opportunity to ask administration questions later on. So Councillor

[5:54:52] Pascalino, please. Thank you very much. And through Speaker, my

[5:54:57] question is, is that the traffic studies, were they taking

[5:55:00] place while the college was active or was it during

[5:55:08] the summer? And if it was during the summer, what

[5:55:11] did you do to accommodate that. I'll pass that to

[5:55:18] Rosh if he's. Not online. Saudi Arrows.

[5:55:30] Should I have to say the set of data that

[5:55:34] we received for the intersection of Van Show and Gold

[5:55:38] Flink's Road. We receive different sets of data. We use

[5:55:42] the combination of them. We selected the highest and more

[5:55:45] recent one, which was in. July 2022. But as I

[5:55:52] said, we compare the traffic volume to older traffic volume

[5:55:56] that was collected during fall season. And we found that

[5:55:59] this is a higher one. So I have to say

[5:56:02] that. I mean, we consider and we use the hoist

[5:56:07] traffic at the intersection, which was in July 2022, which

[5:56:11] was collected in July 2022. So keeping on with the

[5:56:19] traffic, um, I realise that the development that's going to

[5:56:27] happen in that area besides this, do we do these

[5:56:31] like silo and check each one? And then, uh, because

[5:56:37] we, there is a huge amount of development going there.

[5:56:40] We're looking at potentially 4, 000 housing units plus the

[5:56:44] Costco plus them all. You know, the hotels being built

[5:56:48] on Oliver Road. That's my, my issue. And I think

[5:56:52] most of the people have an issue with, with the

[5:56:54] traffic in there, um, just wondering how, how that's been

[5:56:58] worked out. And, uh, just comment. I'll, I'll have a

[5:57:03] rush into that one. Yeah. Uh, so we consider the

[5:57:08] traffic information that's available for the future development in the

[5:57:13] area. It includes several housing projects. It includes forum commercial

[5:57:20] and also the warehouse does plan in the areas. All

[5:57:23] of them. We call them background development traffic. So they

[5:57:29] are already considered in the traffic study. Through the chair,

[5:57:37] or sorry, through the speaker, I'd also ask director meet

[5:57:39] a much provide some additional information on other traffic studies

[5:57:43] that are underway. Thank you. And through speaker, CD engineer

[5:57:48] is also undertaking other mid - city transpirations studies for

[5:57:51] this corridor. We're looking at golf links, um, HExpressway Balmoral,

[5:57:56] the whole traffic in that area as a whole, as

[5:57:58] you alluded to, in this corridor, um, the 2009, I

[5:58:03] guess going back in time 2009. EA Study for Golf

[5:58:06] Links recommended we four lan golfings to come a traffic

[5:58:09] for this future growth. And we're building off with prior

[5:58:12] studies to look at the continued growth and making sure

[5:58:14] we have network capabilities for the long term as well.

[5:58:16] So we're looking at this for today and until the

[5:58:19] next 20 or forecast as part of the Mid City

[5:58:21] Transportation Study that is currently underway. How much time do

[5:58:30] I have left or go? Okay. Um, I was just,

[5:58:35] uh, wondering, uh, if, uh, I know that right now

[5:58:39] it's difficult to get a left hand turn coming off

[5:58:42] of North towards the hospital. And, uh, I know that

[5:58:48] a lot of residents have been talking about putting in

[5:58:51] a traffic light in there and, uh, I'm sure that

[5:58:54] you are going to come up with some kind of

[5:58:56] solution with, with that at some point, right? Like I'm

[5:59:00] sure you're dealing with it. Maybe you can comment on

[5:59:02] that. Yeah. Through the speaker as part of this development

[5:59:06] and as part of the global picture of the whole

[5:59:07] golfings corridor, we're looking at issues on this corridor, whether

[5:59:11] signals are the preferred approach and solution for fan showing

[5:59:14] golfings by still to be determined as part of Larger

[5:59:17] global review of the golfings core. Like I said, there

[5:59:19] may be other opportunities we can improve efficiencies at this

[5:59:23] intersection. That it's really a corridor base approach. Um, while

[5:59:27] this development is contributing to traffic, it is not, um,

[5:59:30] pushing it over that threshold where it warrant signals. It's

[5:59:32] more of the global aspect we need to consider improvements.

[5:59:38] Thank you, Councillor Councillor Trainee, please. Thank you through the

[5:59:42] speaker. Um, besides traffic parking is definitely something that's been

[5:59:46] brought forward numerous times. And I know we just finished

[5:59:49] discussing the other, uh, rezoning, but parking is similar in

[5:59:53] this, uh, Property as a concern. How did we come

[5:59:56] up with the number of parking spaces for this? And

[6:00:00] do we feel that we're sufficient? The people in this

[6:00:02] area really concern in particular about, um, overflow landing on

[6:00:07] the streets there, especially with a tough intersection to get

[6:00:11] out of. And then of course winter. Yeah. Um, so

[6:00:15] again, we're, we're meeting the bylaw, uh, I believe it's

[6:00:18] 1. 25 to one unit. We're comfortably hitting that. You

[6:00:25] know, we think it can, we think that's adequate. It's

[6:00:28] meeting the bylaw. And that number is there for, I

[6:00:32] mean, there's that number isn't just made up. So, um,

[6:00:35] what are you thinking? We can make that number work.

[6:00:39] And then there's enough parking as well for visitors, right?

[6:00:41] Correct. Yeah. That's a, that's included in that. Yes. Yes.

[6:00:45] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Seeing no further hands, um,

[6:00:51] we do have a number of people that assigned up

[6:00:53] to speak to this, but we think maybe a couple

[6:00:55] of them have maybe gone to bed online is Rey

[6:01:01] N. Robinson. Online. Rey Ann. Is Jack Jameson

[6:01:11] online. Jack, are you online. Okay. We do have Peter

[6:01:20] Gobinski, I think, uh, The Gallery. That would like to

[6:01:24] speak. Would you like to come up now and address

[6:01:27] council. So welcome. Uh, you have the microphone in front

[6:01:37] of you. There's a button in the middle. You've turned

[6:01:40] it on. The green light is on. If you want

[6:01:42] to speak somewhere between five and eight centimeters away from

[6:01:45] the microphone, please introduce yourself and you will have 10

[6:01:49] minutes to speak. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning to,

[6:01:53] uh, Council. To worship. Um, I just might make a

[6:02:00] slight, please, Mr. Speaker for a bit more time than

[6:02:03] 10 minutes. I was thinking perhaps two hours because we

[6:02:06] had to sit through four hours of, uh, deputations with

[6:02:10] respect to the Arundel situation. Um, much of what I'm

[6:02:13] going to say has, in a sense, been covered just

[6:02:17] with the questions and the presentations from, uh, I should

[6:02:21] say my colleague from Stantek. I don't know if it's

[6:02:23] a conflict of interest, but I used to work with

[6:02:27] them in Winnipeg. So that was quite a while ago.

[6:02:31] And I'm a little bit critical of their transportation studies.

[6:02:35] So, um, I hope they will, uh, accept what I

[6:02:38] have to say in good humor. Um, let me start

[6:02:41] with two footnotes if I may. And I remember addressing

[6:02:45] council, oh, about a year and a half ago when

[6:02:48] they're suggesting it was made, I was, I believe it

[6:02:50] was by Councillor Attrinie that we do take a look

[6:02:53] at Parkland and we do take a look at, um,

[6:02:56] the possibility of Confirm Converting unused parking areas, for example,

[6:03:02] into housing. And I think at the time I asked

[6:03:05] Council members if they'd ever been to Vancouver. I'm sure

[6:03:09] many have been. If they've been to Halifax, if they've

[6:03:12] been to Quebec City and Levy, um, Thunder Bay has

[6:03:17] got one of the most beautiful shorelines in all of

[6:03:21] Canada. And being wanted in three states and four provinces,

[6:03:26] I can assure you that I've had an opportunity to

[6:03:27] travel and see most of it. And it's quite remarkable

[6:03:31] how from fishermen's park all the way through to mission

[6:03:36] march, the amount of territory unused spaces there that could

[6:03:42] be very profitably turned into affordable and not so much

[6:03:49] affordable condominiums and rental space. And this is not meant

[6:03:53] to be a criticism of, um, of the planning in

[6:03:57] the city. But it struck me having moved back to

[6:04:00] Thunder Bay for the last time in my life that

[6:04:03] if you travel Simpson, if you travel on Arthur Street,

[6:04:06] if you travel north from Red River Road, East, I'm

[6:04:11] sorry, South and North on Red River Road. The number

[6:04:14] of abandoned derelict houses. The number of unused commercial properties

[6:04:20] that could be easily converted into housing. I know what

[6:04:24] the response is going to be. These are for the

[6:04:26] most part, private properties. And the city does not have

[6:04:30] the right of eminent domain, but it does have a

[6:04:32] bylaw. And I'm amazed at the number of derelict units

[6:04:37] in this city that should be forced to either convert

[6:04:41] into proper housing or to sell it to the City

[6:04:44] so that developers can then take it over and put

[6:04:47] in some profitable housing. Um, but especially along this immensely

[6:04:52] beautiful shoreline that we have that is sitting there so

[6:04:56] that when the Viking ship comes in from Milwaukee or

[6:04:59] wherever, uh, they're not greeted by a bunch of derelict

[6:05:03] rusting, um, grain elevators that are the first thing that

[6:05:07] you see there. So blue sky thinking down the road,

[6:05:11] I think the opportunity there for, uh, maybe for the

[6:05:14] next council to look at other possibilities. I must say

[6:05:18] that, um, that I am, I was currently, I was

[6:05:23] on the board of the condominium association at 145 Fan

[6:05:27] Cha. I am no longer on the board. I'm speaking

[6:05:30] today just as a resident of 145 Fancy, which is

[6:05:34] directly across from the proposed 144 development. Um, as much

[6:05:39] as I'd love to see that beautiful Cedar cops retained

[6:05:43] as green space, I understand the need for additional housing.

[6:05:48] I don't personally oppose it. Uh, I just think that

[6:05:51] there's a number of amendments that going forward need to

[6:05:54] be considered into the final plan before final approve. And

[6:05:58] is, is given to this. You've probably received much correspondence

[6:06:03] from residents there who are concerned about everything from the

[6:06:07] noise, from traffic, uh, from the possibility that much of

[6:06:11] their own land is going to be dug up so

[6:06:14] that the developers can access appropriate water infrastructure on the

[6:06:19] north side of Fanchaw. At any rate, my concern is

[6:06:24] with 150 units being suggested for 144 that I think

[6:06:30] it is essential that the City, planning and council, take

[6:06:36] a look at the strong possibility of putting in a

[6:06:39] traffic light. At the intersection, the T intersection of golf

[6:06:44] links and fanshaw. I was told, I remember about, uh,

[6:06:48] a year and a half ago when I had the

[6:06:50] opportunity of meeting with our councillor in the Northward Councillor

[6:06:57] Pascal Leno and also with Councillor Agarwal that I was

[6:07:00] told that the time that it was very unlikely that

[6:07:03] a traffic light could be put there simply because it

[6:07:05] is too close to the expressway. And then lo and

[6:07:08] behold, a year later, we find that the city has

[6:07:11] approved the traffic light at the corner of innovation drive.

[6:07:14] Which is approximately the same distance from the harbour expressway.

[6:07:20] A little bit further, but nevertheless, the same distance. So

[6:07:23] it's accommodating 850 parking stalls in innovation. But at this

[6:07:28] point in time, we are still asking for consideration that

[6:07:32] a traffic light be installed at the corner at that

[6:07:35] T - junction quarter. All right. It's interesting that on

[6:07:39] Riviera further down on golf links that there has been

[6:07:43] a traffic late installed there to serve individual residents and

[6:07:49] this highly priced condominium complex at the other side of

[6:07:52] that T - junction. So it's a consideration that I

[6:07:55] would ask Council as it's moving forward. I know that

[6:07:59] the study that was done by Stantec is not the

[6:08:03] final say on this. In fact, as you can read

[6:08:07] in their deposition and their submission of information to council

[6:08:11] that with respect to that single development, it was found

[6:08:16] by the traffic gurus that there would not be a

[6:08:20] significant modification required because the traffic would not be significantly

[6:08:26] affected. And I would really want to dispute that. And

[6:08:30] I just draw attention to the Council to where I

[6:08:33] would call the law of unintended consequences. And especially develops

[6:08:39] when a complex situation is such that a single answer

[6:08:46] or a single particular proposal does not take into account

[6:08:50] all of the other variables that could affect that decision.

[6:08:54] So that the consequences that are reaped afterwards, um, are

[6:08:59] unfortunate. And I think of LPH and its conversion. I

[6:09:04] also think of previous council's decision with respect to what

[6:09:08] happened Victoriaville. The law of unintended consequences. The reason that

[6:09:13] it can happen here, despite what Stantec has said about

[6:09:17] not requiring any change with respect to traffic flow on

[6:09:24] golf links, east or west. The reason is that, and

[6:09:28] I think Councillor Pascalina mentioned this, that over the course

[6:09:32] of the next few years, the next number of years,

[6:09:36] then anticipation of 4, 000 additional units. If you break

[6:09:40] that down and you take a look at the fact

[6:09:42] that innovation forum is going to have 850 parking stalls

[6:09:46] for commercial vehicles, you move a little bit further and

[6:09:50] you've got Costco coming in. With God knows how many

[6:09:53] traffic stalls are going to be required or put in

[6:09:58] place there. Um, it's going to become an extremely popular

[6:10:01] place. You move a little further and you've got the

[6:10:04] degregorio, um, development right across from Tim Hortons and the,

[6:10:10] um, the golf course that is located there. So you

[6:10:15] multiply all of these together. And you are going to

[6:10:19] have a significant increase in traffic flow north and south

[6:10:24] on golf links road. It'll become, if not the major

[6:10:27] arterial corridor and Thunder Bay, certainly it'll be ranking very

[6:10:32] high up there. So there's going to be a significant

[6:10:36] substantial increase in traffic. I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion

[6:10:40] that Stantek has come to because they were focused individually

[6:10:44] on one project. Right? It is not their quote unquote

[6:10:48] fault that they didn't take into account all of the

[6:10:51] others. City Council and City officials are going to have

[6:10:55] to do that. Otherwise the law of undintended consequences is

[6:11:00] going to reap its rewards, um, in a very unpopular

[6:11:04] way. You have about one minute. So as much as

[6:11:08] I would prefer to see green space there, I remember

[6:11:12] coming back late at night. Driving into the condo and

[6:11:17] seeing either a coyote or a grey fox cross into

[6:11:20] the cost that is now going to be represented by

[6:11:24] 145. I understand that the acquisition of property for the

[6:11:33] development of adequate housing. And hopefully this will be affordable

[6:11:37] housing is as important, if not more so in this

[6:11:41] particular case. But I would ask certainly that, uh, serious

[6:11:46] consideration be given to the location of a traffic light

[6:11:50] at that T junction of fancy and golf links. Um,

[6:11:54] so that we do not reap the rewards of unintended

[6:11:58] consequences. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you

[6:12:04] for your presentation. Before we go to questions, I have

[6:12:09] Councillor Training and Councillor Agerwall on the list already. It

[6:12:13] is 1 a. m. and we need to do the

[6:12:15] 1 a. m. resolution. Uh, just before we do this,

[6:12:19] as people maybe start thinking about voting against continuing, we

[6:12:24] have a number of items on our agenda that must

[6:12:30] get through, um, because of the consequences of the lame

[6:12:33] duck. However, the petitions could be deferred to the next

[6:12:39] meeting. I'm only providing that to you for information. So

[6:12:43] as you're thinking about your vote, uh, we have a

[6:12:46] number of things that we have to do. Okay. So

[6:12:49] we need to move our deputy city clerk. Go ahead,

[6:12:52] please. I need to move them in a second or

[6:12:53] swoll of Councillor Oliver and Councillor training. Sure. Uh, your

[6:12:57] worship. In favor. Councillor Ehrwall. In favor Councillor in favor.

[6:13:05] Councillor Bence in favor Councillor Trenny in favor. Speedrfolds in

[6:13:09] favor. Councillor Cortuga in favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councillor Johnson

[6:13:14] in favor. Councillor Oliver in favor. Councillor Pastoweedl in favor

[6:13:17] Councillor's Asino in favor Deputy City clerk. I see that

[6:13:21] carried Councillor Attrini for questions for the Deputado, please. Thank

[6:13:25] you through the speaker. Um, I really like that language.

[6:13:29] You use the unintended The Law of the Unintended Consequences.

[6:13:32] And that is definitely something that we've brought up before

[6:13:35] with regards to the traffic study. Um, I did hear,

[6:13:40] and I did see some pieces, but because we have

[6:13:43] a traffic study already doesn't mean we can't go back.

[6:13:48] And, um, I recognise one hundred percent as soon as

[6:13:50] Costco was approved that there's definitely going to be some

[6:13:53] collateral from that. And then recognising the central avenue pieces

[6:13:57] as well. So I appreciate your comment about the traffic

[6:14:01] study. You did also comment about the waterfront area and

[6:14:07] the possibilities. Councillor, a question, please, from the deputant. Yeah.

[6:14:11] About the possibility for, um, housing in that area. And

[6:14:15] I wasn't sure if you have noticed or seen anything

[6:14:18] about the, uh, Pool 6, um, proposal. Have you seen

[6:14:23] any of those pieces? Yes, I have a Moira of

[6:14:26] it, not in any. Sorry. I'm going to rule that

[6:14:29] question out of order tonight. We're talking about the rezoning

[6:14:32] of Fanshaw and not housing on the waterfront. Okay. So

[6:14:36] I'm going to fair. I appreciate that speaker. I just,

[6:14:38] the deputant wanted us to look at other. And I

[6:14:40] just wanted to make sure he was aware of the

[6:14:42] other, but I appreciate that. I think I'm going to

[6:14:44] be finished then. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Councillor Trinity.

[6:14:46] Councillor Agarwal, please. Thank you very much, Speaker. Um, based

[6:14:51] on your knowledge of traffic studies, if, I'm not sure

[6:14:56] the City has to look at if a traffic light

[6:14:59] cannot go there. What about a NO left hand turning.

[6:15:03] Off a fan show? Would that be something that would

[6:15:06] be beneficial? So you only take a rate. When you

[6:15:10] depart franchise. As it stands now, because I use it

[6:15:16] every day, um, a left turn is very difficult. Because

[6:15:20] of the lack of synchronization, I'm sorry, of, um, of

[6:15:25] lights. So if you're not facing something coming south from

[6:15:28] the harbour expressway, um, you're obviously facing something coming from,

[6:15:33] from Edward. And, uh, their preference would be that, um,

[6:15:38] there'll be a light there so that a left hand

[6:15:40] turn can be permitted. And I've had all kinds of

[6:15:44] statements saying that, Oh, you've got a synchronization of traffic

[6:15:48] lights is not quantum physics. I mean, it can be

[6:15:51] done with careful attention. And, um, the problem with turning

[6:15:56] right is that we're then, do you turn around to

[6:16:00] go back to the harbour expressway to go south or

[6:16:04] east or west or rather. I mean, putting up a

[6:16:08] sign, I don't think you're going to have to because

[6:16:09] it's going to be obvious because people will not be

[6:16:12] able to turn left there at all. There'll be far

[6:16:15] too much traffic, I think. And through you speaker, what

[6:16:18] I was thinking, and I'm, and you're more of an

[6:16:20] expert on this than I am. Is it that if

[6:16:23] you had to take a left, you come off of

[6:16:25] James and go off a cornerstoga through Counter Stoga to

[6:16:29] James and turn left that way. Yep. Um, often when

[6:16:32] we're going towards Arthur Street, for example, will go all

[6:16:36] the way up to, uh, the Crescent and then go

[6:16:39] that way. Um, if you have a light there on

[6:16:42] Constituga, I think that's about a kilometer away from, from

[6:16:45] James. It's not too close. But you would have to

[6:16:47] put a light there because traffic on James as a

[6:16:52] byproduct of the increased traffic on golf is going to

[6:16:55] increase as well. No question. Thank you. Um, may I

[6:17:00] ask administration, is this something for you speaker? Is this

[6:17:04] something that has been Councillor Anger Walt, you can ask

[6:17:07] administration questions, but let's just finish up with the deputant

[6:17:09] and then we can. I'm good. I live with the

[6:17:12] diputado. Okay. So, um, any more questions for the deputant.

[6:17:18] Councillor Pascalino, please. Um, thank you very much for your

[6:17:22] endurance and for the many conversations we've had and also,

[6:17:26] uh, for staying on, this certainly does show your dedication.

[6:17:31] Um, tonight we're actually talking about the issue of the

[6:17:36] building on Fanshaw. These issues that you are discussing this

[6:17:41] evening or this morning, uh, are actually issues that we

[6:17:46] had even before any development have taken place. And certainly

[6:17:51] with the development on, uh, that is proposed for the

[6:17:55] area that would make this more severe, like, like you

[6:18:00] say, the left - hand turn coming out of fanshaw.

[6:18:04] Um, do you, do you think that actually this is

[6:18:11] even significant, you know, whether this building gets built or

[6:18:14] not for that left turn? You know, how much significance

[6:18:19] is this in the whole scheme of the development in

[6:18:22] the area. Um, I can only speak for myself on

[6:18:26] this case. I do not object at all. To the

[6:18:29] density to the number of flowers to the number of

[6:18:33] units that are the housing. The only caveat I would

[6:18:37] put to that is it's not been my impression that

[6:18:40] I'm not an expert on this, that Terelux is not

[6:18:44] in the business of developing affordable housing. They are in

[6:18:47] the business of developing extremely rich housing. So I hope

[6:18:51] with the accelerator fund and the demands that are made

[6:18:54] there, that there is a sufficient number of units in

[6:18:58] 144 that will support, uh, families that can't afford to

[6:19:03] pay 3, 000 dollars a month in apartment fees. I

[6:19:06] don't know if that answers your question. We are not,

[6:19:09] I am not personally opposed to, um, the development of

[6:19:14] the housing units there. It's the byproducts that I'm mostly

[6:19:17] concerned about. Okay. So you're in favor of it. And,

[6:19:21] uh, but we need to deal with these issues. That's

[6:19:23] why you're here tonight. Yes. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank

[6:19:27] you, Councillor Pascalino. Any other questions of the deputant. Seeing

[6:19:34] none, thank you very much for your presentation. And I

[6:19:36] need to reiterate the fact that you've stayed here till

[6:19:39] 1 a. m. Thank you, sir, for participating. Thank you.

[6:19:42] Thank you very much. So I now need to make

[6:19:48] calls for other speakers. So my first call, are there

[6:19:53] any speakers that would like to speak to this zoning.

[6:19:57] File. For a second time, are there any speakers to

[6:20:02] this report on Fenshaw. For a third and final time,

[6:20:09] are there any speakers to this report on Fenshaw. Okay,

[6:20:18] seeing that, um, there are no further speakers. I'd like

[6:20:22] to invite the applicant back to the table. Councillor Agerwall,

[6:20:26] I cut you off. You wanted to ask questions. This

[6:20:28] is an opportunity to ask questions of either the applicant

[6:20:31] or administration. So Councillor Egerwall, please. Thank you very much,

[6:20:34] Speaker. Um, the deputy that we had just before spoke

[6:20:39] of some major concerns that we have in that area

[6:20:41] for traffic. Is there a possibility of putting a traffic

[6:20:44] light there like it's suggested or some sort of mediation?

[6:20:49] Because it is a high density neighbourhood. And turning left

[6:20:55] is very challenging. Thank you. And through the speaker, um,

[6:20:59] so that is on the table. I'll say it's not,

[6:21:02] uh, final solution we were recommending tonight. Um, again, we

[6:21:05] need to go through this whole mid city, um, traffic

[6:21:08] setting. We'll look at Golfings Corps as a whole. So

[6:21:10] whether to your point is making fans all right in,

[6:21:13] right out, traffic lights on Konastoga. I'll just throw those

[6:21:16] different options. The table we need to consider roundabouts are

[6:21:18] also an option. So we would evaluate all the options

[6:21:21] to improve traffic along the entire golfings quarter with looking

[6:21:24] at the intersection as well as whole court itself and

[6:21:26] see how we can improve traffic flow and minimize congestion,

[6:21:29] um, for the corridor as a whole. So thank you

[6:21:32] very much. And through the speaker, would that be considered

[6:21:35] in conjunction with this project happening right now? Through the

[6:21:40] speaker. So yes, we are started this Mid City transportation

[6:21:42] centre right now. Um, we are looking to add this

[6:21:44] development as part of the mid CD transpiration review. It

[6:21:47] is looking at that one. The Costco Forum lands further

[6:21:51] development lands in and overpark. Burrowed. We've also taken consideration

[6:21:55] future upgrades to the Thunder Bay Expressway interchanges and divide

[6:21:59] in that way. So what impact that traffic change have

[6:22:02] on a golfing scorer. So we're looking at the whole

[6:22:05] quarter as a whole, see what traffic could change in

[6:22:08] the next 20 year horizon. It would improve to me

[6:22:09] to make in a short medium and long term. Okay.

[6:22:13] Now the other question I have through youth speaker. As

[6:22:17] I see on the, I have no opposition to this

[6:22:19] project other than the only one entrance in. And to

[6:22:24] have 150 units with only one entrance. Is a concern.

[6:22:30] Is there an option to have a secretary interest for

[6:22:33] emergency vehicles? En case there's a closed area there. Um,

[6:22:40] you had appreciate the concern. Um. When we're meeting with

[6:22:45] administration for Site Plan Control Process, uh, it's made something

[6:22:48] that we've already agreed to look at. Potentially a write

[6:22:52] in, write out. Through the hydro corridor. To the south

[6:22:57] of the development. So directly onto golf links. As long

[6:23:02] as there's a secondary access, I'm good. We're, yeah, just

[6:23:06] we're exploring the possibility of it across the Eastmont is

[6:23:10] difficult, but we're, uh, we're looking at it. Because would

[6:23:15] there. As long as you're looking at it, there'll be

[6:23:18] a solution down the road. That's all that matters. I

[6:23:21] mean, we would, we would like one too. So understood.

[6:23:24] Okay. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Agarwa. Any further questions

[6:23:29] of either the applicant and or administration. Seeing no hands.

[6:23:36] Deputy City clerk. Could we put the resolution on the

[6:23:38] floor, please? Yes, we can speed her. We just need

[6:23:40] to move her in a seconder for this. Councillor Gertuga

[6:23:44] and Councillor Attrini. Are there any further questions of administration

[6:23:49] at this point in time. Seeing none, Deputy City clerk,

[6:23:53] please call the rule. Your worship in favor. Councillor Egerboam

[6:23:57] in favor. In favor Councillor Bence. I'm sorry. I just

[6:24:04] returned. Is this on Fan Shop? Apologies. Yes, it is

[6:24:06] on Fantasy. In favor. Councillor Attorney in favor. Speaker Foltz

[6:24:10] in favor Councillor Cortuga in favor Councillor Hamilton. He's over

[6:24:15] the room. Uh, Councillor Johnson in favor. In favor Councillor

[6:24:19] Pastowieno in favor Councillor Zesino in favor Deputy City clerk.

[6:24:23] I see that carried. Next item, please. Speech with the

[6:24:28] next item on the agenda this evening is the consent

[6:24:31] agent agenda. There's a number of items on this this

[6:24:33] evening, including a number of minutes. It will go through

[6:24:36] the other items that are a bit more substantial. We

[6:24:38] do have a signed variance application that's item 6. 10

[6:24:40] for 1000 for early enroad Sport Check. Sits 1 1,

[6:24:43] which is the application of cancellation reduction or refund of

[6:24:46] taxes under section 357 of the municipal at 6. 12

[6:24:50] is in addition of a crossing guard location. So it's

[6:24:53] 0. 13 is the waverly park fountain restoration project NOHFC

[6:24:56] funding application. Since point 14 is the Thunderbolt Public Library

[6:24:59] Recruitment and selection process. Since point 15 is the repeal

[6:25:03] of By - 1 99 2017 City Solicitor and Corporate

[6:25:05] Council, although many of administration are hoping that does not

[6:25:08] pass this evening. Since. 16 is a land related matter

[6:25:11] of 120 and 122 cover win street. South surplus and

[6:25:14] sale. So it's 0. 17 property related matter for certain

[6:25:18] blocks on Francis Street West as well as part of

[6:25:21] Metcalf Avenue. I do need a mover and a seconder

[6:25:24] for the consent agenda. Councillor Oliver and your worship. Seeing

[6:25:29] no hands. Please call the roll. Councillor Assinal. In favor.

[6:25:36] In favor. Councillor Oliver in favor. Councillor Johnson. In favor.

[6:25:41] Councillor Hamilton. He just stole at the room. Councillor Tertuga.

[6:25:45] Yes. Speedr folds in favor. Councillor Benz. In favor Council.

[6:25:51] In favor Councillor Egerwol in favor and your worship in

[6:25:56] favor. Deputy City Clerk Councillor Hamilton is back in the

[6:25:59] room. Please. Yeah. I'd love to vote. Yeah. This is

[6:26:03] the in favor. That's fine. Thank you. Deputy City clerk.

[6:26:08] I see that carried next item please. Speech within its

[6:26:13] time that we have are three items arising from closed

[6:26:16] session. Uh, so the first one is board and committee

[6:26:19] appointments for the Compliance Auto Committee, as you heard earlier

[6:26:22] in close session. Confidental Men random from Crystal Deputy Election

[6:26:24] Coordinator dated July 20th presented in Special Committee of the

[6:26:28] Whole earlier this evening. The appointment is for the compliance

[6:26:32] audit committee in such an accordance with such an 88.

[6:26:35] 37 of the municipal elections at recommending the following individuals

[6:26:38] be appointed to the 2026 - 2030 term of City

[6:26:42] Council, which would be Norm Dale John Friday and Eve

[6:26:45] Frico. I do need a mover in a seconder for

[6:26:47] this. Councillor Johnston, Councillor Agerwall, seeing no hands. Please call

[6:26:51] a roll. Your worship in favor Council Reagerwolf in favor.

[6:27:00] Councillor? In favor. Councillor Bence. In favor. Councillor Trenny in

[6:27:04] favor. Peter Folds in favor. Council Order Tuga. In favor.

[6:27:08] Councillor Hamilton? Yes. Council Johnson. In favor. Councillor Oliver? In

[6:27:12] favor. Councillor Pastorino in favor. Deputy City clerk. I see

[6:27:18] that carried.

[6:27:30] Next item, please. Speech with the nuts. I'm on the

[6:27:33] agenda is also coming out of closed session. It is

[6:27:37] the Confidential Report 2023 CLS - 017. This is a

[6:27:42] Weedle matter. Uh, we do need a mover and a

[6:27:44] seconder and the resolution is to proceed as directed. Councillor

[6:27:49] Pascalino. Councillor Johnson. Seeing no hands, Deputy City clerk, please

[6:27:54] call a rule. General Source Casino is not in the

[6:27:56] room. Apologies, Councillor Pastolino. In favor. In favor. Councillor Johnson.

[6:28:02] In favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councilworker Tugra? Yes. Speaker Folds.

[6:28:06] In favor. Councillor Tranny. In favor. Bence. In favor. Councillor

[6:28:11] Rio. In favor. Councillor Ederwall. In favor. And your worship.

[6:28:15] In favor. Deputy City Councillor Zizino is back. Councillor Cezino.

[6:28:19] This is on the legal matter preceding as directed. In

[6:28:24] favor. Thank you Councillor Cezino. I see that carry deputy

[6:28:27] clerk. Next item, please. Next item is the Property Related

[6:28:33] Motor. I'm 7. 3 Art Gallery Update. Again, Taunfens Report

[6:28:36] CLS - 018 from Realty Services presented earlier this evening.

[6:28:40] It is a proceed as directed. I do need a

[6:28:42] mover and a seconder. Your worship Councillor Johnson. Seeing no

[6:28:49] hands. Deputy City clerk, please call a role. Councillor's the

[6:28:52] Sinum in favor. Councillor Pastor Weenum. In paper. Councillor Oliver.

[6:28:56] In favor. Councillor Johnson. In favor. That's where Hamilton. In

[6:29:00] favor. Councillor Curtuga. In favor. Speedrfuls in favor. Councillor Trenny.

[6:29:05] In favor. In favor. Councillor. In favor. Councillor Agerwall. In

[6:29:11] favor. Your worship. In favor. Deputy City Clerk. I see

[6:29:15] that. Carried next item, please.

[6:29:29] At a B. 1. H. Z. Is the component's Audi

[6:29:34] Committee's report 275 2020 sits from B. City Manager's Office,

[6:29:38] Office of the City Twerk, recommend in terms of reference

[6:29:41] for the 2026 2030 compliance audit committee be approved. I

[6:29:45] do have introductory Mercures on this item. Please go ahead.

[6:29:49] So the Municipal Ethernet requires Municipal Councils to establish a

[6:29:52] compliance audit committee by October 1st of an election year.

[6:29:55] This time you need reviews and responds to applications made

[6:29:57] by voters for audits related to candidate financial statements as

[6:30:01] well as any discrepancies raised by the City Torque with

[6:30:03] respect to a valuable contribution limits. Once established, this committee

[6:30:07] is in place for the duration of the term council.

[6:30:09] Council appoints three members to the Committee who are typically

[6:30:12] represented by Community Members with Backgrounds and Accounting, Auditing Local

[6:30:17] Government Administration and Law. Earlier this evening Council Appointed Members

[6:30:21] to the Committee, which has just some of the closed

[6:30:23] session. Part 275, 2026 is presented this evening for Council's

[6:30:27] approval of the terms of reference, along with the proposed

[6:30:29] members. So we need a mover in a seconder. Councillor

[6:30:34] Aiello, Councillor Gertuga. Seeing no hands, Deputy City clerk. Please

[6:30:41] call a roll. Your worship in favor? I'm sorry, Agarwal.

[6:30:44] In favor. In favor. Councillor Bence. In favor. Councillor Trenny.

[6:30:50] In favor. Folds in favor Councillor Cortuga. In favor. Councillor

[6:30:55] Hamilton. In favor. Councillor Johnson. In favor. Councillor Oliver. In

[6:30:59] favor. Councillor Pastoino. In favor. Councillor Zesino. In favor. Deputy

[6:31:04] City clerk. I see that carried. Next item, please. And

[6:31:12] so I'm on your agenda this evening is an 8.

[6:31:15] 2. The Thunder Behydra Corporation Dividend Policy. It's report 305

[6:31:18] - 2026 corporate services providing a recommendation relative to the

[6:31:22] allocation of dividend proceeds. It's for Council Consideration. Uh, we

[6:31:25] have introductory commons from Commissioner Greaves. Commissioner Greaves, please. Thank

[6:31:31] you. Through the chair or through the speaker in 2021

[6:31:34] City Council approved the transition from a rate, minimization model

[6:31:37] to a rate of return model with respect to synergy

[6:31:40] North Corporation. And Thanovi Hydro Corporation. This report represents an

[6:31:45] important milestone in that journey. For the first time, the

[6:31:48] City of Thunder Bay has received dividend revenue from synergy

[6:31:51] North Corporation through its ownership of Thunder Behydro Corration. In

[6:31:56] June 2026, Synergy North declared dividends payable to its shareholders

[6:32:00] that Thinne Bay Hydro Corporation and the City of Chinoura.

[6:32:03] Thunder Bay Hydro Corporation subsequently declared regular and performance dividends

[6:32:07] totally in approximately 383, 000 dollars payable to its soul

[6:32:11] shareholder of the City of Thunder Bay. Administration is seeking

[6:32:16] council's direction regarding the use of these proceeds and recommends

[6:32:20] that the funds received in 2026, as well as future

[6:32:23] dividends received from Thunderbird Hydro Corporation be dedicated to capital

[6:32:27] investment rather than be used to reduce the municipal tax

[6:32:30] levy. While the dividend is modest relative to the city's

[6:32:34] overall infrastructure needs, it represents a new and sustainable source

[6:32:38] of revenue that can help support acid renewal and infrastructure

[6:32:40] investment. Accordingly, this report recommends that current and future dividends

[6:32:45] received from Thunder Bay Housing Corporation be transferred to the

[6:32:48] capital general Reserve Fund and Subsequently allocated through the annual

[6:32:52] capital budget process, establishing a consistent and sustainable approach to

[6:32:56] managing this new revenue source. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.

[6:33:02] We need a mover in the secondary place. Your worship,

[6:33:07] Councillor Oliver. Councillor Benz, please. Yeah, I just wanted to

[6:33:12] speak to this. I'm very, very happy to see the

[6:33:14] focus on Capitol Renewal. I think it's an awesome thing

[6:33:19] that this isn't being folded into operations. This has a

[6:33:23] specific purpose. And I would argue that in the long

[6:33:26] run, this will help with the tax rate because we'll

[6:33:30] be taking care of infrastructure before it fails. And so

[6:33:35] congratulations on that focus. And I fully support it. Thank

[6:33:39] you. Speaking. Thank you, Councillor Benz. I'm sorry, Deputy City

[6:33:43] Clerk. Do we have a mover in a seconder for

[6:33:45] that? We do have a mover in a second different

[6:33:47] this, yes. Okay. Seeing no further hands, Deputy City clerk,

[6:33:52] please call a role. Councillor Zecino. In favor. Councillor Pasquino.

[6:33:56] In favor. Councillor Oliver. In favor. Councillor Johnson in favor.

[6:33:59] That's where Hamilton in favor. Councillor Cortuga. In favor. Peter

[6:34:02] Folds. In favor. Councillor Trenny. In favor. Councillor Bence. In

[6:34:06] favor. Councillor Lowe. In favor. Councillor Aggerwolf. In favor. Your

[6:34:11] worship. In favor. Deputy City clerk. I see that carried.

[6:34:18] Next item, please. Speed with an insight on your gender

[6:34:21] item 8. 3 appointment of municipal officers. It's 317 -

[6:34:24] 2020. Six corporate services finance recommends the appointment of the

[6:34:28] firm MNPLLP as municipal auditors for the City of Thunder

[6:34:32] Bay. And it's a local boards for a five -

[6:34:34] year period. At the Fed of January 1st of this

[6:34:36] year. This is for Council's consideration. We have Open Incroyments.

[6:34:42] Please. Through you Speaker, the Municipal Act requires City Council

[6:34:47] to appoint an external auditor for the Municipality and its

[6:34:50] local boards for a term not exceeding five years. As

[6:34:53] the auditory's accountable to you, this appointment is important. Governance

[6:34:57] Responsibility of City Council. To meet this requirement, Administration conducted

[6:35:02] a request for proposal process and received one Compliance submission.

[6:35:07] A selection Committee completed a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal,

[6:35:11] considering all established criteria, including the firm's technical approach, Municipal

[6:35:15] Audit Experience, proposed audit team, references, and pricing. The Committee

[6:35:20] also assessed the proposed fees in relation to historical, auto

[6:35:24] fees, and current marketing conditions. Based on this review, the

[6:35:27] Community determined that MNP LLP has the Qualifications Public Sector

[6:35:32] Experience Independence and Capacity required to serve as the City's

[6:35:36] External Auditor. The firm also demonstrated a strong understanding of

[6:35:39] the City's complex Financial Reporting Environment and related entities. Furthermore,

[6:35:44] the proposed fees were found to be reasonable and reflective

[6:35:47] of current market conditions given the scope and complexity of

[6:35:50] the services being provided. As a result, administration is recommending

[6:35:54] that MNP LLP be appointed as the external auditor for

[6:35:57] the City of Thunder Bay and its local boards for

[6:35:59] the 2026 through 2030 Fiscal Years. Thank you, Commissioner. Councillor

[6:36:05] Gertuga, did you want to move or do you want

[6:36:07] to speak to it? Or both? Okay, I'll get a

[6:36:10] mover and a speaker, sorry, a mover and a second

[6:36:13] or not go to you. So Councillor Hamilton, Councillor Agarwal,

[6:36:16] moves in second Councillor Gertuga, please. Thank you, Speaker Folge.

[6:36:20] Um, so reading the report, we had two bids come

[6:36:24] in. One was non - compliant. And so that was,

[6:36:29] uh, kicked out. And then so we only had one

[6:36:32] compliant bit, correct. Correct. And my reading is properly that

[6:36:37] it's more than double. Than we're paying for now. To

[6:36:42] the speaker, yes. It is more than double. However, there

[6:36:45] are some additional circumstances to consider the previous engagement was

[6:36:51] developed coming out of the COVID years. Um, so a

[6:36:55] lot of things have changed in the market. Um, not

[6:36:59] just in Thano Bay, but across Canada. Um, it's becoming

[6:37:03] a lot more difficult for firms to find, qualified staff

[6:37:09] and auditors. Um, and the capacity across these firms. Probably

[6:37:16] less, less, I'd say less than it has been in

[6:37:18] the past. Um, so it is coming in about double

[6:37:24] the price, but given everything that's kind of going on

[6:37:27] in the market, we did feel of as reasonable. So

[6:37:31] the other noncopliant bid, why was it non - compliant.

[6:37:38] So through the speaker, um, not sure I can say

[6:37:41] that in an open session, uh, the reason for the

[6:37:44] uncompliance. It was not a, it was not, it didn't,

[6:37:48] it didn't meet any of the legitimate the criteria required

[6:37:51] in order for us to consider it. Okay. I mean,

[6:37:55] going from 219, 000 last year to 459 starting this

[6:37:59] year with the four percent increase every year. I mean,

[6:38:03] I just have concerns that it's doubled and we only

[6:38:05] had one bid. So I mean, do we have any

[6:38:09] options to go out to bid again? Or I mean,

[6:38:15] it's just a, the comparative, right? You know, I mean,

[6:38:18] so I don't unless you could tell me what the

[6:38:20] non - compliant bid came in relatively the same. I

[6:38:23] mean, I need something that compared to. So through the

[6:38:26] speaker, um, it would not be in our best interest

[6:38:29] to go back out again. We do have a compliant

[6:38:31] bid. It was not, unfortunately, it wasn't unexpected amount. We

[6:38:37] knew it was going to come in a lot higher.

[6:38:40] Um, I can say that just based on my, uh,

[6:38:42] my peers in the province, there are some, especially smaller

[6:38:46] municipalities, uh, in the north that are having trouble finding

[6:38:50] an auditor. And there are audits are being delayed because

[6:38:52] of the inability to, to acquire the services required. So

[6:38:57] there is, there is danger in going back out. Um,

[6:39:02] that danger would be that we may not get an

[6:39:04] auditor. And then we would have to. I actually don't

[6:39:07] know what we would do at that point. Okay. I

[6:39:10] did. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Cartu. Oliver, please. Thank

[6:39:15] you, Speaker and through you just to bring some comfort

[6:39:17] to Councillor Gertuga. I do sit on to not -

[6:39:19] for - profit, um, boards and both boards have seen

[6:39:23] their auditing fees double from last year or even the

[6:39:27] year before. It does seem to be common practice across

[6:39:30] this sector. And so unfortunately, I think we're just going

[6:39:33] to have to grin and bear it. Thanks. Thank you,

[6:39:36] Councillor Oliver. Councillor Egerwald, please. Thank you. Just speaker. Is

[6:39:44] there, is that a requirement such have such a multiple

[6:39:46] year agreement with the auditor? Or can it be a

[6:39:51] two - year agreement. So through the chair, the length

[6:39:56] of the agreement was part of the RFP. It's often

[6:40:03] good to have a longer - term engagement. There's a

[6:40:07] lot of work that goes into developing the, not just

[6:40:11] the RFP, but the plan and getting to know the

[6:40:13] organisation. Uh, luckily, um, NMP, so in 2025, um, the

[6:40:21] City's auditor BDO was acquired by MNP. So, um, we've

[6:40:28] had a relationship with this firm now for many years.

[6:40:32] They understand the business. They understand really what it takes

[6:40:35] to audit an entities such as the size of the

[6:40:39] City. Which is why I think some audit firms who

[6:40:45] aren't familiar with the autoimmune municipality. May shy away from

[6:40:49] that. Okay. So multiple years were, is it required? There

[6:40:56] is benefit. And yes, it is an increasing four percent

[6:40:59] per year through the speaker. But it is bid based

[6:41:04] on the entirety of the five year. Okay. Thank you.

[6:41:08] Thank you, Councillor, seeing no further hands. Deputy City clerk,

[6:41:11] please call a roll. Your worship in favor. Councillor Egerwald.

[6:41:16] In favor. In favor Councillor Bence in favor. Councillor Attorney

[6:41:21] in favor. It's beautiful. In favor. Councillor Truga? In favor.

[6:41:25] Yes. Councillor Johnson in favor. Councillor Oliver. In favor. In

[6:41:30] favor Councillor's Asino. In favor. Deputy City clerk. I see

[6:41:34] that carried. Next item, please. Speed for the next item

[6:41:38] on the agenda is item 8. 4. It's the Vacant

[6:41:40] Position of the Resonation of Councillor Shelby Chun. It's report

[6:41:44] 353 2026 City Manager's Office Office of the City Torque.

[6:41:48] Provides a recommendation relative to the resonation of Councillor Shelby

[6:41:51] Chungham from office on July the 31st, 2026. This is

[6:41:54] for Council's Consideration. I do have opening comments on this.

[6:41:57] Let's hear them. So this report this evening is presented

[6:42:01] you due to the vacancy of Townsort Shelby Chun who

[6:42:03] has vacated her seat as of Friday, July the 31st.

[6:42:07] Municipal out provides that council at its next meeting can

[6:42:09] determine how the seat shall be filled as this is

[6:42:12] an election year. There are restrictions in the municipal act

[6:42:15] on the options that Councilton choose to fill the vacant

[6:42:17] position. This means that a bioelection is not an option.

[6:42:21] The date of the vacancy is noted in the report

[6:42:23] allows council to leave the seat as vacant. And that's

[6:42:25] because this vacancy is within 90 days of the Municipal

[6:42:28] Architean Council. Also the report before you prevent two options

[6:42:31] based on City of Thirty Policy and the Municipal At

[6:42:34] one of which is recommendation is recommended rather is contained

[6:42:37] in the Resolution. Happy to answer any questions that you

[6:42:39] may have. Do need to move her in a seconder

[6:42:42] as well. Mover in a seconder, please. Councillor Johnson, Councillor

[6:42:45] Hamilton. Any questions to the Deputy City clerk. Seeing no

[6:42:51] hands. Please call a roll. Councillor Assino. In favor. Councillor

[6:42:55] Pastorino. In favor. Councillor Oliver. In favor. Councillor Johnson in

[6:42:59] favor. That's for Hamilton. In favor. Yes. Speeder Foods in

[6:43:04] favor. Councillor Trenny in favor Council for Bentz in favor.

[6:43:08] Councillor Aiello in favor. In favor. Your worship in favor.

[6:43:14] Deputy City clerk. I see that carried. Next item, please.

[6:43:21] So I do want to bring something up, Spieter. I

[6:43:22] have received a message from a member of Council who

[6:43:24] is noting that we could deferring other items on the

[6:43:28] agenda this evening that are not considered crucial and essential.

[6:43:31] I would note that those items based on Conversations with

[6:43:34] Administration would be items 9. 2, 9. 3, 9. 4

[6:43:38] and 9. 5. All of these items would be deferred

[6:43:41] the Setember of the 15th meeting. I would note that

[6:43:44] we will still have to go through item 9. 1

[6:43:46] as it is time sensitive. Uh, we do have a

[6:43:49] mover for that. That would be Councillor Johnson. I don't

[6:43:51] know if we want to, if there. Speaker. Um, concern,

[6:43:58] I didn't queue in before, but item 9. 4, my

[6:44:02] memo council. I do think it is important to get

[6:44:06] in, given that it asks Administration to come back, uh,

[6:44:09] with information. So I would argue that it should remain

[6:44:13] on the list and not be removed. Well, in order

[6:44:16] to these items to be deferred, there'd have to be

[6:44:18] a motion to defer off. No one defers them. Then

[6:44:21] we're doing them. So I'm seeing no hands. So we're

[6:44:25] on item. We're going to be doing them. We'll continue.

[6:44:33] 9. 1. We have a mover. We do have mover.

[6:44:36] So that's Councillor Gertuga. And can we have a second?

[6:44:39] Councillor Trenny will second that. Councillor Gertuga, please. Thank you

[6:44:44] Mr. Speaker. First off, I want to say thank you

[6:44:46] to Councillor Trini for bringing this forward to the IGA.

[6:44:50] Um, you know, in respect to the Northern Policing costs,

[6:44:53] I mean, crime is higher in Northern Arterial and Northern

[6:44:57] Terial Urban Hubs are absorbing the increased social injustice sector

[6:45:00] costs. By the crime in Northern Ontario is three times

[6:45:04] 3. 7 times higher than Southern Ontario. The opiate mortality

[6:45:07] rate is higher. Benees death rate is six times the

[6:45:10] provincial average. And it went from 3. 9 to 2024

[6:45:16] to five times in 2025 and then six times in

[6:45:19] 2026. Um, Residents pay in the Northern Ontario paid 45

[6:45:26] dollars average more per year than our Southern Counterparts. Um,

[6:45:33] communities within 100, 000 square kilometers. Um, and in southern

[6:45:37] territory, there's 38 in the same, um, square kilometers. And

[6:45:42] our police and costs here have increased 24 percent over

[6:45:45] the last five years. And the different funding approaches between

[6:45:48] Northern Ontario and Southern Ontario. Yet the provincial Government has

[6:45:53] given 77 million in cost relief to the OPP with

[6:45:56] no equivalent funding for Northwestern Artero. So there's some disparity

[6:46:00] there. Um, and thank you Councillor Trini from bringing this

[6:46:02] from the police services board. Anyways, we need to address

[6:46:06] it. And we'll be doing that at AMO. Thank you

[6:46:10] Councillor Councillor. Oliver, please. Thank you, Speaker. Uh, just looking

[6:46:13] at the motion, I do see that, uh, it's to

[6:46:17] be forwarded to AMO. Um, but in terms of collecting

[6:46:21] some of that information, Deputy Clerk, you may want to

[6:46:24] look at, uh, working with the Association Municipality on this

[6:46:28] because they've just done a significant review of policing costs

[6:46:31] across the province because OPP costs is substantially increased and

[6:46:35] other parts of the province as well too. So in

[6:46:37] terms of collective some of that data, I think you'd

[6:46:39] find that up to be very useful. No, did thank

[6:46:42] you. Sorry on the second round, Councillor, uh, any other

[6:46:49] speakers on the first round. Councillor Gurtuga on the second

[6:46:52] earlier. Thank you. And also just adding Nolam, the Ontario,

[6:46:56] Northern Ontario larger with mayors have, um, presented a fact

[6:46:59] sheet and a study also with it. So. And they'll

[6:47:02] be presenting to the minister at Amo as well. Thank

[6:47:05] you, Councillor, seeing no further hands, Deputy City clerk, police

[6:47:09] call the role. Your worship in favor. Councillor Edgar Wall.

[6:47:13] In favor. In favor. Councillor Bence in favor. Councillor Trenny

[6:47:17] in favor. Speaker Foltz in favor Councillor Gertuga. In favor.

[6:47:23] Yes. Uh, Councillor Johnson. In favor. Councillor Oliver in favor.

[6:47:27] Councillor Pastorino in favor Councillor Zasino in favor deputy City

[6:47:32] clerk. I see that carried. 9. 2 next item, please.

[6:47:37] Now some of your agenda speter is a capital funding

[6:47:39] options infrastructure deficit. It's a memorandum data joy. The 28th

[6:47:43] from Councillor Mart Bentz providing a motion relative to the

[6:47:46] item as Distrust Council Bence is the mover. I need

[6:47:50] a seconder. Second, our Councillor Gertuga, please. Councillor Bence. Thank

[6:47:55] you Speaker. Um, this resolution seeks to gain council support

[6:47:58] to direct administration to explore options that will increase the

[6:48:02] amount of funding being directed to capital maintenance. With the

[6:48:05] goal of expediting the elimination of the infrastructure funding gap,

[6:48:10] uh, maintaining our existing infrastructure leads to lower overall costs,

[6:48:15] improved safety, as well as better quality of life. Uh,

[6:48:19] the infrastructure deficit currently sits at more than 30 million

[6:48:22] dollars annually. And we're currently on track to reach sustainable

[6:48:27] funding to properly maintain our assets in the latter part

[6:48:31] of the 2050s. It's 30 plus years. Um, more of

[6:48:36] these budgets that aren't sufficient enough to take care of

[6:48:39] our assets. So on top of that, we know this,

[6:48:43] this gap could grow as analysis continues and inflationary pressures

[6:48:48] continue to mount. Uh, information and options will come forward

[6:48:51] to the next term of Council via the long term

[6:48:54] or the long range financial plan update scheduled for the

[6:48:57] first quarter of 2027. I see this is important for

[6:49:01] the next Council to have. So they fully understand the

[6:49:04] infrastructure deficit. Uh, it's implications and the options available to

[6:49:09] them. If they wish to alter course, uh, one of

[6:49:12] the concerns that this work will explore is if our

[6:49:15] current approach is moving the dial significantly. On the infrastructure

[6:49:19] gap. We may learn that our currents approach is not

[6:49:24] sufficient. And that's really what I'm concerned about. I mean,

[6:49:27] inflationary pressures, uh, maybe eating up most of the work

[6:49:32] we think we're doing here. So I really think we

[6:49:35] need to have a, have a close look at this.

[6:49:38] Um, so in light of that, um, I worked with

[6:49:44] administration. Uh, that's what, that's where the municipal price index

[6:49:48] comes in. They're looking at what are the true costs

[6:49:51] from municipal work in terms of capital. Um, you know,

[6:49:56] we tend to focus on the CPI, which is a

[6:49:59] basket of goods that a household would buy. But the

[6:50:02] municipality is much different. And we may need to be

[6:50:06] aware of that and understand it in order to, uh,

[6:50:09] if we do wish to, to invest more in that.

[6:50:12] So just let you know I collaborate with administration, uh,

[6:50:16] on the broad context of this and the timing of

[6:50:20] the information to come back. So that's, that's my intro.

[6:50:25] Thank you, Councillor. Seeing no further hands. Deputy City clerk.

[6:50:32] Councillor Hamilton, please. Yeah. Speaker folds just the note, a

[6:50:35] quick note from admin in 2019, we've got the program

[6:50:44] and services review, uh, that was great. There was a

[6:50:46] number of initiatives up till now. So that's been six,

[6:50:49] seven years. Many of those, uh, initiatives remain unfunded or

[6:50:54] piecemeal funding. So I'm just wondering what kind of, you

[6:50:58] know, what kind of innovative revenue generating ways to address

[6:51:01] capital might we be looking at. From a revenue perspective,

[6:51:07] just to kind of put it into perspective on what

[6:51:09] that report might read, how that report might read. Through

[6:51:14] the speaker. Um, so they report that we, uh, we're

[6:51:18] working on with Councillor Benz for that, while we were

[6:51:20] contemplating, it was an update to the long range financial

[6:51:23] plan. Um, and seeing how that, how like, what that

[6:51:27] would look like in terms of sustainable tax levies while

[6:51:34] addressing, be more aggressively addressing the, uh, the infrastructure gap.

[6:51:40] Um, in terms of revenue, I think that's another discussion.

[6:51:43] Um, I don't, I don't have the information with Ami

[6:51:48] to really discuss that at this point. But, uh, yeah.

[6:51:53] Okay. I'm okay with that. Then looking forward to the

[6:51:55] report. Thanks. Thank you. Deputy City clerk, please call the

[6:51:59] roll. Councillors Asino in favor. Councillor Pastorino and Craver. Councillor

[6:52:03] Oliver in favor Councillor Johnson in favor Councillor Hamilton. Yes.

[6:52:07] Councillor Gertuga. Yes. Speaker Folds in favor. Tell us what

[6:52:11] we're training in favor. Council for Bentz in favor. Councillor

[6:52:15] in favor Councillor. In favor your worship in favor Deputy

[6:52:20] City clerk. I see that carried next item, please. Speech

[6:52:25] with the Nights. I'm on the agenda. Item 9. 3

[6:52:27] information on the sale of Parkland. It's a memorandum data

[6:52:29] July the 16th from Councillor Trevor Gertuga. Providing a motion

[6:52:33] relative to this item. It is Move My Councillor Cortuga.

[6:52:37] I do need a seconder. Councillor Attraining, please. Councillor Gertuga,

[6:52:41] please. Thank you. I just laid. I won't take a

[6:52:43] lot of time. This is specific to Parkland. Designate Parkline,

[6:52:47] not Green Space. And it's just to avoid any kind

[6:52:49] of possible problems where we might have had with Junot

[6:52:53] Park and just, uh, I know administration did come to

[6:52:56] us, but I just at earliest possible point I'd like

[6:52:59] to have, uh, especially if contentious issues, which Park Land

[6:53:02] will be, um, that had come forward to us at

[6:53:05] the earliest convenience so that we're not, uh, far along

[6:53:09] the process of negotiations when council may not want him

[6:53:12] to take that direction rate from the start. That's all.

[6:53:13] Thank you. Seeing no further hands. Deputy City clerk, please

[6:53:23] call a roll. Your worship in favor Agerwall. In favor

[6:53:28] Council Rayo in favor in favor Councillor Trenny in favor.

[6:53:34] Speaker folds in favor Councillor Cortuga in favor. Councillor Hamill.

[6:53:38] Yes. In favor Councillor Oliver in favor Councillor Pastolino in

[6:53:42] favor Councillor Jacino in favor. Deputy City clerk. I see

[6:53:46] that carried next item, please. Speer than I say, I'm

[6:53:50] on the agenda. I'm 9. 4 Road Work for Mountain

[6:53:52] Road N 15 Side Road. Mebrerandum Datajoy. The 20th from

[6:53:56] Councillor Greg Johnson providing a motion rather relative to the

[6:54:00] above noted. This is moved by Councillor Johnson. I do

[6:54:02] need a seconder. Councillor Training seconds Councillor Johnson, please. Thank

[6:54:07] you through. Um, yeah, and actually speaker folds. Thank you

[6:54:12] for the quick conversation on this in July 7th essentially

[6:54:17] creating the memo, at least in my head. Um, Council

[6:54:22] will remember the July 7th Planning meeting we had. Residents

[6:54:26] came forward. Uh, much like tonight, although not as long.

[6:54:29] And many other comments were, well, very diverse, but they

[6:54:33] all seem to concentrate on the road work on 15th

[6:54:36] side road in Mountain Road. And so this is essentially

[6:54:40] a nod for administration. Our engineer department to simply gather

[6:54:45] information, um, there's no money's involved. Um, now our journey,

[6:54:50] our budget time. It essentially just, um, puts the details

[6:54:54] on the page. And I think a couple of residents

[6:54:58] actually, uh, emailed Councillor Gattuga, Councillor Agawal, Concert Benson suggesting

[6:55:03] that they wanted to do an upcoming deputation to a

[6:55:06] committee. So, uh, this might be helpful for, for that.

[6:55:10] And, you know, it's, it's deemed as a concern by

[6:55:14] residents there as it was expressed month or so ago.

[6:55:18] So this is essentially, um, meeting them where they're at

[6:55:22] and providing information. Just information. Um, and as I understand

[6:55:25] it in consulting with clerks department and engineering, this isn't,

[6:55:29] uh, an egregious ask in some ways, I think I

[6:55:34] was told, um, nearly complete already, if I could use

[6:55:39] that phrase. So, uh, seeking council support. Thank you. Speaker.

[6:55:43] Thank you, Councillor. Seeing no further hands on this Deputy

[6:55:48] City clerk, please call a roll. Councillor Asino in favor.

[6:55:51] Councillor Pastolino. In favor. Councillor Oliver in favor Councillor Johnson.

[6:55:55] In favor Councillor Hamilton? Yes. Councillor Gertuga. Yes. Speedrfolds in

[6:56:02] favor. Councillor training in favor. In favor Councillor in favor.

[6:56:09] In favor. And your worship. Deputy City clerk. I see

[6:56:13] that carried. Next item, please. That same speedruns item 9.

[6:56:18] 5. Advocacy harmonization rather of Northern Road Construction Standards. It's

[6:56:23] a memorandum data joy. The 23rd from the chair of

[6:56:26] the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee Council Trevor Gertuga providing a motion

[6:56:29] relative to this item. The mover is Councillor Tuttuga. I

[6:56:33] do need a seconder. Secondary, please. Councillor Johnson. Councillor Couga,

[6:56:39] please. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Well, let me just transportation.

[6:56:43] Through the highway transportation highway proven act has given the

[6:56:47] minister at new authority to cementary standards for, um, road

[6:56:52] construction. Minister of Road Construction. And under the Provincial Standard

[6:56:56] Specifications for the Miz Rebel Road Construction. And the concern

[6:57:00] is it may add due to our climate and other

[6:57:03] issues. It may add additional, um, pricing to our role

[6:57:08] construction. Um, and, uh, perhaps Mr. Director Minama might want

[6:57:16] to add something with that. Director, sorry, manager, sorry. Direct

[6:57:24] here. Director, my goodness, it is quarter to two. So

[6:57:27] director meet him up, please. Thank you, Councillor Tuga and

[6:57:31] Mr. Speaker. Um, yeah, the general preface of this is

[6:57:34] the province has put in new legislation. That helps control.

[6:57:38] They got into the weeds of controlling our construction standards,

[6:57:41] we'll say. Um, so this proposed harmonization is a cross

[6:57:44] of province of harmonizing road construction standards from Thunder Bay

[6:57:47] to Toronto. Um, well, engineers generally supportive of the use

[6:57:51] of OPS standards as our interior provincial standards. Um, we

[6:57:53] do use them as a base. We do have some

[6:57:56] flexibility and refinement of what we've done for our local

[6:57:59] conditions supporting our local environment in Thunder Bay, as well

[6:58:02] as more local economy and kind of how we've done

[6:58:04] things in urban environment. Um, so this proposed legislation will

[6:58:08] help limit that and limit our flexibility to our job

[6:58:10] as we have done for many, many years. Um, there's

[6:58:13] also concerns in terms of the general conditions of a

[6:58:16] contracts that we have modified with the help from legal

[6:58:18] team to how we manage our contractors from a legal

[6:58:21] perspective. Um, so the proposed legislation was significantly hamper that.

[6:58:25] So we have concerns with, with multiple aspects of this

[6:58:27] proposal legislation. So we're just asking to kind of all

[6:58:30] lobby be an advocate on behalf of us to the

[6:58:32] province help. Put us at the table to continue to

[6:58:34] consultation and make sure our voice are heard when this,

[6:58:37] when this program is further rolled out. And just to

[6:58:42] add that we, we generally use the provincial standards for

[6:58:45] construction, but we mandated to have to do that at

[6:58:48] certain times and in certain seasons. Perhaps would be hardship.

[6:58:54] Thank you, Councillor. Your worship, please. Yes, thank you, perhaps

[6:59:02] you can address this that, would we not also be

[6:59:08] forwarding this to such organisations as the Ontario Good Roads

[6:59:12] Association, those types of groups. Yeah, I mean, I think

[6:59:19] so. Yeah. That'd be we add that to the resolution,

[6:59:23] please. Uh, can you please just specify what you're looking

[6:59:27] to add here? Ontario Goodroads Association. Okay. Just, uh, just

[6:59:30] to send them a copy. Yes, please. As part, I

[6:59:36] think we probably, we've already put it on the floor.

[6:59:39] So I think we need an amendment. Well, we don't

[6:59:44] do friendly amendments at Council. Yeah. Through the speaker just

[6:59:48] to clarify, we have added other municipal advocacy bodies as

[6:59:51] a general statement in the resolution. So good road to

[6:59:53] be covered off in that general statement. Okay. So it's

[6:59:56] your worship that's covered up. I'm good. Thank you. Seeing

[7:00:00] no further hands. Deputy City clerk, please call a role.

[7:00:04] Your worship in favor Councillor Eagerwol. In favor Councillor in

[7:00:09] favor Councillor Bence in favor. Tell us where attracty in

[7:00:13] favor. It's Putin. In favor. Councillor too. In favor. Councillor

[7:00:17] Hamilton. Favor. Council Johnson in favor council Oliver in favor

[7:00:21] Councillor Pastorino in favor Councillors Asino. In favor. Deputy City

[7:00:25] clerk. I see that carried.

[7:00:39] Next item, please. There's a number of Bywalls this evening

[7:00:42] in the Biowell Resolution. The first one was Biolaw 125

[7:00:45] for Site Plan Control for 144 Fan Chubb. Bywaw 126

[7:00:48] for Site Plant Control for 791 to Rundle. 239 for

[7:00:52] sub 91 a Rundell Street. A holding symbol removal at

[7:00:54] 2170 Linda Avenue. By 1. 314 zoning Byloff for 144

[7:00:59] Fan Shaw Biolaw 327 of Bylo to repeal Bywaw on

[7:01:02] 99 2017 by 328 for the official Plan Amend Amendment

[7:01:07] of Rundell Street Bywaw 331 Community Services Municipal Enforcement Services

[7:01:12] for parking. Bywaw 334 subdivision agreement with DK's Development's Inc.

[7:01:17] Bywaw 344 2020 sits to withdraw Delegate of Authority for

[7:01:21] Committee of Adjustment 791 Arundel Street. I need to move

[7:01:23] her in a seconder. Need a mover in a second

[7:01:26] or please. Councillor Cezino Councillor Pascalino seeing no hands deputy

[7:01:31] City clerk please call a roll. Outs of Sino. In

[7:01:34] favor. Councillor Pastowieno. In favor. Councillor Old. In favor. In

[7:01:39] favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councillor Tertuga? Yes. Speaker Folds. In

[7:01:43] favor. Councillor Trenny in favor Councillor Benz. In favor. In

[7:01:50] favor Agarwal. In favor. And your worship in favor Deputy

[7:01:55] City clerk. I see that carried. Next item please. For

[7:02:00] the next time on the agenda is the establishment for

[7:02:02] coal session. Minuten will be Special Committee of the Hole

[7:02:05] on Tuesday, September the 15th at 530 to receive information

[7:02:10] 239 subsection 2 and K of the Municipal Act. I

[7:02:14] need to mover in a second. Councillor Oliver and Councillor

[7:02:17] Gertuga. Seeing no hands. Please call a roll. Your worship

[7:02:20] in favor Councillor Egerwolf in favor. Rio in favor Councillor

[7:02:26] Bence. In favor. That's where Trenny. In favor. Speaker folds

[7:02:31] in favor. Councillor Cortuga. In favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councillor

[7:02:35] Johnson in favor. Councillor Oliver in favor. Councillor Pastowieno in

[7:02:39] favor. And Councillor Zesino. In favor. Deputy Circle. I see

[7:02:43] that carried. Next item please. Well, I'm on the agenda

[7:02:46] this evening is the confirming Bywall from the Siemens Proceedings.

[7:02:49] I need to move her in a seconder. Councillor Gertuga

[7:02:51] Councillor Hamilton, please call a roll. Council or Zecino. In

[7:02:57] favor. Councillor Pastoino. In favor. Councillor Oliver. In favor. In

[7:03:02] favor. Councillor Hamilton. Yes. Councillor Gertuga. Yes. Speakerful in favor.

[7:03:11] In favor. Councillor Bence in favor. That's Rio. In favor.

[7:03:15] Councillor Egerwolm in favor. Your worship in favor. Deputy Clerk.

[7:03:19] I see that carried. Next item, please. There are no

[7:03:22] further items. A motion to adjourn. Councillor Johnson and Councillor

[7:03:26] Pascalino. Have a good morning, everyone. Good morning.

[7:04:02] Inter. Jeez, I was 10 minutes off.

City Council

Agenda

Transcript