Executive Committee – July 4, 2019 – Part 1 of 2

Executive Committee – July 4, 2019 – Part 1 of 2


Can you hear me?
Check, check. Check, check, one, two, three, four. Does
that sound all right? Check, check.
Check, check, one, two, three, four. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning.
It’s on. It’s not — good morning, ladies and gentlemen, if I could have your attention,
please. [Banging Gavel] we have a — we have a very full room this morning which is the
sign of a healthy democracy. I welcome you all here. If I could just ask over in this
corner here if we could just — you’ll be able to hear.
Actually it is. It’s just that the noise level is so high that you can’t hear me. But — all
right. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I think there’s — she puts it down every
meeting. I know. Let me just see about that. It’s on. Good ladies and gentlemen, ladies
and gentlemen, if I could have your attention, please. I think Councillor Carroll comes and
moves it down so I’m sitting with my head barely above the table. Good morning to one
and actual let me say we have an overflow room in committee room 2 and the proceedings
are on television. For those not able to sit, you might be more comfortable in that other
room. It’s up to you but it’s a little bit better in the room if there isn’t as many
people standing. I’ll go through how the agenda is going to work today so you know the item
you might be here for. We have two items with quite a few deputants. Usually today the committee
members know we have an item dealt with that the law requires us to deal with at 10:00
precisely because there’s been a public notice. It’s brief but we have to deal with it at
that time. May I begin by saying we have quorum. I’ll call to order the 7th meeting of Executive
Committee. We gratefully acknowledge that the land we are meeting on is the traditional
territory of many nations including the Mississauga of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa,
the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations,
Inuit and Métis peoples. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 with
the Mississauga of the Credit. We’re delighted with all the people here in person today but
remind those elsewhere or even people here that you can watch us on YouTube at Toronto
City Council live or follow the meeting on your computer, tablet or smartphone or www.torontoca/council.
There’s an overflow room. Are there any conflicts. If so indicate the item number for interest.
Can I see there’s a library capital budget variance item, am I not mistake?
You are okay with that one. We’ve cleared up some of those areas.
Great, great I just — so used to you being — thank you. First time in eight years here
it was necessary but now it’s not. All good things come to an end. Very good.
No decorations begun I’ll move forward and ask for a notion confirm the minutes of Executive
Committee on June 6th, 2019. In favour? Carried. We have a statutory hearing at 10
to consider item 7.13 which responds to a complaint filed pursuant to the education
act. Anyone present, this is important to note here because of the statutory required
time of this item. Anyone present who wishes to speak including the complainant may address
the committee on this item. We don’t have any notice — we have one. Okay. That will
be dealt with precisely at 10:00. What we’ll do, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know
in the meantime we’ll run down at genal. We go through it and determine the items that
will be held for deputants or otherwise debated for committee members. There’s a large number
of people here on two items in particular. We’ll deal with items as follows. We’ll deal
with 7.13 which is the development charges item with the one person here. Next 7.5 which
is the Don Mills recreation item and 7.1 which is the tenants first Toronto community housing.
Between those items we have the people who want to be heard which is terrific be it means
we don’t have to waiting for long parts of the day to be heard from. In terms of people
wanting to go off to the overflow room, it would be my expectation that the Don Mills
item will take a good part of the morning by the time we hear from people and have questions
from staff. Maybe not all morning but a good portion of the meeting. Tenants first will
probably get started before lunch and carry on after lunch. I would like to add an item
of new business if I may. It’s entitled establishing a subcommittee to provide direction to the
city’s bargaining teams. I understand it’s been pre-circulated on pink paper. Just to
provide a bit of background in the transition to the new council, when we had to restructure
all committees we didn’t appoint a subcommittee that is a standard submit yes to handle negotiations
that start in this calendar year and we’re putting that in place and we’ll deal with
it at the appropriate time. All those in favour? Opposed?
Carried. That gives us 31 items on the agenda and we’ll
proceed with your concurrence with the run down after the agenda.
Item — he we’ll keep an eye on the clock for 10:00. 7.1 implementing tenants first
is being held for deputations. — deputations. Item 7.2 I understand you are going to hold
that for a motion? Yes, and mayor, if I could ask that people
from the BIA office and the film office be present when we discuss. I have questions
for them. We want people from the ba office and film
office requested to be in attendance for questions of staff at the time. Item 7.3 the creant
town pedestrian bridge review held. 7 had the 4 office optimization office swing space.
May I have a motion to accept — somebody holding that?
Moved. So moved by. Opposed?
Carried. Item 7.5 held for deputants. Item 7.6. That’s moved by Councillor
Pasternak. All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. 7.7. Casa Loma corporation annual general meeting.
Hold that, please. Held by Councillor Thompson.
7.8 Lake Shore arena corporation. Happy to move it.
Did I hear somebody wanted to hold it? I’ll move it.
Moved by Councillor Pasternak. All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. Giving a small editorial comment there and say things are looking up there
in terms of general thing. Not quite out of woods but getting there. 7.9 Toronto Community
Housing Corporation. Again, it’s the same general motion of receive and reappointing
auditor and whatnot. It’s a standard business moved by Councillor Ainslie. All knows favour?
Carried. 7.10. Toronto Hydro Corporation same thing. Moved by Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong.
All in favour? Carried. Item 7.11 Toronto pan am sports centre.
All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. 7.12 Toronto Port Lands company, annual general meeting and audited financial
statements. A mover of staff recommendations here?
Moved by Councillor Crawford. All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. Item ex-7.13 is the item we’ll deal with in a if you minutes.
7 the 14. Capital variance report for the year ending 2018. Moved by the budget chief.
All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. 7.15 the operating variance report for the year ended December 31, 2018. Moved
by the budget chief, all in favour? Opposed?
Carried. Item 7.16 the reserve and reserve fund balances report as of December 31, 2018,
moved by Councillor Crawford. All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. We get to the other variance all rights for the first four months. The capital
variance report ended April 30th, 2019. Moved by the budget chief Councillor Crawford, all
in favour? Opposed?
Carried. Item 7.18 the operating variance report for the four months ended April 30th,
2019, moved by Councillor Crawford. All in favour?
Oppose the, carried. Item EX7.19, invest Toronto final wind up and dissolution.
This is received for the information on the wind up of invest Toronto moved by Deputy
Mayor? All in favour?
Opposed? Carried. 7.20, the 2019 levy on railway roadways
and rights of ways and power utility d. Hold that, please.
I hope you are going to move a motion yet again calling on the appropriate authorities
to get — allow us to change that. Thank you. Being held then.
Item EX7.21. Fees for solicitor services limiting distance agreements provided by the city solicitor
to outside parties. Is somebody moving the staff recommendations?
Councillor Ainslie? Favour?
Carried. 7.22 retention schedule for accountability records in the office of the integrity commissioner.
There’s a — I have it here somewhere — you have it there?
There’s a motion I will move that it’s again housekeeping. And it simply provides for the
accountability officer to recommend directly to council the establishment of a retention
schedule for an accountability record and deletes a section. It’s up in front of you.
It’s really housekeeping and that’s all that this was going to deal with and moved by myself,
seconded. All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. That’s on the amendment. On the item as amended?
All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. That covers 22a as well. EX7.23 children services amendments to the 2019 capital budget.
Cash flows from Mount Dennis child care and st. Barnabas catholic school child care project.
Staff recommendation. I’ll move it.
Councillor — all in favour? Opposed?
Carried. EX7.24. Emergency management program funding increase from Ontario power generation
incorporated. This is straightforward. Somebody willing to move it?
Councillor 2406r7son. All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. 7.25, Toronto public liar before y 2019 capital budget and 2028 capital plan
accelerations and deferrals held for a deputation. 7.26 Toronto war 2019 capital budget and 2020-208
capital plan adjustments. Moved by Councillor Crawford. Carried. 7.27 transportation services
2019 capital budgets and adjustments moved by Councillor Crawford. All in favour?
Opposed? Carried. Item 7.28 transfer to reserve funds
to Toronto live foundation there’s a recommendation from the board of directors. Councillor Crawford?
I have a somewhat technical amendment — has it been distributed?
Has not? I’ll hold it and we’ll distribute?
We can deal with it quickly later and people have a chance to read it.
It’s fairly long. We’ll put that on hold to move a motion.
Item ex-7.29 the letter coming from the advisory committee. And can I have a motion accepting
the request that we’re asked to make on behalf of that committee from the Deputy Mayor, all
in favour opposed carried. And then we have EX7.30, Toronto Public Library e-content campaign
held for a deputation and last but not least the item I added, you did, by way of new business
which is the establishment of subcommittee. I’m happy to leave that pour people to read
it and we can proceed ahead to establish that committee which is something on the back.
It has the recommendation of four members Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong as chair —
the Deputy Mayor moves that. Any further motion all in favour?
Opposed? Carried. All right. What time is it?
Mr. Mayor. Yes, sorry I hear a voice.
Councillor Nunziata is that you? Put my glasses back on.
On EX7.4, can I reopen that? The office swing space?
Yes. All in favour of reopening that and having
it held for questions for Councillor. Have a motion if the committee is concurrent
that with the exception of 7.13 which is the stat story item — statutory item, speakers
be allowed to register to speak. After which no further registration allowed and speakers
list closed. We have 30 some odd deputations on the list.
What did I say? July 4 — you are right it’s July 4, 2019.
Good catch Councillor — Deputy Mayor. We would have the list closed at 10:00 a.m. After
which no registration allowed and speakers listed closed. All in favour?
Opposed? Carried. Okay. I putted that by hand. Okay.
So we have three minutes. We have to wait until 10:00 sharp and we’ll wait and start
item 7.13. Ladies and gentlemen, first of all may I say
over on the right hand side of the room here there’s a little bit of general hubbub.
Ladies and gentlemen, okay. Yeah, I will.
Brb tapping gaffe] could I just ask that we, thank you.
Can I say we tried to take into account numbers of deputies and numbers of people in the room
in order to schedule the way we did. Somebody has to come first and second and
I know there’s some people who — I’m pretty liberal about making exceptions for people
who need to catch Wheel-Trans. But we have to take account of the number
people in the room who could otherwise. Somebody has to go second and third and fourth
and I apologize for those who would rather be first and those who are not.
As it’s after 10:00 a.m. We’ll continue the timed item.
EX7.13 development charge complaint. 1385, 1385, 1399 and 14003 military trail.
It is a stat story meeting. We have one registered speaker on this item.
If anybody wishes to speak, please register with the clerk seated to my right immediately
because we’ll deal with the item in fairly rapid order.
But if there’s anybody else, please come up and let the clerk know right away.
Susan rosenthal is the one person registered to speak.
You are most welcome and you have five minutes. It may be just a tad more.
We have to be fair about how we deal with the rules.
I allow a little bit indulgence but it can’t be that much.
Thank you. My client as you know is seeking a credit
to the development charges it paid when it received a permit for the construction of
12 new buildings which replaced five existing dwellings on this site which we demolished
shortly before the new buildings were constructed. The amount of credit amounts to approximately
$200,000 in respect of the city development charges and approximately $7500 in respect
of the education development charges. As you know the city has provisions in its
by-law to allow for the reduction of development charges payable to take into account that
the fact that the development is replacing development demolished, existing units.
The city has a time limit within which these provisions apply.
And in my view the purpose of that time limit is three fold.
Firstly, the city wants to make sure that buildings are not demolished and the site
lays vacant for a great length of time. Secondly, the city wants to ensure that the
purpose for the demolition related to the purpose for the new construction.
So that buildings are being replaced. Not just being demolished many years later
new construction comes along. And finally, in my view, the city wants to
encourage active processing of our applications to ensure that, again, there’s not a time
lag. They want to make sure there’s not inactivity.
In my client’s case there was no inactivity at all.
It was just the opposite. The permit was issued to a previous owner.
And that previous owner shortly after receiving the demolition permit applied for his zoning
by-law and receive add zoning ballistic missile amendment and applied for consent to serve
the land to facilitate a sale of them. It was sold to my client in September of 2015
and very shortly after my client purchased the property they entered into a design exercise
which resulted in the need for a minor variance application which they submitted on November
182015. They wanted to make sure there was sufficient
time to process the minor variance application and so they applied in January of 2016 for
a transfer of the demolition permit to them. And when they applied for that transfer they
had to fill out a new application for a demolition permit.
It wasn’t merely a administrative exercise. They had to fill out forms seeking that.
It was my client’s view that when did it that, it was in effect seeking a new issuance of
a demolition permit. My client actively processed the variance
application. But as you know these things take time and
I scpt that is why the city extended the time between the demolition permit and the application
for building permit to 60340s — 60 months. It’s nobody’s fault they take time.
As a result my client requested extensions of demolition permit twice to allow for the
processing of the application and the city was well aware that the reason for the extensions
was owe so that my client could continue and maintain the minor variance application.
Once the application was issue my variance approval was issued in 2016, it immediately
proceeded to pursue its development proposal. It commenced December of 2016 and it applied
for a building permit in June 2017. That was just 17 and a half 340s after it
received the transfer of the demolition permit to it and it began — the perm was issued
on August 16, 2017 just 19.5 months after the permit was issued to it.
By waiting to demolish the buildings until they were ready to proceed to development,
my client full filled what we believe is the intent behind the ability to obtain credit.
They ensured that the site didn’t sit vacant while the approvals were underway.
They ensured that there was a relationship between the buildings demolished and the new
buildings put up and they ensured that the redevelopment application on the site was
actively pursued. In our opinion the transfer is the critical
date. The transfer of that permit is the date upon
which the time begins to run. And we meet the time frame from the date of
the transfer. I note that the 36 months that is in the by-law
in effect would have experienced essentially when my client sought the transfer.
It makes no sense that my client would have taking a position that the demolition permit
was expired and they had no benefit of the credit.
Had my client understood at the time that the city would take the position that the
credit timing began from the date of original issuance of the date of permit in 2013 and
not when they got the permit in 2016 they would have asked for the revocation of that
permit and resubmitted a new demolition permit. It would have been a lot less costly and wouldn’t
have resulted in the despite you with the city.
I’ve given you an extra minute and I would ask you to wrap up.
I’m nearly done, thank you sir. That wasn’t their understanding and they understood
that the permit in fact would — at the time would begin from January 2016 particularly
since the city new that the purpose for the demolition and extension was to facilitate
the proposed redevelopment of these lands. As I result, I am seeking on behalf of my
client a reduction to the city development charges and to the educational development
charges and I would be prepared to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you very much. So the question is: Are there questions of
the deputant? Any members of council visit something in
I don’t see any hands up. Goes to Councillor Ainslie.
How much of a reduction in the fees is your client look for?
For the city fees it is $200,000 if you bear with me for just a second.
$200,335 and for the education development $7465.
Okay. And you are looking — your client is looking
for those reductions because you are saying the gap was caused by the city that caused
them to go back and get a new perm permit and other related paperwork.
In our view the seeking of transfer and need to file a new application for that permit
triggered the date. But the timing was as a result of the need
to process the application through the city, yes.
And your client wasn’t aware this had to be done before they bought the properties?
I’m not sure I understand — they didn’t understand the timelines when they bought the properties
and demolished the house and — they didn’t demolish the properties until after they received
their minor variance approval and their understanding was that the timing began when they given
the demolition permit rather than when the previous owner was given the permit.
Okay. I guess the site plan application that was
done by the previous owner? The current owner got a — the previous owner
got a prezoning. The current owner wanted tweaks and asry ultimate
a minor variance application had to be made. Thank you, thank you Mayor Tory.
Any further questions? Ms. Rosenthal thank you very much for comments
and answers to the questions. We move to questions of staff.
I will ask again. Anybody else who wishes to speak to this?
Sir? No.
Anybody else wanting to speak to this matter? Okay.
On that basis we’ll move to questions of staff. Are there any members of council visiting
with us that want to ask a question of staff? If not we can move to Councillor Ainslie.
Very briefly just a quick question through you, Mr. Mayor.
On page five of the report it references complete building permit applications submitted on
June 1, 2017 this is 53 outside of 36 month demolition reduction.
Is the calculation done on when building permit applications are received and submitted or
when they are issued? Through the chair, the calculation is based
on the application of the demolition permit. Issuance of demolition permit and application
of building permit. So it’s that difference in time.
If someone waits six months for their building permit, that six months is part of the calculation?
If they waited six months for the forecast be approved?
Sorry? Your report says that the calculation of the
three years starts on the date that the applications are submitted not when it’s issued?
That’s correct. So if someone waits I don’t know three, four,
six months for the permit applications, those — that period of time counts in the calculation?
That wait period? Yes, sir.
Okay. Thank you.
Councillor Ainslie. When they went to the building permit, were
they past the 36 month period? Could you repeat that?
When the applicant went to get the building permit were they past the six month period?
Correct. Is there any communication saying if you don’t
get your paperwork in? There was — it would expire or be revoked
after a period of time typically about a year. So there was communication and those demolition
permits were extended. But staff do not advise the applicant on how
to minimize development charges. So there’s no notice that their demolition
reduction period is set to expire. Thank you, Mayor Tory.
Other questions of staff? Can I just ask you, for those watching and
it’s important for people to understand what is going on here.
The report sets it out but it’s alluded to in the questions of my two colleagues but
could you give us the 30 second — the staff is recommending here that we stick with the
decision taken that the by-law was properly applied.
When you say 30 seconds, I mean the short explanation as to why you believe it was the
case. I want it on the record for people watching.
Absolutely. Through the chair, so this situation is a
case where the amount of — where the application of the by-laws disputed by the applicant.
They have a statutory right to be heard by Executive Committee.
In this case, as the staff report indicates, staff reviewed the file and determined we
filed the by-law appropriately. So our recommendation is that the request
be dismissed. There’s no dispute about the facts of the
matter. I believe in this situation, as the deputant
stated, there may have been a misunderstand being what their timeline ran — misunderstanding
about when the timeline ran out but staff looked and it was cleared after the 36 months.
And we have a duty as staff to enforce the by-law and our finding was there was no error
in how it was applied. The law as written, examined that, examined
this file relative to that and you found that the law in this case was followed?
That’s correct. Okay.
Those are my questions. Are there any other questions of staff?
Anyone wishing to speak to this matter? We have in front of us a staff recommendation
which is that a local — it will go forward to City Council but it’s determine d that
the by-law and education development charges by-law has been properly applied and City
Council dismiss the complaint — this will go forward to City Council but I’ll
call the question. Moved by Councillor Ainslie?
All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. Thank you very much.
All right now. I’m going to just exercise the discretion
that I alluded to before. There are four people that indicated they
have Wheel-Trans reservation and so forth on 4 had the — 4.1.
I know sometimes the Wheel-Trans reservations can be hard to change.
I would ask. I’ll read their names because they are coming
out of order. Kathy birch, William lowman, power and Anita
dressler. We’ll report back to 7.5 at that time.
Ms. Birch, you are first and you are most welcome here and is that table set up in a
way that it’s okay for you? Yes.
Very good. You are welcome and five minutes .
Good morning Mr. Tory and committee members. I’m Kathy birch.
I’m the founder and the chair of r path, created in 2013.
We’re tenants living in Toronto community housing who live with physical disabilities
and advocate for accessibility and partner with Toronto community housing.
For Toronto community housing tenants we provide the lived experience lens to help TCHC spend
money effectively to create usable spaces for all tenants including tenants with disabilities.
Together with management and staff we’ve helped build a robust accessibility program that
includes policy and procedure development, budget recommendations, a ten year accessibility
plan, recommendations for modifications to existing builds in common spaces and in suite,
a build ratio for accessible unit s for the development team and revitalized in new communities.
Accessibility builds standards for all properties. We worked extensively for all facilities management
and development in the past six years by helping scope projects, reviewing draws and developing
accessibility build standards that exceed the building code as the current lbc is insufficient
for mobility devised used today. These standards mean TCHC meets duty to accommodate
legislation which is really important. And from this room and the way — the difficulties
we’ve had, we need to talk. It allows tenants to age in place safer and
longer. We review drawing and go on site for all revitalization
projects with development to continue provide for future needs.
Our work with development facilities provide proactive and innovative build standards so
new and revitalized communities are developed with truly usable accessibility as well as
modification to existing builds. This is important because we have an aging
population. Tenants needs will rise.
We worked with and made recommendations to TCHC management for build ratios of fully
accessibility units and revitalized to meet the needs of that aging population.
They’ve been supported and committed to by the TCHC board of directors.
Because the work for usable accessibility has been extensive for six years in TCHC the
progress is remarkable. It’s not desirable or in the best interest
of current or future tenants to move development to the city or to create to.
It would impede accessibility for persons with disabilities being able to function in
revitalized and new communities currently worked on and future projects.
The only option to circumvent this critical barrier would be for the city to honour the
current TCHC board of directors commitment of accessibility unit build ratio and delivery
of accessibility units in new and revitalized communities with the TCHC, accessibility build
standards to meet current and future needs for accessible housing.
And I’ve given you the actual minutes from the board meeting.
For the adoption of the TCHC accessibility build standards with the move of development
for residential common spaces and accessible units and we request that development continue
to partner with r path on residential accessibility at monthly meetings if moved under the umbrella
of the city so they can continue to update our path monthly on TCHC projects and continue
their valued input on innovative accessibility build standards for accessible housing.
If these steps are not taken with any movement of TCHC development division, new and revitalized
communities would be built to obc standards and not meet accommodation requirements for
TCHC tenant and this would result in large capital investment requirements to the same
communities. Capital repairs of senior buildings because
accessibility is included for common spaces and unit modifications as part of TCHC capital
budget! if new seniors entity will have their own capital budget only delivered by TCHC
then it is a must that accessibility for common spaces and unit modification be a requirement
of that new budget this is a significant capital investment.
I have to ask you to wrap up shortly Ms. Birch. Okay.
We need to you accept our build standards to make sure the unit s are modified and we
also you — modified. And we also need you to make sure that they
have process in the new entity to make sure that the tenants — currently they’ve got
a process, they’ve got standards that meet their needs.
If you are going to take this seniors portfolio away and give it a separate entity, you have
to make sure that they have those same kind of processes in pros and available to — place
and available to the tenant and equal opportunity. I’ll thank you and maybe I’ll ask the first
question. I was coming to really what I think was the
new Brunswick — nub of your presentation the move of development of TCHC and seniors
entity is that what you are saying is you want to be absolutely assured that — by the
way I should say I thank you for the work I know you do across the whole portfolio of
TCHC and revitalized communities and I know you are a big contributor of that.
You want to make sure that the progress you acknowledge has been made in terms of adopting
standards and enforcing those as it would with respect to accommodation and those are
carried forward regardless of who is doing the development that the same standards are
maintained and same with the seniors that they are firmly entrenched as it were in any
new structure contemplated by this report is.
That fair? It is.
We need make sure that our properties are going and tenant s are going to be accommodated
with the same quality that they are currently giving.
They are not — we want to make sure that the process that — they are not losing time
for even for making their application. We want to make sure they get equal opportunity
to what they have now. The idea is to make things better.
It’s not to step backwards. All right.
That is the only question I had to make that clear which you did.
Other members of committee or visiting members of council wishing to ask questions?
We’ll thank you for your submission. I think we’ll hear from other.
We appreciate your continued activism on this — in this area.
Next we would have in order of the people on the list who asked to be heard William
lowman. Who is Mr. Loaman.
Is he here? Not — over — there you are.
Clear a little bit — spot for you. It’s tough in this room.
We’ve improved the desk. We’ve got a convoy going.
We’ve improved the desk. Thank you
Mr. 345eur. Good morning and good morning to members of
Executive Committee. My name is bill loeman.
I’m a tenant from Toronto housing and a member of sake, a seniors advisory and advocacy council
which was seniors voice, a advocacy group that speaks with and represents seniors.
Please understand this morning my words are not meant as an attack on staff or the positive
results from the youth programs. Staff are doing what they’ve always done.
And if you want a different outcome, then you need to change the mind-set and the method
to your approach or you will continue to get what you’ve always got.
Successful problem solving requires finding the right solution to the right problem and
we fail more often because we solve the wrong problem than because we come up with the wrong
solution to the right problem. During his remarks, to this body on January
26th, 2016, senator Eggelton stated at the conclusion of his task force report to you,
Mr. Mayor, he spoke about developing a customer service culture to serve the residents better
and give tenants a stronger voice in the governance system.
I file see an appreciation for his sent — fail to see an appreciation for his sentiments
in his saying tenants fimples it seems to crop up when the snow melts with each year’s
ask of council and offering tenants little time to parse the proposed changes.
They manipulated and codified procedures of democracy to appoint the tenant directors.
This is just one perceived example of the disdain that tenants, particularly seniors
have received throughout the unfolding of tenants first process.
Housing, the subcommittee in conjunction with and at the direction of tenants first staff
coordinated a facade claiming that tenants are providing input and consent while new
policies, procedures and programs have been quietly developed behind closed doors imposed
on tenants and will be in full first once the other — will be in full force once the
other shoe drops. The commingling and collusion which was joyfully
evident at cities and housing staff’s camaraderie during these recent information sessions.
To me it’s — there were more than a dozen and a half staff from the city and from housing
who were present to — the concerns of tenants like we’ll look into it, we consulted extensively
and this is what they tenant leaders asked for.
I’m sure when they were asked if organizational and human resource training would benefit
them in their community endeavors they had no idea and were not informed that this training
fund for both tenants and staff would be appropriated by taking 30% of meagre $460 tenants receive
annually for the use for the activities. If tenant charter was disavowed by staff and
tossed into a closet for two years and brought out and used to hold tenants accountability
for identifying and fixing their own community issues through a newly imposed community action
plan. Staff are no longer coordinator s as if they
ever were for seniors. They are now the administrators of community
action plan’s goals that conscripted tenants are expected to accomplish for their communities.
Their new role for tenants is to ensure into they are working on delivering quality hopes,
creating vibrant communities and striving for service excellence.
And they won’t be eligible for any type of funding from this new interim funding table
unless it is specifically in line with the agenda.
I’ll ask v- to ask you to conclude if you with.
Thank you very much. Basically, the tenants first plan is a paradigm
for seniors last. Youth over the years have been receiving funding
sources, recreation, job students, scholarships, while seniors are now being told that they
can put in applications for paints and brushes so that they can deliver quality homes in
vibrant communities. There’s a problem here.
And the problem actually is it’s a disconnect. People are looking at the same word and having
two different nerves. We’ll stop you there.
We need to speak to together. We thank you very much.
Don’t hear any questions so thank you very much for your deputation.
I appreciate that. Doris power?
I beg your pardon? Moved down the list.
All right. Anita dress letter.
Ms. Dressletter. Here.
There we are. Thank you very much.
Good morning. You have five minutes.
Are you both going to speak during that five minutes?
We’ll be last. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Good morning Mayor Tory. Councillors, staff and those in attendance.
I respect submit to you my deputation. I’m a seniors advocate in the chair of sake
senior advisory and advocacy council. Vat tina mahoney our secretary is with me.
The separation to a new entity is paramount in the successful senior unit.
In the past everything from assistance and engagement has been focused on youth.
The word senior has been a dirty word. There’s a per exception that once we’re a
senior the worth is diminished and we’re a drain on the economy.
Not so. Seniors are vibrant, educationed, experienced
largest source of volunteer action. We contribute hundreds of thousands of hours
volunteering. We keep your costs down.
We paid our way in the past. Most of us working 40 plus hours a week for
40 or 50 years. And are still contributing to or city and
to our buildings within TCHC. Most of us agree with this action plan, however,
in it’s infancy we’re focused on the changes that will impact on the approximately 2800
seniors living in TCHC. 14,000 living in the now 83 senior buildings
across your city. It is imperative that we’re actually part
of new governance and our voices are heard. Staff’s intentions are good or living in a
different life cycle cannot possibly recognize that seniors are a different breed.
We know how to be engaged we’re experts at managing how to resolve issues.
Please don’t dumb us down. Yes, some of us need vital supports and home
care. Some of wows be recognized for who we are
— and what we contribute which is very rarely done.
This plan still has a lot of unanswered questions mostly about governance and essential answers
to our well being. Examples, one, will we have a commissioner
to equity to work with us if a life crisis occurs and we fall behind in the rent.
Presently they work with tenant s to make sure evictions are kept to a minimum and eviction
is a last resort. Two, will same site staff remain in our buildings?
Three, will we be offered a choice in prplz and services we receive?
Four, will we have input and will our input be implemented in the proposed plans that
affect our lives? Five will the city stop dropping streets to
homes into our senior buildings making our buildings vulnerable due to antisocial behaviour?
Will this help them to learn life skills before being moved to senior building and making
them vulnerable? Seven, we’ll supportive housing with agencies
supporting at above individuals 24/7 be fit ted into your new model.
Eight will your new model ensure quiet enjoyment of tenancies as per leases?
And nine, the biggest question of all, will there be transparency?
Account credibility respect and equality? I want to thank everyone here for a willing
me to depute on this matter. Is your colleague going to speak?
Or are you talk something in questions? You said what you wanted to say.
That’s fine, thank you. Could I start with a question then?
Again, you do — you understand the purpose behind this is to fulfill a lot of what you
spoke about to make sure we’re not sort of trying hive or push off seniors but have them
within a structural unit within the context of social house programs that allows us, with
other governments, to deliver services whatever service people need in an effective manner
than would be the case if we didn’t have separate — you understand and I would support that?
I respect what you are saying. However, it’s proposed to us and what we’re
seeing and the consultations by tenants first that is not what the message is to us.
There’s total perception that there will be a control issue and we are too stupid to manage
our own affairs. I can’t imagine any staff people I have met
with — that is the perception coming across. I understand that but it can’t reality.
The question which I took note of. You may be gone because you wanted to catch
your ride but if some questions of were assisted — answered about equitability, if though
were answered would that change your view so you
wouldn’t have the perception we’re trying to do something we aren’t try doing?
So far they’ve been asked numerous times and the answer we get is we’ll get back to you
and nobody gets back to us. That’s why we have the deputations so you
can come here and tell us directly that you are not satisfied.
I’ve taken note of the questions you posed and we’ll take those up with the staff.
Thank you. I want you to know from my perspective and
we’ll move to questions from others there’s absolutely not a sin — scintilla of thought
that we undervalue contributions seniors have made and the idea is to try to do better by
and for those seniors and provide the wraparound services that in some cases some need more
effectively than other motive. The motive is pure and positive and we’ll
need the support of the other governments. You understand that’s what we’re trying to
do? I do.
Councillor Carroll had her hand up. We’re rushing, sorry, but I want to go back
to when you said about camh clients. You are not saying that they couldn’t be in
the residence? What I’m saying is they should have 24/7 support.
Most came h have a caseworker they come in half an hour every week or two weeks.
They escalate at night on weekends on holidays not when staff is available.
What we’re saying is teaching life skills similar to the prison system with halfway
houses. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have a home
about it has to be done smarter. You want them to have wrap around support.
Yes, I do. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Fletcher?
I guess the same would go if there are streets to homes clients coming they need to have
more. Unfortunately some of these have moved in
the build and the bill has been terrorized. They have to be taught life skills.
They haven’t been involved in the day to day living of living independently.
Think it’s important that supportive housing or transition housing be implemented by the
city. So would you like to see supportive house
pg and transitional house organize focus on that?
Yes — housing or focus on that? And supportive housing run by agencies that
are their clients. Correct.
So this idea as far as I am concerned and I’m sorry to hear about any interactions that
led you to believe this isn’t to increase the focus on seniors.
That is the understanding and my intention when I looked at this.
It would be to increase the focus on senior as a standalone unit.
Right and to make sure things improve rather than not get worse but some of the situations
you described. I think that is — all of our deputations
are relating to that. Don’t make a change to make things worse make
it to make things better. That’s basically what you are saying.
Yes. You are concerned about the och if this moves
over there’s no more och. How — yes.
The person charged with ensuring nobody is evicted because they didn’t fill out papers.
That’s correct. That person would travel with unit.
It’s very important for och to be involved in the senior unit because seniors are vulnerable
and let’s face wit — face it with aging they forget their documents.
They forget the proper documents. To be evicted for rent arrears because of
it and seniors that transferred from ODSP into the cpp where there’s a large settlement
given the money is spend and the senior is way behind in arrears, och can step in and
make a repayment plan to save the tenant the tenancy.
To be clear, there’s some feeling in some quarters that we don’t really need och that
you would very strongly advise that this person who is dedicated to seniors and their frailty
and making sure they are not evicted. I think it’s an imperative section for all
of Toronto housing special it will senior unit.
I think they are effective and reduced the number of victims in the system.
You know they are not allowed to deal with non-seniors.
Beg your pardon? She’s not allowed to deal with non-seniors.
I think it should be expanded to all tenants. I appreciate you telling me that because I
agree with you. Thank you.
Thank you. Visiting Councillors or members of the committee
who wish to ask questions? Seeing none, I’ll thank you very much.
Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Then we’re going to go back, Doris power has been moved down and will not be heard from
now and later on when we come back to the item, right?
Yes. That is fine and that completes the deputations
we’ll hear on this item and we’ll revert as we previously announced to beginning item
7.5, the Don Mills planning and recreation facilities for the Don Mills communities.
We have deputants on this. There’s ten.
We’ll hear first from odile patel. [inaudible] yes, Deputy Mayor is quite right.
There’s a brief presentation from the staff about the item to with all the people here
would know what we’re talking about. I ask that the staff make the presentation
and then we’ll have Mr. Patel. Sorry about that.
Thank you Mr. Mayor, just to introduce the brief presentation we’re going to do.
— presentation to do. And — Ann Marie is the director.
And she’s going to take us through the short presentation.
Good morning. So the report before you focuses on planning
recreation facilities in the Don Mills community. When we look at the planning for these facilities,
particularly looking at it now, we have basically done a review of demographics and also put
an equity lens in terms of the population of area currently.
We looked at the growth which I’ll give you a snapshot of.
We looked at the new opportunities that that growth resulted and looked at the facilities
master plan approved by council in 2017 and design best practices we’ve come forward on
community recreation planning. All of these elements collectively have informed
what you have before you in the report and recommendations.
When we look at the demographics of corridor, for the area that we were looking at in terms
of planning community recreation facilities we look at an area from the York Mills, Don
Mills road being the spine of this area and basically south to overlay as with other communities
across the city this area is diverse in terms population.
It has a current population of approximately 46,000 people.
And in this southern portion of the corridor we have the Flemington park community which
is a neighbourhood improvement area and currently it has the largest current population of around
22,000 people and it has the lower income of the three areas that we’ve provided a profile
on. When we go into the middle area between Lawrence
and Eglinton and the community is around 15,000 population.
On the incumbents around 89,000. Whether we go to the north portion of area
between Lawrence and York Mills, we see we have 9,000 people and 150,000 to the income.
We have to look at the overall demographic mix of communities we’re planning for.
We also look at growth. This area has undergone a lot of change and
in the report, there’s a reflection of a — an agreement that happened in 2010 as a result
of the shops at Don Mills development. The blue adopt represents the growth planned
for this area at the shops of Don Mills around 2010 which shows around 2,000 units a residential
development and that was the viks at this time.
We didn’t anticipate the range of growth of area was experiencing.
The mustard or yellow colour dots represents growth and development that has happened or
planned for between 2011 and 2017. And that’s around 3600 units.
And then in 2018, we saw an approval of another 9,000 units of planned growth.
It’s 14,000 iew residential units representing approximately 25,000 additional people coming
into this corridor. So once again this 2010 there was a site identified
for a community facility at the shops of Don Mills and it’s one acre in size.
We recently through the approval of the development secured a 5.5 acre park parcel.
That approval basically got LPAT approval earlier in January of this year but was before
council last spring. So basically we had an opportunity as a result
of the development celecsica development to plan for recreation facilities in a different
way not and tis — anticipated before. The Celestica site is bigger and
we had to look for another site in the Don Mills community.
It took us quite a wile to find another site suitable for a future arena.
We had tentative, got council’s approval of that in 2016 and when we looked at planning
recreation facilities now, we looked at the opportunity that this site would have in terms
of housing a multicomponent community facility serve the growing area.
We when look at the two sites I’ll show you in the next slide the different facilities
but to give you a sense of the distance between the sites it’s approximately a kilometre,
a little less, between them. The service area for recreation facilities
is 2.5 area. And what we are basically in the preferred
facility 3408d looking at the community recreation facility serve the entire core door at the
site and go through the components of that. What we’re also doing is recommending that
the site at the shops of Don Mills remain for public community use as it is a land exchange
for the place that sites on the shops of Don Mills site.
The proposal showed us splitting up the facility into two different facilities.
We move on not next slide. The preferred facility proposal.
We went out and engaged with the community on the two proposals.
A question has come up why did you call it the preferred facility proposal.
When we were looking at the different alternatives we did our full analysis and we realized that
this really is the preferred facility. It is located in a large park allowing for
the synergies between the public park and community facility.
And we felt that it could probably be designed and planned for this facility — for this
area to truly serve the growth and change in the area and existing community needs.
The facility components that are included in the preferred facility it’s a large integrated
facility. It co-locates a twin ice pad also used during
the off season as a multi-sport plex. It includes community spaces, gymnasium, includes
a double tank $ would be similar to the Pam McConnell aquatic facility and it would basically
create one integrated seamless user experience providing multiple opportunities for foam
stay and play allowing for longer operating hours to manage people’s very precious personal
time. The at tern proposal looked at basically two
facilities one at the shops of Don Mills of 27,000 square feet that would be a gymnasium
with multi-program spaces, program. Rooms, purpose rooms, excuse me and at the
Celestica site it would have at reena and aquatics area.
We did distill and fully consider what was about that in 2010 in terms of planning for
this community and seeing what alternate we could consider.
One of concerns that we have with the at ternate proposal is we’re dividing up the facility.
It requires people to go to two sites to access the facility.
By co-locating the gym with the pool and multi-sport plex we would have staff in place to ins instantly
program and create synergies within that facility. That seamlessness in terms of operation and
user experience that we’ve heard that people expect, we’re often challenged by the smaller
community facilities programming it and bringing people to the facility and satisfying their
needs. That’s why we felt we had to be transparent
when we went out to the public and we spoke with the preferred facility model.
That’s what is recommended in the report. We did public engagement we did four stakeholder
meetings. Six pop-ups a big open house where we had
people engaged. We found that the majority of those engaged
expressed preference for the preferred facilities. One stop shop, convenient, efficient, accessible.
We took efforts to engage with youth with the area.
Popped up in shopping centers, everybody gets gross riz and they have an — groceries and
they have an opinion on their way in and out. We heard from the Don Mills association and
some of the residents that they didn’t like other option.
They — either option. They preferred the facility planned and they
were part of planning in 2010. So that’s — that was part of — so we had
a bit of a geographic response which is not unusual in any type of exercise we engage
in but we did hear a lot of positive feedback on the property.
So in terms of the recommendations, we are recommending the preferred integrated facility
be located on the Celestica site. We believe it represents a generational investment
for recreation. It will be one of most unique recreation facilities
in the city. And we’re very excited about advancing the
development of this facility. There are planning approvals required and
we have to look at the recommendation reflects those.
Section 37 agreement. The zoning by-law has a level of detail that
is not a best practice but they included certain square footage.
We would want to review the opportunity for the shops at Don Mills site.
We recognize there’s an interest in having the community use in this site and we’re looking
with real estate and planning to come up with a propose yam.
We would like to extend the arena in the section 37 agreement.
It’s slated to cease operations in 2020. We anticipate it will take some time and we
want to extend that because they are doing wonderful programming for the community and
we want to work with the Celestica land owners to begin the design.
We’ll report back to the 2020 capital budget to support the approach because it’s a major
capital project and it’s the protocol of the city to do that.
Thank you. That’s our presentation.
We’ll normally have you stand down and hear the deputations and as there may be questions
coming from the committee members that we want to ask after the deputations you’d be
available. We’ll proceed to hear from the members of
the public who have come today. There’s some some reordering again of the
speakers list is. It Brian story is to be first from the Don
Mills residents organization. Good morning, sir.
You have five minutes and there may be questions after that.
Good morning Mayor Tory and members of Executive Committee.
The report that you just heard about is misleading and incomplete.
It contends that the city number one consulted extensively and two garnered support for the
facility at Celestica. We the Don Mills residents incorporated known
as dmri dispute both claims and object to the recommendations which redirects the funds
for the community centre at the shops at Don Mills s to the Celestica site.
I would like to provide background. In 2010 the city Cadillac Fairview the owner
of the shops at Don Mills and developer and dmri negotiated a section 37 agreement approved
by the OMB and approved by council. Section 37 agreement was explicit.
In it Cadillac Fairview provided the land for the community centre, provide $17 million
indexed from 2010 to build the community centre to select a not for profit operator to operate
it for 49 years and do this by October of 2020.
Penalties built into the agreement if Cadillac Fairview failed to deliver.
In 2017 the dmri, Cadillac Fairview and the staff were working together to implement the
agreement. In October of 2017 parks and recreation master
plan for 20 years was approved by City Council and in that the community centre at the shops
of Don Mills was identified as an approved and funded community centre.
And then in January of 201 the city abruptly stopped meeting with the dmri and Cadillac
Fairview. They embarked on the plan recommended to you
today ignoring the legally binding agreement, and note they didn’t mention it today either.
Also in 2018, Cadillac Fairview agreed to provide an additional $3 million of section
37 funding in relation to the development at 169 the don way, part of the shops at Don
Mills. And the developer for the building at 905
Don Mills road south of shops agreed to provide an additional $550,000.
In September of 2018, council Minnan-Wong he wrote to the dmri confirming his support
for building the community centre at the shops of Don Mills.
The city did not actually consult about the Celestica facility.
Instead through a series of pop ups and one open house they promoted the preferred option
of the larger facility as you heard versus an alternative of a smaller facility in both
cases. It considered the fact that given those two
options, people preferred the larger option as support for the Celestica site.
But that isn’t consultation. That’s selling.
The city myth represented the situation — misrepresented the situation in that it did not mention it
had a legal by blinding agreement to building the shop at Don Mills.
The city didn’t mention what would be lost. The rad Cadillac Fairview has to provide parking
and deal with site clean up. They provide a operator for 49 years.
The city’s process was an engagement process and not a consultation process.
It was flawed and therefore the outcome was flawed.
We understand that change was inevitable. When change occurs they have an obligation
to negotiate with parties to the agreement. The city is treating the dml, and the Don
Mills community much like the ford government is treating Toronto.
Neither is acceptable. In summary the process was flawed.
Where is there was a legally binding agreement the changes to it need to be negotiated.
The recommendations are also flawed. Funds intended for the community will being
redirected to a community at Celestica that does not yet exist and will not exist for
some time. The city has many years to fund that facility.
The city Don Mills community is the community negatively affected by the development of
the shops, the section 37 funds were intended to compensate the community for the increased
height and density of residential component of the shops and the community — a community
centre at the shops is walkable for most of central Don Mills including students at the
local schools and seniors. Central Don Mills needs a community centre
now. It was promised it and it should get it.
A deal is a deal. Thank you.
Thank you very much Mr. Story.
Are there — ladies and gentlemen, we don’t have applause here or cheering or booing.
We just can wave our hands if they think it was a good point but we don’t have that because
otherwise it would turn into a circus. There are questions.
I have some I don’t know if others have some. Could I ask a couple questions?
We talked about the money and where it was going to come from.
Put a hypothetical to you. If there was a public process that the staff
alluded to to determine a future public use for this land, if you went ahead with what
is recommended here and if within the context of that there was money for public use might
be suggested would your concern about the money go way.
Sounds like that concern is where the money is going.
We put money into what public use she-the-decide should be done.
Would that eliminate your concern about the money?
When you say put money in? What our view is there’s $17 million inflated
today and I don’t quite frankly know how much that is.
There’s an additional $3 million 550,000. If the city said we’re prepared to spend that
money and Don Mills and work with the staff to design the best facility we can there,
our concern would go away. I wanted you to I hope acknowledge.
There’s presentations where there’s not acknowledgement of the fact that there — — were other opinions.
They did acknowledge that there was a specific acknowledgement that there was a different
opinion that was gathered and I would consider that to be consultation.
Whatever people think about who was selling. What I wasn’t.
There they specifically acknowledged in the report to us today and in the report that
there was a different opinion. I want to be fair to them in the terms of
that fact that I would consider a consultation that at the report on both opinions.
I grant that. But that — our organization held a community
meeting at which we had 400 people attend and the city staff attended that.
That’s where they heard the opposition. They didn’t hold it.
It wasn’t part of our — I was our process. We were there and it was report.
I understand the diss continuation. That’s fine, thank you.
Any other persons or members of committee — Councillor Thompson?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you to the speaker, am I then to consider that you are actually
fine with respect to two facilities being built.
Absolutely. It’s just that what was promised, you are
hoping that to be delivered? Correct.
Right and just in terms of distance, do you know the distance between the Eglinton locations
Celestica and I would simply say Don Mills area.
Don Mills and Lawrence slightly over a kilometre. The key thing [lost audio] so the way Don
Mills is designed we have walkways to the centre.
So that kilometre is in addition to getting to the centre.
So if people were to walk from Don Mills, they would have to walk to the centre and
walk down a busy kilometre — right. As part of that whole site plan process with
the respect to the development of the shops at Don Mills, at the time, were the residents
and you talked a little bit about pathways with respect to the location, were those all
sort of incorporated as part of planned design so that the community would be able to simply
walk to the proposed or new facility that would be designed for community amenities?
Are you referring to the one at the shops? Yes, not the other one because I don’t know
— yes. So.
Pops up and an open house. Not a heating similar to what you had as part
of your association. Thank you.
Thank you Deputy Mayor Thompson. Any other members want to ask a question?
Sir shall thank you very much for your submissions today.
Next we good to ak med Hussein from the neighbourhood organization.
Is it now just the neighbourhood organization because we know it’s not just the Thorncliffe
because it’s the best one s. That the idea? You are most welcome.
Five minutes. Good morning.
Your honour and the Executive Committee members. My name is ahmed hue hane and I’m the director
of neighbourhood organization. It’s a charitable organization not for social
services. That service the residents of the park, Thorncliffe
park, crescent town and St. James Town community. I’m here to support the preferable — preferred
option the city staff has recommended. This — we understand you have — a difficult
decision to make and listening what the Don Mills community were expecting.
But we also believe that we did a lot of consultation with — in the community and we, the residents
we asked them to input what this facility will bring to the community, especially Thorncliffe
park and windfort community and also the expectation that there will be a growth that is coming
through the LRT and which would be concentrated in — as the city save says 75% will be at
Eglinton and Don Mills area. The response we receive from the community
were unanimous. They support the preferred option.
And some of the — residents are here today. The youth and the seniors in the community
and they — here to demonstrate the need to have that facility in Don Mills — the Celestica
and — area centre. This is really one is a opportunity for such
a facility. We believe it’s the right thing to do.
As our Toronto grows so does our needs for services that enhance deliverability of our
city. Also the new growth through the LRT and egg
inwill top community specifically benefits from this centre.
It’s really also an unintended outcome for us and as the neighbourhood organization we
have a Thorncliffe park. An adjacent community which do not have any
Thorncliffe will benefit from that and it’s not that far from that.
The integrated seamless services available for all the community and also if you deified
that facility would you end up being — every one of that community would be traveling different
locations to access different and some of those services.
So having a one integrated and facility in the community will really make significant
and getting back to the community. The community and has a large population of
seniors and both in Flemington park but also and we believe that Thorncliffe community
will benefit from this facility. We’ve been waiting for as a long time.
We have not been vocal and I understand other community has been vocal.
But I think the community has showed a lot of patience and we hope, we hope the preferred
option that the city staff have recommended and will be the one that the council will
recommend. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there questions of this deputant?
All right. I’ll thank you for being here today and thank
you for the work you do on an ongoing basis. We have lots of chances to see you.
We next have Ms. Viera straka. She’s next on the list.
Sorry if I mispronounced your name. Thank you, good morning.
And you are have five minutes. I’m a resident of Don Mills for the past 35
years and also a member of the board of dmri. Very good.
You have five minutes. I would like to talk about the report first
options developed by city staff, I think the biggest the flaw in the report which I’m — which
I found is the fact that the third option and that is the community centre at Don Mills
as associated was not put on the — not put as an option.
This was negotiated. There was labels and very importantly there
was a time frame when this community centre would happen.
2020 deadline now that is probably not there and the fact that the negotiations between
the city, dmri and be stopped at the end of 2017 the fact that the
centre there’s basically no time frame for when this is going to happen and is it going
to be in the location or location where it’s shown now.
The financing for the centre has not been determined yet.
So there’s an promise that provides community around Eglinton and York Mills access to a
centre which could be sooner than the centre at the Celestica side.
The centre which was negotiated at the — shops at Don Mills it’s 48500 square feet and the
community centre at the side is only around 60,000 square feet.
The community centre that’s excluding the twin parts.
The demo graphics of provided by the — in the staff report which he’ll deels own with
the density and income distribution by age and it’s important because the community centre
may limit access to many seniors and don miles community and also access of school children
to programs after school. Public consultation there’s been discussion
about public consultation and it’s hard to make consultation affective
if there’s already a solution. At tern nate option is [inaudible] there’s
immediately the bias which skews of the results of consultation process.
Secondly where these consultations happen there’s a list of them but it appears most
of these are outside of Don Mills the community centre was not put on board
so community cannot decide on what is the best if it doesn’t have all the options.
So it so the city in fact excluded that option from the consultations.
The negotiations with the city stop at 2017 and we were not involved in any consultation
to participate in the developing vision for Don Mills community centre and perhaps also
participate in a bigger picture how do we see the Eglinton and Don Mills and communities
south of Eglinton. The distance is one kilometre distance in
the report is misleading as Brian talked to that.
A lot are father way from the community centre at Don Mills.
It’s much greater and demands on the design. It’s hard for many seniors to access the access
and the other — walking track and so on . The report dismisses the — it states insufficient
funds, site too fall and could not meet AODA. There’s no proof that either of these three
points are through. The cost and accessibility and design issues
and there’s a always a solution to this. In conclusion it appears the whole report
was constructed to convince everybody that the preferred location is the only one solution.
I have to ask you to stop there. We’re past six minutes now.
Okay? Okay.
Can I say one more thing. Very last.
We do not oppose the community centre at Celestica side.
But what we object for the city to transfer the money from our community to another community
which is not yet existing. Glad you made that point, his a question for
you. I had no opinion and I don’t think I discussed
wit anybody before the report came. This all long predates me here at the city
hall. I heard your points about consultation.
I presume you would agree with me that it’s a legitimate option for the city to look at
co-locating all the facilities by that I mean arena plus community facilities, pools, gyms
and so forth from the standpoint of the staffing and servicing that it’s ea legitimate option
to look at co-locating them menopause it — because it makes sense of how we run thing s for the
next going forward. I presume it’s a sleg mate thing to be looking
for. I agree but on the other hand, what we need
look at to build sustainable communities where walking distances to all the amen yates are
very important. Says this the only place to go.
There are issues related with accessibility and we probably need another centre at shriftica
but a basic centre that would serve Don Mills, think it’s important.
As you acknowledge the validity, I acknowledge the validity of yours.
I assume as well that would you ak our obligation to take cost effectiveness into account.
If you assume we need a quantity of community facilities located in the area that you saw
on the maps that we have that one of things we have to talk into account as a city government
and on your behalf is cost effectiveness of building and operating something like that.
I assume you acknowledge that. I agree.
Those are the questions I have. Others who have questions of this deputant.
Thank you very much for your patience and being here this morning.
Next was Dorothy past lerks l frerks livelosts condominium corporation.
There you are. I think.
You are most we’ll come this morning. You have five minutes, okay.
The discretionary defines a community of a group of like-minded people.
Communities is not a physical term it’s a strong and emotion al feeling of belonging.
If it was lauer I don’t understand park would be considered part of same community as Yonge
and Eglinton because they are both on the Yonge Street corridor.
Our community begins north of York Mills road. Our community does not include Eglinton avenue.
On Thursday the sixth of June 430 nebz packed the church to demand that our community get
the long awaited community centre. Communities around us all have a community
centre the. Cliff park Flemington park.
Ban bury community. Underhill.
Graydon hall community and forest manor has the community centre of its own.
Where is ours? In the last number of years Don Mills last
curling rink, bowling alley and the central meeting space the Don Mills indoor mall.
Soon our civic town arena will be gone as well.
Why are we the only community that doesn’t have a community centre?
Where do we gather eight months of year? People have a choice.
We don’t have a choose. When the deal was struck with the community
centre we were more than thrilled. The new community condominium buildings at
the shops included in their documentation that was a tradeoff for accepting the billings
close to the condominium buildings. The condo buildings designed without pool
and without very much amenities for this year. We were going to have a community centre on
site. How will the residents at Eglinton be inconvenienced
by this. Seniors moved out of houses into the condos
secure in the knowledge that they would have one day soon they would be able to work to
a meeting place to a pool and climate changed indoor walking track this is a document in
the disclosure statement of all the condos in the area that says we’re get age community
centre. There were many young families at our June
6th meet and a number of 430 people in attendance. Most lived in the community since the 1960
and while some are still vibrant they rely on walkers to get around now our comeunlors
suggested this cowhack down to Don Mills. How can you get a walker on to TTC and how
can you walk down with a walker? For those of our residents that live closer
to York Mills road it’s ten bus stops and four kilometres down.
He suggested we could walk. The city may have engaged people however more
were outside the community and the community centre is pulled from we want the community
centre we’ve been waiting for. Demographics immaterial we don’t expect Flemington
park or crosstown foam come to the community centre dwoafnlt have to serve 20,000 people.
We just to serve the local community, ours. Why is household income a factor at all?
We’re not opposing the creation of a regional complex across town.
Think graitz idea. I think it’s great for Flemington and Thorncliffe
and whoever wants to use it. But it has nothing to do with our community
centre. I would like everyone to acknowledge the raw
deal we’ve been dealt. We really feel we’ve been thrown under the
bus. We need some place to gather a place where
youth programs will keep our younger residents busy and out of trouble.
Please don’t leave my community with nothing. Thank you questions of this deputant?
I’m looking at — I’m on the dmri web site and there’s a map that shows the catchment
area and it goes down to Eglinton. That’s not our community.
It doesn’t go down to Eglinton. Our community as I mentioned is a feeling
of like-minded people we’re a very strong community we’ll never belong to the community.
That’s a catchment area. We send news letters that far.
There’s nobody living there. Area one is — which includes the Celestica
site is represented by your dmri president, correct?
By who? So that’s in Don Mills.
It’s in the postal district of Don Mills, yes.
It’s not the Don Mills community, thank you. Along the same lines, I’ve been working really
hard since I’ve had this job. I understand what you are saying.
I did live in Lawrence park. I understand it was
a community. We feel across the city.
It’s one of difficult ties we’ve had. They feel they are part of City of Toronto.
You would acknowledge that while you may be part of Don Mills you are part of City of
Toronto which Eglinton and Don Mills and York Mills or Don Mills and Sheppard, those are
all part of city. So in that sense we have some obligation,
you understand to look at things that way at least this part as we make decisions here
for the benefit of all the people of the city and even all the people in a slighter broader
area. You understand that?
Yes. Why it’s desirable to a city — we’re not
opposing the regional community centre at Eglinton.
It’s a great idea. But every area surrounding the Don Mills community
at Don Mills and Lawrence has its own community centre.
They had one built at forest manor and there’s one — the community centre in all around
us except for the Don Mills area. Our people at Don Mills and Lawrence and north
of Lawrence can’t walk down if we don’t get ours for the last few
years and for which we have the money to build if it’s not stolen for us our people will
not have a have a community — all we want is what we’ve been promised.
All the condos in that whole area surrounding the shops at Don Mills bought in there because
there was going to be a community centre I work with building when we built the whole
shoves at the Don Mills and we decided that we were going to put in swimming pools in
those buildings or a lot of amenities because we were going to have a community centre.
That was the idea over is wait for the community centre.
We have eight junior schools that can watch at Don Mills and Lawrence.
There’s no schools nor will there be any schools that can walk to a community centre at Don
Mills and Eglinton. They are going to have lots of people go to
it. That’s it’s not our schools walking in the
middle of school year and take lessons or whatever it is they do at a community centre
and go back to their school or walk from their home to the community centre.
All we’re asking for is our own little local community centre.
We don’t care what you build in Eglinton. We’ve got enough money with the post service
site and other build down the street. One of the things I read in some of the documents
was that our community centre plan was not very good because the swimming pool was going
to be in the basement. Well, I’ve got a copy of it and the swimming
is spool not in the basement it’s on the main level and two are window walls.
One facing south and one facing west. This was never designed for the basement.
It was designed for natural late. Why is the city using the same design team
to build the community centre at Eglinton if they didn’t like the design team building
the centre at Lawrence. It’s the same team! it’s giononi and pet traconi,
whatever it’s called. It’s the same team.
If they didn’t think they with were go why choose the same company?
Thank you very much. Any other questions of deputant.
Thank you very much. We president bush that.
The next is friends at Flemington park. Good morning.
You have five mibs to make your remarks — up to five minutes.
Good morning Mayor Tory, Deputy Mayor and Executive Committee members.
My name is adill patel, I’m the vice chair of friends of Flemington park it’s a grass
roots association and partnership with local agency and parer in thes that supports the
resident of Flemington park. We ask community lead — we act as community
leaders I won’t take much of your time but I’m here to represent residents who are in
support of the city’s preferred option 7 for the proposed 175 Don Mills centre at Don Mills
and Eglinton we have held many community meetings with residents discuss their preference and
can report to you there’s a unanimous approval of preferred options.
It ask in the meet the needs of 25,000 plus people in the we understand that the city
is committed to maintaining the community centre and Flemington but we have to wait
until it’s approved today. It includes the park and Flemington park and
preferred option is today [inaudible] we understand and are sympathetic to the Don Mills residence
association supporting the proposal option. Blue as city ease involve over the years so
too, must the city larger facility is state of art , one of largest
in the City of Toronto. We acknowledge the communities play an important
role in the development and contribution towards city planning.
We’re here today for this reason. This is once the in a generation opportunity.
We believe the right thing to do is build a livable city and stated mission of the City
of Toronto. I want to acknowledge all of Toronto youth
and seniors that came out to support today and morning it’s been a long day for them.
Thank you for your time allowing me to speak on behalf
of community. Thank you.
Good morning you have up to five minutes to make your parks and most welcome this morning.
Members of council, ladies and gentlemen my name is Larry [inaudible]– we lived for 30
years. I’ve been a member of the Don Mills association
for many years and I’m impressed how it looks after the members and rest of community on
behalf of the residents having lived in the area for 30 years I’ve seen it go from an
open mall type imlawz to an enclosed building and back to an outside accessible mall.
The closed mall was a community mall the neighbourhood and area has changed dramatically
since Cadillac Fairview came on the scene. Once it was known that there was going to
be condos built to accommodate roughly 2500 people on the imawd rant bordered by the Lawrence
avenue east and don way west. The mri was constantly on top of situation
fighting proposed density. I quote from the strong 2019 article in the
dmri news in 2010 we — there are three parties of the disagreement.
That agreement included among other things a commitment by Cadillac Fairview to build
a community centre at the northwest corner of Don Mills road and Donway west.
17 million index set aside to build the community centre.
They are attempting to move the move to the Celestica site where it would be combined
with one plan there. That [inaudible] arena at the shops.
Prior to the recent municipal election, we had received a letter from council Minnan-Wong
which stated his support and I have this letter dated September 21,2018.
That says I’m writing to confirm my support for the proposed Don Mills community centre
project at the corner of Don Mills road and the done way agreed to by the City of Toronto
Cadillac Fairview and Don Mills residents ink.
We were privileged to have the Councillor working with us to fight for the density and
community centre. When the boundaries changed we were represented
by the Councillor who gave the original project his support but has done a complete turn around
spins the supporting of very smaller centre at the shops at Don Mills and suggest ing
that the section 37 money which is value over $21 million be turned over to the new Celestica
community centre considerably larger than the 48500 square foot facility planned by
the shops to be completed by 2020. The 21 million is not the city’s money.
It’s an amount accumulated given for community centre at Don Mills and the Donway west by
Cadillac Fairview and concession for the increased density.
In a meeting on June 27th they gave a speech to the general meet being the need to support
the regional recreational centre. He gave out another handout dated June 27,
2019 giving numerous web sites that people can refer to to support the new Celestica
site I ask you sit ting there in judgement what does a signed agreement mean?
The mri the City of Toronto and Cadillac Fairview had a signed agreement to build a 48570 square
foot facility in 2010. The facility office to be completed in 2020.
We’re in the second half of 2019 and the viability of this centre in limbo in spite of a signed
agreement. Is there any point in dmri pursuing our original
agreement or any agreement as far as this is concerned?
Thank you? Can you identify more me the boundaries of
Don Mills community? The Don Mills community?
Would I say the Don Mills community that we’re talking about is basically a along the Donway
west to York Mills road from Victoria Park to Lesley.
How far south. South?
How far south? To the don way west at the bottom of the shops.
It’s rather limited then. Doesn’t go as far as Barbara green then?
No. As I heard from the Councillor and Deputy
Mayor your web site says it goes to green. He said he supported this.
Just, sir, with respect, the web site that it goes to Barbara green.
That’s fine. What I’m trying to understand it seems that
there are changing with respect to the view as to where does the community actually goes.
I don’t know the community that well. That’s why I’m asking you the question.
I would think if you were to look at the boundaries of back in 2010 when the agreement was signed,
then would you probably have it around. Right, right, right.
An agreement was made and you wish it to kept, is that the issue?
The issue is made that the agreement was kept, the money supped applied by Cadillac Fairview
not the City of Toronto. The community centre was going to be built
and that money which I am concerned to be the Don Mills money is turned over to the
project which it belongs because of fact that we have increased, we agreed to increase density
in that agreement. We got that money for our community and I
consider the community to be where the shops of Don Mills.
I see. And so because the city now has a larger experience
inspective and view that does not define the community as just to your specific area.
That’s right. And wishes to change that you are fundamentally
in opposition to that. That’s right.
I see. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Thank you four your comments. Caroline schwep is next.
Good morning. You are most welcome and you have five minutes.
Hopefully I won’t take five minutes. My name is Caroline sch he is wep oom a resident
of Don Mills area. I moved to the neighbourhood about 12, 13
years ago and have watched the development in the Don Mills community with a great deal
of interest. I think we all agree that the developments
that we’re talking about within that entire area are critical to the future state of the
Toronto — of the City of Toronto. I don’t think it’s a discussion of either
or. The reality is communities need community
space. They need places for our young people and
older people to engage with each other to undertake sports activities, so, you know,
I think there’s I been a lot of discussion here as to one versus the other.
The reaction is we know we need community spaces.
The fact of the matter is that there’s a letter of agreement with the Don Mills residence
association that indicates that money allocated from the construction of condominiums and
other facilities in the ships at Don Mills area was to be allocated to a community centre
in that particular site. There’s been some discussion at this group
and I attended meeting hosted by the Don Mills association.
There was some discussion about the fact that the city had undertaken some community studies
and I would fundamentally disagree with that. A pop up in a supermarket is not an engagement
study. And whether or not 538 walk through the supermarket
in an afternoon or in the local library does not an engagement study make.
Over 400 people showed up at the recent meeting that Mr.
Minnan-Wong had attended to express their viewpoints about the fact that the city reneged
on this deal. So I think that this there’s a little bit
of smoke and mirrors going on here. There was a deal in place and that allocated
interest pays. — payments.
The city reneged on the deal. That deal was signed ten years ago.
We’re talking about a plan that makes sense in this room.
I don’t think anybody would disagree with the needs for that particular site but that’s
currently a discussion paper red sox we going to have another ten years or 20 years waiting
for that? In the meantime, what is going to happen from
the money from the section 37 funds that are allocated for the community space and promised
for the community space in the area to which it was identified?
That’s all I have to say today. Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you for yours and your comments. Just stay there for one second.
Are there questions of this deputant. Thank you very much for your comments.
They are appreciated. Next is Wendy pawling.
Five minutes. Thank you I’m a resident of Don Mills living
in the north end closer to York Mills. Wanted to give you my thoughts.
First of all no one here should be surprised by or dismissive of the objections you are
hearing today. The Don Mills community has been waiting for
this centre for a very long time the agreement in all party as sured us a facility would
be built at the shops. Master recreation plan for 2019, 2028 that
council approved with further assurance. Now the about about it and fully funded by
section 37 funs we thought were safe. The city can build a regional community centre
at Don Mills and Eglinton — Eglinton surely it’s needed with the development.
Don’t mix of your centre your proposal it’s a separate issue.
What I take issue with you are disregarding the OMB agreement.
You are now saying that the land at Don Mills and don way is insufficient to satisfy the
agreement. How is this possible after all these years,
after you approve it and it’s not good enough? You are ignoring your own guidelines that
you developed on section 37 and how it should be used.
What there an intent to avoid us? The report diminishes our concerns.
It rerchs that there’s some opposition, there isn’t some opposition.
There’s a lot of opposition in the Don Mills community.
Why is this dismissed? Because it’s a marketing campaign you’ve been
doing? Why is the alternate model dismissed when
it’s us our and money affected. We stand to lose the most.
Should we not have a say? What happened with parkway forest, 50,000
square feet community centre using section 37 funds?
Did you go to the broad region to get input on that or did you go to the local neighbourhood
that is impacted by development? This report refers to the Don Mills corridor
although it’s not really a corridor. The corridor extends to neighbourhoods beyond
Don Mills road to Lesley and York Mills and east to the Don River.
This area is not well served by the community. Facilities.
There’s one small band that has very few services. People will travel to the shops at Don Mills.
The Don Mills centre has always been the centre of Don Mills.
People traveling now but there’s nothing else to do there.
This community centre would be a perfect place for foam gather and facilities for families
and seniors. This report suggests people want all the bells
and whistles in a large facility. First of all there’s no figuring how many
people are in survey, and how many un-consulted with and what the percentage said this or
that but in your report of 2017 when asked about the their preferences for recreation
facilities size and number of features a majority of respondents, 58% expressed a preference
for small facilities that are closer to their home instead of large facilities with more
features further from them. And the other thing about your population
projects, you don’t know if you covered everything happening on York Mills road but it’s part
of community and as I said there’s not anything in the Lesley York Mills area.
So anyway, Don Mills was the first planned community and we had many facilities there
when I grew up there. Don Mills shopping centre defined the area.
We’re giving up the arena, give us a facility. I sense the excitement of staff to think about
the new development taking precedence, new development at Celestica.
But I think to think because of it we’ve lot what we were excited about happening at the
community at Don Mills. Thank you very much ms.
Pawling. Questions?
Okay. Thank you very much for your comments.
We appreciate those. Have ninsa Quinn?
You are welcome here and have up to might have fives for the remarks.
I’m a resident and teacher at Don Mills middle school and I’m first going to speak towards
the invisibility population which is not mentioned in this report and that is the marginalized
children of Don Mills. Then after I’m going mention a piece of dmri
business. I do sit on the board.
Within the Don Mills community and community I take from above the railways tracks which
is just where underhill is up to York Mills and from Leslie over to the Don River, children
and youth compose 24% of the population. However, that population increases significantly
during the daytime. Both Don Mills and middle and Don Mills collegiate
have a catchment that extends down to the science centre to st.
Dennis drive. During the day time we have a huge increase
of youth all within the Don Mills area which total
past 8 can comprise 3,000 children. So at 3 crk 30.
3,000 children have nowheree to go except the library because yef no facilities for
children after school. There are no after school programs for children
in our community. It was pulled down so we lost a soccer field
and baseball diamond on top of that. In the report it says that the annual household
income is 151,000 according to the city’s own statistics of banbury Don Mills in 2016
the median household income for the area is 77,000 of which 20% of the residents of Don
Mills live below the poverty line. These are people who live in the old 1950s
apartments on Don Mills road and on Lawrence. Apartments with no elevators which is why
the rent is cheaper. And they sacrificed to live in our community
because the shops at Don Mills is very expensive. There’s a false attitude that they are and
after lieu community that is not true. I have children who show up without food.
I have children who can’t afford running shoes. -given children clothing.
S that the reality of Don Mills. There are no facilities for these children.
I’m particularly struck by the parks and recreation first of all there was a pop up at the metro
grocery store, one of most expensive grocery stores in Canada.
Poor people don’t shop at metro. They shop at the no frills at Victoria Park.
Well, there was a pop up at mid-afternoon on Saturdays at the local library.
Most are working on Saturdays and not available for a pop up.
No, but there was a large community meeting with map and explanations at the science centre.
Well the science centre that’s ea 50 minute walk meaning poor people would have to take
vansity and if you live below the poverty six dollars for a return TTC pair versus food.
What are you going to take. Our community has a food bank.
Yes, in Don Mills a food bank open twice a week under demand.
I find that even in attachment two there’s a statement that says participants requested
that meetings be held closer in the neighbourhood but in the main report it says there was extensive
consultation. Even parks and rec is not sure what they are
doing. I find that the voice of poor was totally
ignored in any consultation pop up contact they are not represented here.
They are the invisible voice in a is not heard. I find this pitting against each other reprehensible.
I was a resident of Thorncliffe park for 17 years.
I’m not against them. However the poor of Thorncliffe, the poor
of others and poor of Don Mills all deserve equal access to services.
They all deserve having a level playing field achieve what our city promotes in its mission
statement you want to mention something from the dmri we filed a letter with you and the
last line said the dmri is fully prepared to take legal
we hope such a step is not necessary and the commit yes re Josh beckett the staff recommendation.
Thank have you meche. Questions of deputant?
Councillor Carroll? Yes so, keeping in mind that the poor can
live anywhere,. Yes you made a study of it.
Where the largest concentrations feeding into the Don Mills schools?
Within the Don Mills area itself. Yes.
They are on the don way west in the low rise apartment building there.
Win green court on the don way east the northeast quadrant.
There’s a lane or road of low rise apartment builds six or seven them.
They are along Lawrence which is the Donway west doing towards Lesley on the north side
they are lower income apartment buildings and they are on right across the shops not
including the seniors home which is an expensive home but other buildings are low rental buildings.
Right that is st. Dennis so that’s Toronto housing.
So we have a significant proportion of Toronto housing children attending both Don Mills
middle and collegiate. Right, but if they are from St. Dennis.
That area. They would walk right by either one of these
whichever one is built? The issue is though because it’s when their
friends go bam home they are not there. Then up in Don Mills they are some friends
but some in don hills. Yes, so the opportunities tend to, it’s more
like that. They congragates around the school and around
that area because that’s where their friends are.
Nowadays due to social media kids friends are all over the city depending on activity.
Although it’s healthier for children to have Tiffany ogleitys but there isn’t there are
not enough facilities for them. I meant, wouldn’t agree though social media
it’s not — what is happening is it’s turning out they are not couch potatoes.
It leads to you linking up and finding friend and going to them.
But doesn’t replace human contact. It leads to human contact.
Wouldn’t you agree that’s how the change between how they arrange their dates with — I would
say social media leads to self identity. So that’s how they identify peer wise through
social media. Right, right.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thanks, Councillor. Other questions of deputant?
All right. Thank you very much ms. Quinn for your comments
and for your answers to the questions and that brings us to Howard smith.
Good morning,. It’s good afternoon I guess.
I wondered if it was going to happen and I forget to check.
You have up to five minute and we’ll check I had contact many, many year since was born
I don’t have a lot different to say that hasn’t been said already today including a few things
people elaborated on. For some many of the major pints of designed
to have the committee decide to not do the previously agreed to upon community centre
and instead move that down to the site the whole report is hitting one neighbourhood
in Don Mills and I find it difficult to except what was going on and the city should be interested
in, you know all of Don Mills and all of the city not just certain neighbourhoods.
I feel that the purpose of report to totally disregard the section 37 deal from 2010 that
has been spoke been already several times wasn’t fair to the people of central Don Mills
who had been wait norg community centre for a long time.
The point has been very well made that the community for this community centre came from
the developer in return for fairly high density residential properties and that any retroactive
decision by the city not to build this community centre in favour of another area
is inappropriate. Especially the growth coming should have adequate
facilities as well. I don’t understand why the point of view has
been to retroactively reegg in on the agreement from 2010.
It doesn’t make any sense to me and I don’t September any reason it’s been offered including
the fact that this community centre has not been built yet.
Obviously it had been this I don’t understand why from the arena, you
know a newly developed area is to get under the referred at tern alternative is to get
a community area centre that is reached its capacity given the size of population.
Why the proposal is for home it have the community — the agency dilate facilities they need
brought on soon almost as soon as they need it and yet in contrust has Don Mills and Lawrence
has waited forever for a community centre and you know not only has paid for it but
basically now it seems is possibly going to have it take and way.
I don’t understand the difference in how these three neighbourhoods are being created I disagreed
with some of the speakers ermer think anyone focus on their neighbourhood calling that
Don Mills is not appropriate. So basically think they should commit to the
property and I absolutely would like to request that the committee recommend that that adequate
recreational facilities be built at the site for the community there now and for the development
that is coming. Are there questions of this deputant?
Thank you very much. We appreciate your patience and your bringing
here today with us. That brings us to the end of the deputations
we had regular stearnd leave us time before we have a lunch break to begin with questions
of staff. Who has questions of staff, count Carroll?
Right off the bat in an early deputation. In your presentation you said what was contemplated
for the centre at Lawrence and the Donway was a gym and multipurpose room.
One of deputants talked about their having a pool contemplated there and that pools were
negotiated out of the condos. In exchange for there was a pool in the community
centre. Was that the case?
So the amenity provisions provided in the condo were up to the developer at the time
and those varied and planning can speak to that pace thank is addressed in the report
around the challenges of 37 agreement and facility proposed.
So it’s around a 48,000 plus square foot facility on a 46,000 square foot fight.
Based on said to’s standards and our assessment it was an overbuild for the city and didn’t
meet some of the requirements. That’s the difference.
In the at ternate proposal we took the pool out.
Put on the preferred facility and had the gym and program rooms in the Don Mills site.
A few more questions here. First of all.
There are going to be — there are tip ofity and facilities here that don’t exist in the
smaller centre in Flemington park. Is there priority status here or some low
income programming other than welcome letter or they just use welcome letter?
Through you, Mr. Mayor, the new — the prefer facility would be a larger multi-purpose,
multi-functional community recreation centre that would have the same policies, same programming,
same access approaches as any of our other community recreation centers.
But not priority centre? Based on the demographics, it would not be
free but participants could access the welcome policy just as they do with other programs.
Yeah, I’m going to try to fit in two more there.
One of the deputants talked about not even — this say discussion paper not even believing
the cross town centre would be built. There’s such a lever they have to build that
centre before they can build the condos similar to what we did in parkway forest?
There’s provisions for the park itself after it’s cleaned and conveyed to the city.
There’s not an outside date though. Is there the leaver such that they can’t make
the money until after they’ve built the community centre.
Yes, there is. Okay.
Good. Biggest gap we heard from one of late deputants
is not having enough after school programming, seniors programming.
Is there a scan to look at if you are not going to build a centre how you might accommodate
that otherwise? Is there a scan of the need in the Donway
area that could accommodate it such that we know there’s perfect and after programming
to the max seniors programming in spaces where we might do it by contract?
What the provisions to accommodate in the — just in the way of gathering space and
children’s programming? Through you, Mr. Mayor, we haven’t had a specific
scan in that particular area in the Donway area but it’s an exercise that we could endeavour
and look at the level of service provide and whether this are facilities available such
as school and others where we could deliver additional programming.
So you would — you would entertain that being a condition — if council was to go with preferred
option, council could add that and you would be able to do that.
Would you have no objection to that? Thank you.
With regard to the agreement and I have a minutes of settlement here, within the minutes
of settlement there’s a competition sized fitness pool, fitness area and auditorium
for $17 million. Is there enough money there?
Through you Mr. Mayor, last staff to comment as well, our assessment of the $17 million
based on $350 a square foot plus the increments bring it up to roughly $21,000 would not provide
it. Money is not there.
Okay. Correct.
Second question is and this is with regard to consultation, we hired an independent firm
do this, yes? We hired lauer the if a siltation firm to
undertake the process. We had consultations with stakeholders in
Flemington, yes? Yes and we had consultations with the civitan
Stakeholders? Yes.
And a meeting with the executive at dmri? Yes.
We asked their opinion and what they thought, yes?
Yes. The institutional people, we talked to them
as well? Yes, we did.
Have I missed any small group where we had stakeholder meetings?
We did the winford community. Yes, question and all of these groups except
for the dmri athey were broadly and generally supportive of preferred site, correct?
Correct. So.
You would classify this based on your experience as extensive consultation?
Yes, I would. And we we had two community meeting on the
same day one early and late afternoon and public presentation and many of your staff
there taking notes asking people which site they preferred save and
except for the folks in Don Mills area, by and large most of the majority people were
supportive of the site. We had a great deal of preferred site.
We did pop ups at the mote meth troa, library and superstore.
There was a comment about people who can’t afford the metro.
We dent done to sonny’s, a different offering and we asked them as well, correct?
Yes, and we also were at Dennis timbr lerks and playground dis.
Thank you. Why don’t we build small community centers
anymore. A lot of this in the facilities master plan
mg our experience with smaller communities is that given the growth and population and
density of some communities such as this one is they can be undersized and not able to
provide enough service and amenities in the community to serve the in and.
As noted in the presentation by combining a number of components together to a largest
multipurpose recreation centre we have the ability to offer programming and deliver more
based on demand. You can deliver more programming by having
a larger facility? Correct.
Does your great show more people want to go to a large facility?
That’s correct. Our data shows the facilities from the largest
participation. Because smaller facilities are not as fun
for lack of a better term? Smaller facilities have less amenities to
offer in a build and less programs with operate a pool and other amenities that
extend the time a building might be open. Does that make smaller facilities harder to
program? Correct.
Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor Nunziata. I’m hearing the deputants, it sounds like
that they felt the agreement signed and the agreement was for exclusive use of the condo
owners that is not part of agreement.
It’s intended to be a publically accessible community centre.
Anyone could. We’re residents of this city, correct.
Correct. For example, the York community centre which
we just opened and took years to build, people from all over the city use that community
centre, it’s a big community centre and it has all the facility and that’s the reason
it was built not just for the community in York it’s for the whole City of Toronto.
That’s correct. Our experience has been that participation
and community centers is generally within around a 3-5 kilometre radius but there’s
no resident in the city that is precluded from participating at any public lick accessible
recreation centers. Thank you.
Through you to staff we heard about costing in the $17 million costing Ann curry dem and
it has a value of $21 million. What is the overall scuft was preferred facilities
that you are proposing to be built? Through you Mr., Mr. Mayor, the entire preferred
cost is approximately $80 million. That includes $24 million which has been allocated
and approved in past budgets for the double pad arena idea and to get us to the $80 million,
certainly there’s a lot of development on going and looking at the development funding
sources. Right.
Residents have spoken about the issues around seniors and having access.
How does that translate to other areas in the city?
Similar challenges with respect to seniors have access to facilities cross across the
city? Through you Mr. Mayor we have arrangements
with community buss that provide direct routes from senior intensified areas to community
centers as one example of way we address mobility issues.
So this would be what would be proposed as well for this area.
This would be something we investigate and likely arrange for.
It seems to me that this particular facility and the term is used it’s generational.
What does that mean for a community facility of this type?
What does that whole concept of generational facility.
We’re taking a planned approach around how we’re approaching a multicomponent facilities.
Doing the due dell against and looking at the again population growth they would serve.
Not just who is now but who is there 10 years from now, 30 years from now.
We’re trying very hard not to underbuild fras silts so that — facilities so that when the
community grows we cannot provide enough service for the large growing community.
Now, the alternative proposal is slated for if it were to be built, would be built on
one acre of land, correct? Is that what was said?
So the alternative proposal would be two facilities the facility with the gym on the smaller shops
at Don Mills site and then the twin — pool and twin pat arena on the other side.
The preferred facility, you are looking at a larger lot or acreage of the 5.8 acres?
Yes, it would be — it’s very rare we get a park after this size in the city.
Right,. With respect to some of the comments made
by residents about the changes with respect to the an agreement, how often do we go through
a process of changing section 37 agreements and what is the principles in involved?
— principles involved? Through you, Mr. Mayor, we have changed section
37 agreements. This section 37 is pretty specific outlining
specific size of a community centre. We don’t typically — we are not typically
that specific. Nowadays the way we do things we have clauses
in the agreements that state if the money is not spent within a certain period of time
that it could be relocated with the Councillor and chief planner.
Final question, given we’ve heard there’s approximately $21 million available essentially
for two facilities for the alternative proposal what is the tote — total cost to build that
site. A comment was made about steal our money.
Is there sufficient funds to build the alternative proposal actually here?
Will monies be stolen from other areas to go to this area.
Our recommendation before council is not to build both facilities as they were envisioned
in the original agreement as well as alternate facility.
We were looking at all of funds available in the area around the new community centre
and new funding available through additional growth and development tools through the area.
Thank you. Councillor Deputy Mayor Thompson.
I have a couple questions. I had Councillor Ainslie has a quick release
so I want to extend five minutes. Great.
And then we’ll come back to speeches after. So all in favour extending for a few minutes.
Thank you. Here are my questions for staff.
I should say. This thing predates obviously with the 201
agreement my own precedence here and I look at it from the standpoint of asking a series
of questions. First one I wanted to ask is do we have standards,
if I can call it with that, with respect of proximity of one to another and 3r0678imity
of member — proximity to another. I am prepared to accept the fact that some
points out if you live north of Lawrence you would be further than one kilometre from this
proposal. What standard dozen we have for these kinds
of things? Mr. Mayor, many of the standards were refreshed
and approved by council in the facilities master plan.
Generally the proposal is one for 35,000 residents. Approximately 2.5 to three kilometre radius.
Taking new centre — radius. We take those in mind.
That is one of reasons we were relooking into all of community recreation facilities in
the Don Mills area given the growth happening along the Eglinton and Don Mills corridor.
Through this new facility we believe it matches the standards we’ve developed around the development.
Thank you for that. The next issue I wanted to cover with you,
I asked a couple deputants did they think cost effectiveness was a legitimate issue
to take into account making decisions. Reporting live from — there a cost effectiveness
advantage to operating one larger facility as opposed to two?
I don’t know the answer to the question. Our experience is large hult use facilities
can share a number of staff functions, can be more efficient from a utilization perspective
and lower operating cost per square foot so it may because of that.
In addition to that, we’re able to provide additional programming.
I think I heard you mention a minute ago in addition there had been surveys taken generally
about the community and their views on these kind of larger consolidated facilities versus
smaller ones and have you undertaken surveys overtime as part of preparation of the long-term
plan or otherwise. The surveys?
We’ve done all kinds of surveying. Not specifically on this point but what we
do hear from people and what we know from the participation patterns is that they are
the busiest and most popular! and when we hear a lot of the surveying we’ve done and
community consultation we’ve done through the master plan all be it a few years ago,
we did hear a frustration about undersized facilities, undersized pools, undersized gymnasiums
and a frustration generally in the community we weren’t able to provide the level of service
that match the needs the community. Back on the section 37 today especially given
ten years or nine can pass and sometimes the long-term nature of developments is such that
that happens. If you look at before they were put in and
more specific prescriptive wording, there been instances in the past as it relates to
recreational facilities if can I call it that because of the passage of time.
Is this customary or something in between? We have amended section 37 agreements in the
past. This one happens to be very specific and how
it outlies the specific reference and the cost per square foot.
We have amended section 37 agreements on a number of occasions.
My last question is this: You sort of alluded in your presentation and
it’s come up a little bit in a couple of questions, are you prepared to embark sooner than later,
I would say very soon, on a process that would determine some appropriate public if this
recommendation is September for the site at — accepted for the site after Don Mills and
Lawrence, for public use. Are you prepared to figure out what could
be done for a community use? We certainly will.
We’ve had some conversations with others cross divisionally around how we would move forward
with determining the usage for that site. I believe you heard you saying would you be
willing to start with a scan of what the needs were in the community to sort of figure out
where you might go with that determination. Undertake that work as expeditiously as possible.
Let’s not get into the debate on whether it was adequate public consultation.
Are you prepared to commit the most local part of this group here this morning, not
happy with the outcome, be closely consultations but determine how much they want?
Are we prepared to give broad consultation and input?
Absolutely yes. We would engage the mri and whatever options
moving forward. Those are my questions.
Anybody else questions for now? Otherwise we’ll conclude the question period
and save speeches for after lunch. This lose us to deal with this item, Councillor
Ainslie EX7.20 which has to do with the payments for railway right of ways where I suggest
we get ripped off. That’s the polite way.
I have my annual motion around railway taxation and how it’s dealt with in Ontario.
I’m asking for some additional information from staff and future reports.
Ontario we do railway tonnage by acre. Every other province in this country does
it by tonnage. Last year we received the same taxation revenue
we did in 2018 even had to I can point to a variety of articles showing railway tonnage
is up. I’ll point out Mayor Tory is the comments
made by railways that this this is too cumbersome to do.
They time I see a company reply in that manner to us means we’re losing money.
I have the motion to put forward and I hope everybody will support it.
There’s an amendment here? Any questions of staff or comments?
I’m prepared to ask for a vote first on the amendment?
All in favour? Opposed?
Carried. Sorry did you have — item as amended?
All in favour? Carried?
EX7.28 the modified motion. That’s the amendment you circulated earlier
on. We did have a chance to have that go and people
take a look at it. That was here.
This is new recommendations inserted this is the substitute.
In essence we need MOU before this and the foundation.
It’s a precondition of this? Yes.
Any questions? Comments?
I’ll call the question? All in favour of the amendment?
That becomes the adoption of item as amended with these new recommendations.
And Councillor Thompson. I have my questions answered by staff could
I release my hold on Casa Loma. Annual general meeting in 2018 and are you
prepared to move the staff recommendations? Deputy Mayor Thompson moves the staff recommendations.
No other questions and comments I’ll call the question?
Carried. We’ll resume at 1:30 with speeches on this
matter. Thank you very much.

Related Posts

Controlling Respirable Crystalline Silica: Handheld and Stand-Mounted Drills

Controlling Respirable Crystalline Silica: Handheld and Stand-Mounted Drills

[MUSIC] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires employers to limit workers’ exposure to respirable crystalline silica on the job.
Scotsman eaten by shark off Réunion was snorkelling in ‘safe’ lagoon

Scotsman eaten by shark off Réunion was snorkelling in ‘safe’ lagoon

A Scottish tourist believed to have been eaten by a shark had been swimming in what was deemed a 'safe'
THE BEST DOG TRAINERS!!! (top 5)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *