[0:13] Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the gross standing
[0:16] committee meeting to order, please. Clerk Walters. First I'm on
[0:26] the agenda is a land acknowledgement from council or treaty.
[0:29] Council. Trinity, please, if everyone could please stand. We acknowledge
[0:34] that we have the privilege to work on the traditional
[0:36] lands of the Nonishnabi. Peoples of Fort Williams, First Nation
[0:40] signatory to the Robinson Superior Treaty of 1850. This land
[0:48] has been a place of gathering, learning and sustenance for
[0:51] indigenous people since time. Immemorial, we recognize the enduring presence
[0:56] and deep traditional knowledge of first nations, Inuit and mates,
[1:00] people and the ways they have shaped and continued to
[1:03] shape our community. We acknowledge the effects of colonization, including
[1:07] displacement, loss of culture, and intergenerational trauma, and we commit
[1:12] ourselves to reconciliation through respectful relationships, truth telling and shared
[1:18] action for a better future. Please take a moment to
[1:21] pause and reflect.
[1:40] Thank you. Good evening, folks. Just a couple of things
[1:42] I'll run through to start off. With. Just to let
[1:44] everyone know, the decision today is on the surplus of
[1:47] the lands, not the actual developments. The recommending endorsement will
[1:55] come to council in January to declare a land surplus
[1:58] to enable housing developments. Decisions regarding specific development proposals will
[2:03] be addressed at a later stage through any required zoning
[2:06] amendments for example. Fanshaw and Arundel will require zoning amendments
[2:11] and that therefore will have public meetings. Where you can
[2:14] provide public input for or against the proposals. I'd like
[2:19] to remind everyone just if we cannot restate what other
[2:23] people have said. I understand. Some people might be here.
[2:25] For. The same property. And there'll be ten minutes per
[2:29] deputation. With around five minutes from council members. With three
[2:37] questions maximum. And then. So that's what it so clerk
[2:42] Walters. Are there any disclosures of interest? Seeing none. Are
[2:48] there any further announcements? See none. First I'm on the
[2:52] agenda is the confirmation of the agenda. I need a
[2:54] mover and a second Councilor Pascalino, Councilor Aguwal. All those
[2:57] in favor? Opposed to penny. That's carried. That same on
[3:02] the agenda is under reports of administration to the surplus
[3:05] declaration. Call for proposals for the four opportunity sites. Report
[3:09] 387 2025 from growth. It seeks endorsement from this standing
[3:13] committee. To declare the opportunity site surplus. For potential future
[3:18] residential development. We have open remarks this evening from Commissioner
[3:22] Marshall. Commissioner Marshall, please. Thank you chair. As stated earlier,
[3:26] this report seeks endorsement to declare four city owned sites
[3:30] as surplus for housing consistent with council's direction to identify
[3:34] lands that can support new housing supply. Additional housing. Is
[3:39] urgently needed to meet the current demand and improve affordability.
[3:43] Declaring the lens surplus is an early step. It signals
[3:46] council's intent for these sites to support future housing, but
[3:50] it does not approve the conceptual design, density, layout, or
[3:54] any specific development proposal. Two of the sites, 144 Fanshaw
[4:00] street and 791 Arundel street, will also require rezoning which
[4:05] includes a statutory public process and further opportunities for residents
[4:09] to provide input. The mayor's task force on building more
[4:13] homes has endorsed the surplus recommendation and will continue to
[4:17] be engaged in the process. If council declares the land
[4:21] surplus, administration would work with the proponents to refine the
[4:24] concepts and negotiate agreements of purchase and sale, all of
[4:28] which would return to council for further consideration and decision.
[4:32] I would now like to invite director deputor and manager
[4:35] walker to present some additional details. Go ahead, please. Thank
[4:40] you. Chair of the team is pleased to present this
[4:44] report which advances the city's efforts to improve housing supply
[4:48] and affordability. Next slide, please. As commissioner Marshalls noted, Thunder
[4:54] Bay requires more housing units and also greater housing choice
[4:57] to meet the needs of current residents and accommodate anticipated
[5:01] population growth. Thunder Bay is currently facing a shortage of
[5:05] approximately 1100 housing units. And this directly affects residents who
[5:10] are searching for appropriate housing and drives up price across
[5:13] a housing market. Currently, rent is not affordable to 50%
[5:18] of Thunder Bay rental renter households. It is important to
[5:23] double the rate of unit construction to address this issue.
[5:26] Additional large scale projects are required to achieve this. By
[5:31] advancing the conceptual developments outlined in the support, there is
[5:34] an opportunity to make a major impact. The development could
[5:38] add a significant number of units, including 700 units with
[5:41] building permits in 2026. Increasing the supply will help stabilize
[5:47] housing costs and free up existing housing inventory. Through the
[5:51] surveys, we heard general public support to develop these lands
[5:55] for housing, along with concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods. Next
[5:59] slide, please. One of the questions that is often heard
[6:03] is who will live at these developments? And the answer
[6:06] is that the homes will be available to everyone. The
[6:09] residents of the buildings may be young professionals. Young families,
[6:12] new residents to Thunder Bay, or neighbors who wish to
[6:15] stay in the neighborhood in age and place. Approximately 10%
[6:20] of the units would be affordable to mid and lower
[6:22] income households as required by CMHC financing support. I will
[6:27] invite manager Walker to walk us through the properties in
[6:29] the next steps. Next slide, please. Thank you, director. To
[6:35] pewter through the chair. A council's direction, administration undertook the
[6:40] exercise of selecting city owned vacant lands within the urban
[6:43] boundary and in existing neighborhoods suitable to support housing development.
[6:48] In June of this year, the city issued a call
[6:49] for proposals for various sites, including the four to be
[6:53] considered this evening. Certain development studies have been completed in
[6:56] all four sites have access to city. Infrastructure, including street
[6:59] frontage, piped services and amenity spaces. Next slide, please. Conceptual
[7:05] development proposals submitted through the call for proposals reviewed and
[7:08] assessed by applying the smart growth principles of track record,
[7:12] including demonstrated experience and past project quality, alignment with the
[7:15] city's housing and growth objectives of affordability, density, and sustainability
[7:20] and addressing community and neighborhood need. It. Is based on
[7:25] this assessment, administration is recommending moving forward with the next
[7:28] step of declaring the foresights of surplus for housing. Next
[7:32] slide, please. In addition to updates to this standing committee
[7:36] and the Mayor's task force on building more homes. Public
[7:39] notice of the intent to surplus the four properties was
[7:42] issued by way of letter city. Website and posted signage
[7:45] on each property. In addition, a greater level of public
[7:49] engagement was undertaken. With a survey on the city's get
[7:54] involved page and two open houses. All feedback received through
[7:58] this various methods is appreciated and will be further addressed
[8:01] in the conceptual as the conceptual developments are refined through
[8:04] negotiation, site plan control and zoning bylaw amendment stages as
[8:08] applicable. Next slide, please. 791 of Rundle street is 3.15
[8:14] vacant land north of Boulevard Lake. It is currently zoned
[8:17] community and rezoning would be required. The conceptual development is
[8:23] up to 600 units contained in three six story buildings.
[8:26] Conceptually shown here. It is noted that the density of
[8:30] this development is higher than some others discussed tonight and
[8:33] exceeds that permitted by the urban mid rise zone. Next
[8:37] slide, please. Written questions and concerns were submitted by 52
[8:41] residents, including impact on recreation and green space infrastructure capacity
[8:46] development density and potential impact on property values. Individual members
[8:53] of the mayor's task force consider the density too high
[8:55] for this site. It is anticipated that the scale of
[8:59] the development will be reduced to. A degree at the
[9:02] time of a zoning bylaw amendment application. Next slide, please.
[9:08] 49.7% of survey respondents were very supportive or supportive of
[9:13] the development proposal. 39.5 were not supportive. And 15.9% neutral
[9:21] are not sure. Next slide, please. 144 Fanshaw street is
[9:26] 1.25 vacant land across from Confederation College. It is currently
[9:31] zoned urban low rise and rezoning of to the urban
[9:34] mid rise zone will be required. The conceptual development is
[9:38] up to 200 units contained within one six story building.
[9:44] Conceptually shown here. Next slide, please. Written questions and concerns
[9:49] were submitted by 34 residents, including impact on green space
[9:53] infrastructure capacity, noise and potential impact on property values. Next
[9:58] slide, please. 58.9% of survey respondents were very supportive or
[10:06] supportive 23.3% were not supportive. And 17.8% were neutral or
[10:14] not sure. Next slide, please. 300 Tokyo street is 2.6.
[10:19] Vacant land at the corner of John street and Junette.
[10:22] Avenue south. It is zoned urban, mid rise. The conceptual
[10:26] development is up to 400 units contained. Within two six
[10:29] story buildings, conceptually shown here. Next slide, please. Written questions
[10:36] and concerns were submitted by three residents, including impact on
[10:39] green space infrastructure capacity and noise next slide, please. 60.9%
[10:47] of survey respondents were supportive or very supportive. 13.3 were
[10:53] not supportive and 25.9% neutral or not sure. Next slide,
[10:57] please. 211 to 223 Tupper street and 224 Camelot street
[11:02] is zero point 28. Vacant land in the north core
[11:06] in his own downtown neighborhood. The conceptual development is up
[11:09] to 8185 units and community spaces. Next slide, please. No
[11:18] written questions or concerns were submitted. 64.8% of survey respondents
[11:25] were very supportive or supportive, 12% were not supportive and
[11:29] 23.2%. Neutral or not? Sure. Next slide, please. Following this
[11:34] meeting, administration will proceed with its report to council in
[11:37] January. Should counsel approve the surplus recommendation? Administration would proceed
[11:44] to refine the conceptual development proposals and negotiate. Purchase agreements
[11:48] with proponents. These agreements would be conditional upon site plan
[11:53] control and rezoning where required. Once settled, administration would return
[11:57] to the Standing Committee for endorsement of the sales and
[12:00] to counsel for approval. Zoning bylaw amendment applications and detailed
[12:05] site find control agreement. Negotiation would follow. I'll now turn
[12:08] things back to director, to pewter. Thank you. Next slide,
[12:14] please. Just the final slide chair to close this report
[12:19] recommends that this committee endorsed the recommendation that council declared
[12:23] the four opportunity sites as surplus to support housing. The
[12:27] mayor's task force has endorsed the recommendation and request regular
[12:30] updates. We thank the residents. The task force, the committee,
[12:35] and this committee for their feedback throughout this process. Should
[12:38] the properties be declared surplus staff will work with the
[12:41] developers to refine the proposals to address community concerns. The
[12:46] specific development proposals will be further considered in the future.
[12:49] Steps that are outlined by manager Walker. Where required, zoning
[12:53] amendment process will address items such as scale, density and
[12:56] parking requirements. A detailed site plan would be available at
[13:00] that time, and there will be additional opportunity for public
[13:03] input and another public meeting of council for this purpose.
[13:07] The site plan control process will specify lighting, access, servicing,
[13:11] drainage, landscaping, building placement, and address traffic concerns. Technical studies
[13:16] such as traffic and servicing studies will be completed to
[13:20] inform the process and further address concerns raised by the
[13:23] public. Through the chair. Thank you. And to the committee,
[13:28] thank you for the opportunity to present and for your
[13:30] consideration of this report and administration's pleas to answer any
[13:33] questions. Thank you. Manager Walker, director, deputy and Commissioner Marshall.
[13:37] Thank you for the intro. Clerk Walters, please. Chair. We
[13:45] can reach your questions of administration, although, as discussed, if
[13:49] there is no pertinent questions right now. We can wait
[13:51] till the end. There will be three rounds. Five minutes
[13:54] each for questions to the report. Let's save it. To
[13:56] the end, right? Okay. All right. We do have a
[14:00] number of deputies scheduled for this evening. The first one
[14:03] has been received from Conor McLeod on November the 13th,
[14:06] requesting to appear before a standing committee. Welcome s. Mcleod.
[14:20] Lights on, so it's on. If you can just be
[14:22] about six inches away from the mic. When you're ready,
[14:25] you'll have ten minutes. Okay. All right. Good evening. I'm
[14:32] here in regards to the housing proposal on Rundal and
[14:36] Toledo in the green. Space. I have been following this
[14:39] topic from its inception, and I'm alarmed at which the
[14:43] speed in which this process is moving. Hundreds of community
[14:47] members showed up to the award meeting on November 5,
[14:51] 2025, in order to gather more information on this proposal
[14:55] as well as to, err, grievances. The entire community expressed
[14:59] anger, frustration and discontent in regards to this project. In
[15:05] fact, out of the hundreds of people who showed up
[15:08] that night, there was only one individual. Who was in
[15:11] favor of this venture. She did not live in the
[15:14] immediate area, nor was she a lifelong member, as many
[15:17] who are against this. Are. Of course. I recorded this
[15:21] historical award meeting for reference as it has been some
[15:24] time since the community has come together in agreement on
[15:28] a concern such as this in quite some time. In
[15:32] fact. This act alone should be enough to put an
[15:35] end to this housing proposal. As the community has spoken
[15:39] and we have said no. However, I will give you
[15:42] some of the very real concerns we as a community
[15:45] share. If the proposed 600 unit complex went through with
[15:50] between two to four people per unit. This would increase
[15:53] the population of Curt river by roughly between. 1502, 400
[15:59] people. For reference. The town of Nippigan is roughly 1500
[16:03] people and the population of Atticoken. Is roughly 2600 people.
[16:09] You are talking about moving the population of a small
[16:11] town into that few square kilometers. This would raise the
[16:15] population of Kert river by over 40% in a very
[16:18] short period of time. Ironically, the politicians at the ward
[16:22] meetings said in regards to this ten year smart growth
[16:25] plan that fast growth too quickly is not a positive
[16:29] thing in the short or long term. I feel raising
[16:32] the population by over 40% overnight qualifies as fast growth.
[16:38] There are also valid environmental concerns, as this property is
[16:42] home to many animals that. Would be mortally affected and
[16:46] displaced. Not only do community members use this environmental green
[16:51] space daily, but people from all across Thunder Bay. Come
[16:55] as well to use and to appreciate this area. As
[16:59] one community member put it so eloquently, I go there
[17:02] every single day and have never seen the same person
[17:05] twice. There are also infrastructure concerns, as massive parking structures
[17:10] would need to be built in tandem with this. Property
[17:13] to account for the influx of people. And traffic is
[17:16] already an issue this community brings up regularly. we are
[17:25] not against growth or development personally i had no issue
[17:28] with the building project on huron as the pros outweighed
[17:32] the cons It makes sense. However, the proposal on a
[17:31] rendal makes no sense at all. Destroying a beautiful area
[17:35] the community uses daily and yearly. When we have fought
[17:39] for this area in the past and especially when there
[17:41] are far more suitable properties. Makes no sense at all.
[17:45] It is not logical or practical. These are only some
[17:49] of the very real concerns we share as a united
[17:52] community. We have been meeting regularly to discuss this project
[17:56] and will continue to do so. I hope our very
[17:59] real concerns are not lost on you, and I thank
[18:02] you for taking the time to hear us out. Thanks
[18:04] again. Regards, Conor McLeod. Thank you, Mr. McLeod. There any
[18:09] questions? Not at this time. The deputation. Councilor Agwell, please.
[18:16] Okay. Thank you very much, chair. Mr. Cloud. In your
[18:22] presentation, you said you're not against growth, but you're against
[18:26] this project. Is it the density of the project or
[18:30] is it. Specifically. It's the environmental green space. We use
[18:36] this space. As I said, daily people come from all
[18:40] across Thunder Bay to use this. Space. So that particular
[18:44] area. Is not necessarily. The project, so to speak. It's
[18:48] the destroying of that particular area. My subsequent question to
[18:53] you would be if. The project. Was enhancing the green
[18:59] space. With other type of housing. Would you be amendable
[19:03] to that, or would you be opposed to that and
[19:05] you want to leave it all as. definitely i think
[19:09] that's the main concern Just to leave it the way
[19:11] that it is. For the animals and for the people
[19:15] that use it every single day. And my third question
[19:19] to you through the chair would be. Proportionately for the
[19:23] city of Thunder Bay. Current river I grew up in
[19:25] current river myself. I went to cloud garden 100 years
[19:28] ago. But current river do you not find it has
[19:31] proportionately a lot more? Park and green space compared to
[19:36] any other part of our city. That's precisely why we're
[19:38] here, actually, because I feel like this would just be
[19:41] only a domino effect. That would perpetuate. The changing of
[19:46] print river, fundamentally. You know what I mean? That's why
[19:48] I love this. Community. That's why I'm here. I just
[19:54] want current river to stay Kurt river. And as I
[19:57] said before, I wasn't ever against other projects in current
[20:01] river. It's just that particular area. You know what I
[20:04] mean? Because it's dear to me and it's part of
[20:07] Kerr river. You know what I mean? Thank you. Thank
[20:11] you. See? No further questions. You may return. Thank you.
[20:15] Thank you very much. Clerk Walters, please. I'm on the
[20:19] agenda. Correspondence received from Laurie Santiac from on November the
[20:22] 14th, requesting to appear before a standing committee and note
[20:25] there was additional information relative to this deputation. Distributed on
[20:29] Friday, November the 20 eigth welcome, Ms. Antique. And again,
[20:33] you'll have ten minutes when you're ready. Good evening, Mayor
[20:43] Boschkov. Members of the growth standing committee, members of city
[20:47] administration. My name is. Laurie Santinc, I'm here today speaking
[20:51] on behalf of my husband and myself, as well as
[20:54] my neighbors, nine other property owners on Toledo street whose
[20:58] homes are adjacent to the proposed. 600 unit development at
[21:04] 791 Arundel and who will be directly impacted by the
[21:08] largest proposed development in the history of Thunder Bay. In
[21:12] support of my deputation, I have provided a joint letter
[21:15] signed by my fellow neighbors, along with copies of two
[21:18] blog posts by Livio di Mateo professor of economics, Lakehead.
[21:23] University, as well as his recent interview with TB News
[21:26] Watch on November 25. We are unanimous in our desire
[21:30] to see the green space be left as is to
[21:32] be enjoyed. Not only by us, but by the community
[21:35] at large. This is not some random lot owned by
[21:39] the city. It is a wonderful green space enjoyed for
[21:41] decades, 365 days a year by our local community, as
[21:46] well as many residents throughout Thunder Bay, with its. Mature
[21:49] trees, grasses and open fields. It provides habitat and acts
[21:52] as a wildlife corridor for the abundant animals who share
[21:55] our world. It provides a car free, safe space for
[21:59] the many runners, walkers, dog walkers, cyclists, cross country skiers,
[22:02] skate skiers, mountain bikers, children going to school, bird watchers.
[22:06] Running events. The lifts goes on the city. Has invested
[22:10] in this green space by installing a paved, lit, multiuse
[22:13] trail maintained year round with access from the active living
[22:17] corridor along a rundle lion boulevard, as well as a
[22:21] pathway between 414 and 412 Toledo. As you already know,
[22:26] out of the ten opportunity sites chosen by city admin.
[22:29] Administration 791 Arundel is the only one zoned community zone,
[22:33] a zoning designation used by the city for park space
[22:37] throughout Thunder Bay. Yes, this zoning also allows some development,
[22:41] but not residential. And definitely not the type of massive
[22:44] development that is being proposed. Why, we ask, of all
[22:48] the parcels available to the city for development, is it
[22:51] now choosing to build the largest housing development in the
[22:54] history of the city on what is and always has
[22:57] been. Seen and used by residents of Thunder Bay as
[22:59] park space. In our opinion, this sets a terrible precedent,
[23:04] Professor Diamateo's blog posts and interview le. Lends credence to
[23:08] our letter and our concerns and comments about this proposed
[23:10] development in his blog post of November 20, he states,
[23:15] The logical place to target density developments in Thunder Bay
[23:18] should be the two former downtown core areas. Of Port
[23:21] Arthur and Fort William and the corridor connecting them that
[23:24] runs along an immediately adjacent to water, Fort William Road,
[23:27] Simpson streets and Algoma Memorial, may street, the Shunia area
[23:32] neighborhood is definitely not the largest. Sorry, not the location
[23:36] for the largest housing development the city has ever seen
[23:39] and even runs contrary to Thunder Bay's official plan. In
[23:43] order to fit 600 units, the green space will have
[23:46] to be rezoned urban high rise. Such zoning and massive
[23:49] development allowing buildings up to 45 meters or twelve to
[23:53] 15 stories high, is not. Compatible in scale and mass
[23:56] with the surrounding community of single family homes. Smaller apartment
[24:01] buildings consisting of anywhere from four to 127 units, a
[24:05] 72 unit condominium complex or the 118 units in Chartwell
[24:09] Thunder Bay's retirement home complex. It literally dwarfs every single
[24:14] other build type in the. Neighborhood. The development is also
[24:18] contrary to many of the tenants in the city's various
[24:20] policy. Strategies, plans and guidelines which no doubt we, the
[24:25] taxpayers, have spent thousands, if not millions of dollars. To
[24:29] have the city produce. For example, Thunderbase housing lands needs
[24:33] study and strategy the climate forward. Thunder Bay net Zero
[24:36] strategy, the smart growth action planets in its draft form,
[24:40] or the Thunder Bay urban design. And landscape guideline. These
[24:44] city documents, as well as various media releases and interviews
[24:47] with local media. Use urban planning language, such as creating
[24:51] integrated spaces that combine residential, commercial, and public amenities building
[24:55] homes in areas that already have neighborhood amenities infill development,
[24:59] keeping our taxes lower, making better use of existing structure
[25:03] infrastructure and allowing more people to live in walkable, connected
[25:06] neighborhoods by 2030. 5%. 65% of trips within the city
[25:13] will be by walking, cycling or public transit. Neighborhoods are
[25:16] complete compact and walkable. Thunderbase, forest and green spaces are
[25:21] protected and provide essential ecosystem services. In his interview with
[25:26] TB Newswatch, Professor D. Mateo stated that putting developments, and
[25:29] I quote, wherever the city conveniently has a piece of
[25:33] green space in the short run may seem optimal because
[25:36] it's quick, but what they're doing is creating a more
[25:39] dispersed city that's. Even more dependent on vehicles. And dependent
[25:44] on vehicles we are. According to Walkscore.com, a website whose
[25:48] mission is to promote walkable neighborhoods. Arch union neighborhood. Is
[25:53] considered car dependent with a walk score of 13 out
[25:56] of 100. 791 Arundel to Hotter Avenue, where some basic
[26:00] amenities do exist, is a 2.3 kilometer walk along a
[26:04] rundle. Without continuous sidewalks on the road with car traffic
[26:09] in this weather, although the active living Corri. Corridor has
[26:13] cycling opportunities. It is neither protected nor maintained year round,
[26:17] and there is only one bus. Servicing our neighborhood, the
[26:20] number seven Hudson, running every 30 minutes in peak times.
[26:23] And this bus doesn't? Even run east along a rundle.
[26:27] Toledo and Conmey do not have continuous sidewalks. So again,
[26:31] even considering walking a direct. Route to downtown is about
[26:34] 3.8k or a 50 minutes walk if you're in good
[26:37] health, including on roads with traffic. There are no major
[26:41] stores, banks, there's no LCBO medical offices, never mind large
[26:45] employers in our neighborhood or in current river residents in
[26:49] this neighborhood must drive or use transit, which, as I'm
[26:52] sure you're aware, is neither. Convenient, fast, or the most
[26:55] efficient means of getting to any of the major employers
[26:58] here in thunder. Bay. We do not understand why the
[27:01] city would consider destroying this well used in love green
[27:04] space would consider cutting down force that provides an essential
[27:07] ecosystem service in our neighborhood and proposes 600 unit housing.
[27:12] Development, which will add at least 600 plus more vehicles,
[27:15] spewing emissions and increasing noise pollution. And add upwards of
[27:19] 1200 plus. People to a car dependent neighborhood that is
[27:23] not walkable, not complete, not compact, not connected once again,
[27:28] a quote from Professor Di Mateo's blog, posted November 20
[27:32] the problem here is that Thunder Bay's idea of increasing
[27:35] density in a climate crisis apparently includes cutting down swast.
[27:39] The green space to build. Density development in areas often
[27:42] removed from where density either already exists or should be
[27:45] promoted. Moreover, the constant dispersion of new development results in
[27:50] the new residents of these density developments having to rely
[27:54] mainly on automobile transport rather than public transport transit, which
[27:58] is not convenient or timely given. The disbursed nature of
[28:01] the city. Mayor Boschkov, councilors, members of city administration. We
[28:09] are not against building housing, but we are against using
[28:12] green space to build this type of density not only
[28:15] here, but across the city. Now. Build here if you
[28:19] must, but only if there are no other options. If
[28:22] you insist on using this green space. The owners of
[28:27] houses along Toledo proposed a much smaller development, zoned, no
[28:31] larger than urban mid rise that leaves the multi use
[28:34] trail as is provides a buffer between any development and
[28:38] the existing property owners on Toledo and is compatible in
[28:42] scale and mass with the surrounding community. But please. Before
[28:46] you even consider designating this parcel surplus. Never mind allowing
[28:52] a proposed 600 unit development, or even a smaller one.
[28:56] Consider the learned opinion of Professor D. Mateo the overall
[29:01] character of this union neighborhood. The concerns of the adjacent
[29:05] property owners and the wider community. The car dependent nature
[29:09] of this area, the lack of adequate walking and cycling.
[29:14] Infrastructure, the lack of local services and amenities, the destruction
[29:17] of forest and green space, and what the removal of
[29:20] a well used and much love park space means to
[29:24] the residents of our shunian neighborhood and the community of
[29:27] current river. Thank you. Thank you so much for that
[29:32] detailed deputation. And Councilor Atrini, please. Thank you. Through the
[29:36] chair. Thank you very much for your presentation today and
[29:39] coming tonight. I did receive your report and went through
[29:44] it. Very detailed. Fantastic. I'm going to refer to the
[29:48] map. I used to live in kert river. For a
[29:53] large portion. But on the other side of Curt river
[29:55] bridge, I've played baseball. Here back in the day. But
[29:58] if you ask me exactly where, I couldn't tell you.
[30:00] Today? Because that was a long time ago. The walking
[30:02] path, I believe, is close to the red line that
[30:05] you've drawn on your map. Is that correct? Yes. And
[30:11] so if the city. I appreciate your solutions. I want
[30:15] to state that. I kind of like the idea of
[30:17] the privacy piece. And the concern about the buildings being
[30:22] too close to the houses and being closer to the
[30:24] other. Side. But if they ended up moving that path
[30:27] to allow for different roads to come in, Instead of
[30:30] one road in and out. That would be okay as
[30:34] well, right? You just want to make sure that you
[30:36] keep that walking. It's not only that, but you do
[30:39] have to look at the intersection of Toledo and Runle.
[30:44] There is one of the property owners lives right on
[30:45] the corner, and his driveway. Access a rundle as well
[30:49] as Toledo street. So then there's just basically his property.
[30:53] A little bit of space and then the walking path.
[30:56] So if you move that walking path, Too much further
[30:59] to the west. Then. It sort of encroaches. There's going
[31:03] to be a lot of car traffic. There's a crosswalk
[31:07] with the signal. At that intersection, and it's a busy
[31:11] road. We have ChartWell, which I think you need to
[31:13] keep in mind because there's a lot of Chartwell users
[31:16] in their motorized scooters or wheelchairs rather, that actually cross
[31:20] over on a regular basis and go up and down
[31:22] that pathway. We even have a lady who's dropped off
[31:25] by the handy bus. Who's blind, who has been used
[31:28] to walking on that. Path for quite some time. So
[31:32] it's a little bit concerning because it is a bit
[31:34] of a crunch space. If you will. Yeah, it is
[31:37] definitely really tight, and I know with site plan control,
[31:39] they'll start looking at all those pieces. if growth committee
[31:48] says yes and moves it to council to make the
[31:51] decision of whether we're going to sell this as surplus
[31:55] and then i really do appreciate You understanding that maybe.
[31:56] The neighbors and yourself would be more accepting if it
[31:58] was a bit smaller. So I really appreciate those comments.
[32:00] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Councilor
[32:05] Aguwal, please. Thank you. thank you chair When you said.
[32:13] Smaller density, smaller program plan. What are you envisioning there
[32:19] for? Well, given the neighborhood and the scope and mass
[32:23] of the neighborhood itself. We have mostly single family homes,
[32:26] bungalows, a couple of two stories like our house and
[32:30] our neighbor's house was two story, for example. And there
[32:33] are apartment buildings that I think the tallest one is
[32:36] five stories in the immediate area. Current river has some
[32:39] taller ones. But on that property. 200, 250. We're thinking,
[32:45] obviously, it depends on the design. Of the property. We'd
[32:49] like to keep at least that urban mid rise going
[32:52] any higher. Than that. Is inappropriate for that area. We
[32:58] obviously need building. I understand that. I live in Calgary.
[33:02] I went through the rezoning process there. I was on
[33:05] the board. Of our local Community association. I was on
[33:09] the development and planning committee. I took a course through
[33:11] the city. I have a certificate in planning. So I
[33:14] do know the ins and outs, and that experience can
[33:16] be used here. In Thunder bay, too, so you really
[33:19] have to look at. Is this the proper spot for
[33:21] any. Type of development like we're willing to give. We
[33:25] understand that there's a need, but a lot of your
[33:28] documents focus on the fact that buildings should be done
[33:31] in areas where there's services and amenities, and we just
[33:35] don't have that in current river. We don't. You can't
[33:38] walk along a rundle. There are no sidewalks. There's the
[33:44] active living corridor, and then when it gets to a
[33:46] sidewalk at Black Bay. You have to cross the street
[33:49] and get to the sidewalk there and then you have
[33:51] to cross the street again in order to get to
[33:53] the shopping area. It's poor planning. I'm sorry? It's poor
[33:57] urban planning. We should be. Putting people in areas where
[34:01] they can actually thrive. And if we're not going to
[34:04] increase and improve the infrastructure for sidewalks, for transit, and
[34:08] for cycling infrastructure, then we shouldn't be putting in a
[34:13] large amount of people. In that spot. Okay. Thank you.
[34:18] Thank you for that answer. I do appreciate. Your deep
[34:23] and thorough presentation with the details. Thank you very much.
[34:27] So. They do resign with me a lot. The walkability
[34:31] scales are important. And I thank you for all that
[34:35] information. You're welcome. Okay. Thank you so much. You may
[34:40] return. Clerk Walters, please. That same on the agenda. Correspondence
[34:45] received from Terrell Prince on November the 14th. Requesting to
[34:48] appear before the standing committee. Also, additional information relative to
[34:52] this deputation distributed on Friday, November the 20 eigth. Welcome,
[34:57] Ms. Prince. And again, you'll have ten minutes when you're
[35:00] ready. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor.
[35:12] City councilors, fellow citizens and neighbors. I am grateful that
[35:16] I have the opportunity to speak to you all today.
[35:20] My husband Dave and I bought our house on Toledo
[35:23] two years ago. And what made us decide? To live
[35:26] here was the quiet neighborhood. The beautiful green space and
[35:30] treeline behind our backyard and the easily accessible nature trails
[35:34] from Toledo street. This is such a special area, so
[35:39] quiet, so peaceful. We feel very privileged to be a
[35:43] part. Of it. In regards to the new development proposal.
[35:48] We are not against the idea of adding housing at
[35:51] 791 or Rundle street as long as it is a
[35:54] good fit for the area and preserves as much of
[35:57] the green space as possible. For the benefit of the
[36:01] surrounding community. However, we are convinced that the proposed 600
[36:06] units is much too large in scale to allow a
[36:08] harmonious integration with the surrounding neighborhood. That being said, I
[36:15] am speaking today mainly about the need to keep a
[36:18] treelined green space. Corridor between the houses on Toledo and
[36:22] any new development. I would like to say a few
[36:25] words. About all the benefits. We have enjoyed having this
[36:29] green space with mature trees backing onto our property. These
[36:34] tall trees provide us with a natural privacy screen and
[36:39] beautiful scenery behind our property that we enjoy every day.
[36:44] The ambient noise of the wind moving through the leaves
[36:47] and branches and the great variety of birdsong. Provides a
[36:51] natural sound overlay that helps minimize the sound of cars
[36:55] and trucks from a rundle and the nearby highway. The
[36:59] trees also improve our air quality and provide shape. There
[37:04] is also always something new and interesting to see. As
[37:08] many birds and animals are always visiting. Nesting, feeding on
[37:12] berries and seeds or just passing through. We moved here
[37:17] because of our great love. For nature and our desire
[37:20] to live in harmony with it. When we saw the
[37:23] image the city provided of the proposed new development, we
[37:27] were frankly shocked by the invasive nature of its appearance.
[37:31] I know that it is being said that it is
[37:33] just a concept. But since this is all we had
[37:37] to go on, It appears to us that the developer
[37:43] plans to remove all the existing mature trees and put
[37:46] in a concrete perimeter populated by a few small, thinly
[37:50] spaced out evergreens that will likely take years to provide
[37:54] any kind of effective privacy screen for us and our
[37:57] neighbors. This loss of natural green space and privacy. Would
[38:01] also. Certainly negatively affect the value of our properties, and
[38:05] we would also lose most of the benefits that the
[38:07] current mature treeline offers us. It makes me think of
[38:12] that old Joni Mitchell song where she's saying they paved
[38:15] paradise and put up a parking lot. It popped into
[38:19] my head last night. We are asking the city to
[38:23] keep the tree lined trail that so many people use
[38:25] every day. Intact and preserve the tree line behind our
[38:29] fences that shield our yards and give us so much.
[38:32] Beauty. Happiness and peace of mind. More trees should be
[38:37] planted at the beginning of Toledo as well to fill
[38:40] in the gap and form a continuous tree line so
[38:43] that all of the homeowners can have privacy and a
[38:46] peaceful environment. We, the homeowners, are asking the city to
[38:51] ensure that any developer maintains a natural green space corridor
[38:56] easement between the affected properties on Toledo and the new
[38:59] housing this will provide us. All an effective privacy buffer
[39:03] zone. This and the preservation of the walking path. Will
[39:08] also help to integrate and harmonize any new mid rise
[39:11] build space with the quiet and peaceful character of the
[39:15] neighborhood. In our view, this would fulfill. Two of the
[39:21] city's stated objectives. Preserving green space and adding density to
[39:26] the area. This vital natural landscape will then continue to
[39:31] benefit wildlife, visitors and residents, old and new. Now and
[39:36] into the future. Thank you all for your time and
[39:40] consideration. Thank you so much for your deputation. Any questions?
[39:48] Say none. Thank you. You may return. Clerk Walters, please.
[39:54] Let's. Correspondence received from Ivan back on November the 14th
[39:58] requesting to appear before standing committee. Welcome, Mr. Beck.
[40:08] And again, when you're ready, you'll have ten minutes. Thank
[40:11] you. Thank you. Mayor Boschkov, counselors of the city of
[40:20] Thunder Bay, neighbors, friends and study administration. My name is
[40:27] Ivan Buck. I live at 408 Toledo Street. Before I
[40:33] retired, I was a secondary school teacher and a principal
[40:35] with 34 years of experience. I also was seconded to
[40:39] the ministry for four years to work in curriculum development
[40:42] at the secondary schools. In 2007, my wife and I
[40:46] purchased our house on Toledo street. We were very excited.
[40:50] About the green space behind our property. And the price
[40:54] reflected this feature. It is the only investment that we
[40:58] have. Like most citizens in Thunder Bay, the largest purchase
[41:04] that will ever make us is the purchase of their
[41:07] home. That applies to everyone in the room. The atmosphere
[41:12] created by the green belt overlooking our backyard has created
[41:16] many happy memories for us. For example, our granddaughter chose
[41:20] our backyard for her wedding ceremony. This kind of happy
[41:25] memory will not happen. If an apartment building complex replaces
[41:29] the privacy provided by the green buffer zone, If you
[41:34] become aware that your home investment will take a significant
[41:37] loss of a political decision, You have become as upset
[41:42] as my wife and I are. That also applies to
[41:46] everyone in this room. I have witnessed current river homeowners
[41:50] move to tears when talking about the impact this decision
[41:54] will have on them. Presently. The zoning bylaw protects this
[41:59] beautiful natural environment and wetlands from development, exploitation. This popular
[42:05] area is owned as community, and our current river community
[42:08] lives up to that definition. The use of the pathway,
[42:12] we call it Cherry Lane, by the way, is extremely
[42:15] popular with current river citizens and they are friendly and
[42:20] happy lot. Dogs, families walking, bikers, joggers, citizens with disabilities,
[42:29] including the blind and those in electrical devices skiers. Dog.
[42:34] School students and summer cam groups all utilize a natural
[42:38] environment of that pathway and green belt. My wife, Cora,
[42:42] and I have many memories of biking walk in the
[42:44] many tributary trails along the pathway over the years. You
[42:48] never know what you're going to meet. A fox, a
[42:50] deer, a wolf, a raccoon, a bear, maybe even a
[42:53] skunk or two. There's an incredible variety of birds. Some
[42:57] live here and some are just passing through. This will
[43:01] all be gone if the pathway disappears and you do
[43:05] something to the natural environment. It is incomprehensible to me
[43:10] that the city is considering eliminating the zoning bylaw that
[43:14] protects the use of this land for the everyday taxpaying
[43:17] citizens so that they can unlock the final housing and
[43:21] accelerator. Advance a $5.88 million for 2027 again I say
[43:27] this? Would not be an issue if the proposal had
[43:30] a personal effect on those creating it. If you truly
[43:35] believe this smart growth action plan has a value. Please
[43:40] at least consider a proposal that would maintain the pathway
[43:44] and a green buffer zone for the citizens who live
[43:46] here and care deeply about the health and well being
[43:50] of their community. On the other hand, if you really
[43:54] want a smart growth action plan, Please consider recommendations and
[43:59] Professor Libya Dematio's essay titled thunder B is missing his
[44:04] chance for strategic urban density. The article is honest, factual,
[44:09] and logical. That paves the way for valid strategic house
[44:13] building density. Levy, of Domario is a professor of economics
[44:17] at Lake University. And Professor Demadio's article appears in Northern
[44:22] Economist 2.0, November the 13th 2025. Mayor Baskoff and concerts
[44:28] of Thunder Bay. It is my belief that you are
[44:32] elected to assist. In the health, safety and well being
[44:36] of the citizens of Thunder Bay. Please support the concerns
[44:42] of your taxpayers. Thank you for listening to me. Thank
[44:46] you so much, Mr. Buck. Any questions? Councilor Atrini, please.
[44:54] Thank you, chair. I just have a question later for
[44:55] administration, if you could put me on that. List. Thank
[44:57] you. ten four okay thank you so much sir Don.
[45:02] Yes. Thank you. Clerk Walters, please. Chair. Then it's time.
[45:11] On the agenda is correspondence received from Stephanie Petroni on
[45:14] November the 16th requesting to appear before standing committee. Good
[45:24] evening, Mr. Petroni. Thanks for coming forward. And when you're
[45:27] ready, you'll. Have ten minutes. Can you hear me okay,
[45:29] Ed, just come a little closer if you can. Okay?
[45:31] It's great. Thank you.
[45:42] Good afternoon. My thanks to mayor and council and city
[45:45] staff for accommodating today's. Deputations. My comments are related to
[45:50] the proposed development at 791 or. First, I would like
[45:57] to address messaging issued by city staff to the media
[46:01] that implies dissenting. Opinion regarding this proposal are rooted in
[46:04] personal feelings. this is an obvious red herring which foments
[46:13] the villainization of concerned citizens sets up a play for
[46:16] the nimby card and diminishes the importance of concerns brought
[46:20] forward As you have heard from some of my neighbors
[46:20] already, our concerns are not self serving. Rather, they are
[46:23] valid, intelligent and proactive. It is indicated within the terms
[46:29] of reference for the mayor's task force on building more
[46:31] homes that on August 18, 2023, the city submitted an
[46:35] application to the Housing Accelerator fund that set an aggressive
[46:38] target for the development of 2200 units in three years.
[46:42] In a November 13 interview with. TB Newswatch city staff
[46:47] indicated that the pressure is on. The city must build
[46:50] 1755 housing units by February 2027 to meet conditions of
[46:56] the Housing Accelerator Fund, and they're behind by 1200 units.
[47:00] Falling short of this target loses the city almost $6
[47:03] million in funding. And with the clock ticking. The city's
[47:06] priority is high density housing proposals and fast. The city's
[47:12] entertainment of a monster sized eastern block tenement. Stylized 600
[47:16] unit development poised to drop in the middle of the
[47:18] Orundal green space like Andre the giant coming off. The
[47:21] top ropes underpins the urgency in which the city is
[47:25] pushing through high density proposals. The message is clear. As
[47:29] many units as possible. Anywhere. I have a few concerns.
[47:36] High density housing may be suitable in mixed use neighborhoods,
[47:39] but it is not suitable in neighborhoods characterized by single
[47:42] family homes and without services or businesses within walking distance.
[47:46] Furthermore, high density also means high population density, and in
[47:50] non mixed use neighborhoods, this has the potential to increase
[47:53] the victimization as well as the criminalization of people living
[47:56] in these areas. High population density, particularly when rapid and
[48:01] in small areas, can lead to a range of numerous
[48:04] consequences. Including social. Worth noting. 600 units. Could mean 600
[48:10] to maybe 2000 new neighbors all at once. That is
[48:14] a current river population increase. Of twelve to 42%, all
[48:18] behind eleven homes on just 3 ha, or 0.6%. Of
[48:22] all of current river. How will such an increase impact
[48:25] education, transportation, safety, environmental pollution, and neighborhood amenities? What will
[48:31] the social impact upon our neighborhood be we don't know.
[48:36] I encourage city council to direct that a social impact
[48:39] study be conducted before committing current river to high density
[48:42] development prior to rezoning. In 1992, Claudi Garten Elementary School,
[48:49] a landmark and current river, went up in flames. Bystanders
[48:54] reported that it took 30 minutes for firefighters to get
[48:57] water on the blaze. What was the hold up. Inadequate
[49:01] water pressure from fire hydrants to the hoses. Any number
[49:05] of new homes in the proposed development area will impact
[49:08] the residential water system. At this time, I am in
[49:11] correspondence with city staff to acquire information regarding water pressure
[49:15] readings for residential usage and fire hydrant operation as well
[49:20] as water main size which delivers our clean water for
[49:22] this area. I am unsure if the city has taken
[49:26] into consideration these issues, which are not just about convenience.
[49:29] But also safety. Regardless of current water pressure readings, a
[49:34] high density development will have an impact on water psi
[49:37] in the neighborhood prior to rezoning. I encourage the city
[49:41] to undertake a water pressure study of the area around
[49:44] 791 rundle, which should include the consideration that a minimum
[49:48] of no less than 600 new neighbors and potentially hundreds
[49:51] more. Would add to the burden of the current water
[49:53] system. In 2012, the city reconstructed a two lane rural
[49:58] road, which is now celebrated as the Arundal Hudson active
[50:02] living corridor connecting residents to parks and trails along an
[50:06] improved road system featuring traffic calming measures to ensure usability
[50:10] and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The city's 2017. Walkability
[50:16] and pedestrian safety report features the Orundal Hudson corridor as
[50:20] part of a larger strategic plan to increase the vitality
[50:23] and activity of Thunder Bay residents. Establishing 600 new homes,
[50:29] or even just 100 new homes in the small area
[50:32] not within walking distance. To any major service or business
[50:35] will increase the number of vehicles along the corridor. This
[50:38] raises safety. Concerns for pedestrians and cyclists and will contribute
[50:42] to traffic congestion and flow challenges, especially during. Peak traffic
[50:47] hours. As a minor artery. Traffic congestion will also contribute
[50:52] to traffic density. And my concern is not just convenience
[50:56] for vehicular travel, but also for the physical risk. To
[51:00] walkers, joggers, cyclists, moms pushing strollers, school age children and
[51:05] youth, dog walkers. People with mobility challenges and users of
[51:09] wheelchairs and scooters, all of whom I've seen along this
[51:12] corridor frequently and in numbers. D. Daily. I encourage the
[51:17] city to undertake a traffic study prior to rezoning for
[51:21] the purposes of identifying road capacity, especially with regard to
[51:25] traffic volume, congestion, density and flow, as well as increased
[51:29] risk to pedestrian and cyclists. Without enough measurable data to
[51:35] ensure that such a development will not have serious consequences
[51:38] in current river, it would be reckless to approve this
[51:42] proposal. I am not indifferent to the pressing need for
[51:47] housing in Thunder Bay, especially affordable housing. When I was
[51:51] a young mother. I was grateful for the rent gear
[51:54] to income, housing. I was able to secure while getting
[51:56] back on my feet and returning to university. However, we
[52:02] have a proposed development with a huge footprint in a
[52:05] very small space and in a very unique neighborhood. The
[52:09] National Collaborating center for Environmental Health outlines several best practices
[52:15] for developing high density housing developing in a green space
[52:20] is not one of them. In fact. NCC ECE states
[52:24] that existing open green and blue spaces should be protected
[52:27] and utilized as these spaces have many natural, positive impacts
[52:32] on an individual's health and well being and promote the
[52:35] health of our natural environment. We all know this. It
[52:39] is not revelatory. Now. I'll get personal. I moved to
[52:45] Thunder Bay in 2017. Unfamiliar with the city and not
[52:49] knowing anybody. I spent my weekends deliberately getting lost, eager
[52:54] to discover my new home. To my disappointment, I discovered
[52:58] many streets lined with dilapidated buildings, derelict homes, neighborhoods surrounded
[53:04] by businesses and industry and all within a mostly treeless
[53:08] community, it was difficult to find visual beauty in thunder.
[53:11] Bay. And I surmised that it was to be found
[53:14] only when turning away from it. To face the view
[53:16] of. Lake superior or the boreal forest. But then I
[53:20] found current river and this calm and charming. Neighborhood full
[53:24] of trees, natural beauty, and all creatures of fur and
[53:28] feather felt like home. And so. It has become that
[53:31] for me and my family since 2019. But this neighborhood
[53:35] isn't just for residents of current. River. It is for
[53:38] all of Thunder Bay, and many community members visit current
[53:41] river to catch their breath and access the beautiful trails
[53:44] located along Boulevard Lake, the LPH grounds and the path
[53:48] through the green space that we recently have come to
[53:51] known as 791 Arundel. We can have a different vision
[53:56] for this green space than what is being proposed. We
[54:01] can create more paved trails that connect with Boulevard. And
[54:05] paved trails increase accessibility for people with mobility issues. I've
[54:09] seen many older neighbors crossing from Chartwells, the Chartwell residents,
[54:14] to access the paved trail. We can enhance the beauty
[54:18] within it by planting more trees and in stating park.
[54:20] Amenities like benches, maybe a water feature. And because we
[54:24] are meant to be stewards of the land. Maybe we
[54:27] could even add a few bat boxes and bird. Boxes.
[54:31] This green space is not. An abandoned lot or bushy
[54:35] corner that people in our neighborhood just drive by this
[54:40] small piece. Of land is held. In the generational memory,
[54:42] I'm almost. 1 minute. Sorry. Just give you heads up.
[54:45] Thank you. Carry on. You said 1 minute left. Yeah.
[54:48] Thank you. This small piece of the green space is
[54:51] not an abandoned lot or bushy corner. That people in
[54:54] our neighborhood just drive by. This small piece of land
[54:58] is held in the generational memory of all community members
[55:01] in thunder. Bay. People have gathered here, children have played
[55:05] here, and many have escaped here, and still they do.
[55:09] This place is worth protecting. When we lose our green
[55:12] spaces, we lose it forever. And I also know this
[55:17] development spreads, it won't just be the loss of this
[55:21] screen space. There will be more to lose. I encourage
[55:26] mayor and council to retain this property for community use,
[55:30] just as it has been used. For generations. Thank you.
[55:34] Thank you so much, Ms. Petroni. Are there any questions
[55:37] at all? Just quickly, are you in favor of a
[55:42] smaller development at all or just no development at all?
[55:45] No development. Okay. Thank you so much. Your worship, please.
[55:53] I guess. You've just asked a question. There's no level
[55:59] of construction at all. Single family or anything that. Would
[56:06] I feel there are many suitable places in Thunder Bay
[56:09] that are not in a green space. Where those needs
[56:12] could be achieved, and I would encourage city staff. To
[56:16] continue looking for more suitable locations rather than a green
[56:20] space that has been used for generations. By the community
[56:24] members of Thunder Bay. My second question deals with you
[56:27] mentioned water pressure. How long have you had this issue
[56:31] and has there been any attempts? To address it. My
[56:36] interest in water pressure is knowing what the current water
[56:39] pressure is around the proposed area. I think that is
[56:43] something that we need to consider before. We fast track
[56:48] proposal of that size, or any size for that matter.
[56:51] And this is. What I'm looking to the city for
[56:54] is more information about the water pressure for residential use
[56:58] as well as hydrants. Thank you for that. Thank you,
[57:01] chair. Thank you so much. Thank you. Can return. Clark
[57:06] Walters, please, let's. Correspondence received from Cody Lane on November
[57:11] 19 requesting to appear before. Standing committee. Welcome, Mr. Lee,
[57:21] and thanks for coming forward. And again, you'll have ten
[57:23] minutes and I'll give you a heads up when you
[57:25] hit nine minutes. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Good evening. I'd
[57:32] like to thank Mayor Boschkoff, the growth standing committee and
[57:34] city administration. For listening to my deputation tonight. I'm giving
[57:38] my deputation tonight in support of the surplus lands proposal
[57:41] that is before the committee. Ultimately, I would like to
[57:45] see the growth standing committee endorse the proposal. Counsel ultimately
[57:49] declare these land surplus. Can you just move a little
[57:51] bit? Thanks and do the required rezonings that are necessary
[57:56] to develop these lands for medium to high density residential.
[58:00] I believe this proposal will help with housing and rental
[58:03] affordability as well as the sustainable growth of the city.
[58:08] Some background about myself. 25 years old, and I just
[58:11] moved to this city this year. Or moved. Back to
[58:13] the city after living in the country for 13 years.
[58:16] Currently, I rent a one bedroom apartment in Northwood for
[58:19] 1350 a month, and according to the CMHC, the average
[58:23] rent in the city for a primary rental as of
[58:25] 2024 is 1359. So I like to consider myself the
[58:29] average renter in this city. Some history. When my family
[58:34] left this city in 2012, my father was paying $500
[58:37] a month. To rent a two bedroom home in current
[58:40] river. Now that was a low rent for the time,
[58:43] even for especially for a house. However, that affordability allowed
[58:47] my father to put me an extracurricular activities. Save up
[58:52] for a vehicle. Go on the occasional vacation and eventually
[58:55] save up for a house. And if that rent were
[58:58] two three times what it were, I would be living
[59:00] a very different life right now. So you can imagine
[59:03] my surprise when I wanted to move back to this
[59:05] city and I find that $500 a month doesn't even
[59:08] buy your room in somebody's house anymore. I paid two
[59:11] and a half times as much to live in half
[59:13] the space my family and I did back in 2012,
[59:17] if I wanted to live in my childhood home, I
[59:19] would be paying about $2,000 a month, and this is
[59:22] backed up by the. CMHC data, which shows in the
[59:24] last ten years, the average rent has gone of about
[59:27] 57%. Inflation in that time period was 30%. So I
[59:33] asked what changed, and I guess the better. Question to
[59:36] ask is what didn't change? So between 2024 and 1990,
[59:41] which is the furthest back I could get the numbers
[59:43] to. Go. So the 34 year period, there was a
[59:46] net gain of 447 primary rental units. This is my
[59:51] interpretation of the data. I'm sure administration can look into
[59:55] it further. But I can see that when I drive
[59:58] around town, I can see that in my apartment that
[1:00:00] was built in the, across the street that were built
[1:00:03] in the most of the other apartments that were built
[1:00:06] in the last century. So at some point, this city
[1:00:09] built medium to high density residential. And then stopped in
[1:00:13] favor of low density residential. And it's why I believe
[1:00:15] we're in the housing. Crisis that we are and why
[1:00:18] the city is seeing an increasing infrastructure deficit every year.
[1:00:23] So I hope you can see my excitement with this
[1:00:24] proposal, because to me, this represents 100 years. Of apartments
[1:00:28] if we were to continue building them at our existing
[1:00:31] rate. And I believe that is going to have major
[1:00:34] ramifications for housing and rental affordability. As well as growing.
[1:00:40] The city sustainably. So I'll start with housing affordability. I
[1:00:44] believe the number I've seen, quote is 1385 units, but
[1:00:49] that may be reduced. Now. If we build that many
[1:00:53] units, then any senior that wants to downsize out of
[1:00:56] a home. Will have the ability to do so if
[1:00:58] they have the financial means, whether it be the equity
[1:01:01] in their house or investments. They can move into a
[1:01:03] new modern apartment like this if they want. To downsize,
[1:01:06] and that frees up their family home. Now, I may
[1:01:09] not be able to afford that family home. But if.
[1:01:12] A family wants to upgrade into that, or a couple
[1:01:14] wants to upgrade. I can afford their starter. Home. So
[1:01:17] I see it that if we build these medium high
[1:01:20] density apartments and a senior downsizes you're freeing up two
[1:01:23] units of housing that you didn't need to build. And
[1:01:26] we are obviously not building houses fast enough. When it
[1:01:30] comes to rental affordability. If you add 100 years worth
[1:01:32] of supply, that increases the vacancy rate no longer. We're
[1:01:36] not sitting at 3% vacancy rate anymore, and it's. A
[1:01:39] lot harder for your landlord to justify high rent increases.
[1:01:44] In the last three years alone. I have on file
[1:01:47] here. In 2022, the average rent went up seven and
[1:01:52] a half percent. 2023, seven and a half percent 2024
[1:01:56] 8.6% if you increase the vacancy rate by building this
[1:02:01] many apartments, it's harder to justify those rent increases. And
[1:02:05] if a landlord is sitting on a vacant rental. They
[1:02:08] either have to. Reduce their price to justify or to
[1:02:12] attract a tenant, or they have to renovate to justify.
[1:02:16] What they're charging. That's how I see that this project
[1:02:19] or this proposal will. Help with rental affordability. Lastly, I'd
[1:02:22] like to tie everything into sustainable growth. This proposal frees
[1:02:27] up housing that already exists. That means you're not building
[1:02:31] new low. Density residential on the outskirts of the city
[1:02:34] where you have to run new roads, water, sewer, stormwater
[1:02:38] ems and fire because the houses you freed up are
[1:02:41] already connected to services. Now there's. Going to be infrastructure
[1:02:44] costs associated with building these new apartment. Apartments, but because
[1:02:47] they are adjacent, already existing services, they're going to be
[1:02:50] built that infrastructure. Cost is going to be a fraction
[1:02:53] of the cost of what it would be if you
[1:02:55] took 200 people and put them in 200 homes, as
[1:02:58] opposed to. One singular unit. Lastly, I just want to
[1:03:03] talk about how this proposal is self sustaining. To quote
[1:03:07] the city manager, who brought up in a tv news
[1:03:10] article a suburban area has a tax revenue of ten.
[1:03:16] Thousand dollars per acre. I believe this is on a
[1:03:18] yearly basis for 48 units, whereas a multi unit area
[1:03:22] has $100,000 per acre tax revenue. So by building proposals
[1:03:28] like this, we are increasing the tax revenues of the
[1:03:31] city and making the city more self sustaining. Lastly, there's.
[1:03:34] The incentive of the housing acc. Accelerator fund that if
[1:03:37] this proposal goes through, we will receive the 5.88 million
[1:03:41] that can be used to revitalize the lapidated and vacant
[1:03:45] buildings in the downtown cores infill as well as potentially
[1:03:49] use that money to subsidize affordable housing. So, in conclusion,
[1:03:54] I would like to be able to rent and save
[1:03:56] for a home. I see. This proposal as allowing me
[1:03:59] to do that by freeing up housing supply. I see.
[1:04:03] It helps me by allowing me to save up as
[1:04:05] a renter by making rents. More affordable. And lastly, if
[1:04:09] you want me to make a 30 year commitment to
[1:04:11] this city as a taxpayer. I need to see that
[1:04:14] my property taxes aren't going to go up every year
[1:04:17] by huge amounts because the city isn't growing sustainably and
[1:04:20] those taxes need to come. For me personally. I would
[1:04:25] rather. See more self sustaining proposals like this one, because
[1:04:29] we simply just are not attracting industry and commercial fast
[1:04:32] enough. And ultimately, I would like to own a home.
[1:04:38] And not see my tax bill go up by large
[1:04:40] amounts every year, so thank you very much. Thank you,
[1:04:43] Mr. Lane. Is there? Your worship, please. Thank you, speaker.
[1:04:53] Your presentation confirms that you know a little bit about.
[1:05:00] The vacancy rates. And the need for. Densification. I
[1:05:09] think my first question would be, essentially, Are you aware
[1:05:16] that we have the highest percentage of parkland of municipality
[1:05:21] in Ontario? No, I'm. Not. Or the number of parks
[1:05:25] is ranks among the top. So I want to focus
[1:05:32] those points on my question to get from 106,000, which
[1:05:38] we are identified as. To the 150. Which is realistic
[1:05:45] from a planning standpoint. Can it be done by single
[1:05:49] family dwellings? Would you confirm that? We have to have
[1:05:54] some measure of densification. Are you asking, like, if I'm
[1:06:01] opposed to low density residential? No, I'm just. Asking. What
[1:06:06] you would think there's capacity for. Yes, I believe that
[1:06:10] there is capacity for low density residential. I just believe
[1:06:13] that they should be built in tandem with medium to
[1:06:16] high density residential. And I think the tax revenue numbers
[1:06:21] illustrate that. The most. If they're built in tandem, you
[1:06:25] can use high density, essentially, to subsidize the low density.
[1:06:31] Is how I view it. Ultimately, if I want to
[1:06:32] live in low density. We're going to have to build
[1:06:35] more low density. I understand that. I'm not. Opposed to
[1:06:37] low density. I would like to see the infill happening
[1:06:41] at the same time that we construct low density, and
[1:06:44] I just kind of wanted to illustrate that. Over the
[1:06:48] 34 year period. How much high density we have added.
[1:06:52] At some point we stopped building apartments like this and
[1:06:55] just mainly focused on low density, and it's why I
[1:06:58] personally believe that there is a housing crisis as well
[1:07:02] as a climbing infrastructure deficit. As a result. Just because
[1:07:05] the tax revenues aren't. There. Thank you for your clear
[1:07:09] answer. Thank. You. Speaker. Thank you. Councilor Aguwal, please. Thank
[1:07:17] you. Chair. My question when you calculated. I thank you
[1:07:21] for your detailed presentation and numbers. Just to get a
[1:07:25] couple of clarifications. When you detailed it was 427 net
[1:07:30] gain of new apartments from 1990. So what I was
[1:07:35] using was I was using the historical primary rental data
[1:07:38] from the CMHC, so I took the difference in units
[1:07:41] from 2024 to 1990, and I had a net gain
[1:07:45] of 447 now. That number. Fluctuates over the years. So
[1:07:50] I apologize if I misinterpreted that the data. Okay. Thank
[1:07:56] you for that clarification. From 1990 to 2025. In the
[1:08:03] last many years. I agree. There's not been a lot
[1:08:06] of multi residential. Did you take into account all the
[1:08:09] multi residential condominiums, which. Are actually registered as single family
[1:08:14] dwellings because the condominium ownership is single family rather than
[1:08:18] multi. Residential. I wasn't aware of that classification. Yeah. So
[1:08:24] we've seen a substantial growth in that spectrum, some of
[1:08:28] which are rentals and so your data, what you've got.
[1:08:31] I appreciate that because. It is the true rental. So
[1:08:34] if somebody has a rental living in there, it's different.
[1:08:36] So your data. I appreciate where you received it from.
[1:08:41] Now my next question. Through you is when you were
[1:08:46] growing up, you lived in a single family home. Yes.
[1:08:49] Not in an apartment. And the goal of your parents
[1:08:52] was to buy the roman single family home and to
[1:08:56] be able to afford it. What is the goal? You're
[1:09:01] a young gentleman who wants to hopefully stay in Thunderbait,
[1:09:03] like you said. In the next 35, 40 years. What
[1:09:06] is your goal? Is it apartment living? What is that
[1:09:10] spectrum for your age group to be moving into? I
[1:09:13] think if you asked personally myself, I would like to
[1:09:16] move into a home in the city. And I think
[1:09:18] if you asked. Anyone my age, they would say the
[1:09:21] same thing. Often when I have this discussion with people,
[1:09:24] my age if you ask them. Do you want to
[1:09:26] move out of the house or would you? Prefer to
[1:09:30] stay at home and save for a house. They will
[1:09:31] stay, stay at home and save. For a house. Because
[1:09:35] the rent is equivalent to a mortgage payment. So many
[1:09:37] of them see renting as essentially throwing away a mortgage
[1:09:41] payment and would much rather prefer to stay at home
[1:09:43] as opposed to rent. In the city. I rent because
[1:09:47] again, my family moved over to the country. I had
[1:09:50] to move. Back for school. And to focus on my
[1:09:53] career, which is why I'm a renter. My friends either
[1:09:58] live in the city or continue to live at home
[1:10:01] on the outskirts of the city. Thank you so much.
[1:10:04] Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for your
[1:10:07] deputation. You may return. I'm sorry. Am I able to
[1:10:10] leave? I have to go to work. Oh. Yeah, go
[1:10:12] ahead. Thank you. You may leave. Thank you. Thank you
[1:10:17] very much. Thank you. Clerk Walters, please. That's I'm on
[1:10:21] the agenda's correspondence received from Zach. White on November the
[1:10:24] 19th, requesting to appear before standing committee. Additional information relative
[1:10:28] to this deputation. Was distributed on Friday, November the 20
[1:10:31] eigth. Good evening, Mr. White. Thank you for coming forward.
[1:10:34] And again. You'll have ten minutes and I'll give you
[1:10:36] a heads. Up when you have a minute left, okay?
[1:10:40] Sounds good. Thank you so much. All right. Mayor Boschkov,
[1:10:43] chair Katuga, members of the growth committee. City manager Colin,
[1:10:47] who's away right now, and the rest of administration. Thank
[1:10:51] you for allowing me to speak tonight regarding the proposed
[1:10:53] development in 791 Arundel, my name is Zach White, and
[1:10:57] my wife and I live at 432 Toledo, which is
[1:11:00] right on the corner of Toledo and Arundel. We live
[1:11:03] there with our two beautiful twin girls. We just turned
[1:11:06] ten months this week. The community's own green space. In
[1:11:10] question here as directly out our back window, and we
[1:11:14] often see people using the pay trail. Coming from chart
[1:11:16] wells, other people. It's a very well used space. The
[1:11:21] fixed under unit development, as shown in the conceptual rendering,
[1:11:23] would dwarf our property as well as the other ten
[1:11:27] property owners along the shared property line. It would increase
[1:11:30] traffic, noise levels, light pollution at night, reduce the amount
[1:11:34] of sunlight we receive in our backyard, decreased privacy, and,
[1:11:38] as Ivan mentioned, most likely decreased property values to some
[1:11:40] degree. I don't think any reasonable person in our position
[1:11:46] would prefer to trade. The green space that we enjoy
[1:11:50] for 600 units of housing. But I understand the pressures
[1:11:54] the city are under, and we'll get to that. After
[1:11:57] we learned about this proposed development, we created an online
[1:12:00] petition. 340 members of the community sign this petition in
[1:12:05] opposition of the project, as shown in the conceptual rendering.
[1:12:10] The list of names as well as 120 comments left
[1:12:13] by signees of the petition were submitted. With the application
[1:12:17] for this deputation. This is a substantial community response, especially
[1:12:22] given our limited reach as members of the community. In
[1:12:26] contrast, the survey that was produced by administration recently, which
[1:12:30] was good. It had 142 total responses. So the pie
[1:12:35] charts that were shown earlier were 142 total people. Which
[1:12:40] is less than half the signatures that we collected in
[1:12:42] opposition to the project. In total, it also had 52
[1:12:47] comments on the administration survey, and we've had 120 comments
[1:12:52] submitted as part of the petition in opposition. Now, the
[1:12:55] comments that we received on the online petition followed a
[1:12:58] lot of the similar themes that were summarized by. Administration,
[1:13:01] primarily loss of green space and trails, increased traffic, appropriateness
[1:13:05] of the size of the development and lack of access
[1:13:08] to sufficient amenities. So similar results, but a large number
[1:13:13] of people as well. In addition to this survey, the
[1:13:16] current river ward meeting held on November 5, as mentioned
[1:13:18] earlier, had over 100 concerned citizens come out to voice
[1:13:21] their opposition to the project save one individual who spoke
[1:13:24] in favor. It is clear there are a large number
[1:13:27] of city residents that do not want this project to
[1:13:30] happen. And want the green space to remain as is
[1:13:34] or developed at a smaller scale. We understand the need
[1:13:39] for housing in our city and the millions of dollars
[1:13:42] of HAF funding. That is contingent upon some very ambitious
[1:13:45] housing targets. We understand that urban sprawl creates a tremendous
[1:13:49] strain. On the city's services relative to tax base and
[1:13:54] that infill and urban densification. Is a much more economical
[1:13:58] way to increase the housing supply. We understand the features
[1:14:01] of this property. And what makes it attractive for development.
[1:14:05] We're also fully aware that our property line ends. At
[1:14:08] the fence. And the city of Thunder Bay owns this
[1:14:10] piece of land, not the neighbors that live along it,
[1:14:13] and the city, as an entity can do with it
[1:14:15] what it pleases. However, this standing committee and ultimately council
[1:14:19] as a whole are the ones who decide if this
[1:14:22] proposed development takes place and if so, to what extent?
[1:14:26] The members of council are elected by the residents. Of
[1:14:29] the community to be their voice and reflective views and
[1:14:31] needs of the community. In their decisions. It is council's
[1:14:36] duty to consider the concerns of the hundreds of residents
[1:14:39] who have shown their opposition to this project when they
[1:14:41] make their decisions in this matter. If it is decided
[1:14:45] by council that some amount of multi unit housing must
[1:14:48] be developed at 791 or rundle. Our request is that
[1:14:51] it be done in a reasonable and responsible manner that
[1:14:55] addresses the concerns of nearby residents and the community. A
[1:14:59] 600 unit development on under eight acres would be unprecedented.
[1:15:03] Based on our research, it would be. The densest residential
[1:15:05] cluster in the entire city and among the largest multi
[1:15:08] unit proposals in Thunderbase history. Is this well used green
[1:15:13] space located from downtown cores really the appropriate location for
[1:15:17] development of this size. It does not align with the
[1:15:20] existing neighborhood character, the active living corridor, or various city
[1:15:24] planning documents. It would bring a massive influx of residents
[1:15:29] and vehicles, permanently altering traffic patterns, noise and privacy. The
[1:15:34] justification for the size of the development must be based
[1:15:37] on more than short term monetary gain achieved by hitting
[1:15:41] housing targets. The impacts of these decisions will be felt
[1:15:46] in this neighborhood for generations. If development occurs on this
[1:15:51] property. Our recommendations to council to balance the need for
[1:15:55] housing with the impact on local residents and the community
[1:15:59] are as follows. Number one, leave the popular paved traffic
[1:16:04] path untouched by limiting development to the east and north
[1:16:07] sides of the property. Number two, plant mature trees or
[1:16:11] hedges between the paved path and the west property lying
[1:16:14] along the north section of the property to provide those
[1:16:16] Toledo residents with a similar amount of privacy as their
[1:16:19] southern neighbors number three. Aside from a vehicle entryway, maintain
[1:16:25] the existing tree line along a rundle. To provide some
[1:16:29] shelter. From traffic, noise and lights along a rundle for
[1:16:33] both the Toledo residents and the new residents. Of a
[1:16:35] potential development. Number four. Reduce the number of housing units
[1:16:40] down to something more reasonable and appropriate to the area.
[1:16:45] Something similar in scale and density to the existing condo
[1:16:47] and apartment buildings across the street. Number five, limit the
[1:16:50] number of stories of new apartment buildings to four stories
[1:16:54] to reduce the impact on neighboring properties and preserve the
[1:16:57] natural beauty of the area. And number six, place the
[1:17:00] vehicle access. For the proposed development directly across from the
[1:17:04] east entryway of Park View place, which is across the
[1:17:07] street. This creates some distance between. The intersection of Toledo
[1:17:11] and a rundle, as well as the driveway for the
[1:17:13] home at 432 Toledo this location would improve safety by
[1:17:17] essentially creating a two way stop intersection at that spot.
[1:17:21] On the conceptual rendering. The entryway was directly beside the
[1:17:24] Toledo intersection, which would be custard. And you'd have offsetting
[1:17:28] entryways to the apartment buildings across the street. We believe
[1:17:31] these recommendations strike a fair balance between adding much needed
[1:17:35] housing and respecting the existing community. We are not against
[1:17:40] housing being created for people that need it. We simply
[1:17:43] want a reasonable, balanced approach that adds housing to the
[1:17:47] city without sacrificing. The character and well being of the
[1:17:51] surrounding communities. I appreciate the varying opinions that we've heard
[1:17:55] here tonight, especially Cody's opinion as a renter. I was
[1:17:58] a renter in thunder bay for eight years, and I'm
[1:18:01] currently a landlord of. A small house. So I see
[1:18:05] both sides of this issue, and I'm currently vacant in
[1:18:09] the unit that I'm renting, so I'm hearing from people
[1:18:11] looking for a place to live. Right now and communicating
[1:18:13] with them as I try and fill that unit so
[1:18:15] I see both sides. Of this issue, and I just
[1:18:17] want to balance the approach, as I mentioned, to this
[1:18:20] development, so thank you. Thank you so much for your
[1:18:24] deputation, Mr. White. Is there any questions? Councilor Pascalino, please.
[1:18:30] Thank you very much. And through chair. I really appreciate
[1:18:33] your presentation. One of the things. That I like about
[1:18:39] it is that you've. Offered some other alternatives. I want
[1:18:46] you to know that counselors are taking these decisions very
[1:18:49] seriously. We are dealing with people that are looking for
[1:18:55] a place to stay. We're trying to grow the city.
[1:18:58] And we're also trying to make sure that taxes are
[1:19:02] reasonable. And on the other hand. My concern is that
[1:19:09] if we were to do something. That can't be or
[1:19:16] would be difficult. To balance out with the infrastructure around
[1:19:21] there. So my goal, I believe, as a city councilor,
[1:19:25] is to make sure. That. The civil engineers do their
[1:19:30] job to make sure that the roads. And the sewers
[1:19:34] all work in the water pressure work, but also that
[1:19:37] people would want to stay where they are. So I
[1:19:41] really do appreciate. Your deputation. And I want to assure
[1:19:47] you that we're taking. These decisions very seriously. Thank you.
[1:19:53] Thank you. Okay. All right, Ms. White, thank you so
[1:19:57] much. You may return. Deputy Walters, please, let's. The agenda
[1:20:02] is correspondence received from Rod Seabrook on November the 20th
[1:20:05] requesting to appear before standing committee. I will note for
[1:20:07] a committee that we did receive a petition from Mr.
[1:20:10] Seabrook this evening. It is a signed petition and appears
[1:20:12] to be in accordance with the city's position's policy, but
[1:20:16] again, it was just provided to us, just. Before the
[1:20:18] meeting. Thank you. Welcome Mr. Steve Brooke. Thank you for
[1:20:21] coming forward again. You'll have ten minutes. And I'll give
[1:20:24] you a heads up when there's a minute left. Okay?
[1:20:26] Sure. Thank you very much. Just point out I do
[1:20:30] have some slides that accompany the presentation. That is not
[1:20:34] the first slide. Though. No. I think you have an
[1:20:40] old version of the. Yeah, you have an old version.
[1:20:49] Gordon. There should be six slides in total. The first
[1:20:57] one is an aerial overview.
[1:21:10] No. Anyway. I'll try and work with this. If you
[1:21:17] could scroll down further, please, towards the bottom. That's it.
[1:21:23] Okay. That one there. And that's it. Right. Okay. Thank
[1:21:28] you. My. Name is Rod Seabrook. I have lived on
[1:21:31] Sequoia Drive for the past 42 years. I'm here speaking
[1:21:36] on behalf of residents opposed to the proposed sale and
[1:21:39] development of city owned land at John street and Junott
[1:21:42] Avenue. What realty services is describing as 300 Tokyo street,
[1:21:48] residents are shocked, angered and feeling betrayed by the city
[1:21:52] that our neighborhood is under consideration for a massive 400
[1:21:55] unit. Apartment complex development. The property has been described by
[1:22:00] realty services as surplus land. This diminishes. The perceived value
[1:22:05] of the land. On the contrary, the forest has been
[1:22:08] that has been growing there. For the past 50 years
[1:22:11] has significant value. Our neighborhood is a mix of low
[1:22:15] and middle income families, many of who live in social
[1:22:18] housing. Units, which has added greatly to the population density
[1:22:22] of the area. There is also. A significant component of
[1:22:25] single parent and indigenous families housing. Housing consists of single
[1:22:30] family homes and duplexes a small apartment building, and more
[1:22:34] recently, seven new sixplexes and a triplex on Junet Avenue,
[1:22:38] a 58 unit, new 58 unit transitional housing project for
[1:22:43] indigenous youth is. Nearing completion next to the EMS building.
[1:22:48] Our neighborhood has done more than its fair share to
[1:22:50] accommodate. Development over the past 40 years. All at the
[1:22:54] incremental loss of our forested and open areas. It has
[1:22:58] been virtually all take and no give. When the new
[1:23:03] EMS facility was being proposed for construction next to the
[1:23:06] fire, hall at Junot and Red River Road. Residents of
[1:23:10] Grand View protested as a result of these protests the.
[1:23:15] Grandview neighborhood received a large, new dedicated park. Our neighborhood
[1:23:19] got ems. And a tiny parquet. When the transitional housing
[1:23:25] project was looking for property, our neighborhood was proposed. There
[1:23:29] is much debate about the suitability of the area for
[1:23:32] the project, given its well known reputation for violence and
[1:23:35] drug dealing in certain areas. Several councilors voted against the
[1:23:40] project for that very reason. However, the project was approved.
[1:23:44] Again we lost open space, this time next to the
[1:23:47] boys and girls. Club. So here we are having to
[1:23:50] fight with the city over an ill conceived proposal and
[1:23:53] a rushed process. The rush to get construction started is
[1:23:57] driven by targets and deadlines set under the housing accelerator
[1:24:01] fund program. And the associated inducement of federal government subsidies,
[1:24:06] all to address a largely self inflicted housing crisis. The
[1:24:11] process is not about thoughtful planning that takes into account
[1:24:14] the specific challenges and needs of a neighborhood. It's about
[1:24:18] cramming as many multi unit buildings into an area to
[1:24:22] satisfy targets and arbitrary deadlines set under the Housing Accelerator
[1:24:26] Fund program. As a result, the city is fast tracking
[1:24:30] the development with very little time for the public to
[1:24:33] get involved or to provide comments. Had I not distributed
[1:24:38] information? Flyers gone door to door informing residents what was
[1:24:42] being proposed and listening to their concerns. Virtually no one
[1:24:46] in our neighborhood would have been aware of what was
[1:24:49] happening or have had their say. 100% of the people
[1:24:53] that I spoke to directly. Who signed a petition stating
[1:24:58] their opposition to the proposal to sell and develop the
[1:25:01] land for a 400 unit apartment complex. In a matter
[1:25:06] of just a few days. The petition has received 90
[1:25:09] signatures. I'd like to say too clearly, there is a
[1:25:13] disconnect between realty services survey results and what I heard
[1:25:18] from talking face to face with nearly 100 people in
[1:25:22] our neighborhood. 100% opposed. Multiple negative impacts will result with
[1:25:29] no offsetting, mitigating measures or improvements being offered. A 400
[1:25:33] unit, six story complex is completely out of scale and
[1:25:36] character with our neighborhood. The project will completely dominate the
[1:25:40] area. There will be a total loss of the natural
[1:25:45] forest. This contradicts the city's commitments to protect and enhance
[1:25:49] the urban forest and to help address the climate crisis.
[1:25:54] The soil in the area is comprised of 10ft of
[1:25:57] muscade, completely unsuitable for supporting such large buildings. Because of
[1:26:03] the musk egg. Soils the yard zone. Pickton Avenue, next
[1:26:06] to the. Proposed development have sunk over 2ft since the
[1:26:09] homes were built about 50 years ago. The site is
[1:26:13] also currently well below the level of the public sidewalk
[1:26:16] along Junott Avenue, requiring large amounts of fill to raise
[1:26:19] the grade. This will place the homes on Pickton Avenue.
[1:26:22] Several feet below the level of the likely final grade
[1:26:25] of the apartment buildings. Where will the runoff from the
[1:26:28] apartment development end up? The proposed 400 unit development is
[1:26:33] more than three times the size of the new development
[1:26:36] of 120. Units located at the corner of Junet Avenue
[1:26:40] and Riviera Drive. That development is situated on virtually the
[1:26:45] same size property. But it is in an existing low
[1:26:50] density area. By comparison, our neighborhood is already high density
[1:26:55] and cannot absorb a 400 unit apartment complex. The proposed
[1:26:59] department buildings have very little setback from the public sidewalks.
[1:27:04] The Junot Riviera development, however, by comparison, has a much
[1:27:08] larger setback from the sidewalk probably 60ft and the road.
[1:27:13] It also has pave parking areas in front of and
[1:27:16] at the site of the buildings. In addition to underground
[1:27:18] parking, the artist's rendition of the John Juna development. Is
[1:27:23] incomplete and that it does not show any outside parking,
[1:27:26] only a treed courtyard and more trees surrounding the buildings.
[1:27:30] Why would outside parking not be shown when clearly it
[1:27:33] would be needed? Traffic entering and exiting the development will
[1:27:38] increase traffic volume substantially. On already busy John street and
[1:27:43] June Knot Avenue. I had a picture of. There it
[1:27:46] is. That's gridlock at quarter to four in the afternoon
[1:27:50] on John Street. Development of the property is severely constrained
[1:27:55] by there being no access permitted from the Expressway. John
[1:27:58] street or Junott Avenue. Imagine 400 plus vehicles per day
[1:28:03] from the apartment complex, entering and exiting through the residential
[1:28:07] streets. Of Picton, Bleacher and Windsor. Any access utilizing Bleacher
[1:28:16] Avenue will result in the loss of picked in Parquet.
[1:28:19] Picked an avenue currently does not even have sidewalks. All
[1:28:23] this new traffic, including during construction, would put pedestrians at
[1:28:28] risk. The portion of the development running parallel to Juna
[1:28:32] Avenue has been shoehorned into a very narrow strip of
[1:28:35] land. And I draw your attention to that long, narrow
[1:28:40] building along June Avenue. The homes along Picken Avenue will
[1:28:45] lose virtually all of their direct sunlight. These massive concrete
[1:28:50] buildings will reflect already high levels of traffic noise back
[1:28:53] into nearby properties and privacy will be lost for homes
[1:28:56] that ever over top by them. In conclusion, developers don't
[1:29:01] create green space. So it falls to the city to
[1:29:04] ensure that important green spaces, such as the property in
[1:29:07] question are valued and protect. Protected and that the voices
[1:29:11] and opinions of its residents are heard and respected. Once
[1:29:16] the property is sold, developed and paved over. There is
[1:29:18] no returning it to a natural state. A few scattered
[1:29:22] trees and Zimbabwe bushes planted under the city site control
[1:29:25] requirements can never substitute. For the area of natural forests
[1:29:30] that already exists on the property, nor can it mitigate
[1:29:33] the negative impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding
[1:29:36] neighborhood or replace the intrinsic value of the property. That
[1:29:40] it currently holds for residents. Don't be swayed by the
[1:29:43] lure of a few federal dollars of subsidy if missing
[1:29:46] the arbitrary target set under. The housing fund program means
[1:29:51] foregoing the remaining money in the funds. So be it.
[1:29:54] It is. A small price to pay to avoid making
[1:29:56] a very bad decision. Our neighborhood recommendation is that city
[1:30:02] council not approved this proposal, but instead. Have the property
[1:30:06] remain as permanent green space for current and future generations.
[1:30:11] If council chooses to declare the John Juna property as
[1:30:14] surplus and it is subsequently sold and developed, there will
[1:30:18] be nothing left to take from us, you will have
[1:30:20] finally taken it all. That's it. You're done. Okay. Thank
[1:30:25] you for Mr. Seabirk, for your. Deputation. Is there any
[1:30:28] questions? Councilor Agarwal, please. Thank you very much.
[1:30:38] Chair through you. Mr. Seabrook, thank you very much for.
[1:30:44] Your personal dedication of trying to get more information from
[1:30:47] your neighborhood. So you personally went out and knocked on.
[1:30:53] I did. I was fortunate enough to receive a mail
[1:30:56] because I'm with. In the mandatory mailing distance for notices.
[1:31:01] I got a notice in the mail. That was the
[1:31:03] first inquiry I had as I better start paying attention.
[1:31:08] So I started following it, and then when I saw
[1:31:11] what was being proposed, I took action. And I felt.
[1:31:17] The best form of action was to get out and
[1:31:19] talk to people directly, face to face, and. here to
[1:31:27] explain to them what was being proposed here the concerns
[1:31:31] hear their ideas Their wants and needs. That's what I
[1:31:32] did. Thank you. Through you when you went through. Did
[1:31:41] any one of the people in the neighborhood say. Instead
[1:31:45] of six stories, instead of 400 units, maybe 100 units,
[1:31:49] maybe something smaller. With the Natasha. I understand. You mentioned
[1:31:54] that everything's been taken. With an attached green space area.
[1:31:59] So it's not that whole parcel that's green. But maybe
[1:32:02] a nice parquet or something. Did anybody mention some sort
[1:32:04] of combination of that sort? The absolute. Common comment was
[1:32:12] protection of the green space. There was comment. About. Would
[1:32:18] be built be affordable housing. And some said they doubted
[1:32:23] that. Any of it would be for low income families,
[1:32:28] for example. But I will say that the reference to
[1:32:32] affordable housing was made, but. The predominant comment was that
[1:32:38] little bit of green space. They're going to take the
[1:32:40] little bit of green space that we have, this little
[1:32:42] bit of area. That remains in our neighborhood. And they
[1:32:48] just said, that's terrible. It is absolutely terrible. And my
[1:32:52] third question chair is. Quite an important one. Is your
[1:32:58] soil conditions. Stickton Avenue has sunk 2ft. Yes. And that
[1:33:07] area is all musk egg. It is? I can tell
[1:33:10] you exactly how I know when we move to our
[1:33:13] house on Sequoia. In the 80s. A couple of years
[1:33:18] later, I think an excavator showed up on that strip
[1:33:22] of land that I had shown that runs along Junot,
[1:33:25] right? And they were digging. I assume they were digging
[1:33:29] to see what soil conditions is like there, so. After
[1:33:34] the work was done, they had left the excavation open.
[1:33:38] I went over and had a look. And I was
[1:33:41] quite surprised. Not completely shocked, but it's 10ft of muskeg
[1:33:47] over blue clay, so clearly. This is old Lake bottom.
[1:33:51] That overtime has succeeded to a swamp over thousands of
[1:33:57] years and. The result is 10ft of musket. So, yes,
[1:34:03] in terms of the houses on Picton, some of the
[1:34:06] people's steps are this high. They're in the front yard.
[1:34:09] This high off the ground. That's how far that property
[1:34:14] is sunk. And these are small. Modest homes, not massive
[1:34:19] apartment buildings. Thank you. Thank you. Your worship, please. Thank
[1:34:25] you, speaker. As a presenter seem to know a little
[1:34:31] bit about. The carrying capacity. Of the terrain.
[1:34:42] And the muskeg. Do you think that. Site. Can. Hold.
[1:34:49] Smaller. Or. Smaller design capacity. Well, my experience in engine,
[1:34:55] I'm not an engineer, but I worked in the forest
[1:34:58] industry for over 40 years, and my experience with that
[1:35:02] type of soil is around logging. And roadbuilding. And so,
[1:35:10] with respect to a login operation, you wait till wintertime,
[1:35:13] till the ground is frozen till you move into it.
[1:35:17] Otherwise your machinery is just going to sink in terms
[1:35:19] of road. Building. You put corridorites through the area, floated.
[1:35:25] Floater road over top. But it's very temporary, right? That
[1:35:27] is not how you build. Buildings. I would defer to
[1:35:31] the engineers over that, but I believe that the engineers
[1:35:34] should be fully aware before. Anything is decided in terms
[1:35:39] of any kind of proposal at that site. Soil test
[1:35:43] should need to be done because. That location would be
[1:35:47] a real challenge to build on. You mentioned that punk
[1:35:52] picture has sunk 2ft. Yes. Is that the stretch of
[1:35:57] the roadway? And over what time frame would have occurred.
[1:36:01] Yeah. So my measure is of it is, are the
[1:36:05] front steps on the homes on Pickton Avenue. Now some
[1:36:09] people have since brought in fill they've put in new
[1:36:12] stairs, but. There are still some homes that still have
[1:36:17] the original front stairs on them, and. There is one.
[1:36:21] Without. Exaggerating. Two and a half feet. The bottom of
[1:36:25] the stairs. Two and a half feet. Above the grade
[1:36:29] at the front of the house. Is there any number
[1:36:33] of acceptable units for a building such as this based
[1:36:38] on the new designs? And they don't look institutional anymore.
[1:36:45] Well, I don't want to be the one to speak
[1:36:49] on behalf of the residents. My recommendation would be to
[1:36:54] come and talk to us. If you think that that
[1:36:57] site may be suitable for some form of housing. We're
[1:37:03] sending you a very clear message that what is being
[1:37:05] portrayed here is absolutely not suitable. But if you think
[1:37:10] that you might have. Something of interest to offer to
[1:37:14] the residents. I would say come and talk to us
[1:37:16] face to face. Not the way it's been done. Clearly
[1:37:21] the way it was done does not engage. Demographic that
[1:37:26] lives in our neighborhood. Thank you. Councilor treaty, please. Thank
[1:37:32] you to the chair. And thank you for presenting again
[1:37:35] today. i really want to focus on that balance piece
[1:37:44] and i hear you very clearly just as i hear
[1:37:46] rundell talking about that privacy concern wanting to keep that
[1:37:50] tree line in and i'll be asking administration a question
[1:37:53] if it's doable but from your perspective if they manage
[1:37:57] to keep An area of natural forest between this building,
[1:37:58] potential building, and the properties on Pickton, much like a
[1:38:01] rundle in order to keep that privacy piece, in order
[1:38:04] to keep the shade piece that the neighbors are used
[1:38:07] to. Do you think that that would like if we
[1:38:10] ask administration if we can keep 10ft for. And I
[1:38:13] know we're getting a little bit. Into site plan control,
[1:38:15] which is another question I'll ask later. Administration. But if
[1:38:18] we ask them to keep about a 10ft buffer between
[1:38:22] the properties and the new surplus land in which they
[1:38:26] can use for the drainage piece that we are concerned
[1:38:28] about. The ground sinking and then to keep that natural
[1:38:33] tree line for the privacy. Do you think that the
[1:38:36] neighbors would be quite comfortable with that. I don't believe
[1:38:39] they would be comfortable at all. These are 60 foot
[1:38:42] high buildings. That, as I had mentioned in my presentation,
[1:38:48] Is being shoehorned into a narrow strip of land with
[1:38:50] virtually no setback. Those houses would be completely overtopped by
[1:38:54] the buildings. If you take a look or if you
[1:38:57] happen. To drive by and have a look. The popular
[1:38:59] trees are about 60ft tall. That's how tall those buildings
[1:39:03] will be. The people who live on Picton in these
[1:39:06] very modest homes. Will lose their sunlight completely. So we
[1:39:14] want it to be smaller than the poplar trees that
[1:39:16] are 60ft, is what you're telling. Well, when we talk
[1:39:20] about. Well, I guess what I'm saying is. That to
[1:39:22] try and wedge any sort of development along that narrow
[1:39:25] strip there with no setback. Is not right. Thank you.
[1:39:30] Thank you for that. I'll ask administration about the setback.
[1:39:33] Piece. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. All right. Thank you
[1:39:36] so much, Mr. Sheberk. You may return. Clerk Walters please.
[1:39:43] That same on the agenda is correspondence received from Catherine
[1:39:46] Corton on November the 20th requesting to appear before standing
[1:39:49] committee. Welcome, Ms. Courtney. And again, you'll have ten minutes
[1:39:54] when you're ready. And I'll let you know if you
[1:39:55] hit nine minutes. When you have a minute left. All
[1:40:02] right. Can you hear me? Thank you. Thank you, members
[1:40:08] of committee and Mr. Mayor and administration, my name is
[1:40:13] Catherine Cortin. I live on Conley street near Toledo and
[1:40:17] around those streets. As many residents of this area and
[1:40:23] of all other areas near green spaces in Sunder Bay.
[1:40:28] I chose to live there for the very reason that
[1:40:31] it is near green spaces. Therefore I was not contributing
[1:40:36] to urban sprout. I'm here today to express my disappoint.
[1:40:40] Disappointment, my sadness and my anger. How is it even
[1:40:46] possible that our city planners and city council want to
[1:40:50] designate green space? Spaces surplus. Do you realize what green
[1:40:56] spaces do for our city and its people? Previous presenters
[1:41:01] have said it, but I'll say it again. Green spaces
[1:41:04] are key to attract people. To live in some areas
[1:41:09] rather than others. They're key to quality of life, mental
[1:41:14] and physical health. And they're also key to sustainability. I'm
[1:41:19] not here to speak. Only about 791 around the street
[1:41:24] or the other three. Properties which you want to declare
[1:41:27] surplus. But to speak about all green spaces in our
[1:41:32] city that may become targeted in the future. Not only
[1:41:37] sad and angry, I'm also feeling confused about the city's
[1:41:41] commitment. To sustainability. Many years ago, I was part of
[1:41:47] the earthwise process, and I was led to believe that
[1:41:51] our city cares and is committed to sustainability. So today
[1:41:57] I'm wondering, was the Earthwise project just a shoe of
[1:42:01] public consultation? With no heart, no impact. In city planners
[1:42:06] decisions. Because if you do care about sustainability, Sorry, sustainability
[1:42:14] and quality of life. Then how can you even dream
[1:42:17] of destroying any green spaces which. Are vital to our
[1:42:23] future as a city. In the words of Dr. Di
[1:42:27] Mateo, who. Was mentioned earlier. Who was interviewed by TbT
[1:42:34] News last month. I'm wondering if you are hypocrites. His
[1:42:40] words, and I hope you're. Much more than that. But
[1:42:44] here's a quote from the interview. There is a certain
[1:42:48] amount of hypocrisy where city counselors argue. How important fighting
[1:42:54] climate change is. And then when push comes to shove,
[1:42:58] they find a piece of green space. Because it's convenient
[1:43:02] and go after the short term funding from governments. End
[1:43:06] of quote. I hope this is not the kind of
[1:43:11] people that you truly are, but I'd like to know
[1:43:14] what are the reasons why you would choose to destroy
[1:43:17] green spaces rather. Than to focus. On existing urban areas.
[1:43:24] Because, as stated by Dr. Di Mateo, prioritizing urban areas
[1:43:30] should be a number one priority. When it comes to
[1:43:32] building. Not only because Danton areas must be revitalized, but
[1:43:39] also because there are absolutely no reasons to destroy green
[1:43:42] spaces which are vital and precious to all of us.
[1:43:49] so maybe you could tell us why this is not
[1:43:52] the case There are plenty of urban areas in our
[1:43:54] city which could be used and are already properly zoned
[1:43:59] where. Services and amenities already exist. Seems to me that
[1:44:05] will make financial sense. Here are a few examples that
[1:44:08] I've heard of. The former Paul six land. It's a
[1:44:14] land that is underused waterfront parcel. It's mostly city owned
[1:44:20] and has been identified for redevelopment. Its location near Danton
[1:44:25] and the waterfront makes it attractive for large residential development
[1:44:30] like the ones you proposed today. Without the same scale
[1:44:33] of impact on local residents. Simpson street has also been
[1:44:38] an area in great need of revitalization for many years.
[1:44:44] And also has the advantages of existing services and amenities.
[1:44:49] I'm pretty sure there are more in the city, more
[1:44:53] areas that qualify. That are just empty spaces already. With
[1:45:00] Ezvalt no loss of green spaces. So can you please
[1:45:05] consider the two properties I just mentioned, as well as
[1:45:08] other urban areas which would not imply destroying green spaces.
[1:45:14] And if not, can you tell us why? But here's
[1:45:18] my main worry and my main concern. The four proposals.
[1:45:24] With which were faced today revealed a trend. And a
[1:45:28] very unhealthy one, in my opinion. All of us who
[1:45:32] feel that green spaces are essential. We need to know.
[1:45:37] Where and when will you city planners. Ever stop even
[1:45:42] thinking about cutting down viral green spaces? When and where
[1:45:46] will you stop this trend? And if you continue with
[1:45:50] this trend, How much more vital green spaces do you
[1:45:55] plan on selling? Do you plan on? These 600 units,
[1:46:00] for example. As only being the beginning. Because. We know
[1:46:06] that the lph. Forest are right next door to the
[1:46:11] one that you are proposing, right? So, talking about the
[1:46:17] former LPH land. We, the people, would like to see
[1:46:22] it used wisely in ways that will preserve its beauty.
[1:46:27] Its diversity and its wilderness and its usefulness, because we
[1:46:32] know it's widely used by hundreds of people and animals.
[1:46:38] There's plenty of space there to build. Without destroying green
[1:46:41] spaces. And I know this property belongs to the province.
[1:46:48] But I believe that one of the tasks of city
[1:46:51] council is to protect its people. From unwanted demands coming
[1:46:57] from upper levels of government. So I ask you today,
[1:47:02] are you willing to show your allegiance to us? The
[1:47:07] people and to protect our green spaces. Even if the
[1:47:11] provincial government decides to destroy our precious forests. I'm asking.
[1:47:19] This of you send the province who owns most of
[1:47:22] this land and was planning for its future. A very
[1:47:26] clear message. Our green spaces are not for sale because
[1:47:31] they matter. Green spaces are not a luxury. They are
[1:47:36] human need. If you have a copy of my deputation,
[1:47:41] you could see that my questions are highlighted. If you
[1:47:48] don't answer them today, please answer them later, maybe through
[1:47:52] email. I trust that. You are not hypocrites. And you
[1:48:01] will find solutions. There are always solutions to every problems.
[1:48:07] I'm not against growth, and I'm not against. Change. I
[1:48:11] know you have deadlines to meet in order to receive
[1:48:14] the fundings. I know new housing is needed, but as
[1:48:18] one of the people who pay your salary, I urge
[1:48:21] you to hear the call. Full of hope. From the
[1:48:26] men and women who live in this city. And this
[1:48:30] call is very clear. Stop allowing the destruction of green
[1:48:34] spaces in our city and. With your heart. Please envision
[1:48:40] the future in which. You wish your grandchildren to live?
[1:48:46] Thank you for listening to me today. Thank you for
[1:48:50] making decisions which will affect the future in the most
[1:48:54] positive and humane way possible. I know this is a
[1:48:59] long shot, but I'm trying to appeal to your conscience
[1:49:03] and. In the name of God, I urge you to
[1:49:05] use your powers to better the life of your people
[1:49:09] and the needs of a sustainable future. Thank you so
[1:49:13] much for your deputation. Is there any questions? Seeing none.
[1:49:20] You may return. Thank you so much. Kirk Walters, please.
[1:49:26] Yes, I'm on the agenda. There was a written deputation
[1:49:29] received from Brittany Houston. On November the 25th for information.
[1:49:33] Next, please. Final deputation of the evening is correspondence received
[1:49:37] from David Tremonte on November the 27th, and this item
[1:49:40] was distributed separately on November the 20 eigth.
[1:49:51] Good evening. And when you're ready, you'll have ten minutes.
[1:49:58] Thank you, councilor mayor. There. I do have a petition
[1:50:03] for the Fanshaw location there properly located at 144. The
[1:50:08] majority is to not declare the property as surplus property.
[1:50:13] I'll leave it there and stuff like that. I don't
[1:50:15] feel the need to. Reiterate or regurgitate what all my
[1:50:18] citizens there said. We are in fascia in the Northwood
[1:50:22] area. Pretty much par for the course with that. We
[1:50:26] all want a house for everyone's head there. But I
[1:50:30] just don't think the majority are the size of the
[1:50:34] complex that we're deciding upon which again. Is all based
[1:50:38] on speculation. There. But. We don't think that the most
[1:50:42] concern is the traffic and the sewage drainage for that.
[1:50:45] Area. And. Until. More tests. Or. Research is done because
[1:50:53] I believe that we had some issues. When the fans
[1:50:57] condos went first. Back in 510 years ago, whenever. That's
[1:51:03] about it. Okay. Thank you so much. Is there any
[1:51:07] questions? Okay. See none. Thank you, Mr. Jamanti. You may
[1:51:12] return. Clerk Walters, please. So, chair, we do have to
[1:51:17] put the report itself on the floor, do you? Want
[1:51:20] me to read what it is? Please. Okay, so the
[1:51:23] report is with respect to report 384. 2025. We request
[1:51:27] endorsement of the standing committee to forward with the following
[1:51:29] recommendations to city council that the city. 's interest in
[1:51:35] the Vainton property known as 144 Fanshaw street, along with
[1:51:39] 300 Tokyo. Street 211 to 223 Tupper street and 224
[1:51:43] Campbell on Street 791 Arundel Street. Surplus as the city's
[1:51:49] requirements pursuant to policies and be designated as an area
[1:51:52] I've cite plan control that is now on the floor.
[1:51:55] I do need the mover and a seconder. Okay. Councilor
[1:51:58] trini, councilor Agua, please. Speakers. Any questions? Administration. May I
[1:52:07] ask if we can separate all the properties? Or instead
[1:52:11] of having them as one bulk vote on them separately,
[1:52:15] please, if we could. Okay, we can do that. Questions.
[1:52:19] Administration. Councilor treaty, I think you had. Yes. Thank you.
[1:52:23] Thank you. Through the chair. administration we're hearing a lot
[1:52:30] of concerns of course about traffic and drainage And water
[1:52:32] pressure and environmental concerns. We have a good audience here
[1:52:37] tonight. And we know the terminology, site plan control, but
[1:52:42] that doesn't necessarily mean our citizens know. What that means.
[1:52:47] Would someone mind elaborating on what site plan control means?
[1:52:50] Because. It doesn't really define what that is. And I
[1:52:53] think some of the people in our audience today think
[1:52:55] that they needed to speak up to say we needed
[1:52:57] to do some of these. Testing and those pieces. Be
[1:53:02] pleased to. So, site plan control. Is essentially. An agreement
[1:53:10] results in agreement between the city and a developer that
[1:53:14] outslines how a development. Will appear and function. Essentially. The
[1:53:22] actual development proposal is attached an agreement. And decided that.
[1:53:29] This is the development that ultimately will result. So the
[1:53:32] site plan control agreement details things like drainage works access.
[1:53:39] Traffic circulation. And often requires supporting studies to ensure that
[1:53:45] the development will not have. An impact on. Infrastructure and
[1:53:54] amenities that cannot be mitigated. Thank you for that. So
[1:53:59] my second question with regards to a bit of. I
[1:54:02] think it's under site plan control, truthfully, but we've also
[1:54:05] heard tonight, and I'm going to talk in general. Because
[1:54:08] three of the properties have been really discussed this evening
[1:54:11] about privacy and noise buffers. Three properties already have tree
[1:54:17] lines there. Is there any potential for the city declaring
[1:54:23] some of the property from the back of the properties?
[1:54:27] Of the adjacent houses to a certain line to be
[1:54:29] able to help with that privacy. Drainage. Keeping the trees
[1:54:35] there is what I'm asking. Is there any possible way
[1:54:38] that we could. Do that. In what's being available. This
[1:54:44] process. Resist. And that feedback was sought throughout the process,
[1:54:53] and we very much appreciate all the people that have
[1:54:56] come to present tonight and have submitted. Their thoughts and
[1:55:01] comments to the city in different forms. These comments are
[1:55:05] absolutely are being taken back and will be taken back
[1:55:08] to discuss with the developers. Should counsel declare these lions
[1:55:11] surplus and we will be looking to address these concerns
[1:55:15] through the development. Of the eventual site plan. So the
[1:55:21] site plan. The concepts that are being, that we have
[1:55:26] been speaking about are just that. They are concepts. That
[1:55:30] express the interests of a development developer. To construct to
[1:55:34] a scale. So the staff will be reviewing these comments
[1:55:39] with the developers and intend to come back. With a
[1:55:43] more refined development that takes these comments. Into account. So
[1:55:50] the trail is a good example. Certainly. There's opportunity to
[1:55:56] realign the trail and to provide. A buffer, given that
[1:56:03] the property is of such size and that will be
[1:56:05] discussed with developer. Thank you. That's for that one. But
[1:56:08] the other two also have tree lines, so I'm. Hoping
[1:56:10] we'll be able to do the same. And then my
[1:56:12] final and third question. I appreciate the people in our
[1:56:15] audience today in our gallery and their concerns with these.
[1:56:19] And again, we've heard from the three sites. Not the
[1:56:21] fourth today, but we also have some background. On the
[1:56:24] fourth. A lot of the people in these areas feel
[1:56:28] like they're being picked on that the city is only
[1:56:31] looking at those areas. And I just want to confirm,
[1:56:35] because I've seen lists. We are looking at other areas
[1:56:38] and other lands in the city for surplus. It's not
[1:56:41] just these four areas. This is a continuous, ongoing review.
[1:56:45] It's not one and done. And I just want to
[1:56:48] confirm that, please. Ask manager Walker to respond. Through the
[1:56:53] chair. That is correct. We have for us since 2023,
[1:56:57] but undergoing an exercise to identify city owned lands for
[1:57:00] housing and we brought various reports before council to that
[1:57:03] effect, including the extent of lands we've looked at. We
[1:57:06] also review our land holdings on an annual basis to
[1:57:09] determine additional lands that are no longer required for active
[1:57:13] municipal use or things that might be. Suitable to look
[1:57:16] at surplusing for housing. City manager, please? Sure. If I
[1:57:21] may. Through you. Just to supplement that, there is no
[1:57:25] doubt that. We are still focused on intensification or densification,
[1:57:29] whichever word you want to use. In the urban course.
[1:57:32] That's where most of our incentive programs exist, and that's
[1:57:35] where the priority is. However, we also need to. Take
[1:57:39] advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. We put out
[1:57:43] requests for development proposals, and these four developments came to
[1:57:48] the fore. We need to pursue all options as we
[1:57:51] go forward, not to meet. Half targets, not to get
[1:57:54] the next half incentive. That is not our motivation at
[1:57:58] all. Our. Motivation is to ensure. We have sufficient housing
[1:58:05] within the city, thank you. Thank you very much for
[1:58:08] that answer. Any further speakers Council Agarwell, please. Thank you
[1:58:16] very much. Chair. I have a couple of questions. I
[1:58:20] just like one major point clarification. One of the deputies
[1:58:25] made a comment. Cody Lane in regards to. A media
[1:58:31] release. A vote. Can you please clarify? City manager. Calling
[1:58:38] that 10,000 per acre. These are the self sustaining for
[1:58:43] land, 10,000 per acre revenue. For single family and $100,000
[1:58:49] an acre for multi residential. I'm kind of confused because
[1:58:55] an acre of land being 43,000 sqft. Would generate more
[1:59:02] than. One house or two houses, which would not be
[1:59:06] 10,000. Dollars in revenue. I'm not sure. I didn't see
[1:59:10] that news article, so I don't. Know where that commentary
[1:59:14] came from. Chair through you. I do know that city
[1:59:17] manager Colin did step out of the room temporarily during
[1:59:21] the deputation. I don't have those specific numbers today, but
[1:59:25] certainly that is something. That. I can report back to
[1:59:30] the gross standing and confirm those numbers, but what we
[1:59:33] can say is we know that multi residential construction has
[1:59:37] a greater return on investment as compared to single family
[1:59:40] residential. Homes, and I believe that that was what the
[1:59:42] deputy was referring to. Okay? I have a concern about.
[1:59:48] The commentary only because. The $10,000. A square per acre.
[1:59:56] Would actually yield seven homes and seven homes in new
[1:59:59] construction in today's world would bring about $35,000 a year
[2:00:04] in income based on the 43,000 sqft, which is an
[2:00:07] acre is and which would yield for the 50 x
[2:00:10] 120 lots. I just want to make sure the information
[2:00:12] is clear. I don't know if it was said or
[2:00:13] not because. I did not hear the. News broadcast. So
[2:00:18] that just would like that to have that. If we
[2:00:21] are messaging, we should be correct on our messaging. My
[2:00:25] next question is. There has been commentary for many years
[2:00:30] about overpasses coming over our highway, our 1117. Possibly at
[2:00:37] red river, at john street. At. Oliver. At the major
[2:00:46] intersections. The property in question about John Tokyo. Have we
[2:00:53] looked at the potential of. I don't know where we
[2:00:56] are in communications with the ministry of transportation. If an
[2:00:59] overpass is coming there. What kind of traffic impact that
[2:01:04] would cause if. Any. Spanish award can respond. Thank you.
[2:01:11] Through the chair. The Ministry of Transportation is proposing John
[2:01:15] Street Road to be a flyover in the future. When
[2:01:19] in the future? We don't know. Of course, as that's
[2:01:20] what the province. To decide that. But in the end,
[2:01:23] there will not be any direct highway access from John
[2:01:27] in the future. That being said, that's where the northwest
[2:01:31] arterial also comes into play, and the future interchange proposed
[2:01:36] near golflinks and Riviera as well to provide another. Connection.
[2:01:40] That being said, The exact traffic implications to every intersection
[2:01:44] along that corridor when that happens are not fully known
[2:01:47] as it is a long term project and these things
[2:01:49] will have to be monitored as well. We have had
[2:01:52] some recent meetings with the Ministry of Transportation around these
[2:01:54] exact topics. Given that they are advancing some of their
[2:01:57] preliminary designs, and we've asked those same questions to get
[2:02:01] more information around. The direct. Impacts to our intersections as
[2:02:03] a result of their proposed works, and those conversations are
[2:02:06] ongoing. Okay, so. This intersection where we're looking at. The
[2:02:11] proposed 300 Tokyo is quite close to that area, so
[2:02:16] if that is a designated overpass, The traffic will definitely
[2:02:20] be increasing because that would no longer have access. Into
[2:02:24] the expressway. That is a concern to me. And the
[2:02:31] last question would be into the parks we've invested. How
[2:02:36] long ago did we invest into that trail that paved.
[2:02:41] And lit. On the. 791 rendell street so there's been
[2:02:49] a substantial investment by the city Into that trail piece.
[2:02:53] How long ago was it? And how much maintenance have
[2:02:56] we done? Into that area. Through the chair. I don't
[2:03:01] remember the exact date. It was around the 2015. It
[2:03:08] was part of a grant project through Transcanada trail, so
[2:03:13] I think we paid for half of it. And the
[2:03:17] transgender trail paid the other half. That trail. There's not
[2:03:21] really a magic to it being in that exact location.
[2:03:24] It can move around in space a bit. To suit
[2:03:28] the development and work with the developer to make sure
[2:03:32] that that access is still maintained. Both from Toledo and
[2:03:35] Arundo. Thank you, your worship, please. Thank you, speaker. My
[2:03:45] questions. Will be primarily. On our comparators to other municipalities
[2:03:52] our size, both provincially and nationally, because. We from our
[2:03:59] marketing standpoint. I'm under the understanding that we market the
[2:04:03] fact that we have a high percentage of zoned recreational
[2:04:07] area. Areas as well as facilities. And that goes to.
[2:04:16] Say? Unidentified non specified green spaces, as well as lengthy
[2:04:21] parks and trails that people can use. So anybody from
[2:04:27] administration want to address that issue of where we stand
[2:04:32] in terms of. National. Comparators. For such facilities and benefits.
[2:04:43] I'll begin to answer and ask Supervisor Schwarz to add
[2:04:48] to this. So Thunder Bay. Absolutely. Prides itself in its
[2:04:51] high quality of life. And it's a great service that
[2:04:57] it provides in terms of active and passive parkland. And
[2:05:02] active transportation networks. The Thunder bay does have a relatively
[2:05:09] high proportion. Of open space parkland in comparison to some
[2:05:13] other municipalities and Alaska supervisors. Schwartz Library. So the next
[2:05:20] logical question. Is. The sign that we're familiar with. Outside
[2:05:27] the city. has above 100,000 but Not quite. Achieving what
[2:05:35] we believe in other circles, whether it's the dsobs or
[2:05:38] some of these. Health units that our population. Is somewhat
[2:05:44] over 150,000. We hear that more and more frequently from
[2:05:47] the boards and committees. That we are on. How will
[2:05:52] we ever get some acknowledgment about what our population is
[2:05:56] so that these issues. Of financing. Are addressed because. This
[2:06:05] is one of our justifications for infilling. Chair through you
[2:06:10] to his worship. This point was brought up by several
[2:06:14] counselors, including the mayor, during our discussions on the smart
[2:06:17] growth action plan when it was first introduced, which led
[2:06:20] to an additional action item being inserted into the plan
[2:06:24] to try to. Better. Represent the real population of the
[2:06:29] city of Thunder Bay. The how we will go about
[2:06:32] doing that. Has yet to be determined. Again, the smart
[2:06:35] growth action plan is the what and the why. The
[2:06:38] how has to follow. Clearly, we have to work in
[2:06:41] close collaboration with Statscan for that because we can put
[2:06:44] whatever number we want up on the signs, but unless
[2:06:46] the federal. Government agrees with that number. We're not going
[2:06:50] to get any additional funding. So it is identified within
[2:06:54] the smart gross action plan as one of the items
[2:06:56] that we need to address as we move forward. Then
[2:07:00] my third question would be. Can we meet any of
[2:07:05] our targets with just single family units? And how much.
[2:07:12] Money is at stake for us. Chair. I'm going to
[2:07:15] take the first part of this because I think. It's
[2:07:20] a very compelling point. In a good year in the
[2:07:23] city of Thunder Bay, we have averaged between 253 hundred
[2:07:28] units built. Per year, and that's in a good year.
[2:07:35] Just to address the current need. Forget about growth. Just
[2:07:38] to identify to address the current need. We need. 1100
[2:07:47] additional units, and that number grows annually. So we will
[2:07:51] never get there from here if we continue down the
[2:07:54] model we have now of building 250 to 300 units
[2:07:58] a year. We need mass construction to address the need,
[2:08:03] not to address growth to address the need, and then
[2:08:07] after that, we will start to work on the growth.
[2:08:10] Thank you. Thank you. Second round, then councilor Trini. Go
[2:08:18] ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Through the chair. And I
[2:08:22] hope I get a little leniency. On asking this question
[2:08:24] because I know we're talking about surplus lands, but some
[2:08:27] of the citizens that came to the front and asked
[2:08:29] questions about, for example, Simpson street. Why aren't, we. Building
[2:08:34] on Simpson Street. And Growth Committee on November the 25th
[2:08:39] talked about. A new but old. I'll call a revitalized
[2:08:44] program that we have right now. And it's going to
[2:08:47] be enhanced by the spring, which is bacon dilapidated buildings
[2:08:51] program and I'm just wondering if you could. Because we
[2:08:53] can't just go to Simpson street. And say, I want
[2:08:55] this property, this property and this property. We don't own
[2:08:58] the properties. We can't just start. Councilor, this is on.
[2:09:01] Surplus. These individual properties and the developments will come forward.
[2:09:06] At a later date fair, but they were talking about,
[2:09:09] why aren't we building on these? Other sites. And there's
[2:09:12] reasons why it's not just simple. And so I thought,
[2:09:14] I would just. That's why I asked for the leniency
[2:09:16] to say that we. Have a program coming. Thank you.
[2:09:22] Councilor Pascalino, please. Thank you very much. And through chair.
[2:09:29] I realize that growth has to happen in the city.
[2:09:36] It is difficult. And ideally. We would have opportunities, and
[2:09:44] there'd be a lineup for places on Simpson street and
[2:09:47] the people that own the places on Simpson street would
[2:09:50] want to. Build. Massive or in big units. My concern
[2:09:57] as a city councilor, and this is my question to
[2:10:00] administration. Is to make sure. That. What we're going to
[2:10:06] do. Is actually doable, that it works, and I believe
[2:10:12] that that isn't impossible. I think that I've looked at
[2:10:16] other cities that have grown, and it was beneficial to
[2:10:20] them. Milton comes to mind. Was from a small community.
[2:10:26] There are well over 100,000 now, and that was all
[2:10:28] in about 20 years. It's really important that. What we
[2:10:34] do. We do is write, and that. There is. The
[2:10:39] infrastructure to back it up. So a lot of the
[2:10:42] concerns, not all of them, but a lot of the
[2:10:44] concerns of the people in the audience today is they
[2:10:48] want to make sure that when they flush the toilet,
[2:10:51] That things work, that they have water pressure so that
[2:10:54] they can fight fires, so that. There could be road
[2:10:57] infrastructure and sidewalks, because I think. The other thing that
[2:11:04] they talked about also was. Well, we're going to build
[2:11:08] all this housing and. There's not going to be the.
[2:11:13] Businesses close by. But it's like the chicken and the
[2:11:16] egg. What does comes first does the houses come and
[2:11:19] then businesses look at it as an opportunity. So I
[2:11:22] realize that this is new. I will say that no
[2:11:26] matter what we say tonight, Vote it anyway. It's going
[2:11:32] to go through city council and. That will be. Their
[2:11:38] decision, not just the people here. But what I'm asking,
[2:11:42] administration, is that how can we make it clear? That
[2:11:48] we can give. To the people here that are concerned
[2:11:54] about. The logistics of this and how that. It's not
[2:12:01] going to have to be. The worst thing that can
[2:12:03] happen is that we go ahead and build a large
[2:12:05] building. And then think that we're doing it on. Let's
[2:12:10] say we do it on. A shoestring string budget and
[2:12:12] then have to do it over again. So those are
[2:12:14] the things that I think that people are concerned about.
[2:12:19] I know that there are. Huge. Traffic issues on Golf
[2:12:24] links Road. There's a lot of building going there. There's
[2:12:28] a large box store there's. Another mall going in. There's
[2:12:32] 1200 units going in on Central Avenue. There's more on
[2:12:35] Burwood. There's another 200 on there, and already I know
[2:12:40] there's. Traffic issues there already. So what I'd like to
[2:12:44] see is that. We on council and administration work together
[2:12:49] to address it. So that you don't need a civil
[2:12:52] engineering degree, but you can see some planning that's. Gone
[2:12:56] into this thing. So maybe you can comment on that.
[2:13:00] Thank you. Chair through you to the councilor, and I
[2:13:03] am going to try to articulate. The views of administration
[2:13:08] in a very simple manner. When a major construction project
[2:13:12] is undertaken, and these will be major construction projects, it's
[2:13:16] not as simple as we want to build. Buy the
[2:13:19] land, and we're going to build it. There are all
[2:13:22] sorts of checks and balances in place, be it traffic
[2:13:24] studies, water studies, wastewater studies that occur as part of
[2:13:30] the normal development process. Before permits would ever be issued,
[2:13:34] there's. Also our site plan control system that we have
[2:13:38] in place, and we've identified that. All four of these
[2:13:40] would be under site plan. Control to address other issues,
[2:13:44] such as access. Beautification, setbacks, et cetera. So all of.
[2:13:51] Those things will happen behind the scenes. And. Approvals are
[2:13:56] required from council, they will come forward to council. The
[2:14:01] process we use for major construction is extremely robust, and
[2:14:05] I would hazard to say that almost all of the
[2:14:07] questions, in fact, I think all of the questions that
[2:14:10] were asked by various deputies this evening. Perfectly legitimate questions.
[2:14:15] And probably without exception, they will all be answered through
[2:14:19] our various mechanisms, studies, reviews and permitting processes that we
[2:14:24] have in place within the city. I'll also make a
[2:14:27] slight diversionary comment. About smart growth. The growth plan that
[2:14:33] is before council for approval tomorrow evening is intentionally called
[2:14:37] a smart growth action. Plan. In it, we talk about
[2:14:40] environmental stewardship, financial sustainability and other key aspects that will
[2:14:45] also be pervasive in all of our processes and procedures.
[2:14:49] So I think. Your concern chair through you to the
[2:14:52] counselor. Is a legitimate one to express. I believe the
[2:14:56] checks and balances are in place to address it. Thank
[2:15:00] you. Second. That was five minutes. You can go on
[2:15:02] a second. Round. Councilor Aguilar, please. thank you I have
[2:15:09] a couple of questions here. Two of the lots in
[2:15:12] particular. One on Tokyo and one on Fanshaw or musk
[2:15:16] ache. The proposed developments that are in front of us.
[2:15:19] Say six stories. Six stories. Would require pile foundation. And
[2:15:26] I know that because 145 Fanshaw was a development that
[2:15:29] I was involved in 1992. The pile foundation will require
[2:15:34] the heavy power length to be pounded in which. Will
[2:15:39] then shock the foundational areas of the neighboring housing. The
[2:15:44] last two buildings that were built at 147 149. Fanshaw
[2:15:47] did not have pile foundation and did not go to
[2:15:49] six stories just for the reasons of piles. Have we
[2:15:54] taken that into consideration or the proponents that come to
[2:15:57] you taking that into consideration? Because the effect of pile
[2:16:01] pounding through that Musc ache for holding the building. Might.
[2:16:05] How that would. Interact with their houses and their foundations.
[2:16:09] Yes. So through the chair, as noted here, we're at
[2:16:12] the. Fairly early stage where we're considering whether this land
[2:16:16] may be available for housing. Any future development of the
[2:16:21] property would be properly designed and engineered in such a
[2:16:24] way that. The foundation is suitable for the soils. So.
[2:16:34] Where pile foundations are required. And they very well would.
[2:16:37] Maybe in this case. And that foundation is engineered and
[2:16:41] reviewed by our team. And there are instances where vibration
[2:16:46] monitoring is. Thank you, chair. On that. My concern is
[2:16:52] that when we brought these parcels that come forward and
[2:16:54] the demonstrations that we have on the land. Show us.
[2:16:57] Six story, heavy density. Right. This should be a forefront
[2:17:02] condition. To be looked at in advance prior to bringing
[2:17:04] it to the public so they know. What kind of
[2:17:08] challenges they may or may not be. The next question
[2:17:11] do I have. Through you, chair is the city. Do
[2:17:15] we, as a city, have what controls other than site
[2:17:18] plan? Control. Do we have in the way of controls
[2:17:22] or guidelines to mitigate the community that has brought forward
[2:17:26] their concerns. How do we mitigate them? Is it only
[2:17:30] site plan control? That. They'll have or is there? Any
[2:17:35] other guideline. Guidelines in place to allow for what they
[2:17:39] brought forward to us today. Well, there are many guidelines
[2:17:44] and strategies that guide development, including the urban design guidelines.
[2:17:50] In this instance. The administration will be taking. The feedback
[2:17:55] away and having discussions with the developer to have a
[2:17:58] preliminary discussion about. How the developer receives. The input that's
[2:18:06] been provided to this point. And me. Be willing to
[2:18:10] adjust the development. To assist with the neighborhood concerns. My
[2:18:16] third question, then, based on that response, Chair. We're looking
[2:18:20] at selling these lands to increase development, increase income growth
[2:18:25] for our community. We have heard that this really high
[2:18:28] extra density is a concern to all these neighborhoods. The
[2:18:33] only one we did not have a concern with was
[2:18:34] the downtown infill core on camel. So the value of
[2:18:41] the land. The value of income to our city. If
[2:18:46] we reduce the density, will it be feasible? Will it?
[2:18:50] Have the same return. And would it have the same
[2:18:52] necessity to make these lots surplus? Through the chair. The
[2:18:58] goal of administration. Is, should counsel declare these land surplus
[2:19:05] to work with a developer to refine a suitable development?
[2:19:08] Proposal for the lands. It may be the case that
[2:19:14] the development needs to be reduced due to what the
[2:19:17] land can sustain and what is appropriate for the neighborhood.
[2:19:22] And that very well may. Affect. Values, including assessment values.
[2:19:27] However, It is an appropriate use of land. Good use
[2:19:34] of existing infrastructure and amenities. Are all important factors which.
[2:19:45] The city. Administration wishes. To find a good fit. Yeah,
[2:19:50] you're allowed more. Three. But that was five minutes. Okay.
[2:19:53] Thank you. Clerk Walters, can we put to first? Councilor
[2:20:02] Pascalino's second round. Thank you very much. And through the
[2:20:05] chair. My question. Is, how does our city rate compare
[2:20:11] to other cities? In Ontario, maybe even northern Ontario with
[2:20:18] the green space. I know that a lot of people.
[2:20:23] Were talking about. They're going to lose their green space.
[2:20:28] By their location. How are we for parks and for
[2:20:32] trails and all of that? So through the chair. We
[2:20:37] have participated in benchmarking studies in the past, and there
[2:20:40] are two metrics for Parkland. So the one is total
[2:20:45] amount of Parkland. And that we score quite high. In
[2:20:51] probably the top ten percentile, but that includes all of
[2:20:55] our undeveloped parkland. So things like Centennial Park, Trowgridge, whole
[2:21:00] Bogart Lake complex that somewhat skews that. And that it
[2:21:04] really increases. Our total amount of parkland per person. The
[2:21:08] second metric is on developed parkland and developed Parkland. We're
[2:21:13] about average. Now further to that response. One of the
[2:21:21] aspects that administration did consider when identifying lands that could
[2:21:25] potentially be declared surplus news. For housing was to review
[2:21:30] the amenity spaces that are nearby. That and the availability
[2:21:35] of infrastructure support the development. Just last
[2:21:45] point, and as what I brought up earlier, Typically what.
[2:21:50] Happens. Like I was talking about the businesses versus. The
[2:21:56] residents. Which one comes first? And is there any comment
[2:22:00] on that? Like. Is this a good way to put
[2:22:04] up the buildings and the residents and then to have.
[2:22:09] The businesses come next. Chair through you. I'll begin. What
[2:22:14] studies have shown is that businesses establish themselves where there's
[2:22:18] a need. If you have a greater population inherently, you
[2:22:22] will have additional businesses that establish themselves. Exactly which businesses
[2:22:27] would establish themselves at these. In proximity to these locations,
[2:22:31] we can't predict. At this point, but when you get
[2:22:34] increased population, there's increased demand for services, and that increases
[2:22:38] businesses. We have heard anecdotally. That a number of businesses
[2:22:43] are supportive of these initiatives because it will bring more
[2:22:47] population into the area around where their business is established.
[2:22:53] And I don't. Know. I think that addresses it. Subject
[2:22:58] to follow on by the councilor. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:23:02] Second round. Your worship. Mayor Poshka, thanks again. We have
[2:23:08] been recognized by the provincial and federal governments and granted.
[2:23:15] Millions of dollars. By meeting targets. What impact would that
[2:23:22] have? On our ability to continue funding. If we decide
[2:23:28] not to keep building. And say. We don't want any
[2:23:34] more population or we don't want better housing for people.
[2:23:39] Chair through you to his worship. Two parts to that
[2:23:41] answer. First of all, to be clear, The motivation behind.
[2:23:47] Asking council to declare these properties surplus is to address
[2:23:50] the housing need, not simply to go chasing money. That
[2:23:54] said. The federal and provincial incentives through the Housing Accelerator
[2:23:59] Fund and the building faster fund. Help in that it
[2:24:04] provides us with funding to provide incentives to build more.
[2:24:09] So if we continue to meet our targets, we get
[2:24:12] all of those incentives and we take that. Money and
[2:24:15] we roll it over into additional incentives to build even
[2:24:18] more housing. But at the end, of the day. Our
[2:24:21] primary objective is not to get money. Our primary objective
[2:24:25] is to build housing. If we achieve targets, we get
[2:24:28] more money. The second part of that is that some
[2:24:33] people have said that that money will always be there.
[2:24:37] Through the other orders of government, provincially and federally. But
[2:24:42] over my time. I have seen ebbs and flows. So
[2:24:49] is there any urgency that. We ensure that we are
[2:24:53] on these lists. With the funding caps, that type of
[2:24:57] thing. Chair through you to his worship. I'll give a
[2:25:02] very short answer. The funding wasn't. There two years ago,
[2:25:04] before half started. So this notion that it will always
[2:25:07] be there, regardless. Of whether we achieve targets. I do
[2:25:13] not believe that would be a valid assertion. Thank you.
[2:25:18] Thank you. Just on first round for myself. I just
[2:25:23] want to let everyone know that this will come to
[2:25:25] council in January. No matter. Whether it's endorsed by this
[2:25:30] committee or not. So that's the process, Mr. Clerk. Am
[2:25:34] I correct? Yes. And then Fanshaw and Arundel. If pastor
[2:25:43] council would require. Zoning changes. So there's been opportunity, there
[2:25:48] would be a public opportunity for more engagement. And conversation
[2:25:53] from the community. So just quickly. I'll let you know
[2:25:57] my thoughts. On tokyo street. I'm going to vote in
[2:26:02] favor of that one. I don't have a problem. With
[2:26:03] that one. I'm going to vote in favor of Tupper
[2:26:06] and Camelot street. I'm going to vote in favor of
[2:26:08] Fanshaw. I'm not going to vote. In favor of rundle.
[2:26:12] Fundamentally, I think it's too large of a development for
[2:26:16] that. Property. But having said that, it still will come
[2:26:21] to council. And then if it passes there, it'll. Have
[2:26:24] to go through a zoning. Process as well, which I
[2:26:29] don't believe I would support either, based on the fact
[2:26:31] that I think. That development is too large. 600 units
[2:26:36] on that area. That's my thoughts. And so I remind
[2:26:40] councilors and your worship that there was only. Three rounds.
[2:26:44] Everyone's had two rounds except myself. It was one. And
[2:26:47] so if you want. To speak to all four properties
[2:26:49] like I just have. You only have one round left
[2:26:52] of five. Minutes, so I just don't want you. Getting
[2:26:56] missing out here. So, Mr. Clerk, can we put the
[2:26:59] first property. On the. It should be a third round.
[2:27:05] Third round. Councilor Janey. Thank you. Through the chair. It's
[2:27:10] very interesting. On your rationale, and I know we're not
[2:27:15] supposed to debate. So tonight is about declaring the land
[2:27:19] surplus, but not about the density. Of that land. So
[2:27:25] for my decision tonight, I will be voting on declaring
[2:27:29] at surplus. But I don't. Agree with 600 properties on
[2:27:33] a rundle. I just want to make that clear. I
[2:27:37] don't necessarily agree with what's been designated as well on
[2:27:42] Juneaut. And I'll use Junot instead of Tokyo. I don't
[2:27:44] know where Tokyo came. From. I'm not 100% sold on
[2:27:48] Fanshaw. I am on the downtown core, but those other
[2:27:52] three properties. I'm not really sold. On the densification of
[2:27:56] them. And so, for that reason, I will be voting
[2:27:58] yes to surplus. But I will be very clear on
[2:28:01] that densification piece. I'd like to see more consistency in
[2:28:04] the neighborhood. I know people talked about. The seniors home
[2:28:09] across the street. I know there's lots to talk about.
[2:28:12] Five stories there's. Lots to talk about. Tree heights on
[2:28:16] multiple properties. And so I'd like to see the densification
[2:28:22] smaller. Recognizing from administration that we do have some targets
[2:28:26] to meet, but also recognizing that we're also looking at
[2:28:29] other properties. So for myself, I'm not going to vote
[2:28:33] no because of what's been predicted as a size. Because.
[2:28:39] I will be very strong that I don't agree with
[2:28:40] those sizes. Thank you for that. Mr clerk. The first
[2:28:46] property is Fanchai, I believe. Yes, correct, chair. So the
[2:28:50] first property is municipally. Known as 144 Fanshaw street, to
[2:28:53] be declared surplus to the city's requirements and designated as
[2:28:57] an area of site pond control. Okay. All those in
[2:29:01] favor? Opposed. Penny, that's carried. Next to property. The second
[2:29:07] property is in municipal known as 300 Tokyo street. Once
[2:29:10] again, it would be to be declared as surplus and
[2:29:12] designated as an area of site fund control. Councilor Aguwal.
[2:29:16] Third round. Yes. Thank you very much, judge. Here. Chair.
[2:29:21] I have a big concern about this property, and the
[2:29:23] concern is not development. The concern is the Ministry of
[2:29:27] Transportation. The Ministry of Transportation. Flyover or overpass, whatever it's
[2:29:33] called, is unknown at this time. It's been designated to
[2:29:37] be there. We don't know, and we cannot predict what
[2:29:40] the traffic will. Be to call this land surplus today
[2:29:44] will be a very big concern because. If the ministry
[2:29:48] has to expropriate or we have to do alternate. Traffic
[2:29:53] monitoring in that area. I think it's best that we
[2:29:55] have better and more concrete. Answers from the Ministry of
[2:29:58] Transportation prior to declaring this property surplus. The land will
[2:30:02] be there once we know what's going on, then we
[2:30:06] should make that surplus at that point or a portion
[2:30:09] of it if we need to have more turning lanes
[2:30:11] or if we need to. Use that land to widen
[2:30:13] the streets or make extra property for our own traffic
[2:30:19] flow in that area. That for me is a concern
[2:30:22] for that lot. The lot. On. Since this is my
[2:30:27] last round of conversation, The lot on Camelot. I love
[2:30:32] that intensification. I love the program and the plan. That's
[2:30:35] come forward. And for current river. We need single family
[2:30:40] homes. We need little wartime homes. We need affordable homes.
[2:30:45] We haven't built or designated. Large parcels of land for
[2:30:49] single families. We heard from the young fellow. He wants
[2:30:52] to buy a home. He's not buying an apartment or
[2:30:55] moving an apartment. We have lots of apartments coming up.
[2:30:59] That area is surrounded by single family homes. One of
[2:31:03] the other ladies that I think was the second lady
[2:31:05] that spoke, who had all the data. She mentioned. A
[2:31:12] very mixed use. Lower intensification. Keeping the trails. Make that
[2:31:17] connectivity. For me. I'm in favor of lower density blend
[2:31:23] of mix of single family. Yeah, it doesn't bring as
[2:31:27] many taxes, but it gives the quality of life that
[2:31:30] Thunder Bay has. Been known for. Thunder Bay is a
[2:31:33] single family residential home where you can move here and
[2:31:36] buy a home that you can call your own. You
[2:31:39] want to move to Toronto and live in an apartment,
[2:31:41] you can afford to do that there. Because our rental
[2:31:44] apartment costs are about the same as the Toronto apartment
[2:31:46] costs right now. We need more apartments. But with the
[2:31:52] apartments, there is no more rent control. Anything built after
[2:31:55] 2018. Does not have a rent control. So new apartment
[2:32:01] development for intensification for affordable housing. It's not there, we
[2:32:06] have no guarantee. Because new construction does not allow. Rental
[2:32:12] caps like they did prior to the 2018 construction. My
[2:32:17] concern is removing ourselves. From the strategy of what Thunder
[2:32:23] Bay has been known for. Single family homes, a home
[2:32:26] to call your own and make it that we need
[2:32:29] the blend we need some apartments. And one of the
[2:32:34] deputies did speak about freeing up a home, having seniors
[2:32:37] move out of their home into an apartment. That's important
[2:32:40] too. We need homes for the youth, but the 25.
[2:32:43] Year old gentleman that was here. We don't have them.
[2:32:48] Departments, aren't it? So I will vote in favor. For
[2:32:53] Camelot. I will not support Tokyo because I'm concerned that
[2:32:58] we don't. Know enough about Ministry of Transportation. And I
[2:33:01] will vote in favor of Arundel only. With because. It's
[2:33:06] got a rezoning that we will limit the number of
[2:33:09] housing units on. That property. And Fanshaw we voted for
[2:33:12] already. Thank you. Thank you. We have to do the
[2:33:16] 07:00 resolution, please. So just committee just at the hour
[2:33:20] being 07:00 p.m. at the standard. Committee continue with the
[2:33:22] business. At this hour? We'd have mover in a seconder.
[2:33:24] Your worship, the calcier Trini. All those in favor? Both
[2:33:27] defending that's carried your. Worship. The third and final round.
[2:33:31] Chair through you. I would ask manager Ward to just
[2:33:35] clarify or amplify the comments he made on the flyover
[2:33:38] for highway 1117 because I believe it is germane to
[2:33:41] the discussion. Manager Ward. Thank you. And through the chair.
[2:33:45] So the Ministry of Transportation has completed their preliminary designs
[2:33:49] for the various. Intersections in the city and at the
[2:33:54] John intersection, they have also identified what lands they need
[2:33:57] for their future flyover, and that's been taken into account
[2:34:00] for these parcels as well, so. Does these lands that
[2:34:05] picked in Tokyo. Are not significantly impacted by the future
[2:34:09] land needs. Notwithstanding the traffic impacts the lands have been
[2:34:12] taken into account already. Okay. Thank you for that clarification,
[2:34:15] your worship. Third found around. Yes. We'll be voting in
[2:34:21] support of all of these to get. Them moving. So
[2:34:25] that we can keep up with the pace. With the
[2:34:30] further understanding that we are under competition for these tens
[2:34:34] of millions of dollars. And that I have absolute faith
[2:34:39] in the planning department. They have heard the concerns of
[2:34:42] those who. Have objections or are worried about certain things.
[2:34:48] That they will be addressed. And I will certainly be
[2:34:53] available to make sure they're followed up on. So I
[2:34:55] would offer that. As we come to a decision. Thank
[2:35:02] you, chair. Thank you, worship. Pasquino council Pascalino. Thank you
[2:35:09] very much. And through the chair, I am going to
[2:35:12] be voting in favor on all of these sites for
[2:35:16] much the same reason as marriage has stated, but I
[2:35:19] want to make it clear. There are a lot of
[2:35:24] things that can prevent these things from going forward, whether.
[2:35:28] It's not worth it to upgrade the sewers. But even
[2:35:31] like I had an email. Today. There was an owl
[2:35:35] in a tree. They're going to do wildlife studies. These
[2:35:38] things are going to happen. They have to do the
[2:35:40] wild. Wildlife studies. They have to make sure that. There
[2:35:44] aren't certain trees that are growing on these properties. So
[2:35:48] I'm just here to make this thing go to the
[2:35:51] next step. Where it goes from there. It really depends
[2:35:55] on. The civil engineers and all the agencies doing their
[2:35:59] work, and I'm trusting them to do their work. And
[2:36:03] I'm counting on everybody to question the work that they're
[2:36:07] doing. If there are any doubts. But this is just
[2:36:09] one step in a long journey, and it is a
[2:36:12] step. To work. At trying to get more housing and
[2:36:17] more buildings in the city and more growth in the
[2:36:20] city. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clerk, please. All right,
[2:36:24] we'll resume the voting a little unorthodox. Here. We'll continue
[2:36:27] on. The next property is municipally known as 300. Tokyo
[2:36:29] street be declared surplus to the seed requirements and be
[2:36:32] designated as an area of site fund. Control all those.
[2:36:35] In favor, please. Defend. That's carried. Next property, please. Next
[2:36:40] property is municipally known as 211 to 223. Tupper street
[2:36:43] and 224 Tamil street once again to be declared surplus
[2:36:46] and designated as an area of Saipon control. All those
[2:36:48] in favor? Opposed to any that's carried. Next property, please.
[2:36:54] And the last property is municipally known as 791 Arundel
[2:36:57] street. Be declared surplus to the Caesar requirements and be
[2:36:59] designated as an area of site plan control. All those
[2:37:02] in favor? Opposed? If any, that's carried. Next item, please.
[2:37:08] Seeing no further items, a motion to adjourn. Councilor Pascalino.
[2:37:14] Councilor aguilar. All those in favor? Opposed? Venny, just to
[2:37:17] let everyone know, These will be coming to council in
[2:37:20] January again, so it's another opportunity to speak to all.
[2:37:23] I'm not speak but to contact all counselors. If you
[2:37:27] wish so. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming
[2:37:29] forward tonight.