[0:13] Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the gross standing

[0:16] committee meeting to order, please. Clerk Walters. First I'm on

[0:26] the agenda is a land acknowledgement from council or treaty.

[0:29] Council. Trinity, please, if everyone could please stand. We acknowledge

[0:34] that we have the privilege to work on the traditional

[0:36] lands of the Nonishnabi. Peoples of Fort Williams, First Nation

[0:40] signatory to the Robinson Superior Treaty of 1850. This land

[0:48] has been a place of gathering, learning and sustenance for

[0:51] indigenous people since time. Immemorial, we recognize the enduring presence

[0:56] and deep traditional knowledge of first nations, Inuit and mates,

[1:00] people and the ways they have shaped and continued to

[1:03] shape our community. We acknowledge the effects of colonization, including

[1:07] displacement, loss of culture, and intergenerational trauma, and we commit

[1:12] ourselves to reconciliation through respectful relationships, truth telling and shared

[1:18] action for a better future. Please take a moment to

[1:21] pause and reflect.

[1:40] Thank you. Good evening, folks. Just a couple of things

[1:42] I'll run through to start off. With. Just to let

[1:44] everyone know, the decision today is on the surplus of

[1:47] the lands, not the actual developments. The recommending endorsement will

[1:55] come to council in January to declare a land surplus

[1:58] to enable housing developments. Decisions regarding specific development proposals will

[2:03] be addressed at a later stage through any required zoning

[2:06] amendments for example. Fanshaw and Arundel will require zoning amendments

[2:11] and that therefore will have public meetings. Where you can

[2:14] provide public input for or against the proposals. I'd like

[2:19] to remind everyone just if we cannot restate what other

[2:23] people have said. I understand. Some people might be here.

[2:25] For. The same property. And there'll be ten minutes per

[2:29] deputation. With around five minutes from council members. With three

[2:37] questions maximum. And then. So that's what it so clerk

[2:42] Walters. Are there any disclosures of interest? Seeing none. Are

[2:48] there any further announcements? See none. First I'm on the

[2:52] agenda is the confirmation of the agenda. I need a

[2:54] mover and a second Councilor Pascalino, Councilor Aguwal. All those

[2:57] in favor? Opposed to penny. That's carried. That same on

[3:02] the agenda is under reports of administration to the surplus

[3:05] declaration. Call for proposals for the four opportunity sites. Report

[3:09] 387 2025 from growth. It seeks endorsement from this standing

[3:13] committee. To declare the opportunity site surplus. For potential future

[3:18] residential development. We have open remarks this evening from Commissioner

[3:22] Marshall. Commissioner Marshall, please. Thank you chair. As stated earlier,

[3:26] this report seeks endorsement to declare four city owned sites

[3:30] as surplus for housing consistent with council's direction to identify

[3:34] lands that can support new housing supply. Additional housing. Is

[3:39] urgently needed to meet the current demand and improve affordability.

[3:43] Declaring the lens surplus is an early step. It signals

[3:46] council's intent for these sites to support future housing, but

[3:50] it does not approve the conceptual design, density, layout, or

[3:54] any specific development proposal. Two of the sites, 144 Fanshaw

[4:00] street and 791 Arundel street, will also require rezoning which

[4:05] includes a statutory public process and further opportunities for residents

[4:09] to provide input. The mayor's task force on building more

[4:13] homes has endorsed the surplus recommendation and will continue to

[4:17] be engaged in the process. If council declares the land

[4:21] surplus, administration would work with the proponents to refine the

[4:24] concepts and negotiate agreements of purchase and sale, all of

[4:28] which would return to council for further consideration and decision.

[4:32] I would now like to invite director deputor and manager

[4:35] walker to present some additional details. Go ahead, please. Thank

[4:40] you. Chair of the team is pleased to present this

[4:44] report which advances the city's efforts to improve housing supply

[4:48] and affordability. Next slide, please. As commissioner Marshalls noted, Thunder

[4:54] Bay requires more housing units and also greater housing choice

[4:57] to meet the needs of current residents and accommodate anticipated

[5:01] population growth. Thunder Bay is currently facing a shortage of

[5:05] approximately 1100 housing units. And this directly affects residents who

[5:10] are searching for appropriate housing and drives up price across

[5:13] a housing market. Currently, rent is not affordable to 50%

[5:18] of Thunder Bay rental renter households. It is important to

[5:23] double the rate of unit construction to address this issue.

[5:26] Additional large scale projects are required to achieve this. By

[5:31] advancing the conceptual developments outlined in the support, there is

[5:34] an opportunity to make a major impact. The development could

[5:38] add a significant number of units, including 700 units with

[5:41] building permits in 2026. Increasing the supply will help stabilize

[5:47] housing costs and free up existing housing inventory. Through the

[5:51] surveys, we heard general public support to develop these lands

[5:55] for housing, along with concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods. Next

[5:59] slide, please. One of the questions that is often heard

[6:03] is who will live at these developments? And the answer

[6:06] is that the homes will be available to everyone. The

[6:09] residents of the buildings may be young professionals. Young families,

[6:12] new residents to Thunder Bay, or neighbors who wish to

[6:15] stay in the neighborhood in age and place. Approximately 10%

[6:20] of the units would be affordable to mid and lower

[6:22] income households as required by CMHC financing support. I will

[6:27] invite manager Walker to walk us through the properties in

[6:29] the next steps. Next slide, please. Thank you, director. To

[6:35] pewter through the chair. A council's direction, administration undertook the

[6:40] exercise of selecting city owned vacant lands within the urban

[6:43] boundary and in existing neighborhoods suitable to support housing development.

[6:48] In June of this year, the city issued a call

[6:49] for proposals for various sites, including the four to be

[6:53] considered this evening. Certain development studies have been completed in

[6:56] all four sites have access to city. Infrastructure, including street

[6:59] frontage, piped services and amenity spaces. Next slide, please. Conceptual

[7:05] development proposals submitted through the call for proposals reviewed and

[7:08] assessed by applying the smart growth principles of track record,

[7:12] including demonstrated experience and past project quality, alignment with the

[7:15] city's housing and growth objectives of affordability, density, and sustainability

[7:20] and addressing community and neighborhood need. It. Is based on

[7:25] this assessment, administration is recommending moving forward with the next

[7:28] step of declaring the foresights of surplus for housing. Next

[7:32] slide, please. In addition to updates to this standing committee

[7:36] and the Mayor's task force on building more homes. Public

[7:39] notice of the intent to surplus the four properties was

[7:42] issued by way of letter city. Website and posted signage

[7:45] on each property. In addition, a greater level of public

[7:49] engagement was undertaken. With a survey on the city's get

[7:54] involved page and two open houses. All feedback received through

[7:58] this various methods is appreciated and will be further addressed

[8:01] in the conceptual as the conceptual developments are refined through

[8:04] negotiation, site plan control and zoning bylaw amendment stages as

[8:08] applicable. Next slide, please. 791 of Rundle street is 3.15

[8:14] vacant land north of Boulevard Lake. It is currently zoned

[8:17] community and rezoning would be required. The conceptual development is

[8:23] up to 600 units contained in three six story buildings.

[8:26] Conceptually shown here. It is noted that the density of

[8:30] this development is higher than some others discussed tonight and

[8:33] exceeds that permitted by the urban mid rise zone. Next

[8:37] slide, please. Written questions and concerns were submitted by 52

[8:41] residents, including impact on recreation and green space infrastructure capacity

[8:46] development density and potential impact on property values. Individual members

[8:53] of the mayor's task force consider the density too high

[8:55] for this site. It is anticipated that the scale of

[8:59] the development will be reduced to. A degree at the

[9:02] time of a zoning bylaw amendment application. Next slide, please.

[9:08] 49.7% of survey respondents were very supportive or supportive of

[9:13] the development proposal. 39.5 were not supportive. And 15.9% neutral

[9:21] are not sure. Next slide, please. 144 Fanshaw street is

[9:26] 1.25 vacant land across from Confederation College. It is currently

[9:31] zoned urban low rise and rezoning of to the urban

[9:34] mid rise zone will be required. The conceptual development is

[9:38] up to 200 units contained within one six story building.

[9:44] Conceptually shown here. Next slide, please. Written questions and concerns

[9:49] were submitted by 34 residents, including impact on green space

[9:53] infrastructure capacity, noise and potential impact on property values. Next

[9:58] slide, please. 58.9% of survey respondents were very supportive or

[10:06] supportive 23.3% were not supportive. And 17.8% were neutral or

[10:14] not sure. Next slide, please. 300 Tokyo street is 2.6.

[10:19] Vacant land at the corner of John street and Junette.

[10:22] Avenue south. It is zoned urban, mid rise. The conceptual

[10:26] development is up to 400 units contained. Within two six

[10:29] story buildings, conceptually shown here. Next slide, please. Written questions

[10:36] and concerns were submitted by three residents, including impact on

[10:39] green space infrastructure capacity and noise next slide, please. 60.9%

[10:47] of survey respondents were supportive or very supportive. 13.3 were

[10:53] not supportive and 25.9% neutral or not sure. Next slide,

[10:57] please. 211 to 223 Tupper street and 224 Camelot street

[11:02] is zero point 28. Vacant land in the north core

[11:06] in his own downtown neighborhood. The conceptual development is up

[11:09] to 8185 units and community spaces. Next slide, please. No

[11:18] written questions or concerns were submitted. 64.8% of survey respondents

[11:25] were very supportive or supportive, 12% were not supportive and

[11:29] 23.2%. Neutral or not? Sure. Next slide, please. Following this

[11:34] meeting, administration will proceed with its report to council in

[11:37] January. Should counsel approve the surplus recommendation? Administration would proceed

[11:44] to refine the conceptual development proposals and negotiate. Purchase agreements

[11:48] with proponents. These agreements would be conditional upon site plan

[11:53] control and rezoning where required. Once settled, administration would return

[11:57] to the Standing Committee for endorsement of the sales and

[12:00] to counsel for approval. Zoning bylaw amendment applications and detailed

[12:05] site find control agreement. Negotiation would follow. I'll now turn

[12:08] things back to director, to pewter. Thank you. Next slide,

[12:14] please. Just the final slide chair to close this report

[12:19] recommends that this committee endorsed the recommendation that council declared

[12:23] the four opportunity sites as surplus to support housing. The

[12:27] mayor's task force has endorsed the recommendation and request regular

[12:30] updates. We thank the residents. The task force, the committee,

[12:35] and this committee for their feedback throughout this process. Should

[12:38] the properties be declared surplus staff will work with the

[12:41] developers to refine the proposals to address community concerns. The

[12:46] specific development proposals will be further considered in the future.

[12:49] Steps that are outlined by manager Walker. Where required, zoning

[12:53] amendment process will address items such as scale, density and

[12:56] parking requirements. A detailed site plan would be available at

[13:00] that time, and there will be additional opportunity for public

[13:03] input and another public meeting of council for this purpose.

[13:07] The site plan control process will specify lighting, access, servicing,

[13:11] drainage, landscaping, building placement, and address traffic concerns. Technical studies

[13:16] such as traffic and servicing studies will be completed to

[13:20] inform the process and further address concerns raised by the

[13:23] public. Through the chair. Thank you. And to the committee,

[13:28] thank you for the opportunity to present and for your

[13:30] consideration of this report and administration's pleas to answer any

[13:33] questions. Thank you. Manager Walker, director, deputy and Commissioner Marshall.

[13:37] Thank you for the intro. Clerk Walters, please. Chair. We

[13:45] can reach your questions of administration, although, as discussed, if

[13:49] there is no pertinent questions right now. We can wait

[13:51] till the end. There will be three rounds. Five minutes

[13:54] each for questions to the report. Let's save it. To

[13:56] the end, right? Okay. All right. We do have a

[14:00] number of deputies scheduled for this evening. The first one

[14:03] has been received from Conor McLeod on November the 13th,

[14:06] requesting to appear before a standing committee. Welcome s. Mcleod.

[14:20] Lights on, so it's on. If you can just be

[14:22] about six inches away from the mic. When you're ready,

[14:25] you'll have ten minutes. Okay. All right. Good evening. I'm

[14:32] here in regards to the housing proposal on Rundal and

[14:36] Toledo in the green. Space. I have been following this

[14:39] topic from its inception, and I'm alarmed at which the

[14:43] speed in which this process is moving. Hundreds of community

[14:47] members showed up to the award meeting on November 5,

[14:51] 2025, in order to gather more information on this proposal

[14:55] as well as to, err, grievances. The entire community expressed

[14:59] anger, frustration and discontent in regards to this project. In

[15:05] fact, out of the hundreds of people who showed up

[15:08] that night, there was only one individual. Who was in

[15:11] favor of this venture. She did not live in the

[15:14] immediate area, nor was she a lifelong member, as many

[15:17] who are against this. Are. Of course. I recorded this

[15:21] historical award meeting for reference as it has been some

[15:24] time since the community has come together in agreement on

[15:28] a concern such as this in quite some time. In

[15:32] fact. This act alone should be enough to put an

[15:35] end to this housing proposal. As the community has spoken

[15:39] and we have said no. However, I will give you

[15:42] some of the very real concerns we as a community

[15:45] share. If the proposed 600 unit complex went through with

[15:50] between two to four people per unit. This would increase

[15:53] the population of Curt river by roughly between. 1502, 400

[15:59] people. For reference. The town of Nippigan is roughly 1500

[16:03] people and the population of Atticoken. Is roughly 2600 people.

[16:09] You are talking about moving the population of a small

[16:11] town into that few square kilometers. This would raise the

[16:15] population of Kert river by over 40% in a very

[16:18] short period of time. Ironically, the politicians at the ward

[16:22] meetings said in regards to this ten year smart growth

[16:25] plan that fast growth too quickly is not a positive

[16:29] thing in the short or long term. I feel raising

[16:32] the population by over 40% overnight qualifies as fast growth.

[16:38] There are also valid environmental concerns, as this property is

[16:42] home to many animals that. Would be mortally affected and

[16:46] displaced. Not only do community members use this environmental green

[16:51] space daily, but people from all across Thunder Bay. Come

[16:55] as well to use and to appreciate this area. As

[16:59] one community member put it so eloquently, I go there

[17:02] every single day and have never seen the same person

[17:05] twice. There are also infrastructure concerns, as massive parking structures

[17:10] would need to be built in tandem with this. Property

[17:13] to account for the influx of people. And traffic is

[17:16] already an issue this community brings up regularly. we are

[17:25] not against growth or development personally i had no issue

[17:28] with the building project on huron as the pros outweighed

[17:32] the cons It makes sense. However, the proposal on a

[17:31] rendal makes no sense at all. Destroying a beautiful area

[17:35] the community uses daily and yearly. When we have fought

[17:39] for this area in the past and especially when there

[17:41] are far more suitable properties. Makes no sense at all.

[17:45] It is not logical or practical. These are only some

[17:49] of the very real concerns we share as a united

[17:52] community. We have been meeting regularly to discuss this project

[17:56] and will continue to do so. I hope our very

[17:59] real concerns are not lost on you, and I thank

[18:02] you for taking the time to hear us out. Thanks

[18:04] again. Regards, Conor McLeod. Thank you, Mr. McLeod. There any

[18:09] questions? Not at this time. The deputation. Councilor Agwell, please.

[18:16] Okay. Thank you very much, chair. Mr. Cloud. In your

[18:22] presentation, you said you're not against growth, but you're against

[18:26] this project. Is it the density of the project or

[18:30] is it. Specifically. It's the environmental green space. We use

[18:36] this space. As I said, daily people come from all

[18:40] across Thunder Bay to use this. Space. So that particular

[18:44] area. Is not necessarily. The project, so to speak. It's

[18:48] the destroying of that particular area. My subsequent question to

[18:53] you would be if. The project. Was enhancing the green

[18:59] space. With other type of housing. Would you be amendable

[19:03] to that, or would you be opposed to that and

[19:05] you want to leave it all as. definitely i think

[19:09] that's the main concern Just to leave it the way

[19:11] that it is. For the animals and for the people

[19:15] that use it every single day. And my third question

[19:19] to you through the chair would be. Proportionately for the

[19:23] city of Thunder Bay. Current river I grew up in

[19:25] current river myself. I went to cloud garden 100 years

[19:28] ago. But current river do you not find it has

[19:31] proportionately a lot more? Park and green space compared to

[19:36] any other part of our city. That's precisely why we're

[19:38] here, actually, because I feel like this would just be

[19:41] only a domino effect. That would perpetuate. The changing of

[19:46] print river, fundamentally. You know what I mean? That's why

[19:48] I love this. Community. That's why I'm here. I just

[19:54] want current river to stay Kurt river. And as I

[19:57] said before, I wasn't ever against other projects in current

[20:01] river. It's just that particular area. You know what I

[20:04] mean? Because it's dear to me and it's part of

[20:07] Kerr river. You know what I mean? Thank you. Thank

[20:11] you. See? No further questions. You may return. Thank you.

[20:15] Thank you very much. Clerk Walters, please. I'm on the

[20:19] agenda. Correspondence received from Laurie Santiac from on November the

[20:22] 14th, requesting to appear before a standing committee and note

[20:25] there was additional information relative to this deputation. Distributed on

[20:29] Friday, November the 20 eigth welcome, Ms. Antique. And again,

[20:33] you'll have ten minutes when you're ready. Good evening, Mayor

[20:43] Boschkov. Members of the growth standing committee, members of city

[20:47] administration. My name is. Laurie Santinc, I'm here today speaking

[20:51] on behalf of my husband and myself, as well as

[20:54] my neighbors, nine other property owners on Toledo street whose

[20:58] homes are adjacent to the proposed. 600 unit development at

[21:04] 791 Arundel and who will be directly impacted by the

[21:08] largest proposed development in the history of Thunder Bay. In

[21:12] support of my deputation, I have provided a joint letter

[21:15] signed by my fellow neighbors, along with copies of two

[21:18] blog posts by Livio di Mateo professor of economics, Lakehead.

[21:23] University, as well as his recent interview with TB News

[21:26] Watch on November 25. We are unanimous in our desire

[21:30] to see the green space be left as is to

[21:32] be enjoyed. Not only by us, but by the community

[21:35] at large. This is not some random lot owned by

[21:39] the city. It is a wonderful green space enjoyed for

[21:41] decades, 365 days a year by our local community, as

[21:46] well as many residents throughout Thunder Bay, with its. Mature

[21:49] trees, grasses and open fields. It provides habitat and acts

[21:52] as a wildlife corridor for the abundant animals who share

[21:55] our world. It provides a car free, safe space for

[21:59] the many runners, walkers, dog walkers, cyclists, cross country skiers,

[22:02] skate skiers, mountain bikers, children going to school, bird watchers.

[22:06] Running events. The lifts goes on the city. Has invested

[22:10] in this green space by installing a paved, lit, multiuse

[22:13] trail maintained year round with access from the active living

[22:17] corridor along a rundle lion boulevard, as well as a

[22:21] pathway between 414 and 412 Toledo. As you already know,

[22:26] out of the ten opportunity sites chosen by city admin.

[22:29] Administration 791 Arundel is the only one zoned community zone,

[22:33] a zoning designation used by the city for park space

[22:37] throughout Thunder Bay. Yes, this zoning also allows some development,

[22:41] but not residential. And definitely not the type of massive

[22:44] development that is being proposed. Why, we ask, of all

[22:48] the parcels available to the city for development, is it

[22:51] now choosing to build the largest housing development in the

[22:54] history of the city on what is and always has

[22:57] been. Seen and used by residents of Thunder Bay as

[22:59] park space. In our opinion, this sets a terrible precedent,

[23:04] Professor Diamateo's blog posts and interview le. Lends credence to

[23:08] our letter and our concerns and comments about this proposed

[23:10] development in his blog post of November 20, he states,

[23:15] The logical place to target density developments in Thunder Bay

[23:18] should be the two former downtown core areas. Of Port

[23:21] Arthur and Fort William and the corridor connecting them that

[23:24] runs along an immediately adjacent to water, Fort William Road,

[23:27] Simpson streets and Algoma Memorial, may street, the Shunia area

[23:32] neighborhood is definitely not the largest. Sorry, not the location

[23:36] for the largest housing development the city has ever seen

[23:39] and even runs contrary to Thunder Bay's official plan. In

[23:43] order to fit 600 units, the green space will have

[23:46] to be rezoned urban high rise. Such zoning and massive

[23:49] development allowing buildings up to 45 meters or twelve to

[23:53] 15 stories high, is not. Compatible in scale and mass

[23:56] with the surrounding community of single family homes. Smaller apartment

[24:01] buildings consisting of anywhere from four to 127 units, a

[24:05] 72 unit condominium complex or the 118 units in Chartwell

[24:09] Thunder Bay's retirement home complex. It literally dwarfs every single

[24:14] other build type in the. Neighborhood. The development is also

[24:18] contrary to many of the tenants in the city's various

[24:20] policy. Strategies, plans and guidelines which no doubt we, the

[24:25] taxpayers, have spent thousands, if not millions of dollars. To

[24:29] have the city produce. For example, Thunderbase housing lands needs

[24:33] study and strategy the climate forward. Thunder Bay net Zero

[24:36] strategy, the smart growth action planets in its draft form,

[24:40] or the Thunder Bay urban design. And landscape guideline. These

[24:44] city documents, as well as various media releases and interviews

[24:47] with local media. Use urban planning language, such as creating

[24:51] integrated spaces that combine residential, commercial, and public amenities building

[24:55] homes in areas that already have neighborhood amenities infill development,

[24:59] keeping our taxes lower, making better use of existing structure

[25:03] infrastructure and allowing more people to live in walkable, connected

[25:06] neighborhoods by 2030. 5%. 65% of trips within the city

[25:13] will be by walking, cycling or public transit. Neighborhoods are

[25:16] complete compact and walkable. Thunderbase, forest and green spaces are

[25:21] protected and provide essential ecosystem services. In his interview with

[25:26] TB Newswatch, Professor D. Mateo stated that putting developments, and

[25:29] I quote, wherever the city conveniently has a piece of

[25:33] green space in the short run may seem optimal because

[25:36] it's quick, but what they're doing is creating a more

[25:39] dispersed city that's. Even more dependent on vehicles. And dependent

[25:44] on vehicles we are. According to Walkscore.com, a website whose

[25:48] mission is to promote walkable neighborhoods. Arch union neighborhood. Is

[25:53] considered car dependent with a walk score of 13 out

[25:56] of 100. 791 Arundel to Hotter Avenue, where some basic

[26:00] amenities do exist, is a 2.3 kilometer walk along a

[26:04] rundle. Without continuous sidewalks on the road with car traffic

[26:09] in this weather, although the active living Corri. Corridor has

[26:13] cycling opportunities. It is neither protected nor maintained year round,

[26:17] and there is only one bus. Servicing our neighborhood, the

[26:20] number seven Hudson, running every 30 minutes in peak times.

[26:23] And this bus doesn't? Even run east along a rundle.

[26:27] Toledo and Conmey do not have continuous sidewalks. So again,

[26:31] even considering walking a direct. Route to downtown is about

[26:34] 3.8k or a 50 minutes walk if you're in good

[26:37] health, including on roads with traffic. There are no major

[26:41] stores, banks, there's no LCBO medical offices, never mind large

[26:45] employers in our neighborhood or in current river residents in

[26:49] this neighborhood must drive or use transit, which, as I'm

[26:52] sure you're aware, is neither. Convenient, fast, or the most

[26:55] efficient means of getting to any of the major employers

[26:58] here in thunder. Bay. We do not understand why the

[27:01] city would consider destroying this well used in love green

[27:04] space would consider cutting down force that provides an essential

[27:07] ecosystem service in our neighborhood and proposes 600 unit housing.

[27:12] Development, which will add at least 600 plus more vehicles,

[27:15] spewing emissions and increasing noise pollution. And add upwards of

[27:19] 1200 plus. People to a car dependent neighborhood that is

[27:23] not walkable, not complete, not compact, not connected once again,

[27:28] a quote from Professor Di Mateo's blog, posted November 20

[27:32] the problem here is that Thunder Bay's idea of increasing

[27:35] density in a climate crisis apparently includes cutting down swast.

[27:39] The green space to build. Density development in areas often

[27:42] removed from where density either already exists or should be

[27:45] promoted. Moreover, the constant dispersion of new development results in

[27:50] the new residents of these density developments having to rely

[27:54] mainly on automobile transport rather than public transport transit, which

[27:58] is not convenient or timely given. The disbursed nature of

[28:01] the city. Mayor Boschkov, councilors, members of city administration. We

[28:09] are not against building housing, but we are against using

[28:12] green space to build this type of density not only

[28:15] here, but across the city. Now. Build here if you

[28:19] must, but only if there are no other options. If

[28:22] you insist on using this green space. The owners of

[28:27] houses along Toledo proposed a much smaller development, zoned, no

[28:31] larger than urban mid rise that leaves the multi use

[28:34] trail as is provides a buffer between any development and

[28:38] the existing property owners on Toledo and is compatible in

[28:42] scale and mass with the surrounding community. But please. Before

[28:46] you even consider designating this parcel surplus. Never mind allowing

[28:52] a proposed 600 unit development, or even a smaller one.

[28:56] Consider the learned opinion of Professor D. Mateo the overall

[29:01] character of this union neighborhood. The concerns of the adjacent

[29:05] property owners and the wider community. The car dependent nature

[29:09] of this area, the lack of adequate walking and cycling.

[29:14] Infrastructure, the lack of local services and amenities, the destruction

[29:17] of forest and green space, and what the removal of

[29:20] a well used and much love park space means to

[29:24] the residents of our shunian neighborhood and the community of

[29:27] current river. Thank you. Thank you so much for that

[29:32] detailed deputation. And Councilor Atrini, please. Thank you. Through the

[29:36] chair. Thank you very much for your presentation today and

[29:39] coming tonight. I did receive your report and went through

[29:44] it. Very detailed. Fantastic. I'm going to refer to the

[29:48] map. I used to live in kert river. For a

[29:53] large portion. But on the other side of Curt river

[29:55] bridge, I've played baseball. Here back in the day. But

[29:58] if you ask me exactly where, I couldn't tell you.

[30:00] Today? Because that was a long time ago. The walking

[30:02] path, I believe, is close to the red line that

[30:05] you've drawn on your map. Is that correct? Yes. And

[30:11] so if the city. I appreciate your solutions. I want

[30:15] to state that. I kind of like the idea of

[30:17] the privacy piece. And the concern about the buildings being

[30:22] too close to the houses and being closer to the

[30:24] other. Side. But if they ended up moving that path

[30:27] to allow for different roads to come in, Instead of

[30:30] one road in and out. That would be okay as

[30:34] well, right? You just want to make sure that you

[30:36] keep that walking. It's not only that, but you do

[30:39] have to look at the intersection of Toledo and Runle.

[30:44] There is one of the property owners lives right on

[30:45] the corner, and his driveway. Access a rundle as well

[30:49] as Toledo street. So then there's just basically his property.

[30:53] A little bit of space and then the walking path.

[30:56] So if you move that walking path, Too much further

[30:59] to the west. Then. It sort of encroaches. There's going

[31:03] to be a lot of car traffic. There's a crosswalk

[31:07] with the signal. At that intersection, and it's a busy

[31:11] road. We have ChartWell, which I think you need to

[31:13] keep in mind because there's a lot of Chartwell users

[31:16] in their motorized scooters or wheelchairs rather, that actually cross

[31:20] over on a regular basis and go up and down

[31:22] that pathway. We even have a lady who's dropped off

[31:25] by the handy bus. Who's blind, who has been used

[31:28] to walking on that. Path for quite some time. So

[31:32] it's a little bit concerning because it is a bit

[31:34] of a crunch space. If you will. Yeah, it is

[31:37] definitely really tight, and I know with site plan control,

[31:39] they'll start looking at all those pieces. if growth committee

[31:48] says yes and moves it to council to make the

[31:51] decision of whether we're going to sell this as surplus

[31:55] and then i really do appreciate You understanding that maybe.

[31:56] The neighbors and yourself would be more accepting if it

[31:58] was a bit smaller. So I really appreciate those comments.

[32:00] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Councilor

[32:05] Aguwal, please. Thank you. thank you chair When you said.

[32:13] Smaller density, smaller program plan. What are you envisioning there

[32:19] for? Well, given the neighborhood and the scope and mass

[32:23] of the neighborhood itself. We have mostly single family homes,

[32:26] bungalows, a couple of two stories like our house and

[32:30] our neighbor's house was two story, for example. And there

[32:33] are apartment buildings that I think the tallest one is

[32:36] five stories in the immediate area. Current river has some

[32:39] taller ones. But on that property. 200, 250. We're thinking,

[32:45] obviously, it depends on the design. Of the property. We'd

[32:49] like to keep at least that urban mid rise going

[32:52] any higher. Than that. Is inappropriate for that area. We

[32:58] obviously need building. I understand that. I live in Calgary.

[33:02] I went through the rezoning process there. I was on

[33:05] the board. Of our local Community association. I was on

[33:09] the development and planning committee. I took a course through

[33:11] the city. I have a certificate in planning. So I

[33:14] do know the ins and outs, and that experience can

[33:16] be used here. In Thunder bay, too, so you really

[33:19] have to look at. Is this the proper spot for

[33:21] any. Type of development like we're willing to give. We

[33:25] understand that there's a need, but a lot of your

[33:28] documents focus on the fact that buildings should be done

[33:31] in areas where there's services and amenities, and we just

[33:35] don't have that in current river. We don't. You can't

[33:38] walk along a rundle. There are no sidewalks. There's the

[33:44] active living corridor, and then when it gets to a

[33:46] sidewalk at Black Bay. You have to cross the street

[33:49] and get to the sidewalk there and then you have

[33:51] to cross the street again in order to get to

[33:53] the shopping area. It's poor planning. I'm sorry? It's poor

[33:57] urban planning. We should be. Putting people in areas where

[34:01] they can actually thrive. And if we're not going to

[34:04] increase and improve the infrastructure for sidewalks, for transit, and

[34:08] for cycling infrastructure, then we shouldn't be putting in a

[34:13] large amount of people. In that spot. Okay. Thank you.

[34:18] Thank you for that answer. I do appreciate. Your deep

[34:23] and thorough presentation with the details. Thank you very much.

[34:27] So. They do resign with me a lot. The walkability

[34:31] scales are important. And I thank you for all that

[34:35] information. You're welcome. Okay. Thank you so much. You may

[34:40] return. Clerk Walters, please. That same on the agenda. Correspondence

[34:45] received from Terrell Prince on November the 14th. Requesting to

[34:48] appear before the standing committee. Also, additional information relative to

[34:52] this deputation distributed on Friday, November the 20 eigth. Welcome,

[34:57] Ms. Prince. And again, you'll have ten minutes when you're

[35:00] ready. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor.

[35:12] City councilors, fellow citizens and neighbors. I am grateful that

[35:16] I have the opportunity to speak to you all today.

[35:20] My husband Dave and I bought our house on Toledo

[35:23] two years ago. And what made us decide? To live

[35:26] here was the quiet neighborhood. The beautiful green space and

[35:30] treeline behind our backyard and the easily accessible nature trails

[35:34] from Toledo street. This is such a special area, so

[35:39] quiet, so peaceful. We feel very privileged to be a

[35:43] part. Of it. In regards to the new development proposal.

[35:48] We are not against the idea of adding housing at

[35:51] 791 or Rundle street as long as it is a

[35:54] good fit for the area and preserves as much of

[35:57] the green space as possible. For the benefit of the

[36:01] surrounding community. However, we are convinced that the proposed 600

[36:06] units is much too large in scale to allow a

[36:08] harmonious integration with the surrounding neighborhood. That being said, I

[36:15] am speaking today mainly about the need to keep a

[36:18] treelined green space. Corridor between the houses on Toledo and

[36:22] any new development. I would like to say a few

[36:25] words. About all the benefits. We have enjoyed having this

[36:29] green space with mature trees backing onto our property. These

[36:34] tall trees provide us with a natural privacy screen and

[36:39] beautiful scenery behind our property that we enjoy every day.

[36:44] The ambient noise of the wind moving through the leaves

[36:47] and branches and the great variety of birdsong. Provides a

[36:51] natural sound overlay that helps minimize the sound of cars

[36:55] and trucks from a rundle and the nearby highway. The

[36:59] trees also improve our air quality and provide shape. There

[37:04] is also always something new and interesting to see. As

[37:08] many birds and animals are always visiting. Nesting, feeding on

[37:12] berries and seeds or just passing through. We moved here

[37:17] because of our great love. For nature and our desire

[37:20] to live in harmony with it. When we saw the

[37:23] image the city provided of the proposed new development, we

[37:27] were frankly shocked by the invasive nature of its appearance.

[37:31] I know that it is being said that it is

[37:33] just a concept. But since this is all we had

[37:37] to go on, It appears to us that the developer

[37:43] plans to remove all the existing mature trees and put

[37:46] in a concrete perimeter populated by a few small, thinly

[37:50] spaced out evergreens that will likely take years to provide

[37:54] any kind of effective privacy screen for us and our

[37:57] neighbors. This loss of natural green space and privacy. Would

[38:01] also. Certainly negatively affect the value of our properties, and

[38:05] we would also lose most of the benefits that the

[38:07] current mature treeline offers us. It makes me think of

[38:12] that old Joni Mitchell song where she's saying they paved

[38:15] paradise and put up a parking lot. It popped into

[38:19] my head last night. We are asking the city to

[38:23] keep the tree lined trail that so many people use

[38:25] every day. Intact and preserve the tree line behind our

[38:29] fences that shield our yards and give us so much.

[38:32] Beauty. Happiness and peace of mind. More trees should be

[38:37] planted at the beginning of Toledo as well to fill

[38:40] in the gap and form a continuous tree line so

[38:43] that all of the homeowners can have privacy and a

[38:46] peaceful environment. We, the homeowners, are asking the city to

[38:51] ensure that any developer maintains a natural green space corridor

[38:56] easement between the affected properties on Toledo and the new

[38:59] housing this will provide us. All an effective privacy buffer

[39:03] zone. This and the preservation of the walking path. Will

[39:08] also help to integrate and harmonize any new mid rise

[39:11] build space with the quiet and peaceful character of the

[39:15] neighborhood. In our view, this would fulfill. Two of the

[39:21] city's stated objectives. Preserving green space and adding density to

[39:26] the area. This vital natural landscape will then continue to

[39:31] benefit wildlife, visitors and residents, old and new. Now and

[39:36] into the future. Thank you all for your time and

[39:40] consideration. Thank you so much for your deputation. Any questions?

[39:48] Say none. Thank you. You may return. Clerk Walters, please.

[39:54] Let's. Correspondence received from Ivan back on November the 14th

[39:58] requesting to appear before standing committee. Welcome, Mr. Beck.

[40:08] And again, when you're ready, you'll have ten minutes. Thank

[40:11] you. Thank you. Mayor Boschkov, counselors of the city of

[40:20] Thunder Bay, neighbors, friends and study administration. My name is

[40:27] Ivan Buck. I live at 408 Toledo Street. Before I

[40:33] retired, I was a secondary school teacher and a principal

[40:35] with 34 years of experience. I also was seconded to

[40:39] the ministry for four years to work in curriculum development

[40:42] at the secondary schools. In 2007, my wife and I

[40:46] purchased our house on Toledo street. We were very excited.

[40:50] About the green space behind our property. And the price

[40:54] reflected this feature. It is the only investment that we

[40:58] have. Like most citizens in Thunder Bay, the largest purchase

[41:04] that will ever make us is the purchase of their

[41:07] home. That applies to everyone in the room. The atmosphere

[41:12] created by the green belt overlooking our backyard has created

[41:16] many happy memories for us. For example, our granddaughter chose

[41:20] our backyard for her wedding ceremony. This kind of happy

[41:25] memory will not happen. If an apartment building complex replaces

[41:29] the privacy provided by the green buffer zone, If you

[41:34] become aware that your home investment will take a significant

[41:37] loss of a political decision, You have become as upset

[41:42] as my wife and I are. That also applies to

[41:46] everyone in this room. I have witnessed current river homeowners

[41:50] move to tears when talking about the impact this decision

[41:54] will have on them. Presently. The zoning bylaw protects this

[41:59] beautiful natural environment and wetlands from development, exploitation. This popular

[42:05] area is owned as community, and our current river community

[42:08] lives up to that definition. The use of the pathway,

[42:12] we call it Cherry Lane, by the way, is extremely

[42:15] popular with current river citizens and they are friendly and

[42:20] happy lot. Dogs, families walking, bikers, joggers, citizens with disabilities,

[42:29] including the blind and those in electrical devices skiers. Dog.

[42:34] School students and summer cam groups all utilize a natural

[42:38] environment of that pathway and green belt. My wife, Cora,

[42:42] and I have many memories of biking walk in the

[42:44] many tributary trails along the pathway over the years. You

[42:48] never know what you're going to meet. A fox, a

[42:50] deer, a wolf, a raccoon, a bear, maybe even a

[42:53] skunk or two. There's an incredible variety of birds. Some

[42:57] live here and some are just passing through. This will

[43:01] all be gone if the pathway disappears and you do

[43:05] something to the natural environment. It is incomprehensible to me

[43:10] that the city is considering eliminating the zoning bylaw that

[43:14] protects the use of this land for the everyday taxpaying

[43:17] citizens so that they can unlock the final housing and

[43:21] accelerator. Advance a $5.88 million for 2027 again I say

[43:27] this? Would not be an issue if the proposal had

[43:30] a personal effect on those creating it. If you truly

[43:35] believe this smart growth action plan has a value. Please

[43:40] at least consider a proposal that would maintain the pathway

[43:44] and a green buffer zone for the citizens who live

[43:46] here and care deeply about the health and well being

[43:50] of their community. On the other hand, if you really

[43:54] want a smart growth action plan, Please consider recommendations and

[43:59] Professor Libya Dematio's essay titled thunder B is missing his

[44:04] chance for strategic urban density. The article is honest, factual,

[44:09] and logical. That paves the way for valid strategic house

[44:13] building density. Levy, of Domario is a professor of economics

[44:17] at Lake University. And Professor Demadio's article appears in Northern

[44:22] Economist 2.0, November the 13th 2025. Mayor Baskoff and concerts

[44:28] of Thunder Bay. It is my belief that you are

[44:32] elected to assist. In the health, safety and well being

[44:36] of the citizens of Thunder Bay. Please support the concerns

[44:42] of your taxpayers. Thank you for listening to me. Thank

[44:46] you so much, Mr. Buck. Any questions? Councilor Atrini, please.

[44:54] Thank you, chair. I just have a question later for

[44:55] administration, if you could put me on that. List. Thank

[44:57] you. ten four okay thank you so much sir Don.

[45:02] Yes. Thank you. Clerk Walters, please. Chair. Then it's time.

[45:11] On the agenda is correspondence received from Stephanie Petroni on

[45:14] November the 16th requesting to appear before standing committee. Good

[45:24] evening, Mr. Petroni. Thanks for coming forward. And when you're

[45:27] ready, you'll. Have ten minutes. Can you hear me okay,

[45:29] Ed, just come a little closer if you can. Okay?

[45:31] It's great. Thank you.

[45:42] Good afternoon. My thanks to mayor and council and city

[45:45] staff for accommodating today's. Deputations. My comments are related to

[45:50] the proposed development at 791 or. First, I would like

[45:57] to address messaging issued by city staff to the media

[46:01] that implies dissenting. Opinion regarding this proposal are rooted in

[46:04] personal feelings. this is an obvious red herring which foments

[46:13] the villainization of concerned citizens sets up a play for

[46:16] the nimby card and diminishes the importance of concerns brought

[46:20] forward As you have heard from some of my neighbors

[46:20] already, our concerns are not self serving. Rather, they are

[46:23] valid, intelligent and proactive. It is indicated within the terms

[46:29] of reference for the mayor's task force on building more

[46:31] homes that on August 18, 2023, the city submitted an

[46:35] application to the Housing Accelerator fund that set an aggressive

[46:38] target for the development of 2200 units in three years.

[46:42] In a November 13 interview with. TB Newswatch city staff

[46:47] indicated that the pressure is on. The city must build

[46:50] 1755 housing units by February 2027 to meet conditions of

[46:56] the Housing Accelerator Fund, and they're behind by 1200 units.

[47:00] Falling short of this target loses the city almost $6

[47:03] million in funding. And with the clock ticking. The city's

[47:06] priority is high density housing proposals and fast. The city's

[47:12] entertainment of a monster sized eastern block tenement. Stylized 600

[47:16] unit development poised to drop in the middle of the

[47:18] Orundal green space like Andre the giant coming off. The

[47:21] top ropes underpins the urgency in which the city is

[47:25] pushing through high density proposals. The message is clear. As

[47:29] many units as possible. Anywhere. I have a few concerns.

[47:36] High density housing may be suitable in mixed use neighborhoods,

[47:39] but it is not suitable in neighborhoods characterized by single

[47:42] family homes and without services or businesses within walking distance.

[47:46] Furthermore, high density also means high population density, and in

[47:50] non mixed use neighborhoods, this has the potential to increase

[47:53] the victimization as well as the criminalization of people living

[47:56] in these areas. High population density, particularly when rapid and

[48:01] in small areas, can lead to a range of numerous

[48:04] consequences. Including social. Worth noting. 600 units. Could mean 600

[48:10] to maybe 2000 new neighbors all at once. That is

[48:14] a current river population increase. Of twelve to 42%, all

[48:18] behind eleven homes on just 3 ha, or 0.6%. Of

[48:22] all of current river. How will such an increase impact

[48:25] education, transportation, safety, environmental pollution, and neighborhood amenities? What will

[48:31] the social impact upon our neighborhood be we don't know.

[48:36] I encourage city council to direct that a social impact

[48:39] study be conducted before committing current river to high density

[48:42] development prior to rezoning. In 1992, Claudi Garten Elementary School,

[48:49] a landmark and current river, went up in flames. Bystanders

[48:54] reported that it took 30 minutes for firefighters to get

[48:57] water on the blaze. What was the hold up. Inadequate

[49:01] water pressure from fire hydrants to the hoses. Any number

[49:05] of new homes in the proposed development area will impact

[49:08] the residential water system. At this time, I am in

[49:11] correspondence with city staff to acquire information regarding water pressure

[49:15] readings for residential usage and fire hydrant operation as well

[49:20] as water main size which delivers our clean water for

[49:22] this area. I am unsure if the city has taken

[49:26] into consideration these issues, which are not just about convenience.

[49:29] But also safety. Regardless of current water pressure readings, a

[49:34] high density development will have an impact on water psi

[49:37] in the neighborhood prior to rezoning. I encourage the city

[49:41] to undertake a water pressure study of the area around

[49:44] 791 rundle, which should include the consideration that a minimum

[49:48] of no less than 600 new neighbors and potentially hundreds

[49:51] more. Would add to the burden of the current water

[49:53] system. In 2012, the city reconstructed a two lane rural

[49:58] road, which is now celebrated as the Arundal Hudson active

[50:02] living corridor connecting residents to parks and trails along an

[50:06] improved road system featuring traffic calming measures to ensure usability

[50:10] and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The city's 2017. Walkability

[50:16] and pedestrian safety report features the Orundal Hudson corridor as

[50:20] part of a larger strategic plan to increase the vitality

[50:23] and activity of Thunder Bay residents. Establishing 600 new homes,

[50:29] or even just 100 new homes in the small area

[50:32] not within walking distance. To any major service or business

[50:35] will increase the number of vehicles along the corridor. This

[50:38] raises safety. Concerns for pedestrians and cyclists and will contribute

[50:42] to traffic congestion and flow challenges, especially during. Peak traffic

[50:47] hours. As a minor artery. Traffic congestion will also contribute

[50:52] to traffic density. And my concern is not just convenience

[50:56] for vehicular travel, but also for the physical risk. To

[51:00] walkers, joggers, cyclists, moms pushing strollers, school age children and

[51:05] youth, dog walkers. People with mobility challenges and users of

[51:09] wheelchairs and scooters, all of whom I've seen along this

[51:12] corridor frequently and in numbers. D. Daily. I encourage the

[51:17] city to undertake a traffic study prior to rezoning for

[51:21] the purposes of identifying road capacity, especially with regard to

[51:25] traffic volume, congestion, density and flow, as well as increased

[51:29] risk to pedestrian and cyclists. Without enough measurable data to

[51:35] ensure that such a development will not have serious consequences

[51:38] in current river, it would be reckless to approve this

[51:42] proposal. I am not indifferent to the pressing need for

[51:47] housing in Thunder Bay, especially affordable housing. When I was

[51:51] a young mother. I was grateful for the rent gear

[51:54] to income, housing. I was able to secure while getting

[51:56] back on my feet and returning to university. However, we

[52:02] have a proposed development with a huge footprint in a

[52:05] very small space and in a very unique neighborhood. The

[52:09] National Collaborating center for Environmental Health outlines several best practices

[52:15] for developing high density housing developing in a green space

[52:20] is not one of them. In fact. NCC ECE states

[52:24] that existing open green and blue spaces should be protected

[52:27] and utilized as these spaces have many natural, positive impacts

[52:32] on an individual's health and well being and promote the

[52:35] health of our natural environment. We all know this. It

[52:39] is not revelatory. Now. I'll get personal. I moved to

[52:45] Thunder Bay in 2017. Unfamiliar with the city and not

[52:49] knowing anybody. I spent my weekends deliberately getting lost, eager

[52:54] to discover my new home. To my disappointment, I discovered

[52:58] many streets lined with dilapidated buildings, derelict homes, neighborhoods surrounded

[53:04] by businesses and industry and all within a mostly treeless

[53:08] community, it was difficult to find visual beauty in thunder.

[53:11] Bay. And I surmised that it was to be found

[53:14] only when turning away from it. To face the view

[53:16] of. Lake superior or the boreal forest. But then I

[53:20] found current river and this calm and charming. Neighborhood full

[53:24] of trees, natural beauty, and all creatures of fur and

[53:28] feather felt like home. And so. It has become that

[53:31] for me and my family since 2019. But this neighborhood

[53:35] isn't just for residents of current. River. It is for

[53:38] all of Thunder Bay, and many community members visit current

[53:41] river to catch their breath and access the beautiful trails

[53:44] located along Boulevard Lake, the LPH grounds and the path

[53:48] through the green space that we recently have come to

[53:51] known as 791 Arundel. We can have a different vision

[53:56] for this green space than what is being proposed. We

[54:01] can create more paved trails that connect with Boulevard. And

[54:05] paved trails increase accessibility for people with mobility issues. I've

[54:09] seen many older neighbors crossing from Chartwells, the Chartwell residents,

[54:14] to access the paved trail. We can enhance the beauty

[54:18] within it by planting more trees and in stating park.

[54:20] Amenities like benches, maybe a water feature. And because we

[54:24] are meant to be stewards of the land. Maybe we

[54:27] could even add a few bat boxes and bird. Boxes.

[54:31] This green space is not. An abandoned lot or bushy

[54:35] corner that people in our neighborhood just drive by this

[54:40] small piece. Of land is held. In the generational memory,

[54:42] I'm almost. 1 minute. Sorry. Just give you heads up.

[54:45] Thank you. Carry on. You said 1 minute left. Yeah.

[54:48] Thank you. This small piece of the green space is

[54:51] not an abandoned lot or bushy corner. That people in

[54:54] our neighborhood just drive by. This small piece of land

[54:58] is held in the generational memory of all community members

[55:01] in thunder. Bay. People have gathered here, children have played

[55:05] here, and many have escaped here, and still they do.

[55:09] This place is worth protecting. When we lose our green

[55:12] spaces, we lose it forever. And I also know this

[55:17] development spreads, it won't just be the loss of this

[55:21] screen space. There will be more to lose. I encourage

[55:26] mayor and council to retain this property for community use,

[55:30] just as it has been used. For generations. Thank you.

[55:34] Thank you so much, Ms. Petroni. Are there any questions

[55:37] at all? Just quickly, are you in favor of a

[55:42] smaller development at all or just no development at all?

[55:45] No development. Okay. Thank you so much. Your worship, please.

[55:53] I guess. You've just asked a question. There's no level

[55:59] of construction at all. Single family or anything that. Would

[56:06] I feel there are many suitable places in Thunder Bay

[56:09] that are not in a green space. Where those needs

[56:12] could be achieved, and I would encourage city staff. To

[56:16] continue looking for more suitable locations rather than a green

[56:20] space that has been used for generations. By the community

[56:24] members of Thunder Bay. My second question deals with you

[56:27] mentioned water pressure. How long have you had this issue

[56:31] and has there been any attempts? To address it. My

[56:36] interest in water pressure is knowing what the current water

[56:39] pressure is around the proposed area. I think that is

[56:43] something that we need to consider before. We fast track

[56:48] proposal of that size, or any size for that matter.

[56:51] And this is. What I'm looking to the city for

[56:54] is more information about the water pressure for residential use

[56:58] as well as hydrants. Thank you for that. Thank you,

[57:01] chair. Thank you so much. Thank you. Can return. Clark

[57:06] Walters, please, let's. Correspondence received from Cody Lane on November

[57:11] 19 requesting to appear before. Standing committee. Welcome, Mr. Lee,

[57:21] and thanks for coming forward. And again, you'll have ten

[57:23] minutes and I'll give you a heads up when you

[57:25] hit nine minutes. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Good evening. I'd

[57:32] like to thank Mayor Boschkoff, the growth standing committee and

[57:34] city administration. For listening to my deputation tonight. I'm giving

[57:38] my deputation tonight in support of the surplus lands proposal

[57:41] that is before the committee. Ultimately, I would like to

[57:45] see the growth standing committee endorse the proposal. Counsel ultimately

[57:49] declare these land surplus. Can you just move a little

[57:51] bit? Thanks and do the required rezonings that are necessary

[57:56] to develop these lands for medium to high density residential.

[58:00] I believe this proposal will help with housing and rental

[58:03] affordability as well as the sustainable growth of the city.

[58:08] Some background about myself. 25 years old, and I just

[58:11] moved to this city this year. Or moved. Back to

[58:13] the city after living in the country for 13 years.

[58:16] Currently, I rent a one bedroom apartment in Northwood for

[58:19] 1350 a month, and according to the CMHC, the average

[58:23] rent in the city for a primary rental as of

[58:25] 2024 is 1359. So I like to consider myself the

[58:29] average renter in this city. Some history. When my family

[58:34] left this city in 2012, my father was paying $500

[58:37] a month. To rent a two bedroom home in current

[58:40] river. Now that was a low rent for the time,

[58:43] even for especially for a house. However, that affordability allowed

[58:47] my father to put me an extracurricular activities. Save up

[58:52] for a vehicle. Go on the occasional vacation and eventually

[58:55] save up for a house. And if that rent were

[58:58] two three times what it were, I would be living

[59:00] a very different life right now. So you can imagine

[59:03] my surprise when I wanted to move back to this

[59:05] city and I find that $500 a month doesn't even

[59:08] buy your room in somebody's house anymore. I paid two

[59:11] and a half times as much to live in half

[59:13] the space my family and I did back in 2012,

[59:17] if I wanted to live in my childhood home, I

[59:19] would be paying about $2,000 a month, and this is

[59:22] backed up by the. CMHC data, which shows in the

[59:24] last ten years, the average rent has gone of about

[59:27] 57%. Inflation in that time period was 30%. So I

[59:33] asked what changed, and I guess the better. Question to

[59:36] ask is what didn't change? So between 2024 and 1990,

[59:41] which is the furthest back I could get the numbers

[59:43] to. Go. So the 34 year period, there was a

[59:46] net gain of 447 primary rental units. This is my

[59:51] interpretation of the data. I'm sure administration can look into

[59:55] it further. But I can see that when I drive

[59:58] around town, I can see that in my apartment that

[1:00:00] was built in the, across the street that were built

[1:00:03] in the most of the other apartments that were built

[1:00:06] in the last century. So at some point, this city

[1:00:09] built medium to high density residential. And then stopped in

[1:00:13] favor of low density residential. And it's why I believe

[1:00:15] we're in the housing. Crisis that we are and why

[1:00:18] the city is seeing an increasing infrastructure deficit every year.

[1:00:23] So I hope you can see my excitement with this

[1:00:24] proposal, because to me, this represents 100 years. Of apartments

[1:00:28] if we were to continue building them at our existing

[1:00:31] rate. And I believe that is going to have major

[1:00:34] ramifications for housing and rental affordability. As well as growing.

[1:00:40] The city sustainably. So I'll start with housing affordability. I

[1:00:44] believe the number I've seen, quote is 1385 units, but

[1:00:49] that may be reduced. Now. If we build that many

[1:00:53] units, then any senior that wants to downsize out of

[1:00:56] a home. Will have the ability to do so if

[1:00:58] they have the financial means, whether it be the equity

[1:01:01] in their house or investments. They can move into a

[1:01:03] new modern apartment like this if they want. To downsize,

[1:01:06] and that frees up their family home. Now, I may

[1:01:09] not be able to afford that family home. But if.

[1:01:12] A family wants to upgrade into that, or a couple

[1:01:14] wants to upgrade. I can afford their starter. Home. So

[1:01:17] I see it that if we build these medium high

[1:01:20] density apartments and a senior downsizes you're freeing up two

[1:01:23] units of housing that you didn't need to build. And

[1:01:26] we are obviously not building houses fast enough. When it

[1:01:30] comes to rental affordability. If you add 100 years worth

[1:01:32] of supply, that increases the vacancy rate no longer. We're

[1:01:36] not sitting at 3% vacancy rate anymore, and it's. A

[1:01:39] lot harder for your landlord to justify high rent increases.

[1:01:44] In the last three years alone. I have on file

[1:01:47] here. In 2022, the average rent went up seven and

[1:01:52] a half percent. 2023, seven and a half percent 2024

[1:01:56] 8.6% if you increase the vacancy rate by building this

[1:02:01] many apartments, it's harder to justify those rent increases. And

[1:02:05] if a landlord is sitting on a vacant rental. They

[1:02:08] either have to. Reduce their price to justify or to

[1:02:12] attract a tenant, or they have to renovate to justify.

[1:02:16] What they're charging. That's how I see that this project

[1:02:19] or this proposal will. Help with rental affordability. Lastly, I'd

[1:02:22] like to tie everything into sustainable growth. This proposal frees

[1:02:27] up housing that already exists. That means you're not building

[1:02:31] new low. Density residential on the outskirts of the city

[1:02:34] where you have to run new roads, water, sewer, stormwater

[1:02:38] ems and fire because the houses you freed up are

[1:02:41] already connected to services. Now there's. Going to be infrastructure

[1:02:44] costs associated with building these new apartment. Apartments, but because

[1:02:47] they are adjacent, already existing services, they're going to be

[1:02:50] built that infrastructure. Cost is going to be a fraction

[1:02:53] of the cost of what it would be if you

[1:02:55] took 200 people and put them in 200 homes, as

[1:02:58] opposed to. One singular unit. Lastly, I just want to

[1:03:03] talk about how this proposal is self sustaining. To quote

[1:03:07] the city manager, who brought up in a tv news

[1:03:10] article a suburban area has a tax revenue of ten.

[1:03:16] Thousand dollars per acre. I believe this is on a

[1:03:18] yearly basis for 48 units, whereas a multi unit area

[1:03:22] has $100,000 per acre tax revenue. So by building proposals

[1:03:28] like this, we are increasing the tax revenues of the

[1:03:31] city and making the city more self sustaining. Lastly, there's.

[1:03:34] The incentive of the housing acc. Accelerator fund that if

[1:03:37] this proposal goes through, we will receive the 5.88 million

[1:03:41] that can be used to revitalize the lapidated and vacant

[1:03:45] buildings in the downtown cores infill as well as potentially

[1:03:49] use that money to subsidize affordable housing. So, in conclusion,

[1:03:54] I would like to be able to rent and save

[1:03:56] for a home. I see. This proposal as allowing me

[1:03:59] to do that by freeing up housing supply. I see.

[1:04:03] It helps me by allowing me to save up as

[1:04:05] a renter by making rents. More affordable. And lastly, if

[1:04:09] you want me to make a 30 year commitment to

[1:04:11] this city as a taxpayer. I need to see that

[1:04:14] my property taxes aren't going to go up every year

[1:04:17] by huge amounts because the city isn't growing sustainably and

[1:04:20] those taxes need to come. For me personally. I would

[1:04:25] rather. See more self sustaining proposals like this one, because

[1:04:29] we simply just are not attracting industry and commercial fast

[1:04:32] enough. And ultimately, I would like to own a home.

[1:04:38] And not see my tax bill go up by large

[1:04:40] amounts every year, so thank you very much. Thank you,

[1:04:43] Mr. Lane. Is there? Your worship, please. Thank you, speaker.

[1:04:53] Your presentation confirms that you know a little bit about.

[1:05:00] The vacancy rates. And the need for. Densification. I

[1:05:09] think my first question would be, essentially, Are you aware

[1:05:16] that we have the highest percentage of parkland of municipality

[1:05:21] in Ontario? No, I'm. Not. Or the number of parks

[1:05:25] is ranks among the top. So I want to focus

[1:05:32] those points on my question to get from 106,000, which

[1:05:38] we are identified as. To the 150. Which is realistic

[1:05:45] from a planning standpoint. Can it be done by single

[1:05:49] family dwellings? Would you confirm that? We have to have

[1:05:54] some measure of densification. Are you asking, like, if I'm

[1:06:01] opposed to low density residential? No, I'm just. Asking. What

[1:06:06] you would think there's capacity for. Yes, I believe that

[1:06:10] there is capacity for low density residential. I just believe

[1:06:13] that they should be built in tandem with medium to

[1:06:16] high density residential. And I think the tax revenue numbers

[1:06:21] illustrate that. The most. If they're built in tandem, you

[1:06:25] can use high density, essentially, to subsidize the low density.

[1:06:31] Is how I view it. Ultimately, if I want to

[1:06:32] live in low density. We're going to have to build

[1:06:35] more low density. I understand that. I'm not. Opposed to

[1:06:37] low density. I would like to see the infill happening

[1:06:41] at the same time that we construct low density, and

[1:06:44] I just kind of wanted to illustrate that. Over the

[1:06:48] 34 year period. How much high density we have added.

[1:06:52] At some point we stopped building apartments like this and

[1:06:55] just mainly focused on low density, and it's why I

[1:06:58] personally believe that there is a housing crisis as well

[1:07:02] as a climbing infrastructure deficit. As a result. Just because

[1:07:05] the tax revenues aren't. There. Thank you for your clear

[1:07:09] answer. Thank. You. Speaker. Thank you. Councilor Aguwal, please. Thank

[1:07:17] you. Chair. My question when you calculated. I thank you

[1:07:21] for your detailed presentation and numbers. Just to get a

[1:07:25] couple of clarifications. When you detailed it was 427 net

[1:07:30] gain of new apartments from 1990. So what I was

[1:07:35] using was I was using the historical primary rental data

[1:07:38] from the CMHC, so I took the difference in units

[1:07:41] from 2024 to 1990, and I had a net gain

[1:07:45] of 447 now. That number. Fluctuates over the years. So

[1:07:50] I apologize if I misinterpreted that the data. Okay. Thank

[1:07:56] you for that clarification. From 1990 to 2025. In the

[1:08:03] last many years. I agree. There's not been a lot

[1:08:06] of multi residential. Did you take into account all the

[1:08:09] multi residential condominiums, which. Are actually registered as single family

[1:08:14] dwellings because the condominium ownership is single family rather than

[1:08:18] multi. Residential. I wasn't aware of that classification. Yeah. So

[1:08:24] we've seen a substantial growth in that spectrum, some of

[1:08:28] which are rentals and so your data, what you've got.

[1:08:31] I appreciate that because. It is the true rental. So

[1:08:34] if somebody has a rental living in there, it's different.

[1:08:36] So your data. I appreciate where you received it from.

[1:08:41] Now my next question. Through you is when you were

[1:08:46] growing up, you lived in a single family home. Yes.

[1:08:49] Not in an apartment. And the goal of your parents

[1:08:52] was to buy the roman single family home and to

[1:08:56] be able to afford it. What is the goal? You're

[1:09:01] a young gentleman who wants to hopefully stay in Thunderbait,

[1:09:03] like you said. In the next 35, 40 years. What

[1:09:06] is your goal? Is it apartment living? What is that

[1:09:10] spectrum for your age group to be moving into? I

[1:09:13] think if you asked personally myself, I would like to

[1:09:16] move into a home in the city. And I think

[1:09:18] if you asked. Anyone my age, they would say the

[1:09:21] same thing. Often when I have this discussion with people,

[1:09:24] my age if you ask them. Do you want to

[1:09:26] move out of the house or would you? Prefer to

[1:09:30] stay at home and save for a house. They will

[1:09:31] stay, stay at home and save. For a house. Because

[1:09:35] the rent is equivalent to a mortgage payment. So many

[1:09:37] of them see renting as essentially throwing away a mortgage

[1:09:41] payment and would much rather prefer to stay at home

[1:09:43] as opposed to rent. In the city. I rent because

[1:09:47] again, my family moved over to the country. I had

[1:09:50] to move. Back for school. And to focus on my

[1:09:53] career, which is why I'm a renter. My friends either

[1:09:58] live in the city or continue to live at home

[1:10:01] on the outskirts of the city. Thank you so much.

[1:10:04] Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for your

[1:10:07] deputation. You may return. I'm sorry. Am I able to

[1:10:10] leave? I have to go to work. Oh. Yeah, go

[1:10:12] ahead. Thank you. You may leave. Thank you. Thank you

[1:10:17] very much. Thank you. Clerk Walters, please. That's I'm on

[1:10:21] the agenda's correspondence received from Zach. White on November the

[1:10:24] 19th, requesting to appear before standing committee. Additional information relative

[1:10:28] to this deputation. Was distributed on Friday, November the 20

[1:10:31] eigth. Good evening, Mr. White. Thank you for coming forward.

[1:10:34] And again. You'll have ten minutes and I'll give you

[1:10:36] a heads. Up when you have a minute left, okay?

[1:10:40] Sounds good. Thank you so much. All right. Mayor Boschkov,

[1:10:43] chair Katuga, members of the growth committee. City manager Colin,

[1:10:47] who's away right now, and the rest of administration. Thank

[1:10:51] you for allowing me to speak tonight regarding the proposed

[1:10:53] development in 791 Arundel, my name is Zach White, and

[1:10:57] my wife and I live at 432 Toledo, which is

[1:11:00] right on the corner of Toledo and Arundel. We live

[1:11:03] there with our two beautiful twin girls. We just turned

[1:11:06] ten months this week. The community's own green space. In

[1:11:10] question here as directly out our back window, and we

[1:11:14] often see people using the pay trail. Coming from chart

[1:11:16] wells, other people. It's a very well used space. The

[1:11:21] fixed under unit development, as shown in the conceptual rendering,

[1:11:23] would dwarf our property as well as the other ten

[1:11:27] property owners along the shared property line. It would increase

[1:11:30] traffic, noise levels, light pollution at night, reduce the amount

[1:11:34] of sunlight we receive in our backyard, decreased privacy, and,

[1:11:38] as Ivan mentioned, most likely decreased property values to some

[1:11:40] degree. I don't think any reasonable person in our position

[1:11:46] would prefer to trade. The green space that we enjoy

[1:11:50] for 600 units of housing. But I understand the pressures

[1:11:54] the city are under, and we'll get to that. After

[1:11:57] we learned about this proposed development, we created an online

[1:12:00] petition. 340 members of the community sign this petition in

[1:12:05] opposition of the project, as shown in the conceptual rendering.

[1:12:10] The list of names as well as 120 comments left

[1:12:13] by signees of the petition were submitted. With the application

[1:12:17] for this deputation. This is a substantial community response, especially

[1:12:22] given our limited reach as members of the community. In

[1:12:26] contrast, the survey that was produced by administration recently, which

[1:12:30] was good. It had 142 total responses. So the pie

[1:12:35] charts that were shown earlier were 142 total people. Which

[1:12:40] is less than half the signatures that we collected in

[1:12:42] opposition to the project. In total, it also had 52

[1:12:47] comments on the administration survey, and we've had 120 comments

[1:12:52] submitted as part of the petition in opposition. Now, the

[1:12:55] comments that we received on the online petition followed a

[1:12:58] lot of the similar themes that were summarized by. Administration,

[1:13:01] primarily loss of green space and trails, increased traffic, appropriateness

[1:13:05] of the size of the development and lack of access

[1:13:08] to sufficient amenities. So similar results, but a large number

[1:13:13] of people as well. In addition to this survey, the

[1:13:16] current river ward meeting held on November 5, as mentioned

[1:13:18] earlier, had over 100 concerned citizens come out to voice

[1:13:21] their opposition to the project save one individual who spoke

[1:13:24] in favor. It is clear there are a large number

[1:13:27] of city residents that do not want this project to

[1:13:30] happen. And want the green space to remain as is

[1:13:34] or developed at a smaller scale. We understand the need

[1:13:39] for housing in our city and the millions of dollars

[1:13:42] of HAF funding. That is contingent upon some very ambitious

[1:13:45] housing targets. We understand that urban sprawl creates a tremendous

[1:13:49] strain. On the city's services relative to tax base and

[1:13:54] that infill and urban densification. Is a much more economical

[1:13:58] way to increase the housing supply. We understand the features

[1:14:01] of this property. And what makes it attractive for development.

[1:14:05] We're also fully aware that our property line ends. At

[1:14:08] the fence. And the city of Thunder Bay owns this

[1:14:10] piece of land, not the neighbors that live along it,

[1:14:13] and the city, as an entity can do with it

[1:14:15] what it pleases. However, this standing committee and ultimately council

[1:14:19] as a whole are the ones who decide if this

[1:14:22] proposed development takes place and if so, to what extent?

[1:14:26] The members of council are elected by the residents. Of

[1:14:29] the community to be their voice and reflective views and

[1:14:31] needs of the community. In their decisions. It is council's

[1:14:36] duty to consider the concerns of the hundreds of residents

[1:14:39] who have shown their opposition to this project when they

[1:14:41] make their decisions in this matter. If it is decided

[1:14:45] by council that some amount of multi unit housing must

[1:14:48] be developed at 791 or rundle. Our request is that

[1:14:51] it be done in a reasonable and responsible manner that

[1:14:55] addresses the concerns of nearby residents and the community. A

[1:14:59] 600 unit development on under eight acres would be unprecedented.

[1:15:03] Based on our research, it would be. The densest residential

[1:15:05] cluster in the entire city and among the largest multi

[1:15:08] unit proposals in Thunderbase history. Is this well used green

[1:15:13] space located from downtown cores really the appropriate location for

[1:15:17] development of this size. It does not align with the

[1:15:20] existing neighborhood character, the active living corridor, or various city

[1:15:24] planning documents. It would bring a massive influx of residents

[1:15:29] and vehicles, permanently altering traffic patterns, noise and privacy. The

[1:15:34] justification for the size of the development must be based

[1:15:37] on more than short term monetary gain achieved by hitting

[1:15:41] housing targets. The impacts of these decisions will be felt

[1:15:46] in this neighborhood for generations. If development occurs on this

[1:15:51] property. Our recommendations to council to balance the need for

[1:15:55] housing with the impact on local residents and the community

[1:15:59] are as follows. Number one, leave the popular paved traffic

[1:16:04] path untouched by limiting development to the east and north

[1:16:07] sides of the property. Number two, plant mature trees or

[1:16:11] hedges between the paved path and the west property lying

[1:16:14] along the north section of the property to provide those

[1:16:16] Toledo residents with a similar amount of privacy as their

[1:16:19] southern neighbors number three. Aside from a vehicle entryway, maintain

[1:16:25] the existing tree line along a rundle. To provide some

[1:16:29] shelter. From traffic, noise and lights along a rundle for

[1:16:33] both the Toledo residents and the new residents. Of a

[1:16:35] potential development. Number four. Reduce the number of housing units

[1:16:40] down to something more reasonable and appropriate to the area.

[1:16:45] Something similar in scale and density to the existing condo

[1:16:47] and apartment buildings across the street. Number five, limit the

[1:16:50] number of stories of new apartment buildings to four stories

[1:16:54] to reduce the impact on neighboring properties and preserve the

[1:16:57] natural beauty of the area. And number six, place the

[1:17:00] vehicle access. For the proposed development directly across from the

[1:17:04] east entryway of Park View place, which is across the

[1:17:07] street. This creates some distance between. The intersection of Toledo

[1:17:11] and a rundle, as well as the driveway for the

[1:17:13] home at 432 Toledo this location would improve safety by

[1:17:17] essentially creating a two way stop intersection at that spot.

[1:17:21] On the conceptual rendering. The entryway was directly beside the

[1:17:24] Toledo intersection, which would be custard. And you'd have offsetting

[1:17:28] entryways to the apartment buildings across the street. We believe

[1:17:31] these recommendations strike a fair balance between adding much needed

[1:17:35] housing and respecting the existing community. We are not against

[1:17:40] housing being created for people that need it. We simply

[1:17:43] want a reasonable, balanced approach that adds housing to the

[1:17:47] city without sacrificing. The character and well being of the

[1:17:51] surrounding communities. I appreciate the varying opinions that we've heard

[1:17:55] here tonight, especially Cody's opinion as a renter. I was

[1:17:58] a renter in thunder bay for eight years, and I'm

[1:18:01] currently a landlord of. A small house. So I see

[1:18:05] both sides of this issue, and I'm currently vacant in

[1:18:09] the unit that I'm renting, so I'm hearing from people

[1:18:11] looking for a place to live. Right now and communicating

[1:18:13] with them as I try and fill that unit so

[1:18:15] I see both sides. Of this issue, and I just

[1:18:17] want to balance the approach, as I mentioned, to this

[1:18:20] development, so thank you. Thank you so much for your

[1:18:24] deputation, Mr. White. Is there any questions? Councilor Pascalino, please.

[1:18:30] Thank you very much. And through chair. I really appreciate

[1:18:33] your presentation. One of the things. That I like about

[1:18:39] it is that you've. Offered some other alternatives. I want

[1:18:46] you to know that counselors are taking these decisions very

[1:18:49] seriously. We are dealing with people that are looking for

[1:18:55] a place to stay. We're trying to grow the city.

[1:18:58] And we're also trying to make sure that taxes are

[1:19:02] reasonable. And on the other hand. My concern is that

[1:19:09] if we were to do something. That can't be or

[1:19:16] would be difficult. To balance out with the infrastructure around

[1:19:21] there. So my goal, I believe, as a city councilor,

[1:19:25] is to make sure. That. The civil engineers do their

[1:19:30] job to make sure that the roads. And the sewers

[1:19:34] all work in the water pressure work, but also that

[1:19:37] people would want to stay where they are. So I

[1:19:41] really do appreciate. Your deputation. And I want to assure

[1:19:47] you that we're taking. These decisions very seriously. Thank you.

[1:19:53] Thank you. Okay. All right, Ms. White, thank you so

[1:19:57] much. You may return. Deputy Walters, please, let's. The agenda

[1:20:02] is correspondence received from Rod Seabrook on November the 20th

[1:20:05] requesting to appear before standing committee. I will note for

[1:20:07] a committee that we did receive a petition from Mr.

[1:20:10] Seabrook this evening. It is a signed petition and appears

[1:20:12] to be in accordance with the city's position's policy, but

[1:20:16] again, it was just provided to us, just. Before the

[1:20:18] meeting. Thank you. Welcome Mr. Steve Brooke. Thank you for

[1:20:21] coming forward again. You'll have ten minutes. And I'll give

[1:20:24] you a heads up when there's a minute left. Okay?

[1:20:26] Sure. Thank you very much. Just point out I do

[1:20:30] have some slides that accompany the presentation. That is not

[1:20:34] the first slide. Though. No. I think you have an

[1:20:40] old version of the. Yeah, you have an old version.

[1:20:49] Gordon. There should be six slides in total. The first

[1:20:57] one is an aerial overview.

[1:21:10] No. Anyway. I'll try and work with this. If you

[1:21:17] could scroll down further, please, towards the bottom. That's it.

[1:21:23] Okay. That one there. And that's it. Right. Okay. Thank

[1:21:28] you. My. Name is Rod Seabrook. I have lived on

[1:21:31] Sequoia Drive for the past 42 years. I'm here speaking

[1:21:36] on behalf of residents opposed to the proposed sale and

[1:21:39] development of city owned land at John street and Junott

[1:21:42] Avenue. What realty services is describing as 300 Tokyo street,

[1:21:48] residents are shocked, angered and feeling betrayed by the city

[1:21:52] that our neighborhood is under consideration for a massive 400

[1:21:55] unit. Apartment complex development. The property has been described by

[1:22:00] realty services as surplus land. This diminishes. The perceived value

[1:22:05] of the land. On the contrary, the forest has been

[1:22:08] that has been growing there. For the past 50 years

[1:22:11] has significant value. Our neighborhood is a mix of low

[1:22:15] and middle income families, many of who live in social

[1:22:18] housing. Units, which has added greatly to the population density

[1:22:22] of the area. There is also. A significant component of

[1:22:25] single parent and indigenous families housing. Housing consists of single

[1:22:30] family homes and duplexes a small apartment building, and more

[1:22:34] recently, seven new sixplexes and a triplex on Junet Avenue,

[1:22:38] a 58 unit, new 58 unit transitional housing project for

[1:22:43] indigenous youth is. Nearing completion next to the EMS building.

[1:22:48] Our neighborhood has done more than its fair share to

[1:22:50] accommodate. Development over the past 40 years. All at the

[1:22:54] incremental loss of our forested and open areas. It has

[1:22:58] been virtually all take and no give. When the new

[1:23:03] EMS facility was being proposed for construction next to the

[1:23:06] fire, hall at Junot and Red River Road. Residents of

[1:23:10] Grand View protested as a result of these protests the.

[1:23:15] Grandview neighborhood received a large, new dedicated park. Our neighborhood

[1:23:19] got ems. And a tiny parquet. When the transitional housing

[1:23:25] project was looking for property, our neighborhood was proposed. There

[1:23:29] is much debate about the suitability of the area for

[1:23:32] the project, given its well known reputation for violence and

[1:23:35] drug dealing in certain areas. Several councilors voted against the

[1:23:40] project for that very reason. However, the project was approved.

[1:23:44] Again we lost open space, this time next to the

[1:23:47] boys and girls. Club. So here we are having to

[1:23:50] fight with the city over an ill conceived proposal and

[1:23:53] a rushed process. The rush to get construction started is

[1:23:57] driven by targets and deadlines set under the housing accelerator

[1:24:01] fund program. And the associated inducement of federal government subsidies,

[1:24:06] all to address a largely self inflicted housing crisis. The

[1:24:11] process is not about thoughtful planning that takes into account

[1:24:14] the specific challenges and needs of a neighborhood. It's about

[1:24:18] cramming as many multi unit buildings into an area to

[1:24:22] satisfy targets and arbitrary deadlines set under the Housing Accelerator

[1:24:26] Fund program. As a result, the city is fast tracking

[1:24:30] the development with very little time for the public to

[1:24:33] get involved or to provide comments. Had I not distributed

[1:24:38] information? Flyers gone door to door informing residents what was

[1:24:42] being proposed and listening to their concerns. Virtually no one

[1:24:46] in our neighborhood would have been aware of what was

[1:24:49] happening or have had their say. 100% of the people

[1:24:53] that I spoke to directly. Who signed a petition stating

[1:24:58] their opposition to the proposal to sell and develop the

[1:25:01] land for a 400 unit apartment complex. In a matter

[1:25:06] of just a few days. The petition has received 90

[1:25:09] signatures. I'd like to say too clearly, there is a

[1:25:13] disconnect between realty services survey results and what I heard

[1:25:18] from talking face to face with nearly 100 people in

[1:25:22] our neighborhood. 100% opposed. Multiple negative impacts will result with

[1:25:29] no offsetting, mitigating measures or improvements being offered. A 400

[1:25:33] unit, six story complex is completely out of scale and

[1:25:36] character with our neighborhood. The project will completely dominate the

[1:25:40] area. There will be a total loss of the natural

[1:25:45] forest. This contradicts the city's commitments to protect and enhance

[1:25:49] the urban forest and to help address the climate crisis.

[1:25:54] The soil in the area is comprised of 10ft of

[1:25:57] muscade, completely unsuitable for supporting such large buildings. Because of

[1:26:03] the musk egg. Soils the yard zone. Pickton Avenue, next

[1:26:06] to the. Proposed development have sunk over 2ft since the

[1:26:09] homes were built about 50 years ago. The site is

[1:26:13] also currently well below the level of the public sidewalk

[1:26:16] along Junott Avenue, requiring large amounts of fill to raise

[1:26:19] the grade. This will place the homes on Pickton Avenue.

[1:26:22] Several feet below the level of the likely final grade

[1:26:25] of the apartment buildings. Where will the runoff from the

[1:26:28] apartment development end up? The proposed 400 unit development is

[1:26:33] more than three times the size of the new development

[1:26:36] of 120. Units located at the corner of Junet Avenue

[1:26:40] and Riviera Drive. That development is situated on virtually the

[1:26:45] same size property. But it is in an existing low

[1:26:50] density area. By comparison, our neighborhood is already high density

[1:26:55] and cannot absorb a 400 unit apartment complex. The proposed

[1:26:59] department buildings have very little setback from the public sidewalks.

[1:27:04] The Junot Riviera development, however, by comparison, has a much

[1:27:08] larger setback from the sidewalk probably 60ft and the road.

[1:27:13] It also has pave parking areas in front of and

[1:27:16] at the site of the buildings. In addition to underground

[1:27:18] parking, the artist's rendition of the John Juna development. Is

[1:27:23] incomplete and that it does not show any outside parking,

[1:27:26] only a treed courtyard and more trees surrounding the buildings.

[1:27:30] Why would outside parking not be shown when clearly it

[1:27:33] would be needed? Traffic entering and exiting the development will

[1:27:38] increase traffic volume substantially. On already busy John street and

[1:27:43] June Knot Avenue. I had a picture of. There it

[1:27:46] is. That's gridlock at quarter to four in the afternoon

[1:27:50] on John Street. Development of the property is severely constrained

[1:27:55] by there being no access permitted from the Expressway. John

[1:27:58] street or Junott Avenue. Imagine 400 plus vehicles per day

[1:28:03] from the apartment complex, entering and exiting through the residential

[1:28:07] streets. Of Picton, Bleacher and Windsor. Any access utilizing Bleacher

[1:28:16] Avenue will result in the loss of picked in Parquet.

[1:28:19] Picked an avenue currently does not even have sidewalks. All

[1:28:23] this new traffic, including during construction, would put pedestrians at

[1:28:28] risk. The portion of the development running parallel to Juna

[1:28:32] Avenue has been shoehorned into a very narrow strip of

[1:28:35] land. And I draw your attention to that long, narrow

[1:28:40] building along June Avenue. The homes along Picken Avenue will

[1:28:45] lose virtually all of their direct sunlight. These massive concrete

[1:28:50] buildings will reflect already high levels of traffic noise back

[1:28:53] into nearby properties and privacy will be lost for homes

[1:28:56] that ever over top by them. In conclusion, developers don't

[1:29:01] create green space. So it falls to the city to

[1:29:04] ensure that important green spaces, such as the property in

[1:29:07] question are valued and protect. Protected and that the voices

[1:29:11] and opinions of its residents are heard and respected. Once

[1:29:16] the property is sold, developed and paved over. There is

[1:29:18] no returning it to a natural state. A few scattered

[1:29:22] trees and Zimbabwe bushes planted under the city site control

[1:29:25] requirements can never substitute. For the area of natural forests

[1:29:30] that already exists on the property, nor can it mitigate

[1:29:33] the negative impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding

[1:29:36] neighborhood or replace the intrinsic value of the property. That

[1:29:40] it currently holds for residents. Don't be swayed by the

[1:29:43] lure of a few federal dollars of subsidy if missing

[1:29:46] the arbitrary target set under. The housing fund program means

[1:29:51] foregoing the remaining money in the funds. So be it.

[1:29:54] It is. A small price to pay to avoid making

[1:29:56] a very bad decision. Our neighborhood recommendation is that city

[1:30:02] council not approved this proposal, but instead. Have the property

[1:30:06] remain as permanent green space for current and future generations.

[1:30:11] If council chooses to declare the John Juna property as

[1:30:14] surplus and it is subsequently sold and developed, there will

[1:30:18] be nothing left to take from us, you will have

[1:30:20] finally taken it all. That's it. You're done. Okay. Thank

[1:30:25] you for Mr. Seabirk, for your. Deputation. Is there any

[1:30:28] questions? Councilor Agarwal, please. Thank you very much.

[1:30:38] Chair through you. Mr. Seabrook, thank you very much for.

[1:30:44] Your personal dedication of trying to get more information from

[1:30:47] your neighborhood. So you personally went out and knocked on.

[1:30:53] I did. I was fortunate enough to receive a mail

[1:30:56] because I'm with. In the mandatory mailing distance for notices.

[1:31:01] I got a notice in the mail. That was the

[1:31:03] first inquiry I had as I better start paying attention.

[1:31:08] So I started following it, and then when I saw

[1:31:11] what was being proposed, I took action. And I felt.

[1:31:17] The best form of action was to get out and

[1:31:19] talk to people directly, face to face, and. here to

[1:31:27] explain to them what was being proposed here the concerns

[1:31:31] hear their ideas Their wants and needs. That's what I

[1:31:32] did. Thank you. Through you when you went through. Did

[1:31:41] any one of the people in the neighborhood say. Instead

[1:31:45] of six stories, instead of 400 units, maybe 100 units,

[1:31:49] maybe something smaller. With the Natasha. I understand. You mentioned

[1:31:54] that everything's been taken. With an attached green space area.

[1:31:59] So it's not that whole parcel that's green. But maybe

[1:32:02] a nice parquet or something. Did anybody mention some sort

[1:32:04] of combination of that sort? The absolute. Common comment was

[1:32:12] protection of the green space. There was comment. About. Would

[1:32:18] be built be affordable housing. And some said they doubted

[1:32:23] that. Any of it would be for low income families,

[1:32:28] for example. But I will say that the reference to

[1:32:32] affordable housing was made, but. The predominant comment was that

[1:32:38] little bit of green space. They're going to take the

[1:32:40] little bit of green space that we have, this little

[1:32:42] bit of area. That remains in our neighborhood. And they

[1:32:48] just said, that's terrible. It is absolutely terrible. And my

[1:32:52] third question chair is. Quite an important one. Is your

[1:32:58] soil conditions. Stickton Avenue has sunk 2ft. Yes. And that

[1:33:07] area is all musk egg. It is? I can tell

[1:33:10] you exactly how I know when we move to our

[1:33:13] house on Sequoia. In the 80s. A couple of years

[1:33:18] later, I think an excavator showed up on that strip

[1:33:22] of land that I had shown that runs along Junot,

[1:33:25] right? And they were digging. I assume they were digging

[1:33:29] to see what soil conditions is like there, so. After

[1:33:34] the work was done, they had left the excavation open.

[1:33:38] I went over and had a look. And I was

[1:33:41] quite surprised. Not completely shocked, but it's 10ft of muskeg

[1:33:47] over blue clay, so clearly. This is old Lake bottom.

[1:33:51] That overtime has succeeded to a swamp over thousands of

[1:33:57] years and. The result is 10ft of musket. So, yes,

[1:34:03] in terms of the houses on Picton, some of the

[1:34:06] people's steps are this high. They're in the front yard.

[1:34:09] This high off the ground. That's how far that property

[1:34:14] is sunk. And these are small. Modest homes, not massive

[1:34:19] apartment buildings. Thank you. Thank you. Your worship, please. Thank

[1:34:25] you, speaker. As a presenter seem to know a little

[1:34:31] bit about. The carrying capacity. Of the terrain.

[1:34:42] And the muskeg. Do you think that. Site. Can. Hold.

[1:34:49] Smaller. Or. Smaller design capacity. Well, my experience in engine,

[1:34:55] I'm not an engineer, but I worked in the forest

[1:34:58] industry for over 40 years, and my experience with that

[1:35:02] type of soil is around logging. And roadbuilding. And so,

[1:35:10] with respect to a login operation, you wait till wintertime,

[1:35:13] till the ground is frozen till you move into it.

[1:35:17] Otherwise your machinery is just going to sink in terms

[1:35:19] of road. Building. You put corridorites through the area, floated.

[1:35:25] Floater road over top. But it's very temporary, right? That

[1:35:27] is not how you build. Buildings. I would defer to

[1:35:31] the engineers over that, but I believe that the engineers

[1:35:34] should be fully aware before. Anything is decided in terms

[1:35:39] of any kind of proposal at that site. Soil test

[1:35:43] should need to be done because. That location would be

[1:35:47] a real challenge to build on. You mentioned that punk

[1:35:52] picture has sunk 2ft. Yes. Is that the stretch of

[1:35:57] the roadway? And over what time frame would have occurred.

[1:36:01] Yeah. So my measure is of it is, are the

[1:36:05] front steps on the homes on Pickton Avenue. Now some

[1:36:09] people have since brought in fill they've put in new

[1:36:12] stairs, but. There are still some homes that still have

[1:36:17] the original front stairs on them, and. There is one.

[1:36:21] Without. Exaggerating. Two and a half feet. The bottom of

[1:36:25] the stairs. Two and a half feet. Above the grade

[1:36:29] at the front of the house. Is there any number

[1:36:33] of acceptable units for a building such as this based

[1:36:38] on the new designs? And they don't look institutional anymore.

[1:36:45] Well, I don't want to be the one to speak

[1:36:49] on behalf of the residents. My recommendation would be to

[1:36:54] come and talk to us. If you think that that

[1:36:57] site may be suitable for some form of housing. We're

[1:37:03] sending you a very clear message that what is being

[1:37:05] portrayed here is absolutely not suitable. But if you think

[1:37:10] that you might have. Something of interest to offer to

[1:37:14] the residents. I would say come and talk to us

[1:37:16] face to face. Not the way it's been done. Clearly

[1:37:21] the way it was done does not engage. Demographic that

[1:37:26] lives in our neighborhood. Thank you. Councilor treaty, please. Thank

[1:37:32] you to the chair. And thank you for presenting again

[1:37:35] today. i really want to focus on that balance piece

[1:37:44] and i hear you very clearly just as i hear

[1:37:46] rundell talking about that privacy concern wanting to keep that

[1:37:50] tree line in and i'll be asking administration a question

[1:37:53] if it's doable but from your perspective if they manage

[1:37:57] to keep An area of natural forest between this building,

[1:37:58] potential building, and the properties on Pickton, much like a

[1:38:01] rundle in order to keep that privacy piece, in order

[1:38:04] to keep the shade piece that the neighbors are used

[1:38:07] to. Do you think that that would like if we

[1:38:10] ask administration if we can keep 10ft for. And I

[1:38:13] know we're getting a little bit. Into site plan control,

[1:38:15] which is another question I'll ask later. Administration. But if

[1:38:18] we ask them to keep about a 10ft buffer between

[1:38:22] the properties and the new surplus land in which they

[1:38:26] can use for the drainage piece that we are concerned

[1:38:28] about. The ground sinking and then to keep that natural

[1:38:33] tree line for the privacy. Do you think that the

[1:38:36] neighbors would be quite comfortable with that. I don't believe

[1:38:39] they would be comfortable at all. These are 60 foot

[1:38:42] high buildings. That, as I had mentioned in my presentation,

[1:38:48] Is being shoehorned into a narrow strip of land with

[1:38:50] virtually no setback. Those houses would be completely overtopped by

[1:38:54] the buildings. If you take a look or if you

[1:38:57] happen. To drive by and have a look. The popular

[1:38:59] trees are about 60ft tall. That's how tall those buildings

[1:39:03] will be. The people who live on Picton in these

[1:39:06] very modest homes. Will lose their sunlight completely. So we

[1:39:14] want it to be smaller than the poplar trees that

[1:39:16] are 60ft, is what you're telling. Well, when we talk

[1:39:20] about. Well, I guess what I'm saying is. That to

[1:39:22] try and wedge any sort of development along that narrow

[1:39:25] strip there with no setback. Is not right. Thank you.

[1:39:30] Thank you for that. I'll ask administration about the setback.

[1:39:33] Piece. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. All right. Thank you

[1:39:36] so much, Mr. Sheberk. You may return. Clerk Walters please.

[1:39:43] That same on the agenda is correspondence received from Catherine

[1:39:46] Corton on November the 20th requesting to appear before standing

[1:39:49] committee. Welcome, Ms. Courtney. And again, you'll have ten minutes

[1:39:54] when you're ready. And I'll let you know if you

[1:39:55] hit nine minutes. When you have a minute left. All

[1:40:02] right. Can you hear me? Thank you. Thank you, members

[1:40:08] of committee and Mr. Mayor and administration, my name is

[1:40:13] Catherine Cortin. I live on Conley street near Toledo and

[1:40:17] around those streets. As many residents of this area and

[1:40:23] of all other areas near green spaces in Sunder Bay.

[1:40:28] I chose to live there for the very reason that

[1:40:31] it is near green spaces. Therefore I was not contributing

[1:40:36] to urban sprout. I'm here today to express my disappoint.

[1:40:40] Disappointment, my sadness and my anger. How is it even

[1:40:46] possible that our city planners and city council want to

[1:40:50] designate green space? Spaces surplus. Do you realize what green

[1:40:56] spaces do for our city and its people? Previous presenters

[1:41:01] have said it, but I'll say it again. Green spaces

[1:41:04] are key to attract people. To live in some areas

[1:41:09] rather than others. They're key to quality of life, mental

[1:41:14] and physical health. And they're also key to sustainability. I'm

[1:41:19] not here to speak. Only about 791 around the street

[1:41:24] or the other three. Properties which you want to declare

[1:41:27] surplus. But to speak about all green spaces in our

[1:41:32] city that may become targeted in the future. Not only

[1:41:37] sad and angry, I'm also feeling confused about the city's

[1:41:41] commitment. To sustainability. Many years ago, I was part of

[1:41:47] the earthwise process, and I was led to believe that

[1:41:51] our city cares and is committed to sustainability. So today

[1:41:57] I'm wondering, was the Earthwise project just a shoe of

[1:42:01] public consultation? With no heart, no impact. In city planners

[1:42:06] decisions. Because if you do care about sustainability, Sorry, sustainability

[1:42:14] and quality of life. Then how can you even dream

[1:42:17] of destroying any green spaces which. Are vital to our

[1:42:23] future as a city. In the words of Dr. Di

[1:42:27] Mateo, who. Was mentioned earlier. Who was interviewed by TbT

[1:42:34] News last month. I'm wondering if you are hypocrites. His

[1:42:40] words, and I hope you're. Much more than that. But

[1:42:44] here's a quote from the interview. There is a certain

[1:42:48] amount of hypocrisy where city counselors argue. How important fighting

[1:42:54] climate change is. And then when push comes to shove,

[1:42:58] they find a piece of green space. Because it's convenient

[1:43:02] and go after the short term funding from governments. End

[1:43:06] of quote. I hope this is not the kind of

[1:43:11] people that you truly are, but I'd like to know

[1:43:14] what are the reasons why you would choose to destroy

[1:43:17] green spaces rather. Than to focus. On existing urban areas.

[1:43:24] Because, as stated by Dr. Di Mateo, prioritizing urban areas

[1:43:30] should be a number one priority. When it comes to

[1:43:32] building. Not only because Danton areas must be revitalized, but

[1:43:39] also because there are absolutely no reasons to destroy green

[1:43:42] spaces which are vital and precious to all of us.

[1:43:49] so maybe you could tell us why this is not

[1:43:52] the case There are plenty of urban areas in our

[1:43:54] city which could be used and are already properly zoned

[1:43:59] where. Services and amenities already exist. Seems to me that

[1:44:05] will make financial sense. Here are a few examples that

[1:44:08] I've heard of. The former Paul six land. It's a

[1:44:14] land that is underused waterfront parcel. It's mostly city owned

[1:44:20] and has been identified for redevelopment. Its location near Danton

[1:44:25] and the waterfront makes it attractive for large residential development

[1:44:30] like the ones you proposed today. Without the same scale

[1:44:33] of impact on local residents. Simpson street has also been

[1:44:38] an area in great need of revitalization for many years.

[1:44:44] And also has the advantages of existing services and amenities.

[1:44:49] I'm pretty sure there are more in the city, more

[1:44:53] areas that qualify. That are just empty spaces already. With

[1:45:00] Ezvalt no loss of green spaces. So can you please

[1:45:05] consider the two properties I just mentioned, as well as

[1:45:08] other urban areas which would not imply destroying green spaces.

[1:45:14] And if not, can you tell us why? But here's

[1:45:18] my main worry and my main concern. The four proposals.

[1:45:24] With which were faced today revealed a trend. And a

[1:45:28] very unhealthy one, in my opinion. All of us who

[1:45:32] feel that green spaces are essential. We need to know.

[1:45:37] Where and when will you city planners. Ever stop even

[1:45:42] thinking about cutting down viral green spaces? When and where

[1:45:46] will you stop this trend? And if you continue with

[1:45:50] this trend, How much more vital green spaces do you

[1:45:55] plan on selling? Do you plan on? These 600 units,

[1:46:00] for example. As only being the beginning. Because. We know

[1:46:06] that the lph. Forest are right next door to the

[1:46:11] one that you are proposing, right? So, talking about the

[1:46:17] former LPH land. We, the people, would like to see

[1:46:22] it used wisely in ways that will preserve its beauty.

[1:46:27] Its diversity and its wilderness and its usefulness, because we

[1:46:32] know it's widely used by hundreds of people and animals.

[1:46:38] There's plenty of space there to build. Without destroying green

[1:46:41] spaces. And I know this property belongs to the province.

[1:46:48] But I believe that one of the tasks of city

[1:46:51] council is to protect its people. From unwanted demands coming

[1:46:57] from upper levels of government. So I ask you today,

[1:47:02] are you willing to show your allegiance to us? The

[1:47:07] people and to protect our green spaces. Even if the

[1:47:11] provincial government decides to destroy our precious forests. I'm asking.

[1:47:19] This of you send the province who owns most of

[1:47:22] this land and was planning for its future. A very

[1:47:26] clear message. Our green spaces are not for sale because

[1:47:31] they matter. Green spaces are not a luxury. They are

[1:47:36] human need. If you have a copy of my deputation,

[1:47:41] you could see that my questions are highlighted. If you

[1:47:48] don't answer them today, please answer them later, maybe through

[1:47:52] email. I trust that. You are not hypocrites. And you

[1:48:01] will find solutions. There are always solutions to every problems.

[1:48:07] I'm not against growth, and I'm not against. Change. I

[1:48:11] know you have deadlines to meet in order to receive

[1:48:14] the fundings. I know new housing is needed, but as

[1:48:18] one of the people who pay your salary, I urge

[1:48:21] you to hear the call. Full of hope. From the

[1:48:26] men and women who live in this city. And this

[1:48:30] call is very clear. Stop allowing the destruction of green

[1:48:34] spaces in our city and. With your heart. Please envision

[1:48:40] the future in which. You wish your grandchildren to live?

[1:48:46] Thank you for listening to me today. Thank you for

[1:48:50] making decisions which will affect the future in the most

[1:48:54] positive and humane way possible. I know this is a

[1:48:59] long shot, but I'm trying to appeal to your conscience

[1:49:03] and. In the name of God, I urge you to

[1:49:05] use your powers to better the life of your people

[1:49:09] and the needs of a sustainable future. Thank you so

[1:49:13] much for your deputation. Is there any questions? Seeing none.

[1:49:20] You may return. Thank you so much. Kirk Walters, please.

[1:49:26] Yes, I'm on the agenda. There was a written deputation

[1:49:29] received from Brittany Houston. On November the 25th for information.

[1:49:33] Next, please. Final deputation of the evening is correspondence received

[1:49:37] from David Tremonte on November the 27th, and this item

[1:49:40] was distributed separately on November the 20 eigth.

[1:49:51] Good evening. And when you're ready, you'll have ten minutes.

[1:49:58] Thank you, councilor mayor. There. I do have a petition

[1:50:03] for the Fanshaw location there properly located at 144. The

[1:50:08] majority is to not declare the property as surplus property.

[1:50:13] I'll leave it there and stuff like that. I don't

[1:50:15] feel the need to. Reiterate or regurgitate what all my

[1:50:18] citizens there said. We are in fascia in the Northwood

[1:50:22] area. Pretty much par for the course with that. We

[1:50:26] all want a house for everyone's head there. But I

[1:50:30] just don't think the majority are the size of the

[1:50:34] complex that we're deciding upon which again. Is all based

[1:50:38] on speculation. There. But. We don't think that the most

[1:50:42] concern is the traffic and the sewage drainage for that.

[1:50:45] Area. And. Until. More tests. Or. Research is done because

[1:50:53] I believe that we had some issues. When the fans

[1:50:57] condos went first. Back in 510 years ago, whenever. That's

[1:51:03] about it. Okay. Thank you so much. Is there any

[1:51:07] questions? Okay. See none. Thank you, Mr. Jamanti. You may

[1:51:12] return. Clerk Walters, please. So, chair, we do have to

[1:51:17] put the report itself on the floor, do you? Want

[1:51:20] me to read what it is? Please. Okay, so the

[1:51:23] report is with respect to report 384. 2025. We request

[1:51:27] endorsement of the standing committee to forward with the following

[1:51:29] recommendations to city council that the city. 's interest in

[1:51:35] the Vainton property known as 144 Fanshaw street, along with

[1:51:39] 300 Tokyo. Street 211 to 223 Tupper street and 224

[1:51:43] Campbell on Street 791 Arundel Street. Surplus as the city's

[1:51:49] requirements pursuant to policies and be designated as an area

[1:51:52] I've cite plan control that is now on the floor.

[1:51:55] I do need the mover and a seconder. Okay. Councilor

[1:51:58] trini, councilor Agua, please. Speakers. Any questions? Administration. May I

[1:52:07] ask if we can separate all the properties? Or instead

[1:52:11] of having them as one bulk vote on them separately,

[1:52:15] please, if we could. Okay, we can do that. Questions.

[1:52:19] Administration. Councilor treaty, I think you had. Yes. Thank you.

[1:52:23] Thank you. Through the chair. administration we're hearing a lot

[1:52:30] of concerns of course about traffic and drainage And water

[1:52:32] pressure and environmental concerns. We have a good audience here

[1:52:37] tonight. And we know the terminology, site plan control, but

[1:52:42] that doesn't necessarily mean our citizens know. What that means.

[1:52:47] Would someone mind elaborating on what site plan control means?

[1:52:50] Because. It doesn't really define what that is. And I

[1:52:53] think some of the people in our audience today think

[1:52:55] that they needed to speak up to say we needed

[1:52:57] to do some of these. Testing and those pieces. Be

[1:53:02] pleased to. So, site plan control. Is essentially. An agreement

[1:53:10] results in agreement between the city and a developer that

[1:53:14] outslines how a development. Will appear and function. Essentially. The

[1:53:22] actual development proposal is attached an agreement. And decided that.

[1:53:29] This is the development that ultimately will result. So the

[1:53:32] site plan control agreement details things like drainage works access.

[1:53:39] Traffic circulation. And often requires supporting studies to ensure that

[1:53:45] the development will not have. An impact on. Infrastructure and

[1:53:54] amenities that cannot be mitigated. Thank you for that. So

[1:53:59] my second question with regards to a bit of. I

[1:54:02] think it's under site plan control, truthfully, but we've also

[1:54:05] heard tonight, and I'm going to talk in general. Because

[1:54:08] three of the properties have been really discussed this evening

[1:54:11] about privacy and noise buffers. Three properties already have tree

[1:54:17] lines there. Is there any potential for the city declaring

[1:54:23] some of the property from the back of the properties?

[1:54:27] Of the adjacent houses to a certain line to be

[1:54:29] able to help with that privacy. Drainage. Keeping the trees

[1:54:35] there is what I'm asking. Is there any possible way

[1:54:38] that we could. Do that. In what's being available. This

[1:54:44] process. Resist. And that feedback was sought throughout the process,

[1:54:53] and we very much appreciate all the people that have

[1:54:56] come to present tonight and have submitted. Their thoughts and

[1:55:01] comments to the city in different forms. These comments are

[1:55:05] absolutely are being taken back and will be taken back

[1:55:08] to discuss with the developers. Should counsel declare these lions

[1:55:11] surplus and we will be looking to address these concerns

[1:55:15] through the development. Of the eventual site plan. So the

[1:55:21] site plan. The concepts that are being, that we have

[1:55:26] been speaking about are just that. They are concepts. That

[1:55:30] express the interests of a development developer. To construct to

[1:55:34] a scale. So the staff will be reviewing these comments

[1:55:39] with the developers and intend to come back. With a

[1:55:43] more refined development that takes these comments. Into account. So

[1:55:50] the trail is a good example. Certainly. There's opportunity to

[1:55:56] realign the trail and to provide. A buffer, given that

[1:56:03] the property is of such size and that will be

[1:56:05] discussed with developer. Thank you. That's for that one. But

[1:56:08] the other two also have tree lines, so I'm. Hoping

[1:56:10] we'll be able to do the same. And then my

[1:56:12] final and third question. I appreciate the people in our

[1:56:15] audience today in our gallery and their concerns with these.

[1:56:19] And again, we've heard from the three sites. Not the

[1:56:21] fourth today, but we also have some background. On the

[1:56:24] fourth. A lot of the people in these areas feel

[1:56:28] like they're being picked on that the city is only

[1:56:31] looking at those areas. And I just want to confirm,

[1:56:35] because I've seen lists. We are looking at other areas

[1:56:38] and other lands in the city for surplus. It's not

[1:56:41] just these four areas. This is a continuous, ongoing review.

[1:56:45] It's not one and done. And I just want to

[1:56:48] confirm that, please. Ask manager Walker to respond. Through the

[1:56:53] chair. That is correct. We have for us since 2023,

[1:56:57] but undergoing an exercise to identify city owned lands for

[1:57:00] housing and we brought various reports before council to that

[1:57:03] effect, including the extent of lands we've looked at. We

[1:57:06] also review our land holdings on an annual basis to

[1:57:09] determine additional lands that are no longer required for active

[1:57:13] municipal use or things that might be. Suitable to look

[1:57:16] at surplusing for housing. City manager, please? Sure. If I

[1:57:21] may. Through you. Just to supplement that, there is no

[1:57:25] doubt that. We are still focused on intensification or densification,

[1:57:29] whichever word you want to use. In the urban course.

[1:57:32] That's where most of our incentive programs exist, and that's

[1:57:35] where the priority is. However, we also need to. Take

[1:57:39] advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. We put out

[1:57:43] requests for development proposals, and these four developments came to

[1:57:48] the fore. We need to pursue all options as we

[1:57:51] go forward, not to meet. Half targets, not to get

[1:57:54] the next half incentive. That is not our motivation at

[1:57:58] all. Our. Motivation is to ensure. We have sufficient housing

[1:58:05] within the city, thank you. Thank you very much for

[1:58:08] that answer. Any further speakers Council Agarwell, please. Thank you

[1:58:16] very much. Chair. I have a couple of questions. I

[1:58:20] just like one major point clarification. One of the deputies

[1:58:25] made a comment. Cody Lane in regards to. A media

[1:58:31] release. A vote. Can you please clarify? City manager. Calling

[1:58:38] that 10,000 per acre. These are the self sustaining for

[1:58:43] land, 10,000 per acre revenue. For single family and $100,000

[1:58:49] an acre for multi residential. I'm kind of confused because

[1:58:55] an acre of land being 43,000 sqft. Would generate more

[1:59:02] than. One house or two houses, which would not be

[1:59:06] 10,000. Dollars in revenue. I'm not sure. I didn't see

[1:59:10] that news article, so I don't. Know where that commentary

[1:59:14] came from. Chair through you. I do know that city

[1:59:17] manager Colin did step out of the room temporarily during

[1:59:21] the deputation. I don't have those specific numbers today, but

[1:59:25] certainly that is something. That. I can report back to

[1:59:30] the gross standing and confirm those numbers, but what we

[1:59:33] can say is we know that multi residential construction has

[1:59:37] a greater return on investment as compared to single family

[1:59:40] residential. Homes, and I believe that that was what the

[1:59:42] deputy was referring to. Okay? I have a concern about.

[1:59:48] The commentary only because. The $10,000. A square per acre.

[1:59:56] Would actually yield seven homes and seven homes in new

[1:59:59] construction in today's world would bring about $35,000 a year

[2:00:04] in income based on the 43,000 sqft, which is an

[2:00:07] acre is and which would yield for the 50 x

[2:00:10] 120 lots. I just want to make sure the information

[2:00:12] is clear. I don't know if it was said or

[2:00:13] not because. I did not hear the. News broadcast. So

[2:00:18] that just would like that to have that. If we

[2:00:21] are messaging, we should be correct on our messaging. My

[2:00:25] next question is. There has been commentary for many years

[2:00:30] about overpasses coming over our highway, our 1117. Possibly at

[2:00:37] red river, at john street. At. Oliver. At the major

[2:00:46] intersections. The property in question about John Tokyo. Have we

[2:00:53] looked at the potential of. I don't know where we

[2:00:56] are in communications with the ministry of transportation. If an

[2:00:59] overpass is coming there. What kind of traffic impact that

[2:01:04] would cause if. Any. Spanish award can respond. Thank you.

[2:01:11] Through the chair. The Ministry of Transportation is proposing John

[2:01:15] Street Road to be a flyover in the future. When

[2:01:19] in the future? We don't know. Of course, as that's

[2:01:20] what the province. To decide that. But in the end,

[2:01:23] there will not be any direct highway access from John

[2:01:27] in the future. That being said, that's where the northwest

[2:01:31] arterial also comes into play, and the future interchange proposed

[2:01:36] near golflinks and Riviera as well to provide another. Connection.

[2:01:40] That being said, The exact traffic implications to every intersection

[2:01:44] along that corridor when that happens are not fully known

[2:01:47] as it is a long term project and these things

[2:01:49] will have to be monitored as well. We have had

[2:01:52] some recent meetings with the Ministry of Transportation around these

[2:01:54] exact topics. Given that they are advancing some of their

[2:01:57] preliminary designs, and we've asked those same questions to get

[2:02:01] more information around. The direct. Impacts to our intersections as

[2:02:03] a result of their proposed works, and those conversations are

[2:02:06] ongoing. Okay, so. This intersection where we're looking at. The

[2:02:11] proposed 300 Tokyo is quite close to that area, so

[2:02:16] if that is a designated overpass, The traffic will definitely

[2:02:20] be increasing because that would no longer have access. Into

[2:02:24] the expressway. That is a concern to me. And the

[2:02:31] last question would be into the parks we've invested. How

[2:02:36] long ago did we invest into that trail that paved.

[2:02:41] And lit. On the. 791 rendell street so there's been

[2:02:49] a substantial investment by the city Into that trail piece.

[2:02:53] How long ago was it? And how much maintenance have

[2:02:56] we done? Into that area. Through the chair. I don't

[2:03:01] remember the exact date. It was around the 2015. It

[2:03:08] was part of a grant project through Transcanada trail, so

[2:03:13] I think we paid for half of it. And the

[2:03:17] transgender trail paid the other half. That trail. There's not

[2:03:21] really a magic to it being in that exact location.

[2:03:24] It can move around in space a bit. To suit

[2:03:28] the development and work with the developer to make sure

[2:03:32] that that access is still maintained. Both from Toledo and

[2:03:35] Arundo. Thank you, your worship, please. Thank you, speaker. My

[2:03:45] questions. Will be primarily. On our comparators to other municipalities

[2:03:52] our size, both provincially and nationally, because. We from our

[2:03:59] marketing standpoint. I'm under the understanding that we market the

[2:04:03] fact that we have a high percentage of zoned recreational

[2:04:07] area. Areas as well as facilities. And that goes to.

[2:04:16] Say? Unidentified non specified green spaces, as well as lengthy

[2:04:21] parks and trails that people can use. So anybody from

[2:04:27] administration want to address that issue of where we stand

[2:04:32] in terms of. National. Comparators. For such facilities and benefits.

[2:04:43] I'll begin to answer and ask Supervisor Schwarz to add

[2:04:48] to this. So Thunder Bay. Absolutely. Prides itself in its

[2:04:51] high quality of life. And it's a great service that

[2:04:57] it provides in terms of active and passive parkland. And

[2:05:02] active transportation networks. The Thunder bay does have a relatively

[2:05:09] high proportion. Of open space parkland in comparison to some

[2:05:13] other municipalities and Alaska supervisors. Schwartz Library. So the next

[2:05:20] logical question. Is. The sign that we're familiar with. Outside

[2:05:27] the city. has above 100,000 but Not quite. Achieving what

[2:05:35] we believe in other circles, whether it's the dsobs or

[2:05:38] some of these. Health units that our population. Is somewhat

[2:05:44] over 150,000. We hear that more and more frequently from

[2:05:47] the boards and committees. That we are on. How will

[2:05:52] we ever get some acknowledgment about what our population is

[2:05:56] so that these issues. Of financing. Are addressed because. This

[2:06:05] is one of our justifications for infilling. Chair through you

[2:06:10] to his worship. This point was brought up by several

[2:06:14] counselors, including the mayor, during our discussions on the smart

[2:06:17] growth action plan when it was first introduced, which led

[2:06:20] to an additional action item being inserted into the plan

[2:06:24] to try to. Better. Represent the real population of the

[2:06:29] city of Thunder Bay. The how we will go about

[2:06:32] doing that. Has yet to be determined. Again, the smart

[2:06:35] growth action plan is the what and the why. The

[2:06:38] how has to follow. Clearly, we have to work in

[2:06:41] close collaboration with Statscan for that because we can put

[2:06:44] whatever number we want up on the signs, but unless

[2:06:46] the federal. Government agrees with that number. We're not going

[2:06:50] to get any additional funding. So it is identified within

[2:06:54] the smart gross action plan as one of the items

[2:06:56] that we need to address as we move forward. Then

[2:07:00] my third question would be. Can we meet any of

[2:07:05] our targets with just single family units? And how much.

[2:07:12] Money is at stake for us. Chair. I'm going to

[2:07:15] take the first part of this because I think. It's

[2:07:20] a very compelling point. In a good year in the

[2:07:23] city of Thunder Bay, we have averaged between 253 hundred

[2:07:28] units built. Per year, and that's in a good year.

[2:07:35] Just to address the current need. Forget about growth. Just

[2:07:38] to identify to address the current need. We need. 1100

[2:07:47] additional units, and that number grows annually. So we will

[2:07:51] never get there from here if we continue down the

[2:07:54] model we have now of building 250 to 300 units

[2:07:58] a year. We need mass construction to address the need,

[2:08:03] not to address growth to address the need, and then

[2:08:07] after that, we will start to work on the growth.

[2:08:10] Thank you. Thank you. Second round, then councilor Trini. Go

[2:08:18] ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Through the chair. And I

[2:08:22] hope I get a little leniency. On asking this question

[2:08:24] because I know we're talking about surplus lands, but some

[2:08:27] of the citizens that came to the front and asked

[2:08:29] questions about, for example, Simpson street. Why aren't, we. Building

[2:08:34] on Simpson Street. And Growth Committee on November the 25th

[2:08:39] talked about. A new but old. I'll call a revitalized

[2:08:44] program that we have right now. And it's going to

[2:08:47] be enhanced by the spring, which is bacon dilapidated buildings

[2:08:51] program and I'm just wondering if you could. Because we

[2:08:53] can't just go to Simpson street. And say, I want

[2:08:55] this property, this property and this property. We don't own

[2:08:58] the properties. We can't just start. Councilor, this is on.

[2:09:01] Surplus. These individual properties and the developments will come forward.

[2:09:06] At a later date fair, but they were talking about,

[2:09:09] why aren't we building on these? Other sites. And there's

[2:09:12] reasons why it's not just simple. And so I thought,

[2:09:14] I would just. That's why I asked for the leniency

[2:09:16] to say that we. Have a program coming. Thank you.

[2:09:22] Councilor Pascalino, please. Thank you very much. And through chair.

[2:09:29] I realize that growth has to happen in the city.

[2:09:36] It is difficult. And ideally. We would have opportunities, and

[2:09:44] there'd be a lineup for places on Simpson street and

[2:09:47] the people that own the places on Simpson street would

[2:09:50] want to. Build. Massive or in big units. My concern

[2:09:57] as a city councilor, and this is my question to

[2:10:00] administration. Is to make sure. That. What we're going to

[2:10:06] do. Is actually doable, that it works, and I believe

[2:10:12] that that isn't impossible. I think that I've looked at

[2:10:16] other cities that have grown, and it was beneficial to

[2:10:20] them. Milton comes to mind. Was from a small community.

[2:10:26] There are well over 100,000 now, and that was all

[2:10:28] in about 20 years. It's really important that. What we

[2:10:34] do. We do is write, and that. There is. The

[2:10:39] infrastructure to back it up. So a lot of the

[2:10:42] concerns, not all of them, but a lot of the

[2:10:44] concerns of the people in the audience today is they

[2:10:48] want to make sure that when they flush the toilet,

[2:10:51] That things work, that they have water pressure so that

[2:10:54] they can fight fires, so that. There could be road

[2:10:57] infrastructure and sidewalks, because I think. The other thing that

[2:11:04] they talked about also was. Well, we're going to build

[2:11:08] all this housing and. There's not going to be the.

[2:11:13] Businesses close by. But it's like the chicken and the

[2:11:16] egg. What does comes first does the houses come and

[2:11:19] then businesses look at it as an opportunity. So I

[2:11:22] realize that this is new. I will say that no

[2:11:26] matter what we say tonight, Vote it anyway. It's going

[2:11:32] to go through city council and. That will be. Their

[2:11:38] decision, not just the people here. But what I'm asking,

[2:11:42] administration, is that how can we make it clear? That

[2:11:48] we can give. To the people here that are concerned

[2:11:54] about. The logistics of this and how that. It's not

[2:12:01] going to have to be. The worst thing that can

[2:12:03] happen is that we go ahead and build a large

[2:12:05] building. And then think that we're doing it on. Let's

[2:12:10] say we do it on. A shoestring string budget and

[2:12:12] then have to do it over again. So those are

[2:12:14] the things that I think that people are concerned about.

[2:12:19] I know that there are. Huge. Traffic issues on Golf

[2:12:24] links Road. There's a lot of building going there. There's

[2:12:28] a large box store there's. Another mall going in. There's

[2:12:32] 1200 units going in on Central Avenue. There's more on

[2:12:35] Burwood. There's another 200 on there, and already I know

[2:12:40] there's. Traffic issues there already. So what I'd like to

[2:12:44] see is that. We on council and administration work together

[2:12:49] to address it. So that you don't need a civil

[2:12:52] engineering degree, but you can see some planning that's. Gone

[2:12:56] into this thing. So maybe you can comment on that.

[2:13:00] Thank you. Chair through you to the councilor, and I

[2:13:03] am going to try to articulate. The views of administration

[2:13:08] in a very simple manner. When a major construction project

[2:13:12] is undertaken, and these will be major construction projects, it's

[2:13:16] not as simple as we want to build. Buy the

[2:13:19] land, and we're going to build it. There are all

[2:13:22] sorts of checks and balances in place, be it traffic

[2:13:24] studies, water studies, wastewater studies that occur as part of

[2:13:30] the normal development process. Before permits would ever be issued,

[2:13:34] there's. Also our site plan control system that we have

[2:13:38] in place, and we've identified that. All four of these

[2:13:40] would be under site plan. Control to address other issues,

[2:13:44] such as access. Beautification, setbacks, et cetera. So all of.

[2:13:51] Those things will happen behind the scenes. And. Approvals are

[2:13:56] required from council, they will come forward to council. The

[2:14:01] process we use for major construction is extremely robust, and

[2:14:05] I would hazard to say that almost all of the

[2:14:07] questions, in fact, I think all of the questions that

[2:14:10] were asked by various deputies this evening. Perfectly legitimate questions.

[2:14:15] And probably without exception, they will all be answered through

[2:14:19] our various mechanisms, studies, reviews and permitting processes that we

[2:14:24] have in place within the city. I'll also make a

[2:14:27] slight diversionary comment. About smart growth. The growth plan that

[2:14:33] is before council for approval tomorrow evening is intentionally called

[2:14:37] a smart growth action. Plan. In it, we talk about

[2:14:40] environmental stewardship, financial sustainability and other key aspects that will

[2:14:45] also be pervasive in all of our processes and procedures.

[2:14:49] So I think. Your concern chair through you to the

[2:14:52] counselor. Is a legitimate one to express. I believe the

[2:14:56] checks and balances are in place to address it. Thank

[2:15:00] you. Second. That was five minutes. You can go on

[2:15:02] a second. Round. Councilor Aguilar, please. thank you I have

[2:15:09] a couple of questions here. Two of the lots in

[2:15:12] particular. One on Tokyo and one on Fanshaw or musk

[2:15:16] ache. The proposed developments that are in front of us.

[2:15:19] Say six stories. Six stories. Would require pile foundation. And

[2:15:26] I know that because 145 Fanshaw was a development that

[2:15:29] I was involved in 1992. The pile foundation will require

[2:15:34] the heavy power length to be pounded in which. Will

[2:15:39] then shock the foundational areas of the neighboring housing. The

[2:15:44] last two buildings that were built at 147 149. Fanshaw

[2:15:47] did not have pile foundation and did not go to

[2:15:49] six stories just for the reasons of piles. Have we

[2:15:54] taken that into consideration or the proponents that come to

[2:15:57] you taking that into consideration? Because the effect of pile

[2:16:01] pounding through that Musc ache for holding the building. Might.

[2:16:05] How that would. Interact with their houses and their foundations.

[2:16:09] Yes. So through the chair, as noted here, we're at

[2:16:12] the. Fairly early stage where we're considering whether this land

[2:16:16] may be available for housing. Any future development of the

[2:16:21] property would be properly designed and engineered in such a

[2:16:24] way that. The foundation is suitable for the soils. So.

[2:16:34] Where pile foundations are required. And they very well would.

[2:16:37] Maybe in this case. And that foundation is engineered and

[2:16:41] reviewed by our team. And there are instances where vibration

[2:16:46] monitoring is. Thank you, chair. On that. My concern is

[2:16:52] that when we brought these parcels that come forward and

[2:16:54] the demonstrations that we have on the land. Show us.

[2:16:57] Six story, heavy density. Right. This should be a forefront

[2:17:02] condition. To be looked at in advance prior to bringing

[2:17:04] it to the public so they know. What kind of

[2:17:08] challenges they may or may not be. The next question

[2:17:11] do I have. Through you, chair is the city. Do

[2:17:15] we, as a city, have what controls other than site

[2:17:18] plan? Control. Do we have in the way of controls

[2:17:22] or guidelines to mitigate the community that has brought forward

[2:17:26] their concerns. How do we mitigate them? Is it only

[2:17:30] site plan control? That. They'll have or is there? Any

[2:17:35] other guideline. Guidelines in place to allow for what they

[2:17:39] brought forward to us today. Well, there are many guidelines

[2:17:44] and strategies that guide development, including the urban design guidelines.

[2:17:50] In this instance. The administration will be taking. The feedback

[2:17:55] away and having discussions with the developer to have a

[2:17:58] preliminary discussion about. How the developer receives. The input that's

[2:18:06] been provided to this point. And me. Be willing to

[2:18:10] adjust the development. To assist with the neighborhood concerns. My

[2:18:16] third question, then, based on that response, Chair. We're looking

[2:18:20] at selling these lands to increase development, increase income growth

[2:18:25] for our community. We have heard that this really high

[2:18:28] extra density is a concern to all these neighborhoods. The

[2:18:33] only one we did not have a concern with was

[2:18:34] the downtown infill core on camel. So the value of

[2:18:41] the land. The value of income to our city. If

[2:18:46] we reduce the density, will it be feasible? Will it?

[2:18:50] Have the same return. And would it have the same

[2:18:52] necessity to make these lots surplus? Through the chair. The

[2:18:58] goal of administration. Is, should counsel declare these land surplus

[2:19:05] to work with a developer to refine a suitable development?

[2:19:08] Proposal for the lands. It may be the case that

[2:19:14] the development needs to be reduced due to what the

[2:19:17] land can sustain and what is appropriate for the neighborhood.

[2:19:22] And that very well may. Affect. Values, including assessment values.

[2:19:27] However, It is an appropriate use of land. Good use

[2:19:34] of existing infrastructure and amenities. Are all important factors which.

[2:19:45] The city. Administration wishes. To find a good fit. Yeah,

[2:19:50] you're allowed more. Three. But that was five minutes. Okay.

[2:19:53] Thank you. Clerk Walters, can we put to first? Councilor

[2:20:02] Pascalino's second round. Thank you very much. And through the

[2:20:05] chair. My question. Is, how does our city rate compare

[2:20:11] to other cities? In Ontario, maybe even northern Ontario with

[2:20:18] the green space. I know that a lot of people.

[2:20:23] Were talking about. They're going to lose their green space.

[2:20:28] By their location. How are we for parks and for

[2:20:32] trails and all of that? So through the chair. We

[2:20:37] have participated in benchmarking studies in the past, and there

[2:20:40] are two metrics for Parkland. So the one is total

[2:20:45] amount of Parkland. And that we score quite high. In

[2:20:51] probably the top ten percentile, but that includes all of

[2:20:55] our undeveloped parkland. So things like Centennial Park, Trowgridge, whole

[2:21:00] Bogart Lake complex that somewhat skews that. And that it

[2:21:04] really increases. Our total amount of parkland per person. The

[2:21:08] second metric is on developed parkland and developed Parkland. We're

[2:21:13] about average. Now further to that response. One of the

[2:21:21] aspects that administration did consider when identifying lands that could

[2:21:25] potentially be declared surplus news. For housing was to review

[2:21:30] the amenity spaces that are nearby. That and the availability

[2:21:35] of infrastructure support the development. Just last

[2:21:45] point, and as what I brought up earlier, Typically what.

[2:21:50] Happens. Like I was talking about the businesses versus. The

[2:21:56] residents. Which one comes first? And is there any comment

[2:22:00] on that? Like. Is this a good way to put

[2:22:04] up the buildings and the residents and then to have.

[2:22:09] The businesses come next. Chair through you. I'll begin. What

[2:22:14] studies have shown is that businesses establish themselves where there's

[2:22:18] a need. If you have a greater population inherently, you

[2:22:22] will have additional businesses that establish themselves. Exactly which businesses

[2:22:27] would establish themselves at these. In proximity to these locations,

[2:22:31] we can't predict. At this point, but when you get

[2:22:34] increased population, there's increased demand for services, and that increases

[2:22:38] businesses. We have heard anecdotally. That a number of businesses

[2:22:43] are supportive of these initiatives because it will bring more

[2:22:47] population into the area around where their business is established.

[2:22:53] And I don't. Know. I think that addresses it. Subject

[2:22:58] to follow on by the councilor. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:23:02] Second round. Your worship. Mayor Poshka, thanks again. We have

[2:23:08] been recognized by the provincial and federal governments and granted.

[2:23:15] Millions of dollars. By meeting targets. What impact would that

[2:23:22] have? On our ability to continue funding. If we decide

[2:23:28] not to keep building. And say. We don't want any

[2:23:34] more population or we don't want better housing for people.

[2:23:39] Chair through you to his worship. Two parts to that

[2:23:41] answer. First of all, to be clear, The motivation behind.

[2:23:47] Asking council to declare these properties surplus is to address

[2:23:50] the housing need, not simply to go chasing money. That

[2:23:54] said. The federal and provincial incentives through the Housing Accelerator

[2:23:59] Fund and the building faster fund. Help in that it

[2:24:04] provides us with funding to provide incentives to build more.

[2:24:09] So if we continue to meet our targets, we get

[2:24:12] all of those incentives and we take that. Money and

[2:24:15] we roll it over into additional incentives to build even

[2:24:18] more housing. But at the end, of the day. Our

[2:24:21] primary objective is not to get money. Our primary objective

[2:24:25] is to build housing. If we achieve targets, we get

[2:24:28] more money. The second part of that is that some

[2:24:33] people have said that that money will always be there.

[2:24:37] Through the other orders of government, provincially and federally. But

[2:24:42] over my time. I have seen ebbs and flows. So

[2:24:49] is there any urgency that. We ensure that we are

[2:24:53] on these lists. With the funding caps, that type of

[2:24:57] thing. Chair through you to his worship. I'll give a

[2:25:02] very short answer. The funding wasn't. There two years ago,

[2:25:04] before half started. So this notion that it will always

[2:25:07] be there, regardless. Of whether we achieve targets. I do

[2:25:13] not believe that would be a valid assertion. Thank you.

[2:25:18] Thank you. Just on first round for myself. I just

[2:25:23] want to let everyone know that this will come to

[2:25:25] council in January. No matter. Whether it's endorsed by this

[2:25:30] committee or not. So that's the process, Mr. Clerk. Am

[2:25:34] I correct? Yes. And then Fanshaw and Arundel. If pastor

[2:25:43] council would require. Zoning changes. So there's been opportunity, there

[2:25:48] would be a public opportunity for more engagement. And conversation

[2:25:53] from the community. So just quickly. I'll let you know

[2:25:57] my thoughts. On tokyo street. I'm going to vote in

[2:26:02] favor of that one. I don't have a problem. With

[2:26:03] that one. I'm going to vote in favor of Tupper

[2:26:06] and Camelot street. I'm going to vote in favor of

[2:26:08] Fanshaw. I'm not going to vote. In favor of rundle.

[2:26:12] Fundamentally, I think it's too large of a development for

[2:26:16] that. Property. But having said that, it still will come

[2:26:21] to council. And then if it passes there, it'll. Have

[2:26:24] to go through a zoning. Process as well, which I

[2:26:29] don't believe I would support either, based on the fact

[2:26:31] that I think. That development is too large. 600 units

[2:26:36] on that area. That's my thoughts. And so I remind

[2:26:40] councilors and your worship that there was only. Three rounds.

[2:26:44] Everyone's had two rounds except myself. It was one. And

[2:26:47] so if you want. To speak to all four properties

[2:26:49] like I just have. You only have one round left

[2:26:52] of five. Minutes, so I just don't want you. Getting

[2:26:56] missing out here. So, Mr. Clerk, can we put the

[2:26:59] first property. On the. It should be a third round.

[2:27:05] Third round. Councilor Janey. Thank you. Through the chair. It's

[2:27:10] very interesting. On your rationale, and I know we're not

[2:27:15] supposed to debate. So tonight is about declaring the land

[2:27:19] surplus, but not about the density. Of that land. So

[2:27:25] for my decision tonight, I will be voting on declaring

[2:27:29] at surplus. But I don't. Agree with 600 properties on

[2:27:33] a rundle. I just want to make that clear. I

[2:27:37] don't necessarily agree with what's been designated as well on

[2:27:42] Juneaut. And I'll use Junot instead of Tokyo. I don't

[2:27:44] know where Tokyo came. From. I'm not 100% sold on

[2:27:48] Fanshaw. I am on the downtown core, but those other

[2:27:52] three properties. I'm not really sold. On the densification of

[2:27:56] them. And so, for that reason, I will be voting

[2:27:58] yes to surplus. But I will be very clear on

[2:28:01] that densification piece. I'd like to see more consistency in

[2:28:04] the neighborhood. I know people talked about. The seniors home

[2:28:09] across the street. I know there's lots to talk about.

[2:28:12] Five stories there's. Lots to talk about. Tree heights on

[2:28:16] multiple properties. And so I'd like to see the densification

[2:28:22] smaller. Recognizing from administration that we do have some targets

[2:28:26] to meet, but also recognizing that we're also looking at

[2:28:29] other properties. So for myself, I'm not going to vote

[2:28:33] no because of what's been predicted as a size. Because.

[2:28:39] I will be very strong that I don't agree with

[2:28:40] those sizes. Thank you for that. Mr clerk. The first

[2:28:46] property is Fanchai, I believe. Yes, correct, chair. So the

[2:28:50] first property is municipally. Known as 144 Fanshaw street, to

[2:28:53] be declared surplus to the city's requirements and designated as

[2:28:57] an area of site pond control. Okay. All those in

[2:29:01] favor? Opposed. Penny, that's carried. Next to property. The second

[2:29:07] property is in municipal known as 300 Tokyo street. Once

[2:29:10] again, it would be to be declared as surplus and

[2:29:12] designated as an area of site fund control. Councilor Aguwal.

[2:29:16] Third round. Yes. Thank you very much, judge. Here. Chair.

[2:29:21] I have a big concern about this property, and the

[2:29:23] concern is not development. The concern is the Ministry of

[2:29:27] Transportation. The Ministry of Transportation. Flyover or overpass, whatever it's

[2:29:33] called, is unknown at this time. It's been designated to

[2:29:37] be there. We don't know, and we cannot predict what

[2:29:40] the traffic will. Be to call this land surplus today

[2:29:44] will be a very big concern because. If the ministry

[2:29:48] has to expropriate or we have to do alternate. Traffic

[2:29:53] monitoring in that area. I think it's best that we

[2:29:55] have better and more concrete. Answers from the Ministry of

[2:29:58] Transportation prior to declaring this property surplus. The land will

[2:30:02] be there once we know what's going on, then we

[2:30:06] should make that surplus at that point or a portion

[2:30:09] of it if we need to have more turning lanes

[2:30:11] or if we need to. Use that land to widen

[2:30:13] the streets or make extra property for our own traffic

[2:30:19] flow in that area. That for me is a concern

[2:30:22] for that lot. The lot. On. Since this is my

[2:30:27] last round of conversation, The lot on Camelot. I love

[2:30:32] that intensification. I love the program and the plan. That's

[2:30:35] come forward. And for current river. We need single family

[2:30:40] homes. We need little wartime homes. We need affordable homes.

[2:30:45] We haven't built or designated. Large parcels of land for

[2:30:49] single families. We heard from the young fellow. He wants

[2:30:52] to buy a home. He's not buying an apartment or

[2:30:55] moving an apartment. We have lots of apartments coming up.

[2:30:59] That area is surrounded by single family homes. One of

[2:31:03] the other ladies that I think was the second lady

[2:31:05] that spoke, who had all the data. She mentioned. A

[2:31:12] very mixed use. Lower intensification. Keeping the trails. Make that

[2:31:17] connectivity. For me. I'm in favor of lower density blend

[2:31:23] of mix of single family. Yeah, it doesn't bring as

[2:31:27] many taxes, but it gives the quality of life that

[2:31:30] Thunder Bay has. Been known for. Thunder Bay is a

[2:31:33] single family residential home where you can move here and

[2:31:36] buy a home that you can call your own. You

[2:31:39] want to move to Toronto and live in an apartment,

[2:31:41] you can afford to do that there. Because our rental

[2:31:44] apartment costs are about the same as the Toronto apartment

[2:31:46] costs right now. We need more apartments. But with the

[2:31:52] apartments, there is no more rent control. Anything built after

[2:31:55] 2018. Does not have a rent control. So new apartment

[2:32:01] development for intensification for affordable housing. It's not there, we

[2:32:06] have no guarantee. Because new construction does not allow. Rental

[2:32:12] caps like they did prior to the 2018 construction. My

[2:32:17] concern is removing ourselves. From the strategy of what Thunder

[2:32:23] Bay has been known for. Single family homes, a home

[2:32:26] to call your own and make it that we need

[2:32:29] the blend we need some apartments. And one of the

[2:32:34] deputies did speak about freeing up a home, having seniors

[2:32:37] move out of their home into an apartment. That's important

[2:32:40] too. We need homes for the youth, but the 25.

[2:32:43] Year old gentleman that was here. We don't have them.

[2:32:48] Departments, aren't it? So I will vote in favor. For

[2:32:53] Camelot. I will not support Tokyo because I'm concerned that

[2:32:58] we don't. Know enough about Ministry of Transportation. And I

[2:33:01] will vote in favor of Arundel only. With because. It's

[2:33:06] got a rezoning that we will limit the number of

[2:33:09] housing units on. That property. And Fanshaw we voted for

[2:33:12] already. Thank you. Thank you. We have to do the

[2:33:16] 07:00 resolution, please. So just committee just at the hour

[2:33:20] being 07:00 p.m. at the standard. Committee continue with the

[2:33:22] business. At this hour? We'd have mover in a seconder.

[2:33:24] Your worship, the calcier Trini. All those in favor? Both

[2:33:27] defending that's carried your. Worship. The third and final round.

[2:33:31] Chair through you. I would ask manager Ward to just

[2:33:35] clarify or amplify the comments he made on the flyover

[2:33:38] for highway 1117 because I believe it is germane to

[2:33:41] the discussion. Manager Ward. Thank you. And through the chair.

[2:33:45] So the Ministry of Transportation has completed their preliminary designs

[2:33:49] for the various. Intersections in the city and at the

[2:33:54] John intersection, they have also identified what lands they need

[2:33:57] for their future flyover, and that's been taken into account

[2:34:00] for these parcels as well, so. Does these lands that

[2:34:05] picked in Tokyo. Are not significantly impacted by the future

[2:34:09] land needs. Notwithstanding the traffic impacts the lands have been

[2:34:12] taken into account already. Okay. Thank you for that clarification,

[2:34:15] your worship. Third found around. Yes. We'll be voting in

[2:34:21] support of all of these to get. Them moving. So

[2:34:25] that we can keep up with the pace. With the

[2:34:30] further understanding that we are under competition for these tens

[2:34:34] of millions of dollars. And that I have absolute faith

[2:34:39] in the planning department. They have heard the concerns of

[2:34:42] those who. Have objections or are worried about certain things.

[2:34:48] That they will be addressed. And I will certainly be

[2:34:53] available to make sure they're followed up on. So I

[2:34:55] would offer that. As we come to a decision. Thank

[2:35:02] you, chair. Thank you, worship. Pasquino council Pascalino. Thank you

[2:35:09] very much. And through the chair, I am going to

[2:35:12] be voting in favor on all of these sites for

[2:35:16] much the same reason as marriage has stated, but I

[2:35:19] want to make it clear. There are a lot of

[2:35:24] things that can prevent these things from going forward, whether.

[2:35:28] It's not worth it to upgrade the sewers. But even

[2:35:31] like I had an email. Today. There was an owl

[2:35:35] in a tree. They're going to do wildlife studies. These

[2:35:38] things are going to happen. They have to do the

[2:35:40] wild. Wildlife studies. They have to make sure that. There

[2:35:44] aren't certain trees that are growing on these properties. So

[2:35:48] I'm just here to make this thing go to the

[2:35:51] next step. Where it goes from there. It really depends

[2:35:55] on. The civil engineers and all the agencies doing their

[2:35:59] work, and I'm trusting them to do their work. And

[2:36:03] I'm counting on everybody to question the work that they're

[2:36:07] doing. If there are any doubts. But this is just

[2:36:09] one step in a long journey, and it is a

[2:36:12] step. To work. At trying to get more housing and

[2:36:17] more buildings in the city and more growth in the

[2:36:20] city. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clerk, please. All right,

[2:36:24] we'll resume the voting a little unorthodox. Here. We'll continue

[2:36:27] on. The next property is municipally known as 300. Tokyo

[2:36:29] street be declared surplus to the seed requirements and be

[2:36:32] designated as an area of site fund. Control all those.

[2:36:35] In favor, please. Defend. That's carried. Next property, please. Next

[2:36:40] property is municipally known as 211 to 223. Tupper street

[2:36:43] and 224 Tamil street once again to be declared surplus

[2:36:46] and designated as an area of Saipon control. All those

[2:36:48] in favor? Opposed to any that's carried. Next property, please.

[2:36:54] And the last property is municipally known as 791 Arundel

[2:36:57] street. Be declared surplus to the Caesar requirements and be

[2:36:59] designated as an area of site plan control. All those

[2:37:02] in favor? Opposed? If any, that's carried. Next item, please.

[2:37:08] Seeing no further items, a motion to adjourn. Councilor Pascalino.

[2:37:14] Councilor aguilar. All those in favor? Opposed? Venny, just to

[2:37:17] let everyone know, These will be coming to council in

[2:37:20] January again, so it's another opportunity to speak to all.

[2:37:23] I'm not speak but to contact all counselors. If you

[2:37:27] wish so. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming

[2:37:29] forward tonight.

Growth Standing Committee

Agenda

Transcript