[0:00] Theory of change had really been this kind of if

[0:02] you can build awareness, if you can provide education, tools

[0:06] and training that will lead to action or all around

[0:09] sustainable cities. So that had been evergreen's theory of change.

[0:13] And we took that and we applied it to the

[0:15] site itself. And. We worked with, again, a very collaborative

[0:21] process and brought in experts to help facilitate this with

[0:24] us. To really say, what is it that we're fundamentally

[0:27] trying to do? How will we create this living lab.

[0:29] How? Does that program. Embody the heritage and the brick

[0:35] making history of this site. And how do these themes

[0:40] then inform the nature of the design of the program

[0:44] that happens down there. As I mentioned, it took us

[0:47] eight years. A long time. Some people said, oh, I

[0:52] thought it was the best project that never happened. Because

[0:55] we were like, sits and starts and trying to get

[0:57] out of the starting gate and figuring things out. And

[1:03] so we started to do some community programming, and I

[1:05] think 2007, three years before, we hadn't even broken ground

[1:09] for construction yet. So that we did a farmers market,

[1:13] we did some pop up gardening and programs, and so.

[1:18] Yes. They helped us to say, hey, what will work?

[1:21] Will people come? But they also put us on. The

[1:23] map. And by putting us on the map, it was

[1:26] very strategic because it helped us to get legitimacy. With

[1:30] the public. It helped us to show donors that we

[1:35] were indeed a real thing. And to help open their

[1:40] purses. And both of those things helped to move forward.

[1:43] City approval. So, yes, the visitor programming was lovely and

[1:47] fun, and we learned from it, but it was strategic.

[1:49] In terms of moving the project along. And we kept

[1:52] moving. We kept trying to create. A big, complex site

[1:56] like yours, how do you create spaces of scale? And

[1:59] so we would bring in smaller containers, like inexpensive activations.

[2:06] That people could kind of find a front door. This

[2:08] flower was like a building tenant like kind of a

[2:10] playful gesture that sort of pops out of the site

[2:15] and you can see it as you're going by bathey

[2:17] and so on. We would try to mobilize champions. And

[2:20] create buzz. Prince Charles was coming. We pulled out all

[2:25] the stops. To. Have a whole conference and events and

[2:30] so on. That, again helped to move approvals. Along. We

[2:36] did light touch, and they still do this sort of

[2:38] work down there. We did light touch. Urban ecology and

[2:42] created some significant geological. Artistic installations that would raise awareness

[2:49] that this is indeed in a watershed. That's a watershed.

[2:52] Wall, that one picture there. And moving to bigger activities

[2:57] around local food systems and urban agriculture, again, very much

[3:00] in the realm of sustainable cities. You can see this

[3:03] building is, in fact, not dissimilar in some ways to

[3:06] yours just in that it's a large, hulking space. And

[3:11] our farmers market quickly became the largest local farmers market

[3:15] in Toronto, and it's contributed millions of dollars to the

[3:18] local food economy. And so smaller activities to larger ones.

[3:23] Green City camps really working with the space heritage interpretation,

[3:28] leaving a lot of the machinery in situ, creating ways

[3:32] of representing the worker stories. It cost a lot of

[3:36] money to fix the brick press there, but even the

[3:39] interactions around kind of the worker stories. And experiences. They

[3:47] don't need to be. Hugely expensive, and they do create

[3:50] a real tone in terms of what matters. Who's been

[3:54] there before us. Why does this site resonate for Toronto?

[3:58] Just different ways of trying to open those conversations and

[4:01] then larger scale events as well. There's been many TEd

[4:05] talks down there. This is something called singularity. Uconnse. That

[4:08] was hosted a large scale exhibit. So we moved into

[4:12] bigger events as well as capacity and opportunity arose. So

[4:17] those are just some of the ways that we activated

[4:19] the site from a community perspective, ways that reflected. What

[4:24] was there? And also ways that drove the business plan,

[4:28] which I'll speak about in a sec. In terms of

[4:31] planning and approvals. It was really helpful for us to

[4:35] think about the site as a campus. I didn't really

[4:40] appreciate that until, well, in oopsie, many years into. The

[4:44] site's development that there are different kind of nodes across

[4:47] the site. There's different buildings. And each of those kind

[4:51] of plays a different purpose. There are many phases over

[4:55] time as the need and as the opportunity align. And

[5:00] so we didn't have to do it all at once.

[5:03] We hired because this site was so much about Toronto.

[5:07] And city building of Toronto. We hired a Toronto team

[5:10] of designers. We received proposals. From. International firms. And that

[5:18] was unflattering. But we ended up going with. A really

[5:22] bona fide team of experts from Toronto and again, that

[5:25] spoke the values of what we were trying to accomplish.

[5:30] And given the scale and capacity it needed to be

[5:32] a very collaborative process. And so we hired an architect

[5:36] who had that kind of disposition. We could work with

[5:41] 25 sub consultants and so on. A lot of community

[5:45] engagement in the design and allowing the design to be

[5:47] iterative. And echoing back, what is it about this site

[5:51] that's important to you? What is it? About relevant? What

[5:55] is it about the qualities and the characteristics of this

[5:57] space that you don't? Want to be lost through the

[6:00] design process. It's nice to do. It builds more ownership,

[6:05] it builds more voices. And I know even with the

[6:08] flood they had this summer, there was, like a groundswell

[6:10] of support for people to go down and help the

[6:13] brickworks because it has become such a beloved institution in

[6:17] the city. So, again, these are kind of nice to

[6:20] do. Things. But there's a bigger picture as well in

[6:24] terms of creating champions and advocates, so just moving from

[6:28] the green. Sorry, the community work to the green design.

[6:32] It is a lead platinum site. We employed all sorts

[6:35] of strategies. This was the second phase of development that

[6:39] we did about a $25 million redevelopment of the large

[6:43] building there. That's a 53,000 square foot former kiln building.

[6:47] And our ambition was to create. A zero carbon. Building,

[6:52] or rather redevelopment. And so. I included this film because

[6:58] this slide, because it shows some of. The scale again,

[7:02] which you have, like, a large kind of tunnel like

[7:05] shape. And how we broke that shape into different kind

[7:07] of zones of action of activity for different programmatic functions

[7:12] and uses. And how the green design you can see

[7:15] a geothermal field was as part of that. So looking

[7:19] at the site and the building. In its entirety. What

[7:23] do you do with this big kind of shell of

[7:25] a space? And then what are some of the strategies

[7:27] that we will employ to get our zero carbon. So

[7:31] this building. Has a geothermal they're about to put the

[7:34] solar panels on at long last. Passing and heating cooling.

[7:39] Like, really working with what's already there. And doing a

[7:44] lot of modeling, to say. What's it going to take

[7:49] to get. To a carbon zero carbon. And so putting

[7:54] these strategies in service of hitting particular carbon reduction targets.

[8:00] All of this modeling again, bringing in a good team.

[8:04] But we got funds from the green, municipal funds from

[8:07] the. Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Which is something that maybe

[8:13] would be something you want to tap into. I mentioned

[8:17] quickly our business plan. We had to make the site

[8:22] financially self sustaining. There was no government grants. We were

[8:25] a nontraditional developer. We were not building houses. As often

[8:30] as the case with these projects. You do the heritage

[8:32] stuff and then you build the towers around it to

[8:35] be the business model to support the heritage. Preservation and

[8:39] program work. Again because of the floodplain did not have.

[8:47] The reality of creating housing. We had to create the

[8:49] business model within the site itself. And so some of

[8:52] the things that we did there, one is. A garden

[8:57] shop, which kind of breaks even. And not a money

[9:00] maker. Real estate. By creating in that one picture there,

[9:06] that's the new building. That's the lead. Platinum building. In

[9:10] the footprint of an old building, there's three stories of

[9:13] new office space. And then rental space for events. And

[9:19] that event space really was the big financial driver for

[9:22] the site. Movie shoots, conferences. Weddings. All of those kinds

[9:30] of things. That really provide. Collectively provide the revenue that.

[9:37] Allowed Evergreen to provide the programs. I won't belabor how

[9:42] we raise the money. It's a huge chapter unto itself,

[9:48] but I will just say we needed innovator. Funders who

[9:52] were not afraid of kind of an untested developer. In

[9:56] a complex site. And so we found some funders who

[9:58] are willing to get behind the idea because they were

[10:00] inspired by what was possible. And then we also were

[10:04] able to get some sizable public investments. We got $10

[10:07] million from the Ontario. The government that came through the

[10:11] Ontario Heritage Trust. Kind of out of the gates. And

[10:17] by getting some of those early public investments that helped

[10:19] to derisk private contributions that. Came in the fullness of

[10:24] time. And just a few lessons learned. And I appreciate

[10:30] I'm going through this quickly. But is this idea of

[10:35] engaging communities early and often and to not just engage.

[10:39] Communities, but listening and following through. When we started the

[10:43] project, there were a lot of people who didn't like

[10:44] us. There was a lot of people who just because

[10:47] we represented change, And I think through our process of

[10:51] engagement, we really showed that, no, we're actually really. Interested

[10:54] in what ideas have come forward here and responding and

[10:58] showing that. We were changing our plans, evolving, adapting in

[11:02] response to what we were hearing, and again, That's more

[11:06] than a nice thing to do, is ultimately it's quite

[11:08] strategic. Focusing on the big picture. They haven't even finished

[11:13] the site. It'll be years before they quote unquote. Finish

[11:16] it. But you got to keep the big picture in

[11:20] mind, the vision. But you also can only take it

[11:23] one step at a time. And so creating milestones and

[11:26] celebrating successes along the way. Were the only ways that

[11:30] we could kind of feel like we were actually moving

[11:33] along, because probably if people had said to Evergreen in

[11:36] 2002, do you know this is going to be a

[11:38] $55 million project and take eight years, we would as

[11:40] adult. Thank you very much. But. We don't have that

[11:43] staying power, so. You get in, and then you got

[11:46] to keep going. And asking for help. One of the

[11:52] things evergreen did really well was. We had a sense

[11:56] of our strength and weaknesses. But who could complement us?

[11:59] When do you bring in the right people. A lot

[12:02] of people. Volunteered their time or they were happy to

[12:06] help in different ways just because they knew it was

[12:08] a project that resonated, that it was an important project

[12:12] for our city, and so we were very good at

[12:15] kind of saying, hey, we don't actually know anybody who

[12:16] can do economic modeling. Does anybody know who do economic

[12:19] modeling? And so on and so forth. So just building

[12:21] the team like that. This idea of revealing the site

[12:26] over time and really respecting the heritage and the ecology

[12:29] and not fighting it. We really learned how to work

[12:32] with what was there, as opposed to being far more

[12:34] interventionist. And this idea of being rigorous and that numbers

[12:39] matter. Tripling your time expectations. We kept saying, we'll be

[12:45] open in six months. Did we say six months? We

[12:46] meant eight months. Like, eight years. So you got to

[12:51] be ready that it's going to be a long haul

[12:53] and that your budget is going to do all sorts

[12:55] of scary things. And we had devalion engineer, and I

[13:00] asked maybe like $85 million. Tweak, tweak, tweak, tweak, tweak.

[13:07] And so, working all that in alignment with. Our capacity.

[13:13] Where the demand was coming from in terms of what

[13:17] felt like the right move once the sort of the

[13:20] core stabilization. What are the kinds of interventions that we

[13:24] can do beyond that are going to support the business

[13:26] plan and the program. So those are some of the

[13:31] ways. And we were scrappy, like we didn't say. No,

[13:34] a lot of it was like, how might we do

[13:36] this? How might we do this? How? Do we get

[13:37] to? Yes. And I think if we didn't have that

[13:39] kind of tenacious. Attitude. We probably would have been in

[13:43] it for a few years and said, sorry, I can't.

[13:45] Do it. It's too big. So just that spirit of

[13:48] optimism and Emily. Should I wrap there? Should I go?

[13:54] Yeah. So just a few more things. So that's our

[13:58] brickwork experience. And I just thought. Given that I'm doing

[14:02] a PhD in this area, that was all very practical

[14:05] stuff. From. I worked at Evergreen from 20 years and

[14:08] on that project for about 15, so that was like

[14:10] all very practical stuff. This is. Now stepping back to

[14:14] the ph. D. Work. And this quote really resonates. Because.

[14:22] Again, the battle for are these sites protected and why

[14:25] and who for and all that sort of stuff is

[14:26] that it's really helpful to think of these as their

[14:29] generative domain. They're not just contested, but their spaces, their

[14:33] publicly useful space. Where we can think about our implications

[14:38] in a complex past and a yet undetermined present. Future

[14:43] part of me. A lot of these projects and the

[14:47] ones I'm looking at are coming from bigger cities. The

[14:51] high line in New York, the Tayton modern, the batter

[14:54] seeds redevelopment in London. Projects where old industrial properties have

[14:59] been redeveloped with millions of dollars and often what they're

[15:03] doing as part of these cultural regeneration strategies is they're

[15:07] contributing to tremendous gentrification. And that doesn't necessarily serve most

[15:12] people. A couple of sites. Guttermoon Wereworth in Toronto, the

[15:16] cold drop yards in London. UK, which are two sites

[15:20] I'm doing my PhD on. These are examples of where

[15:23] in these big cities. Oopsie. In these big cities. Sorry.

[15:26] My finger moves. You can see. The cranes both around

[15:32] the distillery and around cold drop yards. They're surrounded by

[15:36] cranes as the kind of the economic model and. The

[15:42] demand for housing. And. Are really being enabled because of

[15:48] the heritage development and again, lots of benefits, but not

[15:52] always. A benefit in service to communities. Because of the

[15:56] unaffordability. A couple of projects that may be a bit

[16:01] more relevant for Stratford because they are coming out. Of

[16:04] smaller communities. One is this base, 31 out of Prince

[16:08] Edward county and an old military area. Where they're starting

[16:12] with huge community activations and an arts program ultimately to

[16:18] create. A major housing development. It's just outside of Picton

[16:22] and I think. Picton's? Population is about 30,000 as well.

[16:26] Math mocha in north adams, massachusetts. A huge old factory

[16:30] that played many purposes over the last century but transformed

[16:35] into. A large art center. About 2 hours out of.

[16:42] Boston. So. Different models exist outside of the large cities

[16:48] as well for redeveloping these properties. And I guess I'll

[16:52] leave it at that for now, if you will. Thank

[16:56] you, Shauna. Is there any questions from members of the

[16:58] city? Mark, thanks very much. That was great. Evergreen. Evergreen

[17:03] Brickworks is a really big part of Toronto now, so

[17:06] that's great testament to what you've done. I'm going back

[17:11] to the practical a bit. $55 million budget. That was

[17:17] all the building components of what you had to do.

[17:20] 55 million was the first phase, and the building was

[17:23] about 40 million. And of that you said you got

[17:27] 10 million from the government. Yeah, we got 10 million.

[17:34] From the province. Initially, we got 20 million from the

[17:36] federal government and. We raised over 20 million from. Private.

[17:43] Individuals and corporate. Okay, and. That sort of gets you

[17:50] to the numbers that you need to do, and you're

[17:51] required. To sort of break even on what you're doing,

[17:54] because whatever you put in there has to sort of

[17:56] be able to survive. And was there a lot of

[18:00] infrastructure that you had to put up other than the

[18:02] building part? Of it in terms of roads, environmental, all

[18:07] that kind of stuff. Well, yes. One of the reasons

[18:11] why 40 of the 55, because there's a lot of

[18:15] studies. I don't know how much extra we had to

[18:18] spend on environmental assessments, archaeology assessments, heritage. Many, many studies,

[18:25] Evergreen footed the bill for anything that was on the

[18:28] industrial pad. That's what? We had a head lease with

[18:31] the city and the conservation authority for the industrial pad.

[18:36] The city of Toronto helped with things off the industrial

[18:40] pad. So new. Stacking lanes of a Bayview for safe

[18:47] entry, new traffic lights, but. By and large, evergreen. Carried.

[18:54] 95% of what had to be done on the site.

[18:58] With the city supporting things. The city has since done

[19:00] a lot of work, for example, with the ravine system

[19:02] and trying to create better pathways and trail connections and

[19:05] so on. So we had a lease that was about

[19:09] 400 pages. Okay, thanks. Which is not recommended. Any other

[19:17] questions for members? Ron. Again, thank you for your presentation.

[19:22] I find it fascinating. Could you talk a little bit

[19:26] more about partnerships? How you found partners, how you defined

[19:31] a partner. If there was a buy in in terms

[19:34] of finances or. Trades or whatever. I'm quite interested in

[19:39] finding out what that might look like. Yeah. Because partner

[19:43] is a big catch, all right? Yeah, I would say

[19:53] the way I define partners. Our program partners or community

[19:59] partners, and I'll talk about that in a sec. And

[20:01] then some of them morphed into also business partners. So

[20:05] the programmatic partner. So when I showed you Jamie Kennedy

[20:09] kitchens in the gardener Museum, the Y and outward bound

[20:11] at the beginning. They all started as people who were,

[20:14] who were at the beginning were willing to lend their

[20:17] names. Lend their logos, if you will, and their time

[20:22] to helping us think through the project. And they brought

[20:27] program energy on their own dime, down sometimes to do

[20:30] various kinds of activations. And events. Because.

[20:40] They had some skin in the game, but Evergreen really

[20:43] had. Was carrying it. Right. But they were able to

[20:46] kind of bring some of their equity and their brand

[20:49] recognition and their capital to come and support what was

[20:53] happening down there. We did not for that work have

[20:56] agreements. Anything papered. Where we would start to paper things

[21:02] would be when it would become more of. A lease

[21:06] relationship. And so we had a restaurant tour. Who was

[21:10] in the space he left recently, but for many years,

[21:14] and he was a partner because he very much represented

[21:16] the sort of the slow food principles. And so on.

[21:19] But he paid rent. He got a percentage of. The

[21:24] catering work and all that kind of stuff. In creating

[21:29] those kinds of, and kind of evolving from a partner

[21:33] relationship, which is the program and the community stuff. It's

[21:37] high impact, but it's low risk. To. The more the

[21:43] legal contract work, which you still like to think there's

[21:45] still partners because they're still invested in the vision, but.

[21:50] They're putting money on the table. As are we. Again,

[21:55] there's still part and but a different scale of partnership.

[22:00] We didn't have. A merger. There wasn't, like, that level

[22:04] of partnership where you're actually really entwined they were more

[22:08] sort of people who supported the vision and were participating

[22:11] in different ways. Thank you. Sorry. With various levels of

[22:17] risk and money involved. You need to cut your microphone.

[22:22] Come up to there, Karen. Thank you. Following up. With

[22:30] the people sitting at home. Following up on that. As

[22:39] a partnership? That's a good question. Like, who went out

[22:41] and said, gee, would you? Like to be a partner.

[22:45] Because. The partnership committee doesn't have the legal entity to

[22:49] say, sign here. So we're looking at where do we

[22:52] go? To get these partners. And how far into the

[22:58] legalities do we go when we meet them? So I'd

[23:02] be interested to hear a little bit more about that.

[23:05] Yeah. And I realized I didn't. Fully answer. How did

[23:07] you find them? We went out because we went out

[23:10] to people who. Once we had the vision again, like

[23:14] this living center for sustainability. It's like, well, it's very

[23:18] much a site about city building and clay gardener ceramics

[23:21] museum. We want to have a strong food component because

[23:25] that's such a part of sustainable cities. We went out

[23:29] looking for partners who could complement the vision and the

[23:33] program that we wanted to offer, and we didn't have

[23:36] the expertise to do. So that was us seeking. That

[23:40] was us saying, we need people who can, we need

[23:42] organizations who can bring stuff we can't, right? And then

[23:48] as. We got more momentum. We got approached more by

[23:52] people saying, hey, can I do this or do that.

[23:55] I guess maybe because to be a little rogue. At

[24:01] the beginning. If their light touch kind of activations, and

[24:06] you're just trying to work with people. To create a

[24:08] vision. I don't think you need to get overly papered.

[24:11] Right, and. Legal. As I say, when it would matter

[24:16] would be. When they would be, for example, taking space.

[24:23] Right. Sometimes there's a program partnership that's like you're going

[24:25] to do. An event together. And it's not about the

[24:28] buildings, per se, but it's an event. You could still

[24:32] have an agreement that outlines rules and responsibilities. And again,

[24:37] these things, you have to have a ton of trust.

[24:41] In doing these things, they would matter, for example, more

[24:44] again, when money is involved. So we did an event

[24:47] with slow food Toronto for many years, it became a

[24:50] big picnic at the brickworks. We did it for about

[24:52] three or four years with slow food Toronto. And we

[24:55] got to the point where we're like, oh, my goodness,

[24:57] we need to actually paper this up because you're putting

[24:59] money down. We're putting money down. Who's going to get

[25:02] the profits? Who's going? To get bear the risk of

[25:04] it doesn't make money, right? That's how we kind of

[25:09] found our way through. Just a quick question. Just maybe

[25:16] I miss it. I think you said that the site

[25:19] is owned. By the conservation authority and managed by the

[25:22] city of Toronto, but. Just, like, structurally. When you say

[25:28] we, I assume you mean evergreen. Are you your own

[25:31] nonprofit entity or. Is all of this developed or was

[25:36] all this developed by the city? So this conservation authority

[25:41] owns the land because it's the valley lands, and that's.

[25:45] Part of the. Conservation act of Ontario. So that's kind

[25:52] of in the provincial. Policy legislation. The city and the

[26:00] conservation authority have, like, this 99 year agreement where the

[26:03] city manages the land. That the conservation authority owns within

[26:06] its borders. Evergreen came along as a third party developer

[26:11] so that's why we didn't own the land. We had

[26:14] a headlease to raise the money and operate a part

[26:18] of the land, so. Evergreen is a nonprofit charitable organization.

[26:24] Wholly independent of the government agency. Do you have an

[26:26] arrangement with the city? That's my. 400 page lease, okay?

[26:32] That lease allowed us to kind of do the construction.

[26:38] And get to opening. And it was a 21 year

[26:41] less a day lease because if it's over 21 years.

[26:45] It triggers something in the appropriation act. And because the

[26:48] site had already been expropriated. The government didn't want to

[26:53] go there, obviously, and nor should they have. So it

[26:56] was again. All the footwork that happens to make these

[27:00] things happen. It was 21 years less a day. It's

[27:03] the fine print. Any other questions from members of the

[27:08] committee? Hi.

[27:19] I was kind of interested. This thing is possessed. The

[27:27] activation you did as the site was beginning. To come

[27:31] to life. And you also noted that there's some physical

[27:35] similarities in the actual space between what you have in

[27:38] the grand trunk site. I'm just wondering if you have

[27:39] any advice or suggestions or ideas that we can think

[27:45] about as we look. To activate that site temporarily. Whether

[27:48] it's types of uses, frequency of uses, seasonality, Different audiences,

[27:54] different people, because we've got a fairly substantial space. And

[28:01] we have time. So. Any advice you have would be

[28:06] grately accepted. Yeah. And Emily, we started to talk about

[28:10] that and be glad to talk about that more. From

[28:13] now. If you are going to engage community partners to

[28:19] help do it, as opposed to this group doing the

[28:21] activations, I assume, right? I think one of the. And

[28:26] maybe you do a solicitation process, or maybe you tap

[28:29] a group on the shoulder because they're doing work on

[28:32] history. And. That wonderful banner that's already there. Maybe you

[28:38] want to work with groups however you select. Them. I

[28:42] would just say, I guess a couple of things. One

[28:44] is make it easy for them to get involved. Don't

[28:48] do it. I mean, I'm somewhat facetiously here, but don't.

[28:50] Do a 400 page lease. Make it easy for groups

[28:54] to get involved. Because a lot of groups, they just

[28:57] don't have the capacity. To. I think the city of

[29:02] Toronto has gotten much better at doing partnership agreements because

[29:05] of groups like Evergreen, having to kind of break the

[29:08] mold. Eight years and $1 million are pro bono legal.

[29:13] And if we didn't have the pro bono legal. So

[29:17] a light touch activation should have a light touch. Support

[29:22] mechanism. And sometimes it gets to with groups like they

[29:26] don't have insurance. Because they don't have general liability insurance.

[29:30] Will the city be willing to kind of hold that

[29:32] for people? Is it a two page agreement, not a

[29:35] 25 page agreement? For light touch activations make it easy

[29:39] for people to participate because they're going to. Bring their

[29:45] networks, their brand and their equity that's going to ultimately

[29:49] serve the project. So I would just try to think

[29:53] about. How to remove barriers that make it easy, and

[29:57] then in terms of what you want to do, I

[30:00] think those are really creative and fun conversations. Thanks. I

[30:06] saw the hand in the back. But any other members

[30:08] of the committee? For steering. Working group chairs or staff

[30:12] members. We don't normally open it up to the floor,

[30:15] but if you want to. Sure. I found it all

[30:20] very fascinating. I'm just dropped first. I actually grew up

[30:23] in the water there, and I was in multiple different

[30:25] cities, but I just wanted to say I was. Wondering,

[30:29] is it wise to incorporate a few of the larger

[30:33] partners first and really work on that? Development with the

[30:37] offices. To start getting flip traffic to the area and

[30:41] movement towards the area and into the area, into. The

[30:45] grand trunk. Throw it. Is that a good. Point. My

[30:50] sense is that you have to be working on both

[30:53] levels. Right, because the little activations are nice for, like,

[30:59] doors open. And a movie knife, but it doesn't move

[31:03] the needle. And so I think at the same time,

[31:06] the city needs to be working with the YMCA and

[31:08] maybe the library, maybe Waterloo, right, to try to land

[31:12] some of those, because. Those define the project materially. So

[31:18] it's a bottom up top down thing that you're constantly

[31:20] toggling. Between. Yeah. Create some of those new projects. And

[31:24] the big idea is they land that they give the

[31:26] future. In terms of the viability and will attract the

[31:30] larger infrastructure dollars. Right. It's more of an art than

[31:36] a science as well. Thank you so much. Emily? Yeah,

[31:42] I just wanted to make one comment or two comments.

[31:44] I guess I just really want to thank you, Shauna,

[31:46] for coming to share this presentation with us today. I

[31:48] know Sean and I spent some time together this afternoon

[31:50] and chatted last week in advance of today and one

[31:52] thing that you said, shauna, that really resonated with me.

[31:56] Was this idea that. We sometimes think this stuff is

[32:00] going to be linear. And I think when you were

[32:03] talking about this. Sometimes when you present this stuff back,

[32:05] it feels, Jonathan said like, yes. And people are like,

[32:06] oh, you took this step, this step, this step. And

[32:09] not to take your thunder, did we talk? About kind

[32:11] of how you responded to that. It's like linear versus

[32:15] how it actually felt. Yeah, I forgot to put in

[32:18] that slide. So. Yes, it does. With the beauty of

[32:23] hindsight. And then we did this, and then we. Did

[32:26] that. And then this is. And it looks like it

[32:28] was hugely intentional. Most days it felt like a snowstorm,

[32:33] right. And. So when I was showing the slides show

[32:37] with a community group or something like this slideshow. Earlier

[32:39] this spring, community group that wants to do a campaign

[32:42] of their own. I said I showed like this ball

[32:45] of yarn. I said, most of the time it felt

[32:51] like this. It did not feel linear, right. And it

[32:55] did not feel like. We did not know. What we

[33:00] did not know. That comes back to. Creating that culture,

[33:06] an organizational culture or committee structure. However you're going to

[33:09] work this to say. Okay, well, how do we adapt

[33:12] to that new, how do we adapt to that information?

[33:16] A fellow who was on our committee, a good friend

[33:18] of Melanie, he would say. It's. Like you're throwing balls

[33:20] up in the air. You just come throw balls in,

[33:22] you drop. One art, grab another one, throw it up.

[33:24] And so a lot of, especially in the formative stages

[33:27] when you're trying to see, like, what can this building

[33:30] hold? Like one of the reasons why our cough. Construction

[33:36] were so because we wanted to do it all. And

[33:38] then while we can't afford that. Scale. Scale, scale readap.

[33:40] Readapot approvals. We had no idea the levels of approvals,

[33:44] et cetera, et cetera. But this culture that's like, okay,

[33:48] how might we do this? What do we learn from

[33:50] that. What are we going to let go of? How

[33:53] do we keep building more supporters than naysayers? And one

[33:59] of the ways you do that is also by showing

[34:01] that you're pivoting. Yes, we had master plans, and, yes,

[34:06] we had project plans, and they helped to kind of

[34:08] create a sense of direction. And kind of milestones, but

[34:13] how that gets done? Is not linear. Thank you very

[34:19] much, Shauna. I think that wraps up our questions on

[34:23] behalf of the committee. And the city of a resident.

[34:29] Thank you so much. Gift of our appreciation for coming

[34:31] today. Okay. Thank you.

[34:45] Item six is business arising from previous minutes. Item six,

[34:49] one is the indigenous engagement consultation strategy, Kevin. And Una

[34:53] are here to provide us an update on their work

[34:56] and what we can expect in the coming weeks, so

[34:57] I think unal invite you forward. Poor Kevin is not

[35:01] here today unexpectedly. So Una is taking up the mantle

[35:05] on her own today. Thank you. Chair. I just want

[35:15] to give you sort of an update. From the overview

[35:19] that we presented at the last meeting. We've kind of

[35:23] drilled down into the different steps that we need to

[35:26] take, and we're moving forward with those steps. With a

[35:29] view to creating a consultation plan with indigenous people. So.

[35:36] We're calling this? Well, it's obviously a pre consultation phase,

[35:38] so we're. Calling this relationship building phase, if you like.

[35:43] And as you heard in the land acknowledgment, Stratford is

[35:47] land that. Is really, I guess, referred to by many

[35:52] different First nations. So the first step for us is

[35:55] identifying those various nations to be able to even identify

[35:59] those indigenous organizations and stakeholders, including knowledge keepers. Elders, youth

[36:06] treaty organizations, urban indigenous. Communities to ensure that we have

[36:11] a comprehensive representation. We've done some sort of preliminary work.

[36:16] With the city of Guelph, just in terms of trying

[36:19] to get some information. But also trying to help us

[36:24] understand what this process. Involves and being able to ensure

[36:29] that we have representation of all of the folks that

[36:33] identify as having moved through this land is paramount to

[36:37] us, and so we're hoping to compile. A comprehensive list

[36:42] of indigenous interestholders. Secondly, we're looking at. The land acknowledgment

[36:48] itself. So once we've identified the interest, then. We can

[36:50] be able to go back to the land. Acknowledgment and

[36:53] actually identify those nations. And to have workshops. With project

[37:01] teams on this committee, but also with planning department in

[37:05] terms of those indigenous protocols. As we know, different nations

[37:11] have obviously. Different, maybe competing interests, if you'd like, but

[37:16] various ways of culture. So how do all of them

[37:20] get represented. And then thirdly, it's the initial outreach, so

[37:24] that would be working with the committee. To send formal

[37:28] communication to indigenous governments and organizations. Outlining the project's scope

[37:35] and its objectives and their right to participate in the

[37:38] consultative process and to ensure that communication. Is clear and

[37:43] how their input will influence decision making. And so that

[37:47] will involve, obviously, drafting and sending formal limitations with the

[37:50] follow up plan. For continuous engagements, and then we hope

[37:54] to be able to identify what that sort of consultative

[37:58] phase plan actually looks like, and so we'll be giving

[38:02] you updates periodically. Any questions for Una? Yes. Add one

[38:11] thing, because Kevin couldn't be here today. So really, the

[38:13] intention of what? Una's described is kind of these immediate

[38:16] next actions the team is going to be taking as

[38:18] they prepare. A plan for you. Review. So the intention

[38:23] is for the team to come back to this committee.

[38:26] In October to share with you a draft plan. But

[38:29] the steps that una's outlined here. Are really the things

[38:32] that need to. Inform a draft plan. So what she's

[38:35] described today are these things that are underway, right? Now

[38:38] and are going to inform a draft plan that will

[38:41] come to you for your consideration. So. That we just

[38:44] wanted to be sure that everyone understood coming out of

[38:46] last month that the things are happening right now. They're

[38:49] underway, but the plan itself. You won't see for another

[38:54] month until we meet again. Thank you very much, Una.

[38:57] There's no questions. It's actually a question of. For this

[39:07] committee to consider. I think I have a small understanding

[39:12] of how deep and complex indigenous cultures are. And there

[39:19] are a variety of them. As I understand it. They're

[39:24] not always indigenous. Communities are not always in agreement with

[39:28] each other. A variety of issues. And. I appreciate what

[39:35] it is we're trying to do. We're trying to develop

[39:38] protocols. But I note in the last minute, That there

[39:46] is a wish to try to incorporate indigenous perspectives and

[39:50] design and space use. This may be hugely over simplistic.

[39:59] But I put it out there for consideration. Has any

[40:03] thought been given to simply dedicating a space. For the

[40:07] exclusive use of indigenous communities so that they can present

[40:11] their own message or messages at their discretion rather than

[40:16] us. Trying to determine, through Develop protocols, what it is

[40:22] they're trying to say. Just give them an opportunity to

[40:25] say it. One of the preliminary discussions that we had

[40:28] with the casuenta two row, now group. Was myself and

[40:35] Ray. I can't remember his surname. But we had spoken

[40:38] with them and they had come up with a number

[40:40] of ideas. Thinking about the space, thinking about. How their

[40:47] culture could be represented in such a space. There were

[40:51] ideas. From their perspective, and that involved some aspect of

[40:56] what a friendship center might look like and what that

[40:58] might entail. But that's one organization that we're working with.

[41:02] But there are also other organizations. As well. So it's

[41:05] like, how does everybody have a voice? What are the

[41:09] people that need to come to the table in terms

[41:11] of those that have interest? In Stratford as well as

[41:14] this organization. Follow up question, Mr. Sheriff, shouldn't we let

[41:18] them determine. Which groups should be represented rather than us

[41:24] trying to determine that? Absolutely. But shouldn't all the groups

[41:28] also understand that this is happening. I agree with that.

[41:34] Yeah. That Stratford encompasses their land. We have a duty

[41:39] to inform. Anything further for Una. Thanks so much. Appreciate

[41:44] it. Thank you. Item 62 is with regard to the

[41:48] draft 2025 budget for the grant Trump renewal project, and

[41:52] Joan Thompson, the CEO, has taken some of the feedback

[41:55] given at the last meeting and has an update with

[41:57] regard to that. Joan over. To you. Thank you very

[42:02] much. Through you, Mr. Chair. So we did hear the

[42:05] concerns about the draft budget that was presented at the

[42:09] last meeting. In response to this, we have incorporated the

[42:15] GTR work plan for the budget into the overall budget

[42:19] of my office and broaden the description of the various

[42:23] items. So there is still going to be an envelope

[42:26] of funds available. That will be presented to Councillor. There

[42:30] were questions about that allocation. In particular for the installation

[42:36] and servicing of the roads, as well as the design

[42:39] work related to that. So this revised budget document provides

[42:44] a high level overview of the grand truck work plan.

[42:48] Those work plans have already been presented to you. They've

[42:50] been presented to Councillor and. The budget relates to a

[42:54] Q three and the Q four work plan that the

[42:57] committee recently prepared. And endorsed. The budget document indicates that

[43:03] the funds from the Grand Trunk reserve will be used

[43:05] in accordance with. The approved work plan and at the

[43:08] discretion of Councillor. So ultimately, it is still Councillor that

[43:11] makes. The decisions as to the various items when they're

[43:15] ready to move forward. This means that with Councillor direction

[43:19] funds, because it's an envelope of funds can be allocated.

[43:22] From the reserve fund to support the work plan as

[43:25] needed. Also want to address questions about the capacity and

[43:30] the staffing that were raised at the meeting. So again,

[43:34] funds from the Grand Trunk reserve will also be allocated

[43:37] to invest Stratford, which is our partner agency to support

[43:41] staffing for this project. So as part of the invest

[43:44] Stratford budget that comes forward to counci. Council for council's

[43:47] approval. There is a sum of money included in that

[43:51] to expand the staffing capacity to support this. New project.

[43:57] This is again subject to approval from invest, Stratford Board

[44:00] and Councillor approval through the budget process. And if there's

[44:04] any questions. Any questions for Joan? Thank you very much

[44:10] for the update. Item 63 is the grand trunk activation

[44:14] animation update, and I'm going to turn it over to

[44:17] Tim and Emily to give us some background with regard.

[44:19] To it. So through the chair, I had a quick

[44:26] presentation. Until tonight. Shauna Andrews. And my presentation was on

[44:31] a lot longer, so some great points came. Out and

[44:34] things that we are already looking at. Last meeting. I

[44:37] know it was brought up about animation. There's interest in

[44:40] the community to see something going on in there. The

[44:43] mayor. Mayor Ritzma Emily Robson and my community services team

[44:47] already had a meeting. That week to discuss that very

[44:50] item. So we are discussing. Looking at what processes we

[44:54] have to do to get this going. What's some of

[44:56] the hurdles that we have to get over. There's some,

[44:59] obviously looking at permits occupancy. Rate and other items. Just

[45:04] looking at site remediation. What can we use? Maybe there's

[45:07] parts of the site that we stay away from. There's

[45:10] also sites where you say, you know what we have

[45:11] fence it off, utilize those areas. So the community services

[45:16] team, I should just bring up that. So manager Darcy

[45:19] Drummen, manager of recreation marketing. Jeff Auden, our supervisor, recreation.

[45:25] And then we have two other coordinators. We have our

[45:26] event. Coordinator Kirsten Ridell. And our. Heather Denny as well

[45:33] is in there. As well as. Getting all these names

[45:37] in here, so. Lana Bose, who is our sports cultural

[45:41] sponsorship coordinator. So the plan is to meet this week.

[45:45] We are going to go back on the site, start

[45:47] generating ideas as to what can go in there. I

[45:50] think we have a municipal cultural plan. We have as

[45:53] a documentation on what we can also incorporate within this

[45:57] site on activation animation. And then come back to the

[46:00] team and to come up with a process on how

[46:03] do we contact and get this applications in or if

[46:06] people have a request to do animation. What's the process.

[46:10] So that's where coming out of Shauna's presentation, And through

[46:15] Andrew's questions. Pull up. These are the things we're looking

[46:17] at. Is how do we make it easy? We don't

[46:19] want a 20 page document that people are just going

[46:22] to turn away and not want to do it. So

[46:24] making it easy, get groups involved. Insurance will definitely be

[46:28] part of the process, whether we look at city issued

[46:31] insurance that we can do or the group does it

[46:33] on their own. Have, like I said, an easy agreement

[46:37] to remove those barriers. And I think one thing that

[46:40] I did talk to my team about is we don't.

[46:42] Have to be the thought process on what goes in

[46:45] there. The community has lots of ideas and once. We

[46:48] just make a process on. This is how you contact

[46:51] us. This is how we get these initiatives moving forward,

[46:55] the rest will fall in place. So that's where we're

[46:56] at. Any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Ron. Thank

[47:04] you. Just a quick question. Do you have a sense

[47:05] of a timeline on when activations such as? A low

[47:10] level of activation might happen. Or could happen, looking at

[47:14] our own plans, but I'm. Now trying to merge it

[47:16] with what you're saying through the chair. I think part

[47:19] of that would be. We question whether a winter activation

[47:23] would be something that maybe we're not sure that's? Going

[47:26] to be in there, but ideally, we would like to

[47:28] get this moving quick. The talks out there. The interest

[47:31] is out there. So I think once we get the

[47:34] stop out, on site, see what's going on there, we

[47:36] can start moving forward. And some of those low hanging

[47:39] fruit that we can maybe do quick, easy wins. To

[47:41] get that in, we would like to do sooner than

[47:43] later, so. I would hope in my world, the fall

[47:46] would be great. To get something out there, I would

[47:49] agree. I know that there are several arts groups that

[47:51] are very interested in doing something on the site again,

[47:54] low level and. It would be a good beginning. Thank

[47:59] you. So along with Tim's team and community services, The

[48:06] part of this endeavor that I've picked up and I'm

[48:08] working on in partnership with in destinations dratford. And Stratford

[48:13] Summer Music is actually figuring out what would a footprint

[48:16] in that building look like? So. The kinds of things

[48:19] we're talking about is like, okay, if we use this

[48:21] kind of footprint here. What are the actual safety measures

[48:24] that need to be in place? So what we're working

[48:25] at right now is like, okay, we've got engineered fencing,

[48:29] and it's in this footprint. What needs to change? Like

[48:31] there's some holes and. Stuff like pits in that area.

[48:35] Those need to be filled up, and we're really lucky.

[48:37] To have partners in both those organizations who have brought

[48:41] some real expertise. So, for example, We're meeting. With expert

[48:45] in health and safety who has worked on many projects

[48:49] repurposing. She worked on one to repurpose an industrial site

[48:52] that was unoccupied as a performance. Venue. So what we're

[48:57] working on right now is what is. The parameters for

[49:01] an event in this space and working out, like, what

[49:03] does it actually cost to. Put those things in place

[49:07] and then. What kind of activity does that permit? So

[49:11] that's really active right now. We're expecting recommendations from. Her

[49:15] name is Janet Celery on the health and safety measures,

[49:18] and we're working up what an actual design looks like.

[49:23] In the building for the space. I mean, the great

[49:26] news is it's huge. So you can get a lot

[49:29] of occupancy only using a very small portion of the

[49:33] site. So that really limits the types of, like, we

[49:35] don't have to fill every empty elevator. Shaft. We can

[49:39] just deal with the space that's within the footprint. That

[49:43] we've identified. So I'm really, really pleased to have. The

[49:47] partnership from both those organizations in TIm's director Wolf team

[49:51] working on it. So it's a really exciting moment. There's

[49:54] lots of great momentum, and as we've said before, lots

[49:57] of real interest in the community to use that space

[50:00] and to just emphasize what Shauna said about part of

[50:03] the reason this work is important is because. We need

[50:06] it to be easy and accessible for community organizations to

[50:09] use that space and not expect. A lot of heavy

[50:14] lifting on their part to be able to mitigate the

[50:16] risks on the site. Thanks. Very much.

[50:26] Next item is six. Four discussion points came from the

[50:28] real estate legal and finance working group and I do

[50:31] know that Joan and Taylor have got them and are

[50:34] prepared to walk through if that's okay, Frank. Should I

[50:38] serve the commentary? Mr. Chair, if you'd like to give

[50:40] an overview. First off, I'll start by saying thank you

[50:44] very much and my apologies that I was unable to

[50:46] attend the August 29 meeting. So thank you very much

[50:48] for allowing this report to come. Forward to this September

[50:52] meeting. Our group met in August. And, of course, from

[50:57] the committee would be Paul and Mark. So thank you

[50:59] for their input as well. As well as a good

[51:04] group of skilled individuals. With good business acumen to be

[51:09] that review type component. As this progresses. So, first off,

[51:16] I'll also say thank you to Joan for a great

[51:18] presentation on August. 29. I enjoyed watching it after the

[51:21] fact and your budget update today. Thank you for that.

[51:24] As well. It actually addressed one of the four questions

[51:26] that we're in already, so I'm sure you did that

[51:29] intentionally so that I wouldn't have to ask the question

[51:31] now, but. Thank you. One of the things that is

[51:34] interesting with the way that this organization is set up

[51:38] is that we've got these silos of working groups, but

[51:41] as you know, there's so. Much crossover between these working

[51:44] groups that. Those chair meetings are very important. And the

[51:49] intersection of development. And finance are where you're going to

[51:53] find some of these questions and Steve Cooper and I

[51:55] have met to talk about them as well. But maybe

[51:58] I'll just stop there. Should I pose the questions, Mr.

[52:01] Chair? I think they have them so we can walk

[52:03] them through. Thank you very much, Joan Taylor, which everyone

[52:06] would like. To take the lead. So if I understand

[52:10] that the first question has to do with the environmental

[52:12] consideration, So the short answer to the questions is yes

[52:17] and yes because we are getting yes as we heard

[52:20] with Sean. But there is more to the simple answers

[52:24] of yes, yes, and yes. So if Taylor, if you

[52:27] wanted to start with the environment. Sure. Absolutely. So we've

[52:32] had a decent amount of experience over the last few

[52:34] years looking to environal mental radiation for the existing building

[52:38] block, which has given us some insight what to expect.

[52:41] As we proceed. With the rest of the site. In

[52:45] reality. How we proceed with remediation depends on various factors,

[52:52] including. What is the interest from the development community? They

[52:57] helped guide or dictate. What kind of condition they're looking

[53:00] for to have a landon if they're going. To build

[53:02] upon it, right? So some developers. Are more apt to

[53:07] risk and would consider taking on remedial activities themselves. However,

[53:13] some due to insurance or liability requirements, what have you

[53:16] that are finance agencies are less prone to risk and

[53:19] rather see the municipality take on the environmental remediation initiatives.

[53:26] The city is fully able to proceed with such environmental

[53:29] remediation. There is some funds available. If Councillor decides to

[53:34] proceed in certain areas. To take on. Environmental assessment work

[53:40] that is required. It also depends on which section of

[53:45] the site or building that is being looked at there's.

[53:48] Various levels of contamination that exists on the overall site.

[53:54] And so. That would guide. How also we could. Proceed.

[54:00] To be development ready. That's kind of it in a

[54:04] nutshell. If there's any specific questions. Mr. Chairman, it seems

[54:09] to me. We keep going around the mulberry bush. I

[54:16] believe that. Not using euphemisms. So environmental considerations, let's call

[54:20] it. What? It is. Talking about polluted or contaminated areas.

[54:28] And it seems to be a common theme. Across a

[54:34] number of working groups. I'm looking at page 21. The

[54:38] agenda ad hoc or the infrastructure and environmental working group?

[54:46] Second action item is prepare a report outlining environmental issues.

[54:52] On the next page and page 22. It says a

[54:55] concern is the discovery that only a partial site record

[54:59] of site report with required remedial actions has been undertaken.

[55:04] So we really don't know. I think. Where the polluted

[55:10] or contaminated areas are. We don't know the extent of

[55:13] it by reading this correctly. Sure. No. So the site

[55:18] has had environmental investigations over decades, so there is a

[55:21] lot of information. About where and what pollutants exist. The

[55:27] question then becomes which parcels being looking to develop because

[55:30] there's various levels of contamination. So some parts of the

[55:33] site, there's very little and very little needed to be

[55:35] done. To remediate the site. Other sections of site have

[55:38] a lot more significant pollutants. Which require further remediation. Do

[55:44] we have, Mr. Chairman? A complete. Investigation report. Of

[55:54] all of the polluted or contaminated areas. The extent of

[56:00] it. What it is. Yes, we do know. We don't.

[56:06] Through the chair. Like I said, there's been extensive studies

[56:09] for the years, so we have. A fairly good idea

[56:11] of what pollutants are where. Through the entire site. Fairly

[56:17] good idea. There's dozens of boreholes that have had been

[56:22] investigated. And each identify specific levels of contamination that exist

[56:28] within the site itself. So depending on the site, it

[56:32] depends the type of container that exists. So we have

[56:34] a good understanding of the historical use of a site

[56:37] and based on history we know, quite likely. The source

[56:42] of the contaminants because our boreholes are saying this is

[56:44] the type of contaminant. And then it confirms historically that

[56:46] was the function of use in that area. So that

[56:49] will guide which kind of remediation proceeds, because each type

[56:53] of contaminant will have a different response required. To make

[56:57] it clean for the intended use. I'm not trying to

[57:01] be difficult. I'm really not. Trying to understand. Again through

[57:06] the chair. So. Is there a master plan showing.

[57:16] What areas are contaminated with what? The extent of it.

[57:21] And the second question, I suppose, would be what would

[57:24] be the cost of remediation. Because what I'm getting back

[57:27] to. Is. The use to which. A certain area can

[57:33] be put. Is often determined by the extent of the

[57:38] contamination. Could I just piggyback on that? Has an entire

[57:42] phase two study been done on the entire site. I

[57:51] believe there's been a phase two done for the entire

[57:53] site, but it would probably be outdated at this point

[57:55] because it's been years since the entire site has been

[57:57] investigated. The focus in the last few years has been

[57:59] predominantly on the Cooper building itself. As that's the focus.

[58:05] For future development now. Picking back to the other. Questions

[58:12] in terms of what's been investigated for the site, so.

[58:16] If you look at the recent record of site condition

[58:18] for the Cooper Building, Did an extensive historical assessment of

[58:23] what has been investigated. So it shows a map of

[58:25] all the boreholes that have been investigating the site, and

[58:28] it's quite extensive. It helps guide. Where their investigation moves

[58:36] forward. So, yes, there has been investigation for the entire

[58:40] site. In the last few years where environmental assessments. Has

[58:47] more been developed, has been on the Cooper building itself,

[58:50] and that's where more investigation and more analysis been done

[58:53] so that future development can occur on that section of

[58:56] site. Mr. Chairman may I? Go ahead. Follow up. Thank

[59:00] you. I'm out of my depth here. In terms of

[59:04] the science, but seems to me logically the first thing

[59:09] we need to do is get. A complete examination of

[59:14] all of the areas. And an updated report, not just.

[59:21] The building itself, but all of the areas. Find out

[59:25] if. It's contaminated. B with what? And see what the

[59:30] cost of remediation. And then if it goes to market.

[59:35] We can say this area is clean or this area.

[59:40] Is contaminated with this substance. And our understanding of cost

[59:45] remediation is x number of dollars. Are you not interested?

[1:00:08] I'll make this really quick. I think this is an

[1:00:10] issue that keeps coming back and I think both for

[1:00:13] the committee and for staff. I think it would be

[1:00:15] very useful if somebody could come before the committee and

[1:00:17] explain the step by step process of brownfield development, including

[1:00:22] risk. Assessment, risk mitigation, risk sharing, all of this stuff

[1:00:26] so that we all have a unified. Understanding of how

[1:00:29] the process works, both from the staff perspective and the

[1:00:33] regulatory perspective from the developer's perspective, because this site is

[1:00:37] going to get developed in this contaminated soil on it

[1:00:40] and I think instead of having 15 different perspectives on

[1:00:42] how this work, because it all is subject to the

[1:00:45] same regulatory approvals and the same development process. And there's

[1:00:49] lots of precedents in Ontario of where brownfield development has

[1:00:53] happened on contaminated soil. It's been remediated in all sorts

[1:00:55] of different uses been built on. It be nice if

[1:00:57] we could find a project like that we could review

[1:01:00] and just so everybody. Could understand how it works. And

[1:01:04] maybe have. People's concerns eased about how the process works,

[1:01:11] who pays for it? What are the different financial models

[1:01:13] for it and the different risk sharing models for it,

[1:01:15] because I can see there's. A lot of hang ups

[1:01:17] on this, and I think we should probably strive to

[1:01:21] get past it so that. We can keep going, but

[1:01:25] clearly this is one that's captured a lot of people's.

[1:01:27] Imagination, so there's lots of precedents around. I'm sure that's

[1:01:31] something we can manage. That's a suggestion. Three aims to

[1:01:35] share. So hear what you're saying. So my advice, Mr.

[1:01:42] Chair, is for this committee to make. A motion directing

[1:01:47] staff to go and seek the expertise that they're looking

[1:01:50] for. And go through that process. So I think the

[1:01:54] motion would be that we ask staff to investigate. Presentation

[1:02:00] with regard to the risk mitigation and the addressing of

[1:02:03] environmental concerns and the inventory of those concerns on the

[1:02:07] site and to help us develop a strategy to move

[1:02:10] forward is that acceptable. All. You move it. Second. Mark

[1:02:16] discussion on that. So I think that would be as

[1:02:19] easy as getting golder, who did the reporting. To whoever

[1:02:24] was head of golder at the time of doing the

[1:02:27] reports to come in and do the presentation and a

[1:02:29] summary of what's been investigated and what's yet to be

[1:02:32] investigated. Thank you. Thompson. All those in favor of the

[1:02:39] question? Thank you. Taylor back to you.

[1:02:49] Is there further questions? That are being asked of me

[1:02:54] at this time. Sorry. Is there anything else, Frank? Thank

[1:02:56] you, Mr. Chair. It was a question in regards to.

[1:03:02] The intersection again of development and finance. We are looking

[1:03:06] at. Models that. Will be potential uses such that we

[1:03:13] can defray some costs. And we're specifically talking about residential

[1:03:17] and. When our intersection happens. Is the parking something that

[1:03:26] staff Councillor will consider? For not only our environmental stewardship

[1:03:32] but also reduction of vehicular dependency. Are we moving forward

[1:03:37] with reduced parking requirements for residential development? That's ultimately. Question.

[1:03:46] Thank you. So again, at the last meeting, we had

[1:03:53] the presentation from the director of building and planning, who

[1:03:56] talked about community benefits as well as parking. So just

[1:04:00] to reiterate again, the answer is yes. The city would

[1:04:05] certainly be supportive of reducing the parking requirements, particularly if

[1:04:09] structured or underground parking facilities on site or off site

[1:04:13] in the downtown core were constructed to absorb the demand

[1:04:17] on the site. This would help maximize land use and

[1:04:21] support sustainable development goals. Currently, parking reductions are considered on

[1:04:26] a case by case basis and would ultimately require council's

[1:04:30] approval with key considerations, including the community benefits offered, proximity

[1:04:35] to transit, and as we already know, The transit hobby

[1:04:39] is already on site, so we are well connected. The

[1:04:42] overall environmental stewardship and the long term impact on downtown

[1:04:47] parking availability. Yes, we would consider it. So I take

[1:04:56] it from that comment that this would be a site

[1:04:59] specific consideration. Ms Thompson. Or are you indicating that? This

[1:05:08] would be a citywide type change. I think. It's both.

[1:05:15] Because you can't take a look at the parking requirements

[1:05:18] on site. If we wanted to reduce the parking on

[1:05:22] site because we've got existing transit and we're wanting to

[1:05:26] expand on the transit hub concepts that we also have

[1:05:30] to take a look. At. If we're reducing the parking

[1:05:32] there, where can we make up some of that? Parking

[1:05:35] if it's needed. So we have to look at the

[1:05:38] other existing municipal parking lots and the impact you have

[1:05:41] to look at the parking system that we have as

[1:05:43] a system, and it's not individual law. Because you make

[1:05:47] some decisions on one, it may have an impact on

[1:05:50] other. Parking lots, parking system. And the last thing we

[1:05:54] want is to drive overflow par. Parking onto the residential

[1:05:58] streets. So we are looking at the whole system. But

[1:06:02] definitely. It will be specific. To what is needed on

[1:06:07] the grand trunk that will be driven by the uses

[1:06:09] there and the capacity on site. Any other questions, follow

[1:06:15] up, if I may. Sure. Thank you. On the bonusing

[1:06:21] and community benefits side. If I could dive into that

[1:06:23] for just a second. Because it does make a significant

[1:06:26] difference on the viability from a financial perspective, whether this

[1:06:30] project is even feasible or not. And it's kind of

[1:06:34] from a 30,000ft perspective. There's some apprehension from some of

[1:06:40] the and. You probably. Obviously. Can't respond on behalf of

[1:06:46] Councillor, but there has been some apprehension in the past.

[1:06:51] To approve buildings of a higher number of stories. Let's

[1:06:55] just say it that way. I cannot see that this

[1:07:00] will be a viable project if we don't get the

[1:07:02] higher. Number of stories, quite frankly, and. I don't know,

[1:07:06] ultimately, what the question I would be asking. It's more

[1:07:09] a question, I guess. Of what's council's flavor? For engaging

[1:07:13] in something like that. Sorry. Maybe, Mr. Chair, I'll start.

[1:07:22] So again, in talking about community benefits again, our director

[1:07:27] of building and planning. The last meeting did talk and

[1:07:29] do a presentation with respect to community benefits. How the

[1:07:33] existing community benefits that are already in place for this

[1:07:36] site. But looking at the future. So again, the city

[1:07:41] is prepared to allow for community benefits as listed. Under

[1:07:44] the existing official plan document, so it's already there. This

[1:07:49] would need to include community benefit agreements or development agreement

[1:07:53] as potential tools to secure the desired benefits. So as

[1:07:59] part of that, the city is also open to expanding

[1:08:01] these provisions to incentivize developers to maximize the property. However,

[1:08:07] any final decisions on these matters rest with Councillor. While

[1:08:11] the timeline as we understand it, for formalizing the development

[1:08:15] vision extends to the end of 2025. If a financially

[1:08:20] strong development meets the majority of the city's objectives. Councillor

[1:08:25] in the city. May want to initiate discussions earlier. So,

[1:08:31] again, that's a long answer, but it is yes. We

[1:08:34] know that community benefits. And looking at the density and

[1:08:39] the height over there is a discussion point. We have

[1:08:44] been having some preliminary discussions overall with city Councillor with

[1:08:49] respect to. Number of stories and heights across the community.

[1:08:55] You've seen some developments come forward that are starting to

[1:08:58] identify that we need to intensify. Especially when it's on

[1:09:03] infill. I believe his worship. Yeah. And I'll echo most

[1:09:08] of what Joan, Ms. Thompson has to say. I know

[1:09:12] in council's visionary process early on, There was an absolute

[1:09:19] understanding and support of both higher density and higher heights

[1:09:24] with regards to the grand trunk site. In order to.

[1:09:31] Be. Encouraged developers to be on site and therefore. Enhance.

[1:09:39] The tax base from that work to support the public

[1:09:43] spaces. Is it unanimous? No, but I would think that.

[1:09:51] There's certainly an overall majority that would say on Councillor.

[1:09:54] Yes, we understand. Higher density, higher. Heights on that location.

[1:10:00] Thank you. Anything further. Is there anything Joan or Kaylee

[1:10:07] wanted to be on that? Thank you very much. Item

[1:10:11] seven. We'll go to report the working group. Staff of

[1:10:15] base. Item seven one is partnership. Herb and Karen, do

[1:10:18] you have any one? Partnership. Working group updates, training. We

[1:10:23] did present one, but I don't see it in here.

[1:10:29] So. Come on up to the microphone.

[1:10:50] This report is for information only. Overview of previous month

[1:10:56] and activities planned. On September the 15th, John Cassner Karen

[1:11:00] Haslam visited the Rotary Club presentation. On October 17, John

[1:11:04] Castner, Herb Classon will visit the Lions club. October the

[1:11:08] 21st, John Classen, Karen haslam and Herb Classon will visit

[1:11:13] the Kawanis. Club. So we're doing a lot of service

[1:11:15] clubs. They are starting up in September, and that's where

[1:11:18] we are. October, visit and presentation to the Kinsman club.

[1:11:22] That date is still waiting for them to get back

[1:11:25] to me with a positive. Ron Dodson is part of

[1:11:28] our working group, and he is working with the Perth

[1:11:31] county players and the arts groups to see if partnership.

[1:11:35] Can be established with the YMCA. Overview of coming months

[1:11:38] the working group will continue to visit with the clubs

[1:11:40] in Stratford area to see if they would like to

[1:11:43] use the community space at the Gtr. That's where. We

[1:11:48] are in the process right now. Thank you very much.

[1:11:50] Any questions? Great. Thank you. Thank you. Item 72 is

[1:11:57] the vision, architecture and planning working group. Melanie couldn't be

[1:12:00] here. Emily is. There anything more to unless there's questions.

[1:12:05] Item 73 is real estate, legal and finance. Franklin, do

[1:12:08] we cover everything under six? Four? Thank you. Devin Ford,

[1:12:11] John and Andrew communications, advocacy and civics engagement. Thank you.

[1:12:19] Very briefly, Over the past. Sort of. Since the last

[1:12:27] time we met, Andrew and I have updated the faqs

[1:12:31] on the website to reflect the current environment. And also,

[1:12:35] we've also updated the speaking points. They're currently in the

[1:12:38] draft form. We're waiting for the city's decision regarding the

[1:12:42] guiding principles. We think that's. A bit of a milestone

[1:12:45] event at that point. The faqs will be updated. I've

[1:12:49] reached out to Mike bytes, made a couple of what

[1:12:52] I would call housekeeping changes. In the inter. Interim where

[1:12:55] Mike has updated those. And then we've got a list

[1:12:59] of a number of modifications. All. I would say clarification

[1:13:04] and updated nature. So that's really the first change to

[1:13:08] the faqs and to the speaking points. Since they were

[1:13:11] first penned out of our working groups meeting last week,

[1:13:14] one of the questions was given the updates and things

[1:13:16] that have happened. For example, we talk about partners, and

[1:13:21] there's a rhetorical question. What partners? So we can talk

[1:13:24] with a little more clarity about the library. We talk

[1:13:27] a little more clarity about the why. And also reflected

[1:13:32] to an earlier agenda item provide a little more clarity

[1:13:35] about the environmental condition of the property. And Steve Cooper

[1:13:39] gave a good report for us at the working group

[1:13:42] chairs meeting last week. I think he's going to speak

[1:13:44] to it here. The other thing that the communications committee

[1:13:49] is involved in. Is a further leveraging of the current

[1:13:53] assets. There was a reference here by our first speaker

[1:13:57] to talk about the timeline. Historical timeline that's. Currently in

[1:14:01] place on the site. In addition to that, Again, Steve

[1:14:05] Cooper referencing him. He commissioned a virtual walk through of

[1:14:09] the property, which is on the website, but it's pretty

[1:14:12] buried and. We like to do in consult with Mike

[1:14:16] bytes to leverage a couple of those things to get

[1:14:19] a bit of social media. Leverage for those and to

[1:14:22] get a bit of activation for those. Just. As our

[1:14:28] last. Report there. Thanks to Karen and Herb, who've done

[1:14:31] a really good job on the partnership. Aspect of arranging

[1:14:34] some speaking engagements for myself, for Andrew, and also. In

[1:14:40] addition, The service clubs you spoke to. There was a

[1:14:43] number of pop ups. Finally. Since this was written. And

[1:14:49] referenced earlier in the agenda. Andrew has done some work

[1:14:53] regarding the activation he's created. A form in consul with

[1:14:56] city staff that it makes it easy and simple for

[1:14:59] groups that may want to be involved. A pretty easy

[1:15:04] form. Which Andrews worked on, which we can distribute in

[1:15:08] the community. Once activation is a goal and we've got

[1:15:11] a bit of more pathway there. John. Questions for John.

[1:15:17] Ron. Just a quick one, John, and it's actually to

[1:15:19] you and to Karen and Herb. I think when you've

[1:15:21] been talking to the service clubs and groups and so

[1:15:24] on, has there been anything that's come out that you

[1:15:27] were surprised at or. You were. Well, yeah. Anything that.

[1:15:32] That kind of made you go. Yeah, I think so.

[1:15:36] I think the recurring question is it comes up at

[1:15:38] the end of every at the end of every presentation,

[1:15:41] almost without fail. I think that's what you're thinking. Is.

[1:15:45] This is great. We're really excited with this. I've lived

[1:15:48] here a long. Time, when can we see something happen?

[1:15:52] And I think one of the. Levers that happens next

[1:15:57] after that, or what are the tumblers that roll over?

[1:15:59] Is the conversations we had at previous meetings about. Okay,

[1:16:03] we should get something happening. We should get activation there.

[1:16:07] We have the timeline? Do we do something with the

[1:16:09] building? Do we take the steel off? Do we cut

[1:16:12] some trees? Do we cut grass? Do we look at

[1:16:14] less air? Those are things. That come up in the

[1:16:17] meetings and they're under consideration as to what the future

[1:16:21] use. May be is that something a developer would be

[1:16:23] better to do, et cetera. But I think to that

[1:16:27] point. That is the overriding response that comes out of

[1:16:30] those meetings. I'd love to see something there, some indication

[1:16:33] that there's more than meetings. And I think. That's why.

[1:16:38] I'm really buoyed by the idea of the animation project

[1:16:41] and the idea that we activate the place a little

[1:16:43] bit? Thank you. Hopefully that's helpful. Thanks, John. Anything further?

[1:16:48] Much? 75 is infrastructure, environment. Steve, would you like to

[1:16:52] come for. Yeah. Thanks, everyone.

[1:17:02] I didn't speak up earlier in regard to environmental because.

[1:17:09] I want to try and put together a bit of

[1:17:10] a report for the next meeting, and also I want

[1:17:13] to make sure Taylor. Answered any of your questions or

[1:17:17] concerns. I think it's really important. What was brought to

[1:17:23] the group here is just, I think, it would be

[1:17:25] good for this group to understand what. Some of the

[1:17:30] restrictions are on the site in regard to environmental concerns.

[1:17:35] But one thing to keep in mind, this is a

[1:17:36] brown field, like this is an industrial site. That's being

[1:17:39] developed. It's not a farmers field that we're plowing into.

[1:17:46] And taking over farmland. So I think it's really important

[1:17:49] to develop a brown field in the city. But there

[1:17:53] are challenges with that. There are always challenges with brownfield.

[1:17:58] I would like to bring a lot more information to

[1:18:00] this group and also work with city staff. On making

[1:18:04] sure that the message and the information we're giving is

[1:18:07] clear. So I hope to have a better presentation for

[1:18:12] the next meeting. Or as you've directed staff to do

[1:18:17] that to fully understand it. There are some really good

[1:18:23] things about the Strafford site, because the ground in this

[1:18:27] area. Is very tight. Okay, so most of the contaminants

[1:18:31] don't go deep. They're shallow, which is extremely important in

[1:18:37] regard to costs and remediation. And as Taylor highlighted, there

[1:18:43] are certain areas that are impacted. So a lot of

[1:18:47] the conversation that we will have in the future, maybe

[1:18:50] not necessarily today, is kind of a chicken and an

[1:18:54] egg conversation. Which, what comes first, do we remediate? Now.

[1:19:01] And spend the money, but we don't know what we're

[1:19:03] going to be doing. With the site or what the

[1:19:05] developer is going to be doing with the site in

[1:19:06] the future. Or do we find out what they're going

[1:19:09] to do first and then. It's what comes first. But

[1:19:14] I think in some of the conversations that we've had,

[1:19:19] I think it is a good point. At this stage

[1:19:23] to understand some of the restrictions. And what the best

[1:19:26] use of those areas are. So I'm not going to

[1:19:30] talk about that today, but I'll promise to bring something.

[1:19:33] Back to the next meeting. An overarching kind of look

[1:19:37] at it, and some of our recommendations from the committee

[1:19:41] that we formed. And I'll make sure I want to

[1:19:44] have some conversation with staff before I do that. So

[1:19:48] that there's some unity in what we're presenting. Questions for

[1:19:54] Steve. Thank you. Thanks so much, Steve. Yeah, thank you.

[1:20:01] 7.6 is working group coordinators. Ray couldn't be here. Alan,

[1:20:07] did you have anything. They had asked me to raise

[1:20:11] a couple of issues. One was with regard to. Wanting

[1:20:18] members of the partnership committee to be able to attend.

[1:20:22] With Herb and Karen events, and I've suggested that's an

[1:20:25] internal discussion to have. Amongst that group on how they

[1:20:28] allocate the work. We continue that discussion. Thank you. Second

[1:20:35] was he'd asked him if the meeting is returning. To

[1:20:37] 07:00 p.m. But we had explained to him in going

[1:20:41] to 04:00 we get the full compliment of city staff

[1:20:43] to be able to be here a lot. Of them

[1:20:46] without the expense. We are broadcasting these meetings, so unless

[1:20:49] there is a will of the group. To change who.

[1:20:51] We want to stay at that timeline now. And the

[1:20:55] last was just a correction, I believe. Emily, he provided

[1:20:58] us in an email like it. Was admitted in piece,

[1:21:01] but I'll follow up on that if there's nothing else.

[1:21:04] At all I had from the working group. Staff update.

[1:21:07] Emily? Yeah, I just have a couple of comments, just

[1:21:10] as a reminder. So these working group reports that. Are

[1:21:15] now in the agenda package, just a reminder of where

[1:21:17] they came from. So there was discussion. At this meeting

[1:21:20] in July about some of the challenges with information flowing

[1:21:23] back and forth. So the chairs of the working groups

[1:21:25] in pretty short order, we figured out a template for

[1:21:28] these working group reports. And people have been whipping these

[1:21:31] together for the purpose of not just whipping them together.

[1:21:34] A lot of effort. Go into them. But the point

[1:21:36] is, we're turning these around quickly, especially. August and this

[1:21:41] month in September for the benefit. For the committee here

[1:21:45] to see some of the work that's been going on

[1:21:47] and for the working group chairs. So I really just

[1:21:49] want to emphasize that we heard the comments that were

[1:21:52] made in July about the flow of information. And the

[1:21:55] working group reports, status reports that people are providing are.

[1:21:59] In response to that, I also wanted to mention that

[1:22:02] I did a different format this week. Or this month

[1:22:05] for the staff update. And I took the work plan

[1:22:08] that you all approved and went to Councillor in mid

[1:22:10] August and provided the status or the work update as

[1:22:14] it relates to those tasks in the work plan, so

[1:22:18] they're not all strictly things that I personally did. It's

[1:22:20] a combination of efforts on the city side and then

[1:22:23] also with members of the. Working groups, so. There's room

[1:22:27] to figure out better ways of doing this. We are

[1:22:29] trying to be responsive. So always happy for any suggestions

[1:22:35] on how you might like to see this information differently.

[1:22:38] And I wanted to make a point, too. Tonight we

[1:22:40] took an item that Franklin had questions that he raised.

[1:22:44] In the context of his working group report and. We

[1:22:47] made those a discussion item here at the Councillor tonight

[1:22:49] to be able to delve into. Those. So you'll see

[1:22:52] that both there's reports from the working groups that are

[1:22:55] more status reports, and when there are items that need

[1:22:57] to be discussed, they will come to the committee in

[1:23:01] the main part of the agenda. A couple of other

[1:23:05] things. We have our vision and guiding principles going to

[1:23:09] Councillor on September 23, a week today, so that's the

[1:23:12] last version that you all worked on that's going along

[1:23:15] with the community. Insights, a report on the findings from

[1:23:17] our community engagement that's going forward to Councillor next. Week,

[1:23:21] and so I'll be sure to keep you posted on

[1:23:23] when that goes or when that's approved or the comments.

[1:23:26] From Councillor. And then one last thing Ray had, I

[1:23:31] think he mentioned is at the last meeting. He found

[1:23:35] this book really helpful. It's called Valley of the bird

[1:23:39] tale. He mentioned it. Last month, you may recall. And

[1:23:42] so he has 20 copies that he purchased. And. Were

[1:23:50] provided by the author. So I've got a box here

[1:23:52] and he asked me in. His absence to offer them

[1:23:54] up to whomever is interested in them. It's called valley.

[1:23:58] Of the bird tail, an indian reserve, a white town,

[1:24:00] and the road to reconciliation. So you're. Welcome to take

[1:24:03] a book if you would like that. I feel like

[1:24:05] there was one more thing I was going to share.

[1:24:09] But I'm just really grateful to all the working group

[1:24:11] chairs in particular for pulling these reports together and for

[1:24:14] the work that everyone's doing behind the scenes. Like he's

[1:24:17] saying your things are due. I need them now. I

[1:24:22] need them. I'm putting out their agenda. So I appreciate

[1:24:25] all the work that everyone's put into it, so thank

[1:24:28] you. Thank you. Our next item is under new business,

[1:24:32] the youth. Representative. And Victoria want to give you update

[1:24:37] on that. So staff contacted additional applicants. Who originally applied

[1:24:43] for the position. Unfortunately, they were no longer interested. In

[1:24:48] that youth representation position. So this fall we will be

[1:24:52] re advertising the position with the anticipating participation of being

[1:24:56] able to fill it. But at this time, none of

[1:24:59] the current applicants were interested anymore. The clerk's office is

[1:25:03] working. Is there anything further? If not, I'd take a

[1:25:08] motion to adjourn and our next meeting is scheduled. For

[1:25:10] October 21 at 04:00 p.m. In the chamber. Uber. Thanks,

[1:25:15] Franklin. Mark seconded. All those in favor? Thank you.

Ad-Hoc Grand Trunk Renewal Committee

Agenda

Transcript