Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the gross standing
committee meeting to order, please. Clerk Walters. First I'm on
the agenda is a land acknowledgement from council or treaty.
Council. Trinity, please, if everyone could please stand. We acknowledge
that we have the privilege to work on the traditional
lands of the Nonishnabi. Peoples of Fort Williams, First Nation
signatory to the Robinson Superior Treaty of 1850. This land
has been a place of gathering, learning and sustenance for
indigenous people since time. Immemorial, we recognize the enduring presence
and deep traditional knowledge of first nations, Inuit and mates,
people and the ways they have shaped and continued to
shape our community. We acknowledge the effects of colonization, including
displacement, loss of culture, and intergenerational trauma, and we commit
ourselves to reconciliation through respectful relationships, truth telling and shared
action for a better future. Please take a moment to
pause and reflect.
Thank you. Good evening, folks. Just a couple of things
I'll run through to start off. With. Just to let
everyone know, the decision today is on the surplus of
the lands, not the actual developments. The recommending endorsement will
come to council in January to declare a land surplus
to enable housing developments. Decisions regarding specific development proposals will
be addressed at a later stage through any required zoning
amendments for example. Fanshaw and Arundel will require zoning amendments
and that therefore will have public meetings. Where you can
provide public input for or against the proposals. I'd like
to remind everyone just if we cannot restate what other
people have said. I understand. Some people might be here.
For. The same property. And there'll be ten minutes per
deputation. With around five minutes from council members. With three
questions maximum. And then. So that's what it so clerk
Walters. Are there any disclosures of interest? Seeing none. Are
there any further announcements? See none. First I'm on the
agenda is the confirmation of the agenda. I need a
mover and a second Councilor Pascalino, Councilor Aguwal. All those
in favor? Opposed to penny. That's carried. That same on
the agenda is under reports of administration to the surplus
declaration. Call for proposals for the four opportunity sites. Report
387 2025 from growth. It seeks endorsement from this standing
committee. To declare the opportunity site surplus. For potential future
residential development. We have open remarks this evening from Commissioner
Marshall. Commissioner Marshall, please. Thank you chair. As stated earlier,
this report seeks endorsement to declare four city owned sites
as surplus for housing consistent with council's direction to identify
lands that can support new housing supply. Additional housing. Is
urgently needed to meet the current demand and improve affordability.
Declaring the lens surplus is an early step. It signals
council's intent for these sites to support future housing, but
it does not approve the conceptual design, density, layout, or
any specific development proposal. Two of the sites, 144 Fanshaw
street and 791 Arundel street, will also require rezoning which
includes a statutory public process and further opportunities for residents
to provide input. The mayor's task force on building more
homes has endorsed the surplus recommendation and will continue to
be engaged in the process. If council declares the land
surplus, administration would work with the proponents to refine the
concepts and negotiate agreements of purchase and sale, all of
which would return to council for further consideration and decision.
I would now like to invite director deputor and manager
walker to present some additional details. Go ahead, please. Thank
you. Chair of the team is pleased to present this
report which advances the city's efforts to improve housing supply
and affordability. Next slide, please. As commissioner Marshalls noted, Thunder
Bay requires more housing units and also greater housing choice
to meet the needs of current residents and accommodate anticipated
population growth. Thunder Bay is currently facing a shortage of
approximately 1100 housing units. And this directly affects residents who
are searching for appropriate housing and drives up price across
a housing market. Currently, rent is not affordable to 50%
of Thunder Bay rental renter households. It is important to
double the rate of unit construction to address this issue.
Additional large scale projects are required to achieve this. By
advancing the conceptual developments outlined in the support, there is
an opportunity to make a major impact. The development could
add a significant number of units, including 700 units with
building permits in 2026. Increasing the supply will help stabilize
housing costs and free up existing housing inventory. Through the
surveys, we heard general public support to develop these lands
for housing, along with concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods. Next
slide, please. One of the questions that is often heard
is who will live at these developments? And the answer
is that the homes will be available to everyone. The
residents of the buildings may be young professionals. Young families,
new residents to Thunder Bay, or neighbors who wish to
stay in the neighborhood in age and place. Approximately 10%
of the units would be affordable to mid and lower
income households as required by CMHC financing support. I will
invite manager Walker to walk us through the properties in
the next steps. Next slide, please. Thank you, director. To
pewter through the chair. A council's direction, administration undertook the
exercise of selecting city owned vacant lands within the urban
boundary and in existing neighborhoods suitable to support housing development.
In June of this year, the city issued a call
for proposals for various sites, including the four to be
considered this evening. Certain development studies have been completed in
all four sites have access to city. Infrastructure, including street
frontage, piped services and amenity spaces. Next slide, please. Conceptual
development proposals submitted through the call for proposals reviewed and
assessed by applying the smart growth principles of track record,
including demonstrated experience and past project quality, alignment with the
city's housing and growth objectives of affordability, density, and sustainability
and addressing community and neighborhood need. It. Is based on
this assessment, administration is recommending moving forward with the next
step of declaring the foresights of surplus for housing. Next
slide, please. In addition to updates to this standing committee
and the Mayor's task force on building more homes. Public
notice of the intent to surplus the four properties was
issued by way of letter city. Website and posted signage
on each property. In addition, a greater level of public
engagement was undertaken. With a survey on the city's get
involved page and two open houses. All feedback received through
this various methods is appreciated and will be further addressed
in the conceptual as the conceptual developments are refined through
negotiation, site plan control and zoning bylaw amendment stages as
applicable. Next slide, please. 791 of Rundle street is 3.15
vacant land north of Boulevard Lake. It is currently zoned
community and rezoning would be required. The conceptual development is
up to 600 units contained in three six story buildings.
Conceptually shown here. It is noted that the density of
this development is higher than some others discussed tonight and
exceeds that permitted by the urban mid rise zone. Next
slide, please. Written questions and concerns were submitted by 52
residents, including impact on recreation and green space infrastructure capacity
development density and potential impact on property values. Individual members
of the mayor's task force consider the density too high
for this site. It is anticipated that the scale of
the development will be reduced to. A degree at the
time of a zoning bylaw amendment application. Next slide, please.
49.7% of survey respondents were very supportive or supportive of
the development proposal. 39.5 were not supportive. And 15.9% neutral
are not sure. Next slide, please. 144 Fanshaw street is
1.25 vacant land across from Confederation College. It is currently
zoned urban low rise and rezoning of to the urban
mid rise zone will be required. The conceptual development is
up to 200 units contained within one six story building.
Conceptually shown here. Next slide, please. Written questions and concerns
were submitted by 34 residents, including impact on green space
infrastructure capacity, noise and potential impact on property values. Next
slide, please. 58.9% of survey respondents were very supportive or
supportive 23.3% were not supportive. And 17.8% were neutral or
not sure. Next slide, please. 300 Tokyo street is 2.6.
Vacant land at the corner of John street and Junette.
Avenue south. It is zoned urban, mid rise. The conceptual
development is up to 400 units contained. Within two six
story buildings, conceptually shown here. Next slide, please. Written questions
and concerns were submitted by three residents, including impact on
green space infrastructure capacity and noise next slide, please. 60.9%
of survey respondents were supportive or very supportive. 13.3 were
not supportive and 25.9% neutral or not sure. Next slide,
please. 211 to 223 Tupper street and 224 Camelot street
is zero point 28. Vacant land in the north core
in his own downtown neighborhood. The conceptual development is up
to 8185 units and community spaces. Next slide, please. No
written questions or concerns were submitted. 64.8% of survey respondents
were very supportive or supportive, 12% were not supportive and
23.2%. Neutral or not? Sure. Next slide, please. Following this
meeting, administration will proceed with its report to council in
January. Should counsel approve the surplus recommendation? Administration would proceed
to refine the conceptual development proposals and negotiate. Purchase agreements
with proponents. These agreements would be conditional upon site plan
control and rezoning where required. Once settled, administration would return
to the Standing Committee for endorsement of the sales and
to counsel for approval. Zoning bylaw amendment applications and detailed
site find control agreement. Negotiation would follow. I'll now turn
things back to director, to pewter. Thank you. Next slide,
please. Just the final slide chair to close this report
recommends that this committee endorsed the recommendation that council declared
the four opportunity sites as surplus to support housing. The
mayor's task force has endorsed the recommendation and request regular
updates. We thank the residents. The task force, the committee,
and this committee for their feedback throughout this process. Should
the properties be declared surplus staff will work with the
developers to refine the proposals to address community concerns. The
specific development proposals will be further considered in the future.
Steps that are outlined by manager Walker. Where required, zoning
amendment process will address items such as scale, density and
parking requirements. A detailed site plan would be available at
that time, and there will be additional opportunity for public
input and another public meeting of council for this purpose.
The site plan control process will specify lighting, access, servicing,
drainage, landscaping, building placement, and address traffic concerns. Technical studies
such as traffic and servicing studies will be completed to
inform the process and further address concerns raised by the
public. Through the chair. Thank you. And to the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to present and for your
consideration of this report and administration's pleas to answer any
questions. Thank you. Manager Walker, director, deputy and Commissioner Marshall.
Thank you for the intro. Clerk Walters, please. Chair. We
can reach your questions of administration, although, as discussed, if
there is no pertinent questions right now. We can wait
till the end. There will be three rounds. Five minutes
each for questions to the report. Let's save it. To
the end, right? Okay. All right. We do have a
number of deputies scheduled for this evening. The first one
has been received from Conor McLeod on November the 13th,
requesting to appear before a standing committee. Welcome s. Mcleod.
Lights on, so it's on. If you can just be
about six inches away from the mic. When you're ready,
you'll have ten minutes. Okay. All right. Good evening. I'm
here in regards to the housing proposal on Rundal and
Toledo in the green. Space. I have been following this
topic from its inception, and I'm alarmed at which the
speed in which this process is moving. Hundreds of community
members showed up to the award meeting on November 5,
2025, in order to gather more information on this proposal
as well as to, err, grievances. The entire community expressed
anger, frustration and discontent in regards to this project. In
fact, out of the hundreds of people who showed up
that night, there was only one individual. Who was in
favor of this venture. She did not live in the
immediate area, nor was she a lifelong member, as many
who are against this. Are. Of course. I recorded this
historical award meeting for reference as it has been some
time since the community has come together in agreement on
a concern such as this in quite some time. In
fact. This act alone should be enough to put an
end to this housing proposal. As the community has spoken
and we have said no. However, I will give you
some of the very real concerns we as a community
share. If the proposed 600 unit complex went through with
between two to four people per unit. This would increase
the population of Curt river by roughly between. 1502, 400
people. For reference. The town of Nippigan is roughly 1500
people and the population of Atticoken. Is roughly 2600 people.
You are talking about moving the population of a small
town into that few square kilometers. This would raise the
population of Kert river by over 40% in a very
short period of time. Ironically, the politicians at the ward
meetings said in regards to this ten year smart growth
plan that fast growth too quickly is not a positive
thing in the short or long term. I feel raising
the population by over 40% overnight qualifies as fast growth.
There are also valid environmental concerns, as this property is
home to many animals that. Would be mortally affected and
displaced. Not only do community members use this environmental green
space daily, but people from all across Thunder Bay. Come
as well to use and to appreciate this area. As
one community member put it so eloquently, I go there
every single day and have never seen the same person
twice. There are also infrastructure concerns, as massive parking structures
would need to be built in tandem with this. Property
to account for the influx of people. And traffic is
already an issue this community brings up regularly. we are
not against growth or development personally i had no issue
with the building project on huron as the pros outweighed
the cons It makes sense. However, the proposal on a
rendal makes no sense at all. Destroying a beautiful area
the community uses daily and yearly. When we have fought
for this area in the past and especially when there
are far more suitable properties. Makes no sense at all.
It is not logical or practical. These are only some
of the very real concerns we share as a united
community. We have been meeting regularly to discuss this project
and will continue to do so. I hope our very
real concerns are not lost on you, and I thank
you for taking the time to hear us out. Thanks
again. Regards, Conor McLeod. Thank you, Mr. McLeod. There any
questions? Not at this time. The deputation. Councilor Agwell, please.
Okay. Thank you very much, chair. Mr. Cloud. In your
presentation, you said you're not against growth, but you're against
this project. Is it the density of the project or
is it. Specifically. It's the environmental green space. We use
this space. As I said, daily people come from all
across Thunder Bay to use this. Space. So that particular
area. Is not necessarily. The project, so to speak. It's
the destroying of that particular area. My subsequent question to
you would be if. The project. Was enhancing the green
space. With other type of housing. Would you be amendable
to that, or would you be opposed to that and
you want to leave it all as. definitely i think
that's the main concern Just to leave it the way
that it is. For the animals and for the people
that use it every single day. And my third question
to you through the chair would be. Proportionately for the
city of Thunder Bay. Current river I grew up in
current river myself. I went to cloud garden 100 years
ago. But current river do you not find it has
proportionately a lot more? Park and green space compared to
any other part of our city. That's precisely why we're
here, actually, because I feel like this would just be
only a domino effect. That would perpetuate. The changing of
print river, fundamentally. You know what I mean? That's why
I love this. Community. That's why I'm here. I just
want current river to stay Kurt river. And as I
said before, I wasn't ever against other projects in current
river. It's just that particular area. You know what I
mean? Because it's dear to me and it's part of
Kerr river. You know what I mean? Thank you. Thank
you. See? No further questions. You may return. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Clerk Walters, please. I'm on the
agenda. Correspondence received from Laurie Santiac from on November the
14th, requesting to appear before a standing committee and note
there was additional information relative to this deputation. Distributed on
Friday, November the 20 eigth welcome, Ms. Antique. And again,
you'll have ten minutes when you're ready. Good evening, Mayor
Boschkov. Members of the growth standing committee, members of city
administration. My name is. Laurie Santinc, I'm here today speaking
on behalf of my husband and myself, as well as
my neighbors, nine other property owners on Toledo street whose
homes are adjacent to the proposed. 600 unit development at
791 Arundel and who will be directly impacted by the
largest proposed development in the history of Thunder Bay. In
support of my deputation, I have provided a joint letter
signed by my fellow neighbors, along with copies of two
blog posts by Livio di Mateo professor of economics, Lakehead.
University, as well as his recent interview with TB News
Watch on November 25. We are unanimous in our desire
to see the green space be left as is to
be enjoyed. Not only by us, but by the community
at large. This is not some random lot owned by
the city. It is a wonderful green space enjoyed for
decades, 365 days a year by our local community, as
well as many residents throughout Thunder Bay, with its. Mature
trees, grasses and open fields. It provides habitat and acts
as a wildlife corridor for the abundant animals who share
our world. It provides a car free, safe space for
the many runners, walkers, dog walkers, cyclists, cross country skiers,
skate skiers, mountain bikers, children going to school, bird watchers.
Running events. The lifts goes on the city. Has invested
in this green space by installing a paved, lit, multiuse
trail maintained year round with access from the active living
corridor along a rundle lion boulevard, as well as a
pathway between 414 and 412 Toledo. As you already know,
out of the ten opportunity sites chosen by city admin.
Administration 791 Arundel is the only one zoned community zone,
a zoning designation used by the city for park space
throughout Thunder Bay. Yes, this zoning also allows some development,
but not residential. And definitely not the type of massive
development that is being proposed. Why, we ask, of all
the parcels available to the city for development, is it
now choosing to build the largest housing development in the
history of the city on what is and always has
been. Seen and used by residents of Thunder Bay as
park space. In our opinion, this sets a terrible precedent,
Professor Diamateo's blog posts and interview le. Lends credence to
our letter and our concerns and comments about this proposed
development in his blog post of November 20, he states,
The logical place to target density developments in Thunder Bay
should be the two former downtown core areas. Of Port
Arthur and Fort William and the corridor connecting them that
runs along an immediately adjacent to water, Fort William Road,
Simpson streets and Algoma Memorial, may street, the Shunia area
neighborhood is definitely not the largest. Sorry, not the location
for the largest housing development the city has ever seen
and even runs contrary to Thunder Bay's official plan. In
order to fit 600 units, the green space will have
to be rezoned urban high rise. Such zoning and massive
development allowing buildings up to 45 meters or twelve to
15 stories high, is not. Compatible in scale and mass
with the surrounding community of single family homes. Smaller apartment
buildings consisting of anywhere from four to 127 units, a
72 unit condominium complex or the 118 units in Chartwell
Thunder Bay's retirement home complex. It literally dwarfs every single
other build type in the. Neighborhood. The development is also
contrary to many of the tenants in the city's various
policy. Strategies, plans and guidelines which no doubt we, the
taxpayers, have spent thousands, if not millions of dollars. To
have the city produce. For example, Thunderbase housing lands needs
study and strategy the climate forward. Thunder Bay net Zero
strategy, the smart growth action planets in its draft form,
or the Thunder Bay urban design. And landscape guideline. These
city documents, as well as various media releases and interviews
with local media. Use urban planning language, such as creating
integrated spaces that combine residential, commercial, and public amenities building
homes in areas that already have neighborhood amenities infill development,
keeping our taxes lower, making better use of existing structure
infrastructure and allowing more people to live in walkable, connected
neighborhoods by 2030. 5%. 65% of trips within the city
will be by walking, cycling or public transit. Neighborhoods are
complete compact and walkable. Thunderbase, forest and green spaces are
protected and provide essential ecosystem services. In his interview with
TB Newswatch, Professor D. Mateo stated that putting developments, and
I quote, wherever the city conveniently has a piece of
green space in the short run may seem optimal because
it's quick, but what they're doing is creating a more
dispersed city that's. Even more dependent on vehicles. And dependent
on vehicles we are. According to Walkscore.com, a website whose
mission is to promote walkable neighborhoods. Arch union neighborhood. Is
considered car dependent with a walk score of 13 out
of 100. 791 Arundel to Hotter Avenue, where some basic
amenities do exist, is a 2.3 kilometer walk along a
rundle. Without continuous sidewalks on the road with car traffic
in this weather, although the active living Corri. Corridor has
cycling opportunities. It is neither protected nor maintained year round,
and there is only one bus. Servicing our neighborhood, the
number seven Hudson, running every 30 minutes in peak times.
And this bus doesn't? Even run east along a rundle.
Toledo and Conmey do not have continuous sidewalks. So again,
even considering walking a direct. Route to downtown is about
3.8k or a 50 minutes walk if you're in good
health, including on roads with traffic. There are no major
stores, banks, there's no LCBO medical offices, never mind large
employers in our neighborhood or in current river residents in
this neighborhood must drive or use transit, which, as I'm
sure you're aware, is neither. Convenient, fast, or the most
efficient means of getting to any of the major employers
here in thunder. Bay. We do not understand why the
city would consider destroying this well used in love green
space would consider cutting down force that provides an essential
ecosystem service in our neighborhood and proposes 600 unit housing.
Development, which will add at least 600 plus more vehicles,
spewing emissions and increasing noise pollution. And add upwards of
1200 plus. People to a car dependent neighborhood that is
not walkable, not complete, not compact, not connected once again,
a quote from Professor Di Mateo's blog, posted November 20
the problem here is that Thunder Bay's idea of increasing
density in a climate crisis apparently includes cutting down swast.
The green space to build. Density development in areas often
removed from where density either already exists or should be
promoted. Moreover, the constant dispersion of new development results in
the new residents of these density developments having to rely
mainly on automobile transport rather than public transport transit, which
is not convenient or timely given. The disbursed nature of
the city. Mayor Boschkov, councilors, members of city administration. We
are not against building housing, but we are against using
green space to build this type of density not only
here, but across the city. Now. Build here if you
must, but only if there are no other options. If
you insist on using this green space. The owners of
houses along Toledo proposed a much smaller development, zoned, no
larger than urban mid rise that leaves the multi use
trail as is provides a buffer between any development and
the existing property owners on Toledo and is compatible in
scale and mass with the surrounding community. But please. Before
you even consider designating this parcel surplus. Never mind allowing
a proposed 600 unit development, or even a smaller one.
Consider the learned opinion of Professor D. Mateo the overall
character of this union neighborhood. The concerns of the adjacent
property owners and the wider community. The car dependent nature
of this area, the lack of adequate walking and cycling.
Infrastructure, the lack of local services and amenities, the destruction
of forest and green space, and what the removal of
a well used and much love park space means to
the residents of our shunian neighborhood and the community of
current river. Thank you. Thank you so much for that
detailed deputation. And Councilor Atrini, please. Thank you. Through the
chair. Thank you very much for your presentation today and
coming tonight. I did receive your report and went through
it. Very detailed. Fantastic. I'm going to refer to the
map. I used to live in kert river. For a
large portion. But on the other side of Curt river
bridge, I've played baseball. Here back in the day. But
if you ask me exactly where, I couldn't tell you.
Today? Because that was a long time ago. The walking
path, I believe, is close to the red line that
you've drawn on your map. Is that correct? Yes. And
so if the city. I appreciate your solutions. I want
to state that. I kind of like the idea of
the privacy piece. And the concern about the buildings being
too close to the houses and being closer to the
other. Side. But if they ended up moving that path
to allow for different roads to come in, Instead of
one road in and out. That would be okay as
well, right? You just want to make sure that you
keep that walking. It's not only that, but you do
have to look at the intersection of Toledo and Runle.
There is one of the property owners lives right on
the corner, and his driveway. Access a rundle as well
as Toledo street. So then there's just basically his property.
A little bit of space and then the walking path.
So if you move that walking path, Too much further
to the west. Then. It sort of encroaches. There's going
to be a lot of car traffic. There's a crosswalk
with the signal. At that intersection, and it's a busy
road. We have ChartWell, which I think you need to
keep in mind because there's a lot of Chartwell users
in their motorized scooters or wheelchairs rather, that actually cross
over on a regular basis and go up and down
that pathway. We even have a lady who's dropped off
by the handy bus. Who's blind, who has been used
to walking on that. Path for quite some time. So
it's a little bit concerning because it is a bit
of a crunch space. If you will. Yeah, it is
definitely really tight, and I know with site plan control,
they'll start looking at all those pieces. if growth committee
says yes and moves it to council to make the
decision of whether we're going to sell this as surplus
and then i really do appreciate You understanding that maybe.
The neighbors and yourself would be more accepting if it
was a bit smaller. So I really appreciate those comments.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Councilor
Aguwal, please. Thank you. thank you chair When you said.
Smaller density, smaller program plan. What are you envisioning there
for? Well, given the neighborhood and the scope and mass
of the neighborhood itself. We have mostly single family homes,
bungalows, a couple of two stories like our house and
our neighbor's house was two story, for example. And there
are apartment buildings that I think the tallest one is
five stories in the immediate area. Current river has some
taller ones. But on that property. 200, 250. We're thinking,
obviously, it depends on the design. Of the property. We'd
like to keep at least that urban mid rise going
any higher. Than that. Is inappropriate for that area. We
obviously need building. I understand that. I live in Calgary.
I went through the rezoning process there. I was on
the board. Of our local Community association. I was on
the development and planning committee. I took a course through
the city. I have a certificate in planning. So I
do know the ins and outs, and that experience can
be used here. In Thunder bay, too, so you really
have to look at. Is this the proper spot for
any. Type of development like we're willing to give. We
understand that there's a need, but a lot of your
documents focus on the fact that buildings should be done
in areas where there's services and amenities, and we just
don't have that in current river. We don't. You can't
walk along a rundle. There are no sidewalks. There's the
active living corridor, and then when it gets to a
sidewalk at Black Bay. You have to cross the street
and get to the sidewalk there and then you have
to cross the street again in order to get to
the shopping area. It's poor planning. I'm sorry? It's poor
urban planning. We should be. Putting people in areas where
they can actually thrive. And if we're not going to
increase and improve the infrastructure for sidewalks, for transit, and
for cycling infrastructure, then we shouldn't be putting in a
large amount of people. In that spot. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you for that answer. I do appreciate. Your deep
and thorough presentation with the details. Thank you very much.
So. They do resign with me a lot. The walkability
scales are important. And I thank you for all that
information. You're welcome. Okay. Thank you so much. You may
return. Clerk Walters, please. That same on the agenda. Correspondence
received from Terrell Prince on November the 14th. Requesting to
appear before the standing committee. Also, additional information relative to
this deputation distributed on Friday, November the 20 eigth. Welcome,
Ms. Prince. And again, you'll have ten minutes when you're
ready. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor.
City councilors, fellow citizens and neighbors. I am grateful that
I have the opportunity to speak to you all today.
My husband Dave and I bought our house on Toledo
two years ago. And what made us decide? To live
here was the quiet neighborhood. The beautiful green space and
treeline behind our backyard and the easily accessible nature trails
from Toledo street. This is such a special area, so
quiet, so peaceful. We feel very privileged to be a
part. Of it. In regards to the new development proposal.
We are not against the idea of adding housing at
791 or Rundle street as long as it is a
good fit for the area and preserves as much of
the green space as possible. For the benefit of the
surrounding community. However, we are convinced that the proposed 600
units is much too large in scale to allow a
harmonious integration with the surrounding neighborhood. That being said, I
am speaking today mainly about the need to keep a
treelined green space. Corridor between the houses on Toledo and
any new development. I would like to say a few
words. About all the benefits. We have enjoyed having this
green space with mature trees backing onto our property. These
tall trees provide us with a natural privacy screen and
beautiful scenery behind our property that we enjoy every day.
The ambient noise of the wind moving through the leaves
and branches and the great variety of birdsong. Provides a
natural sound overlay that helps minimize the sound of cars
and trucks from a rundle and the nearby highway. The
trees also improve our air quality and provide shape. There
is also always something new and interesting to see. As
many birds and animals are always visiting. Nesting, feeding on
berries and seeds or just passing through. We moved here
because of our great love. For nature and our desire
to live in harmony with it. When we saw the
image the city provided of the proposed new development, we
were frankly shocked by the invasive nature of its appearance.
I know that it is being said that it is
just a concept. But since this is all we had
to go on, It appears to us that the developer
plans to remove all the existing mature trees and put
in a concrete perimeter populated by a few small, thinly
spaced out evergreens that will likely take years to provide
any kind of effective privacy screen for us and our
neighbors. This loss of natural green space and privacy. Would
also. Certainly negatively affect the value of our properties, and
we would also lose most of the benefits that the
current mature treeline offers us. It makes me think of
that old Joni Mitchell song where she's saying they paved
paradise and put up a parking lot. It popped into
my head last night. We are asking the city to
keep the tree lined trail that so many people use
every day. Intact and preserve the tree line behind our
fences that shield our yards and give us so much.
Beauty. Happiness and peace of mind. More trees should be
planted at the beginning of Toledo as well to fill
in the gap and form a continuous tree line so
that all of the homeowners can have privacy and a
peaceful environment. We, the homeowners, are asking the city to
ensure that any developer maintains a natural green space corridor
easement between the affected properties on Toledo and the new
housing this will provide us. All an effective privacy buffer
zone. This and the preservation of the walking path. Will
also help to integrate and harmonize any new mid rise
build space with the quiet and peaceful character of the
neighborhood. In our view, this would fulfill. Two of the
city's stated objectives. Preserving green space and adding density to
the area. This vital natural landscape will then continue to
benefit wildlife, visitors and residents, old and new. Now and
into the future. Thank you all for your time and
consideration. Thank you so much for your deputation. Any questions?
Say none. Thank you. You may return. Clerk Walters, please.
Let's. Correspondence received from Ivan back on November the 14th
requesting to appear before standing committee. Welcome, Mr. Beck.
And again, when you're ready, you'll have ten minutes. Thank
you. Thank you. Mayor Boschkov, counselors of the city of
Thunder Bay, neighbors, friends and study administration. My name is
Ivan Buck. I live at 408 Toledo Street. Before I
retired, I was a secondary school teacher and a principal
with 34 years of experience. I also was seconded to
the ministry for four years to work in curriculum development
at the secondary schools. In 2007, my wife and I
purchased our house on Toledo street. We were very excited.
About the green space behind our property. And the price
reflected this feature. It is the only investment that we
have. Like most citizens in Thunder Bay, the largest purchase
that will ever make us is the purchase of their
home. That applies to everyone in the room. The atmosphere
created by the green belt overlooking our backyard has created
many happy memories for us. For example, our granddaughter chose
our backyard for her wedding ceremony. This kind of happy
memory will not happen. If an apartment building complex replaces
the privacy provided by the green buffer zone, If you
become aware that your home investment will take a significant
loss of a political decision, You have become as upset
as my wife and I are. That also applies to
everyone in this room. I have witnessed current river homeowners
move to tears when talking about the impact this decision
will have on them. Presently. The zoning bylaw protects this
beautiful natural environment and wetlands from development, exploitation. This popular
area is owned as community, and our current river community
lives up to that definition. The use of the pathway,
we call it Cherry Lane, by the way, is extremely
popular with current river citizens and they are friendly and
happy lot. Dogs, families walking, bikers, joggers, citizens with disabilities,
including the blind and those in electrical devices skiers. Dog.
School students and summer cam groups all utilize a natural
environment of that pathway and green belt. My wife, Cora,
and I have many memories of biking walk in the
many tributary trails along the pathway over the years. You
never know what you're going to meet. A fox, a
deer, a wolf, a raccoon, a bear, maybe even a
skunk or two. There's an incredible variety of birds. Some
live here and some are just passing through. This will
all be gone if the pathway disappears and you do
something to the natural environment. It is incomprehensible to me
that the city is considering eliminating the zoning bylaw that
protects the use of this land for the everyday taxpaying
citizens so that they can unlock the final housing and
accelerator. Advance a $5.88 million for 2027 again I say
this? Would not be an issue if the proposal had
a personal effect on those creating it. If you truly
believe this smart growth action plan has a value. Please
at least consider a proposal that would maintain the pathway
and a green buffer zone for the citizens who live
here and care deeply about the health and well being
of their community. On the other hand, if you really
want a smart growth action plan, Please consider recommendations and
Professor Libya Dematio's essay titled thunder B is missing his
chance for strategic urban density. The article is honest, factual,
and logical. That paves the way for valid strategic house
building density. Levy, of Domario is a professor of economics
at Lake University. And Professor Demadio's article appears in Northern
Economist 2.0, November the 13th 2025. Mayor Baskoff and concerts
of Thunder Bay. It is my belief that you are
elected to assist. In the health, safety and well being
of the citizens of Thunder Bay. Please support the concerns
of your taxpayers. Thank you for listening to me. Thank
you so much, Mr. Buck. Any questions? Councilor Atrini, please.
Thank you, chair. I just have a question later for
administration, if you could put me on that. List. Thank
you. ten four okay thank you so much sir Don.
Yes. Thank you. Clerk Walters, please. Chair. Then it's time.
On the agenda is correspondence received from Stephanie Petroni on
November the 16th requesting to appear before standing committee. Good
evening, Mr. Petroni. Thanks for coming forward. And when you're
ready, you'll. Have ten minutes. Can you hear me okay,
Ed, just come a little closer if you can. Okay?
It's great. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My thanks to mayor and council and city
staff for accommodating today's. Deputations. My comments are related to
the proposed development at 791 or. First, I would like
to address messaging issued by city staff to the media
that implies dissenting. Opinion regarding this proposal are rooted in
personal feelings. this is an obvious red herring which foments
the villainization of concerned citizens sets up a play for
the nimby card and diminishes the importance of concerns brought
forward As you have heard from some of my neighbors
already, our concerns are not self serving. Rather, they are
valid, intelligent and proactive. It is indicated within the terms
of reference for the mayor's task force on building more
homes that on August 18, 2023, the city submitted an
application to the Housing Accelerator fund that set an aggressive
target for the development of 2200 units in three years.
In a November 13 interview with. TB Newswatch city staff
indicated that the pressure is on. The city must build
1755 housing units by February 2027 to meet conditions of
the Housing Accelerator Fund, and they're behind by 1200 units.
Falling short of this target loses the city almost $6
million in funding. And with the clock ticking. The city's
priority is high density housing proposals and fast. The city's
entertainment of a monster sized eastern block tenement. Stylized 600
unit development poised to drop in the middle of the
Orundal green space like Andre the giant coming off. The
top ropes underpins the urgency in which the city is
pushing through high density proposals. The message is clear. As
many units as possible. Anywhere. I have a few concerns.
High density housing may be suitable in mixed use neighborhoods,
but it is not suitable in neighborhoods characterized by single
family homes and without services or businesses within walking distance.
Furthermore, high density also means high population density, and in
non mixed use neighborhoods, this has the potential to increase
the victimization as well as the criminalization of people living
in these areas. High population density, particularly when rapid and
in small areas, can lead to a range of numerous
consequences. Including social. Worth noting. 600 units. Could mean 600
to maybe 2000 new neighbors all at once. That is
a current river population increase. Of twelve to 42%, all
behind eleven homes on just 3 ha, or 0.6%. Of
all of current river. How will such an increase impact
education, transportation, safety, environmental pollution, and neighborhood amenities? What will
the social impact upon our neighborhood be we don't know.
I encourage city council to direct that a social impact
study be conducted before committing current river to high density
development prior to rezoning. In 1992, Claudi Garten Elementary School,
a landmark and current river, went up in flames. Bystanders
reported that it took 30 minutes for firefighters to get
water on the blaze. What was the hold up. Inadequate
water pressure from fire hydrants to the hoses. Any number
of new homes in the proposed development area will impact
the residential water system. At this time, I am in
correspondence with city staff to acquire information regarding water pressure
readings for residential usage and fire hydrant operation as well
as water main size which delivers our clean water for
this area. I am unsure if the city has taken
into consideration these issues, which are not just about convenience.
But also safety. Regardless of current water pressure readings, a
high density development will have an impact on water psi
in the neighborhood prior to rezoning. I encourage the city
to undertake a water pressure study of the area around
791 rundle, which should include the consideration that a minimum
of no less than 600 new neighbors and potentially hundreds
more. Would add to the burden of the current water
system. In 2012, the city reconstructed a two lane rural
road, which is now celebrated as the Arundal Hudson active
living corridor connecting residents to parks and trails along an
improved road system featuring traffic calming measures to ensure usability
and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The city's 2017. Walkability
and pedestrian safety report features the Orundal Hudson corridor as
part of a larger strategic plan to increase the vitality
and activity of Thunder Bay residents. Establishing 600 new homes,
or even just 100 new homes in the small area
not within walking distance. To any major service or business
will increase the number of vehicles along the corridor. This
raises safety. Concerns for pedestrians and cyclists and will contribute
to traffic congestion and flow challenges, especially during. Peak traffic
hours. As a minor artery. Traffic congestion will also contribute
to traffic density. And my concern is not just convenience
for vehicular travel, but also for the physical risk. To
walkers, joggers, cyclists, moms pushing strollers, school age children and
youth, dog walkers. People with mobility challenges and users of
wheelchairs and scooters, all of whom I've seen along this
corridor frequently and in numbers. D. Daily. I encourage the
city to undertake a traffic study prior to rezoning for
the purposes of identifying road capacity, especially with regard to
traffic volume, congestion, density and flow, as well as increased
risk to pedestrian and cyclists. Without enough measurable data to
ensure that such a development will not have serious consequences
in current river, it would be reckless to approve this
proposal. I am not indifferent to the pressing need for
housing in Thunder Bay, especially affordable housing. When I was
a young mother. I was grateful for the rent gear
to income, housing. I was able to secure while getting
back on my feet and returning to university. However, we
have a proposed development with a huge footprint in a
very small space and in a very unique neighborhood. The
National Collaborating center for Environmental Health outlines several best practices
for developing high density housing developing in a green space
is not one of them. In fact. NCC ECE states
that existing open green and blue spaces should be protected
and utilized as these spaces have many natural, positive impacts
on an individual's health and well being and promote the
health of our natural environment. We all know this. It
is not revelatory. Now. I'll get personal. I moved to
Thunder Bay in 2017. Unfamiliar with the city and not
knowing anybody. I spent my weekends deliberately getting lost, eager
to discover my new home. To my disappointment, I discovered
many streets lined with dilapidated buildings, derelict homes, neighborhoods surrounded
by businesses and industry and all within a mostly treeless
community, it was difficult to find visual beauty in thunder.
Bay. And I surmised that it was to be found
only when turning away from it. To face the view
of. Lake superior or the boreal forest. But then I
found current river and this calm and charming. Neighborhood full
of trees, natural beauty, and all creatures of fur and
feather felt like home. And so. It has become that
for me and my family since 2019. But this neighborhood
isn't just for residents of current. River. It is for
all of Thunder Bay, and many community members visit current
river to catch their breath and access the beautiful trails
located along Boulevard Lake, the LPH grounds and the path
through the green space that we recently have come to
known as 791 Arundel. We can have a different vision
for this green space than what is being proposed. We
can create more paved trails that connect with Boulevard. And
paved trails increase accessibility for people with mobility issues. I've
seen many older neighbors crossing from Chartwells, the Chartwell residents,
to access the paved trail. We can enhance the beauty
within it by planting more trees and in stating park.
Amenities like benches, maybe a water feature. And because we
are meant to be stewards of the land. Maybe we
could even add a few bat boxes and bird. Boxes.
This green space is not. An abandoned lot or bushy
corner that people in our neighborhood just drive by this
small piece. Of land is held. In the generational memory,
I'm almost. 1 minute. Sorry. Just give you heads up.
Thank you. Carry on. You said 1 minute left. Yeah.
Thank you. This small piece of the green space is
not an abandoned lot or bushy corner. That people in
our neighborhood just drive by. This small piece of land
is held in the generational memory of all community members
in thunder. Bay. People have gathered here, children have played
here, and many have escaped here, and still they do.
This place is worth protecting. When we lose our green
spaces, we lose it forever. And I also know this
development spreads, it won't just be the loss of this
screen space. There will be more to lose. I encourage
mayor and council to retain this property for community use,
just as it has been used. For generations. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Ms. Petroni. Are there any questions
at all? Just quickly, are you in favor of a
smaller development at all or just no development at all?
No development. Okay. Thank you so much. Your worship, please.
I guess. You've just asked a question. There's no level
of construction at all. Single family or anything that. Would
I feel there are many suitable places in Thunder Bay
that are not in a green space. Where those needs
could be achieved, and I would encourage city staff. To
continue looking for more suitable locations rather than a green
space that has been used for generations. By the community
members of Thunder Bay. My second question deals with you
mentioned water pressure. How long have you had this issue
and has there been any attempts? To address it. My
interest in water pressure is knowing what the current water
pressure is around the proposed area. I think that is
something that we need to consider before. We fast track
proposal of that size, or any size for that matter.
And this is. What I'm looking to the city for
is more information about the water pressure for residential use
as well as hydrants. Thank you for that. Thank you,
chair. Thank you so much. Thank you. Can return. Clark
Walters, please, let's. Correspondence received from Cody Lane on November
19 requesting to appear before. Standing committee. Welcome, Mr. Lee,
and thanks for coming forward. And again, you'll have ten
minutes and I'll give you a heads up when you
hit nine minutes. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Good evening. I'd
like to thank Mayor Boschkoff, the growth standing committee and
city administration. For listening to my deputation tonight. I'm giving
my deputation tonight in support of the surplus lands proposal
that is before the committee. Ultimately, I would like to
see the growth standing committee endorse the proposal. Counsel ultimately
declare these land surplus. Can you just move a little
bit? Thanks and do the required rezonings that are necessary
to develop these lands for medium to high density residential.
I believe this proposal will help with housing and rental
affordability as well as the sustainable growth of the city.
Some background about myself. 25 years old, and I just
moved to this city this year. Or moved. Back to
the city after living in the country for 13 years.
Currently, I rent a one bedroom apartment in Northwood for
1350 a month, and according to the CMHC, the average
rent in the city for a primary rental as of
2024 is 1359. So I like to consider myself the
average renter in this city. Some history. When my family
left this city in 2012, my father was paying $500
a month. To rent a two bedroom home in current
river. Now that was a low rent for the time,
even for especially for a house. However, that affordability allowed
my father to put me an extracurricular activities. Save up
for a vehicle. Go on the occasional vacation and eventually
save up for a house. And if that rent were
two three times what it were, I would be living
a very different life right now. So you can imagine
my surprise when I wanted to move back to this
city and I find that $500 a month doesn't even
buy your room in somebody's house anymore. I paid two
and a half times as much to live in half
the space my family and I did back in 2012,
if I wanted to live in my childhood home, I
would be paying about $2,000 a month, and this is
backed up by the. CMHC data, which shows in the
last ten years, the average rent has gone of about
57%. Inflation in that time period was 30%. So I
asked what changed, and I guess the better. Question to
ask is what didn't change? So between 2024 and 1990,
which is the furthest back I could get the numbers
to. Go. So the 34 year period, there was a
net gain of 447 primary rental units. This is my
interpretation of the data. I'm sure administration can look into
it further. But I can see that when I drive
around town, I can see that in my apartment that
was built in the, across the street that were built
in the most of the other apartments that were built
in the last century. So at some point, this city
built medium to high density residential. And then stopped in
favor of low density residential. And it's why I believe
we're in the housing. Crisis that we are and why
the city is seeing an increasing infrastructure deficit every year.
So I hope you can see my excitement with this
proposal, because to me, this represents 100 years. Of apartments
if we were to continue building them at our existing
rate. And I believe that is going to have major
ramifications for housing and rental affordability. As well as growing.
The city sustainably. So I'll start with housing affordability. I
believe the number I've seen, quote is 1385 units, but
that may be reduced. Now. If we build that many
units, then any senior that wants to downsize out of
a home. Will have the ability to do so if
they have the financial means, whether it be the equity
in their house or investments. They can move into a
new modern apartment like this if they want. To downsize,
and that frees up their family home. Now, I may
not be able to afford that family home. But if.
A family wants to upgrade into that, or a couple
wants to upgrade. I can afford their starter. Home. So
I see it that if we build these medium high
density apartments and a senior downsizes you're freeing up two
units of housing that you didn't need to build. And
we are obviously not building houses fast enough. When it
comes to rental affordability. If you add 100 years worth
of supply, that increases the vacancy rate no longer. We're
not sitting at 3% vacancy rate anymore, and it's. A
lot harder for your landlord to justify high rent increases.
In the last three years alone. I have on file
here. In 2022, the average rent went up seven and
a half percent. 2023, seven and a half percent 2024
8.6% if you increase the vacancy rate by building this
many apartments, it's harder to justify those rent increases. And
if a landlord is sitting on a vacant rental. They
either have to. Reduce their price to justify or to
attract a tenant, or they have to renovate to justify.
What they're charging. That's how I see that this project
or this proposal will. Help with rental affordability. Lastly, I'd
like to tie everything into sustainable growth. This proposal frees
up housing that already exists. That means you're not building
new low. Density residential on the outskirts of the city
where you have to run new roads, water, sewer, stormwater
ems and fire because the houses you freed up are
already connected to services. Now there's. Going to be infrastructure
costs associated with building these new apartment. Apartments, but because
they are adjacent, already existing services, they're going to be
built that infrastructure. Cost is going to be a fraction
of the cost of what it would be if you
took 200 people and put them in 200 homes, as
opposed to. One singular unit. Lastly, I just want to
talk about how this proposal is self sustaining. To quote
the city manager, who brought up in a tv news
article a suburban area has a tax revenue of ten.
Thousand dollars per acre. I believe this is on a
yearly basis for 48 units, whereas a multi unit area
has $100,000 per acre tax revenue. So by building proposals
like this, we are increasing the tax revenues of the
city and making the city more self sustaining. Lastly, there's.
The incentive of the housing acc. Accelerator fund that if
this proposal goes through, we will receive the 5.88 million
that can be used to revitalize the lapidated and vacant
buildings in the downtown cores infill as well as potentially
use that money to subsidize affordable housing. So, in conclusion,
I would like to be able to rent and save
for a home. I see. This proposal as allowing me
to do that by freeing up housing supply. I see.
It helps me by allowing me to save up as
a renter by making rents. More affordable. And lastly, if
you want me to make a 30 year commitment to
this city as a taxpayer. I need to see that
my property taxes aren't going to go up every year
by huge amounts because the city isn't growing sustainably and
those taxes need to come. For me personally. I would
rather. See more self sustaining proposals like this one, because
we simply just are not attracting industry and commercial fast
enough. And ultimately, I would like to own a home.
And not see my tax bill go up by large
amounts every year, so thank you very much. Thank you,
Mr. Lane. Is there? Your worship, please. Thank you, speaker.
Your presentation confirms that you know a little bit about.
The vacancy rates. And the need for. Densification. I
think my first question would be, essentially, Are you aware
that we have the highest percentage of parkland of municipality
in Ontario? No, I'm. Not. Or the number of parks
is ranks among the top. So I want to focus
those points on my question to get from 106,000, which
we are identified as. To the 150. Which is realistic
from a planning standpoint. Can it be done by single
family dwellings? Would you confirm that? We have to have
some measure of densification. Are you asking, like, if I'm
opposed to low density residential? No, I'm just. Asking. What
you would think there's capacity for. Yes, I believe that
there is capacity for low density residential. I just believe
that they should be built in tandem with medium to
high density residential. And I think the tax revenue numbers
illustrate that. The most. If they're built in tandem, you
can use high density, essentially, to subsidize the low density.
Is how I view it. Ultimately, if I want to
live in low density. We're going to have to build
more low density. I understand that. I'm not. Opposed to
low density. I would like to see the infill happening
at the same time that we construct low density, and
I just kind of wanted to illustrate that. Over the
34 year period. How much high density we have added.
At some point we stopped building apartments like this and
just mainly focused on low density, and it's why I
personally believe that there is a housing crisis as well
as a climbing infrastructure deficit. As a result. Just because
the tax revenues aren't. There. Thank you for your clear
answer. Thank. You. Speaker. Thank you. Councilor Aguwal, please. Thank
you. Chair. My question when you calculated. I thank you
for your detailed presentation and numbers. Just to get a
couple of clarifications. When you detailed it was 427 net
gain of new apartments from 1990. So what I was
using was I was using the historical primary rental data
from the CMHC, so I took the difference in units
from 2024 to 1990, and I had a net gain
of 447 now. That number. Fluctuates over the years. So
I apologize if I misinterpreted that the data. Okay. Thank
you for that clarification. From 1990 to 2025. In the
last many years. I agree. There's not been a lot
of multi residential. Did you take into account all the
multi residential condominiums, which. Are actually registered as single family
dwellings because the condominium ownership is single family rather than
multi. Residential. I wasn't aware of that classification. Yeah. So
we've seen a substantial growth in that spectrum, some of
which are rentals and so your data, what you've got.
I appreciate that because. It is the true rental. So
if somebody has a rental living in there, it's different.
So your data. I appreciate where you received it from.
Now my next question. Through you is when you were
growing up, you lived in a single family home. Yes.
Not in an apartment. And the goal of your parents
was to buy the roman single family home and to
be able to afford it. What is the goal? You're
a young gentleman who wants to hopefully stay in Thunderbait,
like you said. In the next 35, 40 years. What
is your goal? Is it apartment living? What is that
spectrum for your age group to be moving into? I
think if you asked personally myself, I would like to
move into a home in the city. And I think
if you asked. Anyone my age, they would say the
same thing. Often when I have this discussion with people,
my age if you ask them. Do you want to
move out of the house or would you? Prefer to
stay at home and save for a house. They will
stay, stay at home and save. For a house. Because
the rent is equivalent to a mortgage payment. So many
of them see renting as essentially throwing away a mortgage
payment and would much rather prefer to stay at home
as opposed to rent. In the city. I rent because
again, my family moved over to the country. I had
to move. Back for school. And to focus on my
career, which is why I'm a renter. My friends either
live in the city or continue to live at home
on the outskirts of the city. Thank you so much.
Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for your
deputation. You may return. I'm sorry. Am I able to
leave? I have to go to work. Oh. Yeah, go
ahead. Thank you. You may leave. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Thank you. Clerk Walters, please. That's I'm on
the agenda's correspondence received from Zach. White on November the
19th, requesting to appear before standing committee. Additional information relative
to this deputation. Was distributed on Friday, November the 20
eigth. Good evening, Mr. White. Thank you for coming forward.
And again. You'll have ten minutes and I'll give you
a heads. Up when you have a minute left, okay?
Sounds good. Thank you so much. All right. Mayor Boschkov,
chair Katuga, members of the growth committee. City manager Colin,
who's away right now, and the rest of administration. Thank
you for allowing me to speak tonight regarding the proposed
development in 791 Arundel, my name is Zach White, and
my wife and I live at 432 Toledo, which is
right on the corner of Toledo and Arundel. We live
there with our two beautiful twin girls. We just turned
ten months this week. The community's own green space. In
question here as directly out our back window, and we
often see people using the pay trail. Coming from chart
wells, other people. It's a very well used space. The
fixed under unit development, as shown in the conceptual rendering,
would dwarf our property as well as the other ten
property owners along the shared property line. It would increase
traffic, noise levels, light pollution at night, reduce the amount
of sunlight we receive in our backyard, decreased privacy, and,
as Ivan mentioned, most likely decreased property values to some
degree. I don't think any reasonable person in our position
would prefer to trade. The green space that we enjoy
for 600 units of housing. But I understand the pressures
the city are under, and we'll get to that. After
we learned about this proposed development, we created an online
petition. 340 members of the community sign this petition in
opposition of the project, as shown in the conceptual rendering.
The list of names as well as 120 comments left
by signees of the petition were submitted. With the application
for this deputation. This is a substantial community response, especially
given our limited reach as members of the community. In
contrast, the survey that was produced by administration recently, which
was good. It had 142 total responses. So the pie
charts that were shown earlier were 142 total people. Which
is less than half the signatures that we collected in
opposition to the project. In total, it also had 52
comments on the administration survey, and we've had 120 comments
submitted as part of the petition in opposition. Now, the
comments that we received on the online petition followed a
lot of the similar themes that were summarized by. Administration,
primarily loss of green space and trails, increased traffic, appropriateness
of the size of the development and lack of access
to sufficient amenities. So similar results, but a large number
of people as well. In addition to this survey, the
current river ward meeting held on November 5, as mentioned
earlier, had over 100 concerned citizens come out to voice
their opposition to the project save one individual who spoke
in favor. It is clear there are a large number
of city residents that do not want this project to
happen. And want the green space to remain as is
or developed at a smaller scale. We understand the need
for housing in our city and the millions of dollars
of HAF funding. That is contingent upon some very ambitious
housing targets. We understand that urban sprawl creates a tremendous
strain. On the city's services relative to tax base and
that infill and urban densification. Is a much more economical
way to increase the housing supply. We understand the features
of this property. And what makes it attractive for development.
We're also fully aware that our property line ends. At
the fence. And the city of Thunder Bay owns this
piece of land, not the neighbors that live along it,
and the city, as an entity can do with it
what it pleases. However, this standing committee and ultimately council
as a whole are the ones who decide if this
proposed development takes place and if so, to what extent?
The members of council are elected by the residents. Of
the community to be their voice and reflective views and
needs of the community. In their decisions. It is council's
duty to consider the concerns of the hundreds of residents
who have shown their opposition to this project when they
make their decisions in this matter. If it is decided
by council that some amount of multi unit housing must
be developed at 791 or rundle. Our request is that
it be done in a reasonable and responsible manner that
addresses the concerns of nearby residents and the community. A
600 unit development on under eight acres would be unprecedented.
Based on our research, it would be. The densest residential
cluster in the entire city and among the largest multi
unit proposals in Thunderbase history. Is this well used green
space located from downtown cores really the appropriate location for
development of this size. It does not align with the
existing neighborhood character, the active living corridor, or various city
planning documents. It would bring a massive influx of residents
and vehicles, permanently altering traffic patterns, noise and privacy. The
justification for the size of the development must be based
on more than short term monetary gain achieved by hitting
housing targets. The impacts of these decisions will be felt
in this neighborhood for generations. If development occurs on this
property. Our recommendations to council to balance the need for
housing with the impact on local residents and the community
are as follows. Number one, leave the popular paved traffic
path untouched by limiting development to the east and north
sides of the property. Number two, plant mature trees or
hedges between the paved path and the west property lying
along the north section of the property to provide those
Toledo residents with a similar amount of privacy as their
southern neighbors number three. Aside from a vehicle entryway, maintain
the existing tree line along a rundle. To provide some
shelter. From traffic, noise and lights along a rundle for
both the Toledo residents and the new residents. Of a
potential development. Number four. Reduce the number of housing units
down to something more reasonable and appropriate to the area.
Something similar in scale and density to the existing condo
and apartment buildings across the street. Number five, limit the
number of stories of new apartment buildings to four stories
to reduce the impact on neighboring properties and preserve the
natural beauty of the area. And number six, place the
vehicle access. For the proposed development directly across from the
east entryway of Park View place, which is across the
street. This creates some distance between. The intersection of Toledo
and a rundle, as well as the driveway for the
home at 432 Toledo this location would improve safety by
essentially creating a two way stop intersection at that spot.
On the conceptual rendering. The entryway was directly beside the
Toledo intersection, which would be custard. And you'd have offsetting
entryways to the apartment buildings across the street. We believe
these recommendations strike a fair balance between adding much needed
housing and respecting the existing community. We are not against
housing being created for people that need it. We simply
want a reasonable, balanced approach that adds housing to the
city without sacrificing. The character and well being of the
surrounding communities. I appreciate the varying opinions that we've heard
here tonight, especially Cody's opinion as a renter. I was
a renter in thunder bay for eight years, and I'm
currently a landlord of. A small house. So I see
both sides of this issue, and I'm currently vacant in
the unit that I'm renting, so I'm hearing from people
looking for a place to live. Right now and communicating
with them as I try and fill that unit so
I see both sides. Of this issue, and I just
want to balance the approach, as I mentioned, to this
development, so thank you. Thank you so much for your
deputation, Mr. White. Is there any questions? Councilor Pascalino, please.
Thank you very much. And through chair. I really appreciate
your presentation. One of the things. That I like about
it is that you've. Offered some other alternatives. I want
you to know that counselors are taking these decisions very
seriously. We are dealing with people that are looking for
a place to stay. We're trying to grow the city.
And we're also trying to make sure that taxes are
reasonable. And on the other hand. My concern is that
if we were to do something. That can't be or
would be difficult. To balance out with the infrastructure around
there. So my goal, I believe, as a city councilor,
is to make sure. That. The civil engineers do their
job to make sure that the roads. And the sewers
all work in the water pressure work, but also that
people would want to stay where they are. So I
really do appreciate. Your deputation. And I want to assure
you that we're taking. These decisions very seriously. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. All right, Ms. White, thank you so
much. You may return. Deputy Walters, please, let's. The agenda
is correspondence received from Rod Seabrook on November the 20th
requesting to appear before standing committee. I will note for
a committee that we did receive a petition from Mr.
Seabrook this evening. It is a signed petition and appears
to be in accordance with the city's position's policy, but
again, it was just provided to us, just. Before the
meeting. Thank you. Welcome Mr. Steve Brooke. Thank you for
coming forward again. You'll have ten minutes. And I'll give
you a heads up when there's a minute left. Okay?
Sure. Thank you very much. Just point out I do
have some slides that accompany the presentation. That is not
the first slide. Though. No. I think you have an
old version of the. Yeah, you have an old version.
Gordon. There should be six slides in total. The first
one is an aerial overview.
No. Anyway. I'll try and work with this. If you
could scroll down further, please, towards the bottom. That's it.
Okay. That one there. And that's it. Right. Okay. Thank
you. My. Name is Rod Seabrook. I have lived on
Sequoia Drive for the past 42 years. I'm here speaking
on behalf of residents opposed to the proposed sale and
development of city owned land at John street and Junott
Avenue. What realty services is describing as 300 Tokyo street,
residents are shocked, angered and feeling betrayed by the city
that our neighborhood is under consideration for a massive 400
unit. Apartment complex development. The property has been described by
realty services as surplus land. This diminishes. The perceived value
of the land. On the contrary, the forest has been
that has been growing there. For the past 50 years
has significant value. Our neighborhood is a mix of low
and middle income families, many of who live in social
housing. Units, which has added greatly to the population density
of the area. There is also. A significant component of
single parent and indigenous families housing. Housing consists of single
family homes and duplexes a small apartment building, and more
recently, seven new sixplexes and a triplex on Junet Avenue,
a 58 unit, new 58 unit transitional housing project for
indigenous youth is. Nearing completion next to the EMS building.
Our neighborhood has done more than its fair share to
accommodate. Development over the past 40 years. All at the
incremental loss of our forested and open areas. It has
been virtually all take and no give. When the new
EMS facility was being proposed for construction next to the
fire, hall at Junot and Red River Road. Residents of
Grand View protested as a result of these protests the.
Grandview neighborhood received a large, new dedicated park. Our neighborhood
got ems. And a tiny parquet. When the transitional housing
project was looking for property, our neighborhood was proposed. There
is much debate about the suitability of the area for
the project, given its well known reputation for violence and
drug dealing in certain areas. Several councilors voted against the
project for that very reason. However, the project was approved.
Again we lost open space, this time next to the
boys and girls. Club. So here we are having to
fight with the city over an ill conceived proposal and
a rushed process. The rush to get construction started is
driven by targets and deadlines set under the housing accelerator
fund program. And the associated inducement of federal government subsidies,
all to address a largely self inflicted housing crisis. The
process is not about thoughtful planning that takes into account
the specific challenges and needs of a neighborhood. It's about
cramming as many multi unit buildings into an area to
satisfy targets and arbitrary deadlines set under the Housing Accelerator
Fund program. As a result, the city is fast tracking
the development with very little time for the public to
get involved or to provide comments. Had I not distributed
information? Flyers gone door to door informing residents what was
being proposed and listening to their concerns. Virtually no one
in our neighborhood would have been aware of what was
happening or have had their say. 100% of the people
that I spoke to directly. Who signed a petition stating
their opposition to the proposal to sell and develop the
land for a 400 unit apartment complex. In a matter
of just a few days. The petition has received 90
signatures. I'd like to say too clearly, there is a
disconnect between realty services survey results and what I heard
from talking face to face with nearly 100 people in
our neighborhood. 100% opposed. Multiple negative impacts will result with
no offsetting, mitigating measures or improvements being offered. A 400
unit, six story complex is completely out of scale and
character with our neighborhood. The project will completely dominate the
area. There will be a total loss of the natural
forest. This contradicts the city's commitments to protect and enhance
the urban forest and to help address the climate crisis.
The soil in the area is comprised of 10ft of
muscade, completely unsuitable for supporting such large buildings. Because of
the musk egg. Soils the yard zone. Pickton Avenue, next
to the. Proposed development have sunk over 2ft since the
homes were built about 50 years ago. The site is
also currently well below the level of the public sidewalk
along Junott Avenue, requiring large amounts of fill to raise
the grade. This will place the homes on Pickton Avenue.
Several feet below the level of the likely final grade
of the apartment buildings. Where will the runoff from the
apartment development end up? The proposed 400 unit development is
more than three times the size of the new development
of 120. Units located at the corner of Junet Avenue
and Riviera Drive. That development is situated on virtually the
same size property. But it is in an existing low
density area. By comparison, our neighborhood is already high density
and cannot absorb a 400 unit apartment complex. The proposed
department buildings have very little setback from the public sidewalks.
The Junot Riviera development, however, by comparison, has a much
larger setback from the sidewalk probably 60ft and the road.
It also has pave parking areas in front of and
at the site of the buildings. In addition to underground
parking, the artist's rendition of the John Juna development. Is
incomplete and that it does not show any outside parking,
only a treed courtyard and more trees surrounding the buildings.
Why would outside parking not be shown when clearly it
would be needed? Traffic entering and exiting the development will
increase traffic volume substantially. On already busy John street and
June Knot Avenue. I had a picture of. There it
is. That's gridlock at quarter to four in the afternoon
on John Street. Development of the property is severely constrained
by there being no access permitted from the Expressway. John
street or Junott Avenue. Imagine 400 plus vehicles per day
from the apartment complex, entering and exiting through the residential
streets. Of Picton, Bleacher and Windsor. Any access utilizing Bleacher
Avenue will result in the loss of picked in Parquet.
Picked an avenue currently does not even have sidewalks. All
this new traffic, including during construction, would put pedestrians at
risk. The portion of the development running parallel to Juna
Avenue has been shoehorned into a very narrow strip of
land. And I draw your attention to that long, narrow
building along June Avenue. The homes along Picken Avenue will
lose virtually all of their direct sunlight. These massive concrete
buildings will reflect already high levels of traffic noise back
into nearby properties and privacy will be lost for homes
that ever over top by them. In conclusion, developers don't
create green space. So it falls to the city to
ensure that important green spaces, such as the property in
question are valued and protect. Protected and that the voices
and opinions of its residents are heard and respected. Once
the property is sold, developed and paved over. There is
no returning it to a natural state. A few scattered
trees and Zimbabwe bushes planted under the city site control
requirements can never substitute. For the area of natural forests
that already exists on the property, nor can it mitigate
the negative impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding
neighborhood or replace the intrinsic value of the property. That
it currently holds for residents. Don't be swayed by the
lure of a few federal dollars of subsidy if missing
the arbitrary target set under. The housing fund program means
foregoing the remaining money in the funds. So be it.
It is. A small price to pay to avoid making
a very bad decision. Our neighborhood recommendation is that city
council not approved this proposal, but instead. Have the property
remain as permanent green space for current and future generations.
If council chooses to declare the John Juna property as
surplus and it is subsequently sold and developed, there will
be nothing left to take from us, you will have
finally taken it all. That's it. You're done. Okay. Thank
you for Mr. Seabirk, for your. Deputation. Is there any
questions? Councilor Agarwal, please. Thank you very much.
Chair through you. Mr. Seabrook, thank you very much for.
Your personal dedication of trying to get more information from
your neighborhood. So you personally went out and knocked on.
I did. I was fortunate enough to receive a mail
because I'm with. In the mandatory mailing distance for notices.
I got a notice in the mail. That was the
first inquiry I had as I better start paying attention.
So I started following it, and then when I saw
what was being proposed, I took action. And I felt.
The best form of action was to get out and
talk to people directly, face to face, and. here to
explain to them what was being proposed here the concerns
hear their ideas Their wants and needs. That's what I
did. Thank you. Through you when you went through. Did
any one of the people in the neighborhood say. Instead
of six stories, instead of 400 units, maybe 100 units,
maybe something smaller. With the Natasha. I understand. You mentioned
that everything's been taken. With an attached green space area.
So it's not that whole parcel that's green. But maybe
a nice parquet or something. Did anybody mention some sort
of combination of that sort? The absolute. Common comment was
protection of the green space. There was comment. About. Would
be built be affordable housing. And some said they doubted
that. Any of it would be for low income families,
for example. But I will say that the reference to
affordable housing was made, but. The predominant comment was that
little bit of green space. They're going to take the
little bit of green space that we have, this little
bit of area. That remains in our neighborhood. And they
just said, that's terrible. It is absolutely terrible. And my
third question chair is. Quite an important one. Is your
soil conditions. Stickton Avenue has sunk 2ft. Yes. And that
area is all musk egg. It is? I can tell
you exactly how I know when we move to our
house on Sequoia. In the 80s. A couple of years
later, I think an excavator showed up on that strip
of land that I had shown that runs along Junot,
right? And they were digging. I assume they were digging
to see what soil conditions is like there, so. After
the work was done, they had left the excavation open.
I went over and had a look. And I was
quite surprised. Not completely shocked, but it's 10ft of muskeg
over blue clay, so clearly. This is old Lake bottom.
That overtime has succeeded to a swamp over thousands of
years and. The result is 10ft of musket. So, yes,
in terms of the houses on Picton, some of the
people's steps are this high. They're in the front yard.
This high off the ground. That's how far that property
is sunk. And these are small. Modest homes, not massive
apartment buildings. Thank you. Thank you. Your worship, please. Thank
you, speaker. As a presenter seem to know a little
bit about. The carrying capacity. Of the terrain.
And the muskeg. Do you think that. Site. Can. Hold.
Smaller. Or. Smaller design capacity. Well, my experience in engine,
I'm not an engineer, but I worked in the forest
industry for over 40 years, and my experience with that
type of soil is around logging. And roadbuilding. And so,
with respect to a login operation, you wait till wintertime,
till the ground is frozen till you move into it.
Otherwise your machinery is just going to sink in terms
of road. Building. You put corridorites through the area, floated.
Floater road over top. But it's very temporary, right? That
is not how you build. Buildings. I would defer to
the engineers over that, but I believe that the engineers
should be fully aware before. Anything is decided in terms
of any kind of proposal at that site. Soil test
should need to be done because. That location would be
a real challenge to build on. You mentioned that punk
picture has sunk 2ft. Yes. Is that the stretch of
the roadway? And over what time frame would have occurred.
Yeah. So my measure is of it is, are the
front steps on the homes on Pickton Avenue. Now some
people have since brought in fill they've put in new
stairs, but. There are still some homes that still have
the original front stairs on them, and. There is one.
Without. Exaggerating. Two and a half feet. The bottom of
the stairs. Two and a half feet. Above the grade
at the front of the house. Is there any number
of acceptable units for a building such as this based
on the new designs? And they don't look institutional anymore.
Well, I don't want to be the one to speak
on behalf of the residents. My recommendation would be to
come and talk to us. If you think that that
site may be suitable for some form of housing. We're
sending you a very clear message that what is being
portrayed here is absolutely not suitable. But if you think
that you might have. Something of interest to offer to
the residents. I would say come and talk to us
face to face. Not the way it's been done. Clearly
the way it was done does not engage. Demographic that
lives in our neighborhood. Thank you. Councilor treaty, please. Thank
you to the chair. And thank you for presenting again
today. i really want to focus on that balance piece
and i hear you very clearly just as i hear
rundell talking about that privacy concern wanting to keep that
tree line in and i'll be asking administration a question
if it's doable but from your perspective if they manage
to keep An area of natural forest between this building,
potential building, and the properties on Pickton, much like a
rundle in order to keep that privacy piece, in order
to keep the shade piece that the neighbors are used
to. Do you think that that would like if we
ask administration if we can keep 10ft for. And I
know we're getting a little bit. Into site plan control,
which is another question I'll ask later. Administration. But if
we ask them to keep about a 10ft buffer between
the properties and the new surplus land in which they
can use for the drainage piece that we are concerned
about. The ground sinking and then to keep that natural
tree line for the privacy. Do you think that the
neighbors would be quite comfortable with that. I don't believe
they would be comfortable at all. These are 60 foot
high buildings. That, as I had mentioned in my presentation,
Is being shoehorned into a narrow strip of land with
virtually no setback. Those houses would be completely overtopped by
the buildings. If you take a look or if you
happen. To drive by and have a look. The popular
trees are about 60ft tall. That's how tall those buildings
will be. The people who live on Picton in these
very modest homes. Will lose their sunlight completely. So we
want it to be smaller than the poplar trees that
are 60ft, is what you're telling. Well, when we talk
about. Well, I guess what I'm saying is. That to
try and wedge any sort of development along that narrow
strip there with no setback. Is not right. Thank you.
Thank you for that. I'll ask administration about the setback.
Piece. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. All right. Thank you
so much, Mr. Sheberk. You may return. Clerk Walters please.
That same on the agenda is correspondence received from Catherine
Corton on November the 20th requesting to appear before standing
committee. Welcome, Ms. Courtney. And again, you'll have ten minutes
when you're ready. And I'll let you know if you
hit nine minutes. When you have a minute left. All
right. Can you hear me? Thank you. Thank you, members
of committee and Mr. Mayor and administration, my name is
Catherine Cortin. I live on Conley street near Toledo and
around those streets. As many residents of this area and
of all other areas near green spaces in Sunder Bay.
I chose to live there for the very reason that
it is near green spaces. Therefore I was not contributing
to urban sprout. I'm here today to express my disappoint.
Disappointment, my sadness and my anger. How is it even
possible that our city planners and city council want to
designate green space? Spaces surplus. Do you realize what green
spaces do for our city and its people? Previous presenters
have said it, but I'll say it again. Green spaces
are key to attract people. To live in some areas
rather than others. They're key to quality of life, mental
and physical health. And they're also key to sustainability. I'm
not here to speak. Only about 791 around the street
or the other three. Properties which you want to declare
surplus. But to speak about all green spaces in our
city that may become targeted in the future. Not only
sad and angry, I'm also feeling confused about the city's
commitment. To sustainability. Many years ago, I was part of
the earthwise process, and I was led to believe that
our city cares and is committed to sustainability. So today
I'm wondering, was the Earthwise project just a shoe of
public consultation? With no heart, no impact. In city planners
decisions. Because if you do care about sustainability, Sorry, sustainability
and quality of life. Then how can you even dream
of destroying any green spaces which. Are vital to our
future as a city. In the words of Dr. Di
Mateo, who. Was mentioned earlier. Who was interviewed by TbT
News last month. I'm wondering if you are hypocrites. His
words, and I hope you're. Much more than that. But
here's a quote from the interview. There is a certain
amount of hypocrisy where city counselors argue. How important fighting
climate change is. And then when push comes to shove,
they find a piece of green space. Because it's convenient
and go after the short term funding from governments. End
of quote. I hope this is not the kind of
people that you truly are, but I'd like to know
what are the reasons why you would choose to destroy
green spaces rather. Than to focus. On existing urban areas.
Because, as stated by Dr. Di Mateo, prioritizing urban areas
should be a number one priority. When it comes to
building. Not only because Danton areas must be revitalized, but
also because there are absolutely no reasons to destroy green
spaces which are vital and precious to all of us.
so maybe you could tell us why this is not
the case There are plenty of urban areas in our
city which could be used and are already properly zoned
where. Services and amenities already exist. Seems to me that
will make financial sense. Here are a few examples that
I've heard of. The former Paul six land. It's a
land that is underused waterfront parcel. It's mostly city owned
and has been identified for redevelopment. Its location near Danton
and the waterfront makes it attractive for large residential development
like the ones you proposed today. Without the same scale
of impact on local residents. Simpson street has also been
an area in great need of revitalization for many years.
And also has the advantages of existing services and amenities.
I'm pretty sure there are more in the city, more
areas that qualify. That are just empty spaces already. With
Ezvalt no loss of green spaces. So can you please
consider the two properties I just mentioned, as well as
other urban areas which would not imply destroying green spaces.
And if not, can you tell us why? But here's
my main worry and my main concern. The four proposals.
With which were faced today revealed a trend. And a
very unhealthy one, in my opinion. All of us who
feel that green spaces are essential. We need to know.
Where and when will you city planners. Ever stop even
thinking about cutting down viral green spaces? When and where
will you stop this trend? And if you continue with
this trend, How much more vital green spaces do you
plan on selling? Do you plan on? These 600 units,
for example. As only being the beginning. Because. We know
that the lph. Forest are right next door to the
one that you are proposing, right? So, talking about the
former LPH land. We, the people, would like to see
it used wisely in ways that will preserve its beauty.
Its diversity and its wilderness and its usefulness, because we
know it's widely used by hundreds of people and animals.
There's plenty of space there to build. Without destroying green
spaces. And I know this property belongs to the province.
But I believe that one of the tasks of city
council is to protect its people. From unwanted demands coming
from upper levels of government. So I ask you today,
are you willing to show your allegiance to us? The
people and to protect our green spaces. Even if the
provincial government decides to destroy our precious forests. I'm asking.
This of you send the province who owns most of
this land and was planning for its future. A very
clear message. Our green spaces are not for sale because
they matter. Green spaces are not a luxury. They are
human need. If you have a copy of my deputation,
you could see that my questions are highlighted. If you
don't answer them today, please answer them later, maybe through
email. I trust that. You are not hypocrites. And you
will find solutions. There are always solutions to every problems.
I'm not against growth, and I'm not against. Change. I
know you have deadlines to meet in order to receive
the fundings. I know new housing is needed, but as
one of the people who pay your salary, I urge
you to hear the call. Full of hope. From the
men and women who live in this city. And this
call is very clear. Stop allowing the destruction of green
spaces in our city and. With your heart. Please envision
the future in which. You wish your grandchildren to live?
Thank you for listening to me today. Thank you for
making decisions which will affect the future in the most
positive and humane way possible. I know this is a
long shot, but I'm trying to appeal to your conscience
and. In the name of God, I urge you to
use your powers to better the life of your people
and the needs of a sustainable future. Thank you so
much for your deputation. Is there any questions? Seeing none.
You may return. Thank you so much. Kirk Walters, please.
Yes, I'm on the agenda. There was a written deputation
received from Brittany Houston. On November the 25th for information.
Next, please. Final deputation of the evening is correspondence received
from David Tremonte on November the 27th, and this item
was distributed separately on November the 20 eigth.
Good evening. And when you're ready, you'll have ten minutes.
Thank you, councilor mayor. There. I do have a petition
for the Fanshaw location there properly located at 144. The
majority is to not declare the property as surplus property.
I'll leave it there and stuff like that. I don't
feel the need to. Reiterate or regurgitate what all my
citizens there said. We are in fascia in the Northwood
area. Pretty much par for the course with that. We
all want a house for everyone's head there. But I
just don't think the majority are the size of the
complex that we're deciding upon which again. Is all based
on speculation. There. But. We don't think that the most
concern is the traffic and the sewage drainage for that.
Area. And. Until. More tests. Or. Research is done because
I believe that we had some issues. When the fans
condos went first. Back in 510 years ago, whenever. That's
about it. Okay. Thank you so much. Is there any
questions? Okay. See none. Thank you, Mr. Jamanti. You may
return. Clerk Walters, please. So, chair, we do have to
put the report itself on the floor, do you? Want
me to read what it is? Please. Okay, so the
report is with respect to report 384. 2025. We request
endorsement of the standing committee to forward with the following
recommendations to city council that the city. 's interest in
the Vainton property known as 144 Fanshaw street, along with
300 Tokyo. Street 211 to 223 Tupper street and 224
Campbell on Street 791 Arundel Street. Surplus as the city's
requirements pursuant to policies and be designated as an area
I've cite plan control that is now on the floor.
I do need the mover and a seconder. Okay. Councilor
trini, councilor Agua, please. Speakers. Any questions? Administration. May I
ask if we can separate all the properties? Or instead
of having them as one bulk vote on them separately,
please, if we could. Okay, we can do that. Questions.
Administration. Councilor treaty, I think you had. Yes. Thank you.
Thank you. Through the chair. administration we're hearing a lot
of concerns of course about traffic and drainage And water
pressure and environmental concerns. We have a good audience here
tonight. And we know the terminology, site plan control, but
that doesn't necessarily mean our citizens know. What that means.
Would someone mind elaborating on what site plan control means?
Because. It doesn't really define what that is. And I
think some of the people in our audience today think
that they needed to speak up to say we needed
to do some of these. Testing and those pieces. Be
pleased to. So, site plan control. Is essentially. An agreement
results in agreement between the city and a developer that
outslines how a development. Will appear and function. Essentially. The
actual development proposal is attached an agreement. And decided that.
This is the development that ultimately will result. So the
site plan control agreement details things like drainage works access.
Traffic circulation. And often requires supporting studies to ensure that
the development will not have. An impact on. Infrastructure and
amenities that cannot be mitigated. Thank you for that. So
my second question with regards to a bit of. I
think it's under site plan control, truthfully, but we've also
heard tonight, and I'm going to talk in general. Because
three of the properties have been really discussed this evening
about privacy and noise buffers. Three properties already have tree
lines there. Is there any potential for the city declaring
some of the property from the back of the properties?
Of the adjacent houses to a certain line to be
able to help with that privacy. Drainage. Keeping the trees
there is what I'm asking. Is there any possible way
that we could. Do that. In what's being available. This
process. Resist. And that feedback was sought throughout the process,
and we very much appreciate all the people that have
come to present tonight and have submitted. Their thoughts and
comments to the city in different forms. These comments are
absolutely are being taken back and will be taken back
to discuss with the developers. Should counsel declare these lions
surplus and we will be looking to address these concerns
through the development. Of the eventual site plan. So the
site plan. The concepts that are being, that we have
been speaking about are just that. They are concepts. That
express the interests of a development developer. To construct to
a scale. So the staff will be reviewing these comments
with the developers and intend to come back. With a
more refined development that takes these comments. Into account. So
the trail is a good example. Certainly. There's opportunity to
realign the trail and to provide. A buffer, given that
the property is of such size and that will be
discussed with developer. Thank you. That's for that one. But
the other two also have tree lines, so I'm. Hoping
we'll be able to do the same. And then my
final and third question. I appreciate the people in our
audience today in our gallery and their concerns with these.
And again, we've heard from the three sites. Not the
fourth today, but we also have some background. On the
fourth. A lot of the people in these areas feel
like they're being picked on that the city is only
looking at those areas. And I just want to confirm,
because I've seen lists. We are looking at other areas
and other lands in the city for surplus. It's not
just these four areas. This is a continuous, ongoing review.
It's not one and done. And I just want to
confirm that, please. Ask manager Walker to respond. Through the
chair. That is correct. We have for us since 2023,
but undergoing an exercise to identify city owned lands for
housing and we brought various reports before council to that
effect, including the extent of lands we've looked at. We
also review our land holdings on an annual basis to
determine additional lands that are no longer required for active
municipal use or things that might be. Suitable to look
at surplusing for housing. City manager, please? Sure. If I
may. Through you. Just to supplement that, there is no
doubt that. We are still focused on intensification or densification,
whichever word you want to use. In the urban course.
That's where most of our incentive programs exist, and that's
where the priority is. However, we also need to. Take
advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. We put out
requests for development proposals, and these four developments came to
the fore. We need to pursue all options as we
go forward, not to meet. Half targets, not to get
the next half incentive. That is not our motivation at
all. Our. Motivation is to ensure. We have sufficient housing
within the city, thank you. Thank you very much for
that answer. Any further speakers Council Agarwell, please. Thank you
very much. Chair. I have a couple of questions. I
just like one major point clarification. One of the deputies
made a comment. Cody Lane in regards to. A media
release. A vote. Can you please clarify? City manager. Calling
that 10,000 per acre. These are the self sustaining for
land, 10,000 per acre revenue. For single family and $100,000
an acre for multi residential. I'm kind of confused because
an acre of land being 43,000 sqft. Would generate more
than. One house or two houses, which would not be
10,000. Dollars in revenue. I'm not sure. I didn't see
that news article, so I don't. Know where that commentary
came from. Chair through you. I do know that city
manager Colin did step out of the room temporarily during
the deputation. I don't have those specific numbers today, but
certainly that is something. That. I can report back to
the gross standing and confirm those numbers, but what we
can say is we know that multi residential construction has
a greater return on investment as compared to single family
residential. Homes, and I believe that that was what the
deputy was referring to. Okay? I have a concern about.
The commentary only because. The $10,000. A square per acre.
Would actually yield seven homes and seven homes in new
construction in today's world would bring about $35,000 a year
in income based on the 43,000 sqft, which is an
acre is and which would yield for the 50 x
120 lots. I just want to make sure the information
is clear. I don't know if it was said or
not because. I did not hear the. News broadcast. So
that just would like that to have that. If we
are messaging, we should be correct on our messaging. My
next question is. There has been commentary for many years
about overpasses coming over our highway, our 1117. Possibly at
red river, at john street. At. Oliver. At the major
intersections. The property in question about John Tokyo. Have we
looked at the potential of. I don't know where we
are in communications with the ministry of transportation. If an
overpass is coming there. What kind of traffic impact that
would cause if. Any. Spanish award can respond. Thank you.
Through the chair. The Ministry of Transportation is proposing John
Street Road to be a flyover in the future. When
in the future? We don't know. Of course, as that's
what the province. To decide that. But in the end,
there will not be any direct highway access from John
in the future. That being said, that's where the northwest
arterial also comes into play, and the future interchange proposed
near golflinks and Riviera as well to provide another. Connection.
That being said, The exact traffic implications to every intersection
along that corridor when that happens are not fully known
as it is a long term project and these things
will have to be monitored as well. We have had
some recent meetings with the Ministry of Transportation around these
exact topics. Given that they are advancing some of their
preliminary designs, and we've asked those same questions to get
more information around. The direct. Impacts to our intersections as
a result of their proposed works, and those conversations are
ongoing. Okay, so. This intersection where we're looking at. The
proposed 300 Tokyo is quite close to that area, so
if that is a designated overpass, The traffic will definitely
be increasing because that would no longer have access. Into
the expressway. That is a concern to me. And the
last question would be into the parks we've invested. How
long ago did we invest into that trail that paved.
And lit. On the. 791 rendell street so there's been
a substantial investment by the city Into that trail piece.
How long ago was it? And how much maintenance have
we done? Into that area. Through the chair. I don't
remember the exact date. It was around the 2015. It
was part of a grant project through Transcanada trail, so
I think we paid for half of it. And the
transgender trail paid the other half. That trail. There's not
really a magic to it being in that exact location.
It can move around in space a bit. To suit
the development and work with the developer to make sure
that that access is still maintained. Both from Toledo and
Arundo. Thank you, your worship, please. Thank you, speaker. My
questions. Will be primarily. On our comparators to other municipalities
our size, both provincially and nationally, because. We from our
marketing standpoint. I'm under the understanding that we market the
fact that we have a high percentage of zoned recreational
area. Areas as well as facilities. And that goes to.
Say? Unidentified non specified green spaces, as well as lengthy
parks and trails that people can use. So anybody from
administration want to address that issue of where we stand
in terms of. National. Comparators. For such facilities and benefits.
I'll begin to answer and ask Supervisor Schwarz to add
to this. So Thunder Bay. Absolutely. Prides itself in its
high quality of life. And it's a great service that
it provides in terms of active and passive parkland. And
active transportation networks. The Thunder bay does have a relatively
high proportion. Of open space parkland in comparison to some
other municipalities and Alaska supervisors. Schwartz Library. So the next
logical question. Is. The sign that we're familiar with. Outside
the city. has above 100,000 but Not quite. Achieving what
we believe in other circles, whether it's the dsobs or
some of these. Health units that our population. Is somewhat
over 150,000. We hear that more and more frequently from
the boards and committees. That we are on. How will
we ever get some acknowledgment about what our population is
so that these issues. Of financing. Are addressed because. This
is one of our justifications for infilling. Chair through you
to his worship. This point was brought up by several
counselors, including the mayor, during our discussions on the smart
growth action plan when it was first introduced, which led
to an additional action item being inserted into the plan
to try to. Better. Represent the real population of the
city of Thunder Bay. The how we will go about
doing that. Has yet to be determined. Again, the smart
growth action plan is the what and the why. The
how has to follow. Clearly, we have to work in
close collaboration with Statscan for that because we can put
whatever number we want up on the signs, but unless
the federal. Government agrees with that number. We're not going
to get any additional funding. So it is identified within
the smart gross action plan as one of the items
that we need to address as we move forward. Then
my third question would be. Can we meet any of
our targets with just single family units? And how much.
Money is at stake for us. Chair. I'm going to
take the first part of this because I think. It's
a very compelling point. In a good year in the
city of Thunder Bay, we have averaged between 253 hundred
units built. Per year, and that's in a good year.
Just to address the current need. Forget about growth. Just
to identify to address the current need. We need. 1100
additional units, and that number grows annually. So we will
never get there from here if we continue down the
model we have now of building 250 to 300 units
a year. We need mass construction to address the need,
not to address growth to address the need, and then
after that, we will start to work on the growth.
Thank you. Thank you. Second round, then councilor Trini. Go
ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Through the chair. And I
hope I get a little leniency. On asking this question
because I know we're talking about surplus lands, but some
of the citizens that came to the front and asked
questions about, for example, Simpson street. Why aren't, we. Building
on Simpson Street. And Growth Committee on November the 25th
talked about. A new but old. I'll call a revitalized
program that we have right now. And it's going to
be enhanced by the spring, which is bacon dilapidated buildings
program and I'm just wondering if you could. Because we
can't just go to Simpson street. And say, I want
this property, this property and this property. We don't own
the properties. We can't just start. Councilor, this is on.
Surplus. These individual properties and the developments will come forward.
At a later date fair, but they were talking about,
why aren't we building on these? Other sites. And there's
reasons why it's not just simple. And so I thought,
I would just. That's why I asked for the leniency
to say that we. Have a program coming. Thank you.
Councilor Pascalino, please. Thank you very much. And through chair.
I realize that growth has to happen in the city.
It is difficult. And ideally. We would have opportunities, and
there'd be a lineup for places on Simpson street and
the people that own the places on Simpson street would
want to. Build. Massive or in big units. My concern
as a city councilor, and this is my question to
administration. Is to make sure. That. What we're going to
do. Is actually doable, that it works, and I believe
that that isn't impossible. I think that I've looked at
other cities that have grown, and it was beneficial to
them. Milton comes to mind. Was from a small community.
There are well over 100,000 now, and that was all
in about 20 years. It's really important that. What we
do. We do is write, and that. There is. The
infrastructure to back it up. So a lot of the
concerns, not all of them, but a lot of the
concerns of the people in the audience today is they
want to make sure that when they flush the toilet,
That things work, that they have water pressure so that
they can fight fires, so that. There could be road
infrastructure and sidewalks, because I think. The other thing that
they talked about also was. Well, we're going to build
all this housing and. There's not going to be the.
Businesses close by. But it's like the chicken and the
egg. What does comes first does the houses come and
then businesses look at it as an opportunity. So I
realize that this is new. I will say that no
matter what we say tonight, Vote it anyway. It's going
to go through city council and. That will be. Their
decision, not just the people here. But what I'm asking,
administration, is that how can we make it clear? That
we can give. To the people here that are concerned
about. The logistics of this and how that. It's not
going to have to be. The worst thing that can
happen is that we go ahead and build a large
building. And then think that we're doing it on. Let's
say we do it on. A shoestring string budget and
then have to do it over again. So those are
the things that I think that people are concerned about.
I know that there are. Huge. Traffic issues on Golf
links Road. There's a lot of building going there. There's
a large box store there's. Another mall going in. There's
1200 units going in on Central Avenue. There's more on
Burwood. There's another 200 on there, and already I know
there's. Traffic issues there already. So what I'd like to
see is that. We on council and administration work together
to address it. So that you don't need a civil
engineering degree, but you can see some planning that's. Gone
into this thing. So maybe you can comment on that.
Thank you. Chair through you to the councilor, and I
am going to try to articulate. The views of administration
in a very simple manner. When a major construction project
is undertaken, and these will be major construction projects, it's
not as simple as we want to build. Buy the
land, and we're going to build it. There are all
sorts of checks and balances in place, be it traffic
studies, water studies, wastewater studies that occur as part of
the normal development process. Before permits would ever be issued,
there's. Also our site plan control system that we have
in place, and we've identified that. All four of these
would be under site plan. Control to address other issues,
such as access. Beautification, setbacks, et cetera. So all of.
Those things will happen behind the scenes. And. Approvals are
required from council, they will come forward to council. The
process we use for major construction is extremely robust, and
I would hazard to say that almost all of the
questions, in fact, I think all of the questions that
were asked by various deputies this evening. Perfectly legitimate questions.
And probably without exception, they will all be answered through
our various mechanisms, studies, reviews and permitting processes that we
have in place within the city. I'll also make a
slight diversionary comment. About smart growth. The growth plan that
is before council for approval tomorrow evening is intentionally called
a smart growth action. Plan. In it, we talk about
environmental stewardship, financial sustainability and other key aspects that will
also be pervasive in all of our processes and procedures.
So I think. Your concern chair through you to the
counselor. Is a legitimate one to express. I believe the
checks and balances are in place to address it. Thank
you. Second. That was five minutes. You can go on
a second. Round. Councilor Aguilar, please. thank you I have
a couple of questions here. Two of the lots in
particular. One on Tokyo and one on Fanshaw or musk
ache. The proposed developments that are in front of us.
Say six stories. Six stories. Would require pile foundation. And
I know that because 145 Fanshaw was a development that
I was involved in 1992. The pile foundation will require
the heavy power length to be pounded in which. Will
then shock the foundational areas of the neighboring housing. The
last two buildings that were built at 147 149. Fanshaw
did not have pile foundation and did not go to
six stories just for the reasons of piles. Have we
taken that into consideration or the proponents that come to
you taking that into consideration? Because the effect of pile
pounding through that Musc ache for holding the building. Might.
How that would. Interact with their houses and their foundations.
Yes. So through the chair, as noted here, we're at
the. Fairly early stage where we're considering whether this land
may be available for housing. Any future development of the
property would be properly designed and engineered in such a
way that. The foundation is suitable for the soils. So.
Where pile foundations are required. And they very well would.
Maybe in this case. And that foundation is engineered and
reviewed by our team. And there are instances where vibration
monitoring is. Thank you, chair. On that. My concern is
that when we brought these parcels that come forward and
the demonstrations that we have on the land. Show us.
Six story, heavy density. Right. This should be a forefront
condition. To be looked at in advance prior to bringing
it to the public so they know. What kind of
challenges they may or may not be. The next question
do I have. Through you, chair is the city. Do
we, as a city, have what controls other than site
plan? Control. Do we have in the way of controls
or guidelines to mitigate the community that has brought forward
their concerns. How do we mitigate them? Is it only
site plan control? That. They'll have or is there? Any
other guideline. Guidelines in place to allow for what they
brought forward to us today. Well, there are many guidelines
and strategies that guide development, including the urban design guidelines.
In this instance. The administration will be taking. The feedback
away and having discussions with the developer to have a
preliminary discussion about. How the developer receives. The input that's
been provided to this point. And me. Be willing to
adjust the development. To assist with the neighborhood concerns. My
third question, then, based on that response, Chair. We're looking
at selling these lands to increase development, increase income growth
for our community. We have heard that this really high
extra density is a concern to all these neighborhoods. The
only one we did not have a concern with was
the downtown infill core on camel. So the value of
the land. The value of income to our city. If
we reduce the density, will it be feasible? Will it?
Have the same return. And would it have the same
necessity to make these lots surplus? Through the chair. The
goal of administration. Is, should counsel declare these land surplus
to work with a developer to refine a suitable development?
Proposal for the lands. It may be the case that
the development needs to be reduced due to what the
land can sustain and what is appropriate for the neighborhood.
And that very well may. Affect. Values, including assessment values.
However, It is an appropriate use of land. Good use
of existing infrastructure and amenities. Are all important factors which.
The city. Administration wishes. To find a good fit. Yeah,
you're allowed more. Three. But that was five minutes. Okay.
Thank you. Clerk Walters, can we put to first? Councilor
Pascalino's second round. Thank you very much. And through the
chair. My question. Is, how does our city rate compare
to other cities? In Ontario, maybe even northern Ontario with
the green space. I know that a lot of people.
Were talking about. They're going to lose their green space.
By their location. How are we for parks and for
trails and all of that? So through the chair. We
have participated in benchmarking studies in the past, and there
are two metrics for Parkland. So the one is total
amount of Parkland. And that we score quite high. In
probably the top ten percentile, but that includes all of
our undeveloped parkland. So things like Centennial Park, Trowgridge, whole
Bogart Lake complex that somewhat skews that. And that it
really increases. Our total amount of parkland per person. The
second metric is on developed parkland and developed Parkland. We're
about average. Now further to that response. One of the
aspects that administration did consider when identifying lands that could
potentially be declared surplus news. For housing was to review
the amenity spaces that are nearby. That and the availability
of infrastructure support the development. Just last
point, and as what I brought up earlier, Typically what.
Happens. Like I was talking about the businesses versus. The
residents. Which one comes first? And is there any comment
on that? Like. Is this a good way to put
up the buildings and the residents and then to have.
The businesses come next. Chair through you. I'll begin. What
studies have shown is that businesses establish themselves where there's
a need. If you have a greater population inherently, you
will have additional businesses that establish themselves. Exactly which businesses
would establish themselves at these. In proximity to these locations,
we can't predict. At this point, but when you get
increased population, there's increased demand for services, and that increases
businesses. We have heard anecdotally. That a number of businesses
are supportive of these initiatives because it will bring more
population into the area around where their business is established.
And I don't. Know. I think that addresses it. Subject
to follow on by the councilor. Thank you. Thank you.
Second round. Your worship. Mayor Poshka, thanks again. We have
been recognized by the provincial and federal governments and granted.
Millions of dollars. By meeting targets. What impact would that
have? On our ability to continue funding. If we decide
not to keep building. And say. We don't want any
more population or we don't want better housing for people.
Chair through you to his worship. Two parts to that
answer. First of all, to be clear, The motivation behind.
Asking council to declare these properties surplus is to address
the housing need, not simply to go chasing money. That
said. The federal and provincial incentives through the Housing Accelerator
Fund and the building faster fund. Help in that it
provides us with funding to provide incentives to build more.
So if we continue to meet our targets, we get
all of those incentives and we take that. Money and
we roll it over into additional incentives to build even
more housing. But at the end, of the day. Our
primary objective is not to get money. Our primary objective
is to build housing. If we achieve targets, we get
more money. The second part of that is that some
people have said that that money will always be there.
Through the other orders of government, provincially and federally. But
over my time. I have seen ebbs and flows. So
is there any urgency that. We ensure that we are
on these lists. With the funding caps, that type of
thing. Chair through you to his worship. I'll give a
very short answer. The funding wasn't. There two years ago,
before half started. So this notion that it will always
be there, regardless. Of whether we achieve targets. I do
not believe that would be a valid assertion. Thank you.
Thank you. Just on first round for myself. I just
want to let everyone know that this will come to
council in January. No matter. Whether it's endorsed by this
committee or not. So that's the process, Mr. Clerk. Am
I correct? Yes. And then Fanshaw and Arundel. If pastor
council would require. Zoning changes. So there's been opportunity, there
would be a public opportunity for more engagement. And conversation
from the community. So just quickly. I'll let you know
my thoughts. On tokyo street. I'm going to vote in
favor of that one. I don't have a problem. With
that one. I'm going to vote in favor of Tupper
and Camelot street. I'm going to vote in favor of
Fanshaw. I'm not going to vote. In favor of rundle.
Fundamentally, I think it's too large of a development for
that. Property. But having said that, it still will come
to council. And then if it passes there, it'll. Have
to go through a zoning. Process as well, which I
don't believe I would support either, based on the fact
that I think. That development is too large. 600 units
on that area. That's my thoughts. And so I remind
councilors and your worship that there was only. Three rounds.
Everyone's had two rounds except myself. It was one. And
so if you want. To speak to all four properties
like I just have. You only have one round left
of five. Minutes, so I just don't want you. Getting
missing out here. So, Mr. Clerk, can we put the
first property. On the. It should be a third round.
Third round. Councilor Janey. Thank you. Through the chair. It's
very interesting. On your rationale, and I know we're not
supposed to debate. So tonight is about declaring the land
surplus, but not about the density. Of that land. So
for my decision tonight, I will be voting on declaring
at surplus. But I don't. Agree with 600 properties on
a rundle. I just want to make that clear. I
don't necessarily agree with what's been designated as well on
Juneaut. And I'll use Junot instead of Tokyo. I don't
know where Tokyo came. From. I'm not 100% sold on
Fanshaw. I am on the downtown core, but those other
three properties. I'm not really sold. On the densification of
them. And so, for that reason, I will be voting
yes to surplus. But I will be very clear on
that densification piece. I'd like to see more consistency in
the neighborhood. I know people talked about. The seniors home
across the street. I know there's lots to talk about.
Five stories there's. Lots to talk about. Tree heights on
multiple properties. And so I'd like to see the densification
smaller. Recognizing from administration that we do have some targets
to meet, but also recognizing that we're also looking at
other properties. So for myself, I'm not going to vote
no because of what's been predicted as a size. Because.
I will be very strong that I don't agree with
those sizes. Thank you for that. Mr clerk. The first
property is Fanchai, I believe. Yes, correct, chair. So the
first property is municipally. Known as 144 Fanshaw street, to
be declared surplus to the city's requirements and designated as
an area of site pond control. Okay. All those in
favor? Opposed. Penny, that's carried. Next to property. The second
property is in municipal known as 300 Tokyo street. Once
again, it would be to be declared as surplus and
designated as an area of site fund control. Councilor Aguwal.
Third round. Yes. Thank you very much, judge. Here. Chair.
I have a big concern about this property, and the
concern is not development. The concern is the Ministry of
Transportation. The Ministry of Transportation. Flyover or overpass, whatever it's
called, is unknown at this time. It's been designated to
be there. We don't know, and we cannot predict what
the traffic will. Be to call this land surplus today
will be a very big concern because. If the ministry
has to expropriate or we have to do alternate. Traffic
monitoring in that area. I think it's best that we
have better and more concrete. Answers from the Ministry of
Transportation prior to declaring this property surplus. The land will
be there once we know what's going on, then we
should make that surplus at that point or a portion
of it if we need to have more turning lanes
or if we need to. Use that land to widen
the streets or make extra property for our own traffic
flow in that area. That for me is a concern
for that lot. The lot. On. Since this is my
last round of conversation, The lot on Camelot. I love
that intensification. I love the program and the plan. That's
come forward. And for current river. We need single family
homes. We need little wartime homes. We need affordable homes.
We haven't built or designated. Large parcels of land for
single families. We heard from the young fellow. He wants
to buy a home. He's not buying an apartment or
moving an apartment. We have lots of apartments coming up.
That area is surrounded by single family homes. One of
the other ladies that I think was the second lady
that spoke, who had all the data. She mentioned. A
very mixed use. Lower intensification. Keeping the trails. Make that
connectivity. For me. I'm in favor of lower density blend
of mix of single family. Yeah, it doesn't bring as
many taxes, but it gives the quality of life that
Thunder Bay has. Been known for. Thunder Bay is a
single family residential home where you can move here and
buy a home that you can call your own. You
want to move to Toronto and live in an apartment,
you can afford to do that there. Because our rental
apartment costs are about the same as the Toronto apartment
costs right now. We need more apartments. But with the
apartments, there is no more rent control. Anything built after
2018. Does not have a rent control. So new apartment
development for intensification for affordable housing. It's not there, we
have no guarantee. Because new construction does not allow. Rental
caps like they did prior to the 2018 construction. My
concern is removing ourselves. From the strategy of what Thunder
Bay has been known for. Single family homes, a home
to call your own and make it that we need
the blend we need some apartments. And one of the
deputies did speak about freeing up a home, having seniors
move out of their home into an apartment. That's important
too. We need homes for the youth, but the 25.
Year old gentleman that was here. We don't have them.
Departments, aren't it? So I will vote in favor. For
Camelot. I will not support Tokyo because I'm concerned that
we don't. Know enough about Ministry of Transportation. And I
will vote in favor of Arundel only. With because. It's
got a rezoning that we will limit the number of
housing units on. That property. And Fanshaw we voted for
already. Thank you. Thank you. We have to do the
07:00 resolution, please. So just committee just at the hour
being 07:00 p.m. at the standard. Committee continue with the
business. At this hour? We'd have mover in a seconder.
Your worship, the calcier Trini. All those in favor? Both
defending that's carried your. Worship. The third and final round.
Chair through you. I would ask manager Ward to just
clarify or amplify the comments he made on the flyover
for highway 1117 because I believe it is germane to
the discussion. Manager Ward. Thank you. And through the chair.
So the Ministry of Transportation has completed their preliminary designs
for the various. Intersections in the city and at the
John intersection, they have also identified what lands they need
for their future flyover, and that's been taken into account
for these parcels as well, so. Does these lands that
picked in Tokyo. Are not significantly impacted by the future
land needs. Notwithstanding the traffic impacts the lands have been
taken into account already. Okay. Thank you for that clarification,
your worship. Third found around. Yes. We'll be voting in
support of all of these to get. Them moving. So
that we can keep up with the pace. With the
further understanding that we are under competition for these tens
of millions of dollars. And that I have absolute faith
in the planning department. They have heard the concerns of
those who. Have objections or are worried about certain things.
That they will be addressed. And I will certainly be
available to make sure they're followed up on. So I
would offer that. As we come to a decision. Thank
you, chair. Thank you, worship. Pasquino council Pascalino. Thank you
very much. And through the chair, I am going to
be voting in favor on all of these sites for
much the same reason as marriage has stated, but I
want to make it clear. There are a lot of
things that can prevent these things from going forward, whether.
It's not worth it to upgrade the sewers. But even
like I had an email. Today. There was an owl
in a tree. They're going to do wildlife studies. These
things are going to happen. They have to do the
wild. Wildlife studies. They have to make sure that. There
aren't certain trees that are growing on these properties. So
I'm just here to make this thing go to the
next step. Where it goes from there. It really depends
on. The civil engineers and all the agencies doing their
work, and I'm trusting them to do their work. And
I'm counting on everybody to question the work that they're
doing. If there are any doubts. But this is just
one step in a long journey, and it is a
step. To work. At trying to get more housing and
more buildings in the city and more growth in the
city. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clerk, please. All right,
we'll resume the voting a little unorthodox. Here. We'll continue
on. The next property is municipally known as 300. Tokyo
street be declared surplus to the seed requirements and be
designated as an area of site fund. Control all those.
In favor, please. Defend. That's carried. Next property, please. Next
property is municipally known as 211 to 223. Tupper street
and 224 Tamil street once again to be declared surplus
and designated as an area of Saipon control. All those
in favor? Opposed to any that's carried. Next property, please.
And the last property is municipally known as 791 Arundel
street. Be declared surplus to the Caesar requirements and be
designated as an area of site plan control. All those
in favor? Opposed? If any, that's carried. Next item, please.
Seeing no further items, a motion to adjourn. Councilor Pascalino.
Councilor aguilar. All those in favor? Opposed? Venny, just to
let everyone know, These will be coming to council in
January again, so it's another opportunity to speak to all.
I'm not speak but to contact all counselors. If you
wish so. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming
forward tonight.