Transcript: Rejects Towers, Approves Inclusive Housing - Scarborough Community Council - April 30, 2026 | Summary 199

Rejects Towers, Approves Inclusive Housing - Scarborough Community Council - April 30, 2026

Hi folks, can you hear me? Thank you. Cancel uh councelor Candal. We can hear you. Excellent. Thank you. All right. Good morning everybody. I'm going to call this meeting to order. Uh good morning. I'm Deputy Mayor Paul Eninsley. I'm the chair of Scar Bro Community Council. Uh we do have quorum this morning. I'm now calling meeting number 31 to order. Welcome everybody. Today's meeting is being held by video conference and person here at the Scar Bro Civic Center in the council chamber. This meeting is also being livereamed at youtube.comtocity Council Live. For the land acknowledgement, I'd like to say on behalf of myself, my colleagues, and all of our amazing staff that although we may be meeting at different locations today, Scar Bro Community Council would like to acknowledge the land we're meeting on is the traditional territory of many nations, including the Missosagas of the Credit, the Ana Nashabi, the Chipoa, the Honi, and the Wendette peoples, and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit, and Matei people. We also would like to acknowledge Toronto is covered by treaty number 13 with the missagas of the credit and the Williams treaties signed with multiple Missagas and Chipo. Uh if you were here this morning or online to register to speak at today's meeting, if you could please listen for me to call your name. I'll be calling speakers in the order that they appear on our speakers list for each item as we get to it. The list of speakers can be viewed online by visiting the Scarboard Community Council page at the city's website at toronto.ca and clicking on the speakers box uh to see where your name is. Excuse me. Uh for members of community council, just a reminder, the city clerk has provided all of our agenda materials on that same website page at toronto.ca and also on the clerk's meeting portal. Clerk's IT staff are available for anyone if you need help with your electronic devices. And a reminder to please submit and approve motions that you would like to put forward by email. Staff are available at sec toronto.ca to help with any motions. At this point, I'm going to ask if there's any declarations of interest under the Ontario Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Seeing none, can I have a motion to confirm the minutes from our last meeting of April 1st, 2026? Moved by Councelor Thompson. All in favor? That carries. I'm going to run through the items on today's agenda. Our first item is SC 31.1 3303 to 3313 Ellair Road official plan amendment and zoning bylaw. This is a decision report for approval. Uh, council speakers. Sorry, my apologies. So, we do have speakers for that one. So, I will hold that. Our next item is SC 31.2 3718 and 3730 Kingston Road zoning bylaw amendment. This is a decision report for final approval. We have speakers on that. I will hold that in my name. Item number three, SC 31.3, 1710 and 1712, Elmare Road official plan amendment, zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision application. This is a decision report for final approval. We have speakers on that item. I will hold that in my name. Uh SC 31.4 for 3000 3004 3008 302 and 3020 Kennedy Road draft plan of subdivision. This is a decision report for final approval. I'm holding that for speakers. Uh our fifth item SC 31.5 3130 Danforth Avenue zoning bylaw amendment application. This is a decision report for final approval. We have speakers for that as well. Item number six, SC 31.6614, Danforth Road zoning bylaw amendment. This is a decision report uh with a refusal recommendation in councelor Candel's ward. Councelor Candel, I'll move staff recommendation if there's no speakers. I believe there aren't. Nope, there's no speakers. Councelor Candel is moving the staff recommendations. All in favor? That carries. SC 31.7 changes to the Kennedy Road business improvement areas board of management. Councelor Thompson. I can move the item. Councelor Thompson is moving the recommendations. All in favor? That carries. SC 31.8 226 scar bro Crescent an application to remove a private tree. There's uh speakers on this item so I will hold that. SC 31.92 Fairfax Crescent application to remove a private tree award 20 Scarboro Southwest. Uh there's speakers on this item so I will hold that. Uh SC 31.10 10. Naming of a proposed street for a development at 253 Markham Road and 1220 and 30 Dunel Street. This is in my ward. I do have a motion. I'm going to defer this. I'm referring this item to the director of engineering support services engineering and construction services for further community consultation on suitable names options that better connect to the community. Questions of me? Sorry. Are there I didn't think there were speakers. No, there's no speakers. 10. 10 on number 10. That's okay. You had me worried for a moment. All right. All in favor of my motion item as amended. All in favor? That carries. All right. We are on S number 11, SC 31.11, 77 Victoria Park Avenue, construction staging area in W20, Scar Bro Southwest. Councelor Candel, I'll be moving a deferral motion as there's more work to be done with this u sensitive staging plan. Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the mover? No. All right. Councelor Candel is moving deferral of this item until our May 28th meeting. All in favor? That carries. Uh item number 12, SC 31.12, Metroink subway subway extension, temporary traffic modifications and public highway dedications. Kennedy station connection, emergency exit building number three and the Scar Bro Center station. Who wants this? Any holds? No, I I don't have a problem with it. I'm actually fine. So I from me, Mr. Chair, I'm to move it. Don't know what my other colleagues. All right. Covers four awards. You want to hold it? Okay. Being held by councelor Myers. Item number 13, S3 31.13, Metro Links Goal Expansion Program, Reconstruction of the Birch Mount Road Bridge, temporary road closure and transportation impacts. 420, Scar Bro Southwest. Councelor Canavville. Um, I can move the recommendation and let folks know in the room. We'll be having a town hall on this on May 11th. Okay. Councelor Cannibal is moving the recommendations to number 13. All in favor? That carries. SC 31.14 Scarbor Village Street Plan. We have speakers on this item, so I will hold it. SC 31.15 Scarbo Golf Club Road from Kingston Road to Hill Crescent and Gil Crest traffic calming or speed humps. I'm going to move this in my ward. All in favor? That carries SC 31.17 Nash Road and Tifffield Road always stop control in 23 Scarbor North Council Meers. Oh, you missed one, right? I missed one. 16. My apologies. bottom of the page. Going back to SC 31.16 Ingleton Boulevard, Alton Tower neighborhood connections, traffic calming for speed humps. Uh I'd like to move the recommendation and just say a quick thank you to Adam Poppin who uh worked on this with the community in my office. Uh it's a great outcome and very excited to see this initiative move forward. Okay. Thank you, Council Meers. All in favor of the recommendations. That carries. Now we have number 17 SC 31.17 Nash Road and Tiffield Road all hallway stop control 23 Scarbor North Council Myers. I'd like to move staff recommendations. Okay, councelor Myers are moving staff recommendations and number 17. All in favor? That carries. Uh our next item is a new item of business SC 31.18 Youth Innovation Hub Initiative at the Scar Bro Civic Center. Uh being put forward by Councelor Thompson. Councelor Thompson. add it to the agenda. Uh, yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All in favor of adding this item to the agenda. Thank you. And then we have one more which will be known as SC 31.18 1 N. My apologies. Which is a letter from me that you should be receiving or have received. Okay. So, I'm moving this is new business. All in favor? That carries. Thank you. All right, we are going back to the beginning. So, our first item of business is SC 31.1, 3307, and 3313 Elmare Road. This is an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw application decision report for final approval. Uh, we have four, five registered speakers, sorry. And just for all of the speakers, just to let you know, um so you have five minutes to speak. The podium's up here in the center on the the main floor, you have five minutes to address uh community council when your name is heard. Uh the practice that or the process that we have is that once you've spoken for up to five minutes, each counselor uh has up to five minutes if they choose so to ask you questions. Uh once all the speakers on the item are done, we ask questions of staff. the same process. We have up to five minutes each to ask questions of staff on any given item. Uh and then we bring it into committee as we like to call it where you then have we each have five minutes uh to speak on the item at uh on any given item. So that's how we're going to roll through this morning. Uh so our first item, we have five registered speakers. The first speaker is Paul Molita followed by Michael Tuscuso from the bigger group, Daryl Brown, Nicole Curado and then Joy Love. So Paul Molita Paul here and the timer for your five minutes is on the wall over there. Morning sir. Good to see you again. Uh Mr. Chairman and committee. Uh my name is Paul Molita. I live at 19 Conland's Road which is just uh a couple of stone throws uh southeast of this development at 3313 Ellis Mir. Um, I wanted to get a couple of confirmations through uh the builder, but I noticed he's not speaking today. So, I'm not sure what accommodation has been made to the two residents who are affected by this huge development beside their existing homes and the loss of rear yard privacy that they will suffer and the loss of uh property value if they can sell the properties and also the emotional distrust they must be experiencing now for the lo for those losses. I urge the committee to re refuse this zoning app amendment because the proposed building basically dwarfs the two dwellings and the residential uh subdivision next to this uh development. It will u adversely affect the uh adjacent house property values and this building is designated as a high building under the building code. It is a high building because it exceeds 59 ft and the building code um has very excessive and restrictive building code requirements for such a building. It's one of the most restrictive um requirements next to high hazard industrial and the building code defines very restrictive uh requirements. The code writers recognize that the potential of fire risk and rescue is um evident in such a building. And that's why requires two-hour fire rated floors, sprinklering to gain access to future uh and benefits to future requirements. Um areas of refuge are required for this building. Pressurized exit stairwells, fireprotected uh electrical conductors for emergency systems in the building, firefighters elevator, etc., etc., and a central fire alarm control station for the fire department. Very excessive, very excessive requirements more than for any other kind of building. And the and this emphasizes the major difference between this building and the adjacent residences. And I'm concluding that the uh the building's use and size is incompatible with the nearby residences. It doesn't fit and there is no accommodation that I am aware of to um address the concern of the nearby residents which are only feet away from this development. It's an excessive intensification with a high load of people. The loss of privacy next door is just poor planning and it is a it's in inappropriate. So I I emphasize and urge the committee to refuse approval for the resoning application. That's it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Molita questions of the deputent. Sorry, Mr. Molita. Um, they would have had a number of community meetings. Were they well attended? Like were did you address your concerns at were you at the community meeting and able to bring your I was I was at the uh Rouge uh meeting last uh last month. Okay. And you brought your concerns forward at the at that time. I beg your pardon. You brought your concerns forward? Yes, I did. And I believe I wrote some and issued them to various parties. Okay. And how many your neighbors were all at the meeting? Our neighbors? Yep. There was a very good turnout. All right. Do you know how many people were in the room? Well, at the Rouge Rec Center, um there were a good 50 people or more. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time this morning. Our next depution is Michael Testiguza with the big Larry group. Good morning, chair. Five minutes whenever you're ready. Perfect. Uh my name is Michael Tessuza from the Bigly Area Group. I am here uh representing the applicant uh for these applications before you today. I'd like to start off by saying that I uh have reviewed the staff report and obviously do support the recommendations and the conclusions therein. I am primarily here to address any comments that the committee may have with respect to the applications. Happy to also go over changes that were made uh since the community meeting um as well as discuss matters of uh rear yard privacy. I will say um respecting the previous conversations and deputations made the building will of course um be constructed to comply with all the requirements of the Ontario building code. So I think that is important to point out and the deput's quite right to point out that those standards exist for such um such buildings as uh is proposed here. Um with respect to the matter of rear rear privacy, I would note that the application has been designed to have regard for the city's uh updated um mid-rise guidelines. And I would also point out from a height uh perspective, of course, the property is um in line with a one one a um height relative to the avenue at fronts, which is uh quite typical for the city of Toronto. Uh but again, I will be uh in your hands here if there's further questions um on the report or on the application. Okay. Thank you, sir. Question to the deputent. Councelor Shan. Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. Um there were a number of concerns that were raised at the uh town hall uh the consultation meeting that happened in Rou Valley Community Center. Um just going to go through some of them to see what was done from the initial proposal to address some of those concerns uh that that have taken place. Um, one of the concerns raised, uh, even though the city does not have, um, the city's policy falls short in some ways around the parking requirements, uh, for Scar Bro. Um, this has 746 beds, so potentially at least 746 if it's meant to be for students, that that many students in that building. uh how many parking spots have been allocated and what's being done to make sure that uh the consideration that many students in Scar Bro do have a car certainly I'm happy to address that I do think since the original proposal first off um there have been reductions to the building masking which has resulted in a reduction of units and a reduction in the number of beds I think it's at uh about 625 now so there was a significant reduction um following the uh the community meeting um with respect to both massing and the number of course as you mentioned and it is important to reiterate um this proposal complies with all the city's requirements with respect to minimum parking so that's not necessarily a consideration of the zoning amendment that's being put forward but I do understand the practical considerations of that um of course uh with respect to that there are four um spaces at grade that have been made available Um the reason those have been made available is to our pickup drop off spots to allow for short-term um you know with the advent of Uber and and such other uh services to allow for those people to be have having space at grade and not needing to go under into the underground and making sure they're not idling on Elmir. And there's also been made available at grade two short-term parking spots which will be for you know your Uber Eats or your Amazon drop off where they would not want to go into the underground also don't need to be taking up space in pickup drop off areas because those people need to leave their car and drop off their wares so to speak. So we've made sure that there's space for those at grade to avoid any kind of uh queuing on the street. We've also provided um the required amount of bike parking spaces and of course the site's very well um service by existing bus routes that service uh uft scar bro as well as of course two planned future transit routes that will have stops immediately in front of the site being the DSPRT and the Egllington East LRT. Thank you. I have a number of questions so I'm just going to go through them in in groups just so that I don't um miss them in my time. Um environment related concerns around water table and the proximity to water table in the development trees and shadow from a health environmental health related stuff. There were a number of concerns that were raised uh by residents. So what what's changed from the initial proposal on those? Certainly and and for all the residents in the room I would like to point this out. Um I do know at the committee meeting there was several questions asked with respect to groundwater. So I did consult since that time with my hydro geologist and had a conversation with them. The way the building's been designed with one level of underground specifically been designed to avoid the water table. That's important because a it won't affect the flow of water of groundwater in the area. um and it won't result in any need for long-term dewatering or um affect therefore the level of the water. So that should assange concerns with respect to foundation settlement as well as with respect to trees in the area that rely um on groundwater. Of course, an arborist report has been prepared um and does indicate that the trees on the neighboring properties to the south and the east uh being the stable residential neighborhood um would not be impacted by the proposal. Um with respect to shadowing, I do think there's an important change that's been made with respect to that. The building massing um is comprised of two elements. Uh an 11story massing at the front and then a reduced massing uh stepping down to seven stories in the rear. Now the 11story massing has been designed to um be in proportion with the avenue width at um 36 meters. The depth of that 11story massing has been reduced by 10 meters in consultation with staff and in hearing the um discussions at the community meeting. that reduction in massing more or less lines up with the depth of the properties that face Ellir such that that 11story massing isn't sitting um in the rear yards of the um residential homes which uh front Mirror and North Valley Court I believe it is um and of course that reduction in massing does also reduce uh the shadow impact on the neighbors to the east in the evening which is primarily when uh shadows would be cast out in that direction. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it possible to get an extension or I come back on a second round? Yeah. See if we your call if our colleagues have any questions? Yeah, then do a second round. No others. No. Councelor Shan, you want a second round? Yes, please. All in favor of second rounds, go ahead. Thank you. Um, I have questions around the space between the neighbors space from the front. uh the setbacks uh there were concerns around how small the setbacks were when the initial design were proposed. Has there been changes made to that? Uh certainly yes. Um so I do want to point out because there was some confusion at the community meeting. So I do think firstly the front yard setback is worth uh discussion. So there is a 5 meter road widening being provided. In addition to the 5 meter road widening, there's a 4.2 2 meter front yard setback being provided that allows for potential further expansion of the avenue uh if needed to support the um two um transit projects I previously mentioned. So all in all the building itself is going to be set back about 9 meters from the back of curb. So about 30 ft. So um I think that pictorially people may have had an impression that the building was sitting right up on the street. Again, it should be about 30 feet or about 9 meters back from the back of curb, allowing for a lot of streetscape planting um and uh and generous pedestrian zones in that area. With respect to the eastern yard and the southern yard, um the buildings always maintained a 7.5 meter setback once you got beyond the uh depth of the first avenue uh of the properties, the front Elmir. Um and that's obviously guided by the mid-rise guidelines. I want to point out that a typical mid-rise building would only have those 7.5 meter setback at the rear. We recognize that there are neighbors to the east and so we've provided that 7.5 meter setback to those rear yards on the east as well. Atypical from a normal mid-rise building is there's no rear lane in this instance. So that entire 7.5 meters is able to be landscaped with um new trees that obviously are able to grow pretty significantly compared to a tree that would sit in a 1.5 meter um planter strip at the rear of a typical mid-rise building. So we are planning on planting um uh pretty significantly along both the eastern and southern yards. In addition, a change that was made um following community meeting and it may seem inconsequential, but I don't think it is. along the eastern property line. Um at the community meeting, the building was set back 1.2 meters for the depth of that first property that fronts onto Elmir. In consultation with staff and hearing the commentary, we've been able to increase that setback. That's one of the massing revisions I referred to to 3 mters. Again, 1.8 meters seems inconsequential, but in this instance, it's not. It allows for enough room to provide for planting along the entire eastern sideyard setback. Even facing the properties or adjacent to the properties which front onto Elmir. When it comes to property, significant robust and privacy, significant robust uh planting along the property lines is typically a planner's um go to design solution. Uh but I will note in addition that there are no balconies being proposed along the eastern and southern uh facades of the building and further that the uh the amenity space on the seventh floor roof. Um the outdoor portion of that has been completely segmented to the western portion of the building and buffered from the neighbors to the east via the um a sevenstory amenity area. So the amenity area is completely on the west. Sorry, I'll stop talking. Thank you. Um my last set of question or last um area of concern is around uh the impact on UTSC and has uh University of Toronto Scarra campus you know engaged with you in this process? Has there been some feedback from them? Have you incorporated anything that they have provided? Can you elaborate on any of those things? Certainly. Yeah, I I do want to point out um and someone from UFT Scar Bro uh did attend the community meeting. Uh I have had a couple of meetings with them as have my clients. Uh it is important for everybody here to know this is not a University of Toronto Scarbor project. Uh they wanted just to make that very clear and of course we want to as well. Um the proposal is geared towards student rental that is the target audience. So it is going to be a rental 11story rental project. Um you know there been initial discussions with uft scar bro with respect to student populations their needs um you know their harmony commons how full that building is uh but honestly um we will look for all opportunities to partner with them into the future um if those kind of make sense for both parties thank you Mr. Okay. Thank you, councelor Shan. Other questions of the deputent? Seeing none. Thank you, sir. Uh, our next deputent is, uh, Daryl Brown. I I do have a presentation. So, uh just need to connect it. The IT staff, audio staff are on their way down. There you go. You have five minutes. Whenever you're ready. I think we're good to go. Uh good morning, chair, members of the community council. Uh my name is Daryl Brown. I've lived in Toronto for over 40 years, 15 years near the Rouge Kill GO station. Uh six months ago, I was a candidate in the bi-election that Councelor Sh was successful at I will be speaking today on item 311 the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment for 3307 and 3313 Elmer Road and uh in support potentially of a broader motion uh dealing with some of the issues brought up in the sun form uh through you chair uh the question before you today is not whether growth should Clearly, it should uh the question is whether the application is being approved in a way that is consistent with adopted policy and available infrastructure. This proposal is not a minor intensification. It is a full conversion from lowdensity residential zoning to a mixeduse designation with sight specific exceptions that override standard limits on density, height, and built form. that makes this a precedent setting decision not just for this site but for the Elmir corridor and for Highland Creek more broadly. Uh six months ago during the course of the campaign I was involved with I uh I ran a public survey of W 25 residents uh two findings are directly relevant to what we're talking about today. Over 68% of the res respondents to that survey said the city does not engage with Ward 25 well and roughly 98% express concern about infrastructure strain from new development. Those are not abstract concerns. They map directly onto planning considerations, transportation capacity, servicing and community infrastructure which must be evaluated under the planning act. residents are not rejecting growth, they are rejecting growth that opaces infrastructure. Uh this brings me to the uh Highland Creek Community Secondary Plan. Uh it's not aspirational. It was adopted by council policy. It's a council policy intended to guide development decisions. If an application does not conform to that policy, the appropriate response is not an automatic approval. amendment. It is to pause and assess whether the proposal is consistent with the broader planning framework and that leads to the central issue. There is no visible cumulative impact analysis here. Today's agenda includes multiple development approvals across scar bro. But what is missing for this application and others is a ward level understanding of transit capacity, school capacity, healthc care access, and parking demand. Without that, decisions are being made on a sightby-sight basis while impacts are felt systemwide. So, I'm asking community council to do three things. First, support the motion being brought forward to reassess parking policy in Scarboro, including minimum requirements on parking availability, on street permit access, and transit parking so that policy reflects the actual Scar Bro transportation conditions. Second, before approving this application, ask staff to clearly state on the record what the cumulative infrastructure analysis has been. uh uh conducted for this corridor and for the surrounding community. And third, at a minimum, defer this application pending a cumulative infrastructure and transportation assessment. This is not a rejection of growth. It's responsible sequencing of growth. Undoubtedly, Scar Bro is growing, but um we don't dispute that. The growth that is not aligned with infrastructure policy and local context risks undermining both community stability and public trust. Residents are not asking you to stop growth. They are asking you to plan it properly. And today that responsibility sits with this table. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Any questions of the deputy? N seeing none. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time this morning. Uh our next speaker is Nicole Curado. Nicole here. Nicole's online. Nicole, can you hear us? Great. You have five minutes. I grew up around that very area and that particular area where they want to build these student resident condos are going to be and rental spaces. It's an absolutely beautiful area. It it disturbs me just how many trees are slated to be cut to build this this place. And it's just it's proximity to Highland Creek. It's all the trees being cut. It's not necessary to cause that much destruction in order to build this place. That that spot should be a park. It shouldn't be shouldn't be uh paved over. It's just cutting all these trees will will absolutely change the community. It will create wildlife conflict. It'll cause all kinds of problems. We don't need those trees cut. I want the area to be protected as a park. If they build this place, it'll spoil what what that area is. That's little quiet, gentle area with a lot of trees. All right. Thank you, Miss Cotto. Much appreciated. Any questions of the deput hearing? None. Our next deputent is Joy Loen. Morning, Miss Loen. You have five minutes whenever you're ready. Thank you. Good morning, uh, members of council. My name is Joy Lohen. I am the president of the Highland Creek Community Association and I'm here on behalf of residents to express strong opposition to this process, this proposal. Sorry. At its core, the application asks you to do something that has no precedent in our community to consolidate two residential detached lots and reszone them to mixed use. That matters because once you approve it, the question is no longer whether this fits the community. The question becomes on what basis could you refuse the next one? This is exactly the kind of lot assembly and intensification that council explicitly cautioned against when approving multiplex policies, stating clearly that those permissions were not to be interpreted as justification for assembling lots within stable neighborhoods for intensification. So I ask, why would that principle not apply here? I also want to address several points in the staff report that are being used to just to justify approval. First, the suggestion that these properties are underutilized. They are not. They are functioning fully zoned residential lots. If they are vacant, that is a private ownership decision, not a planning rationale. We cannot allow vacancy, intentional or otherwise, to become a backdoor argument for intensification. Second, the reliance on higher order transit. This area is not currently designated as a major transit station area, nor is it planned as one, and given timelines, funding uncertainty, and shifting priorities, any meaningful transit expansion is likely decades away. Planning based on hypothetical infrastructure is not good planning. It is speculation. Third, the claim that Elmere Road functions as an avenue. That is simply not correct in this context. At the February 5th, 2025 council meeting, staff confirmed multiple times that secondary plans prevail over avenues policies. Highland Creek is governed by a secondary plan. Staff also confirmed that the urban structure map, map two, does not account for areas covered by secondary plans despite Elmir appearing on that map. So again, I ask on what planning basis is Elmir being treated as an avenue here when council was clearly told it was not. Fourth, the shadow studies, even in their current form, and I I I granted that they were amended, they show significant shadowing still of neighboring properties, particularly to the east, from mid to late afternoon through sunset during the very months when residents most value outdoor space. And yet, this impact is not meaningfully acknowledged in the report. Residents are being asked to accept a future where their backyards, spaces they have invested in and relied on, lose sunlight during the most usable part of the day. So, I ask, who decides how much sunlight a resident is entitled to? Fifth, privacy. The level of overlook into neighboring homes and backyards is excessive and unavoidable given the scale and proximity of this building. This is not a minor adjustment to a neighborhood fabric. It is a fundamental and permanent intrusion. And finally, the broader justification, the housing crisis. We hear this often, but this proposal is a purpose-built student rental building. It is not family housing. It is not ownership housing and there is no evidence presented that it addresses a demonstrated shortage in student accommodation particularly when the university itself has indicated no significant enrollment growth and is not partnering with this developer. Meanwhile, council has already approved approximately 180,000 residential units that remain unbuilt along avenues where growth is intended. So the issue is not zoning, the issue is delivery. Continuing to approve developments that are not contextually appropriate simply under the banner of housing does not solve that problem. I also want to speak to the community consultation at the meeting held and the developers representative. There was a near full house of residents and they were not divided. They were not uncertain. They were overwhelmingly opposed and their concerns were clear and consistent. As councelor Shan has stated, lack of adequate parking, destruction of the existing tree canopy, and significant shadowing impacts. These are not abstract planning concepts. They are real daily quality of life issues. In closing, this proposal is not a modest evolution of the neighborhood. It is a fundamental departure from it. It relies on misapplied policy, unsupported assumptions, and impacts that are understated or ignored. It disregards clear community input, and it sets a precedent that will be very difficult to contain. I urge you to reject this application. Thanks, Joy. I'm pretty much right on time. Uh questions of the deputy councelor Shan. Thank you. Thank you Joy for um your delegation deputation today. I just wanted to ask you um the previous speaker Darl had a um great um point around infrastructure availability and development and so on. So this is building to a lot of the future possibilities. What is the strain as the neighborhood association you see already in the neighborhood around some of the infrastructure pieces as these developments go? Um concern around infrastructure. Well, it we have a secondary plan for a reason and that is to keep the Highland Creek community um not necessarily as is. We don't mind the growth. We don't mind those pieces, but we have issues with um with roads, the infrastructure. Um, we've got uh parking issues. We know that there are no minimal parking. So, what we have now is we've already got vehicles that are on these these other streets parking because there's nowhere to park. Uh, this will make it much more difficult. Um, we don't have uh the roadway structure. We've got the large units built at the bottom of Military Trail. Uh, and we don't have any road work infrastructure to facilitate all of that. Um there is the underground water that is a consistent concern. We've got houses that have a sump pump that works 247. So what happens when you start building more infrastructure? What happens to the to the land that we are living on? Um so there's the tree canopy. Um there are an awful lot of trees that are being um set up for destruction to allow for severance of properties to allow for multiplexes. All of these pieces are outside the the values of the community and and they don't fit within how Highland Creek has been set up as based on the uh secondary plan. Thank you. I have one more one more question. Um you mentioned sorry folks just as a point of order. I know people have a lot this is a very an emotional issue for the community. I have the ward on the other side of the street. Um but our procedural bylaw I'm not you're not really supposed to clap. So, if we could refrain from the clapping, um, I'd appreciate it. During the Rob Ford years, you used to we got around that. Everybody waved their hands. So, hand waving is allowed, but clapping is Thank you. Sorry to interrupt, counselor. Sorry. Um you mentioned uh that the the associations uh heard uh that in the past uh staff confirm that the secondary plan supersedes the avenue policy. Can you elaborate on where that happened and what what context that that was shared with you? It was uh it's online. It was February council 2025. Jennifer McKelie um I believe specifically asked three times about avenues versus secondary plan and was confirmed by city staff that the secondary plan supersedes the avenues. So that would mean that Elmere is not considered an avenue in this context. So that was confirmed multiple times. It is online that you can view it. Thank you very much. Thank you councelor Shan. Thank you councelor Councelor Thompson. Yes. Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for your presentation. Ma'am, what type of development should be at this location? Well, that's a really good question. Um, our secondary plan really um allows for the homing. Um, so there is I believe four plexus would be allowed through um through the city planning, but that would be the maximum that would be allowed. But again, that would have to be taken into account um the tree canopy. There are some massive trees on that property. So I I believe that the Highland Creek community would have issues with anything that is going to take that down uh for anything bigger than uh the single dwelling that is what's in the secondary plan. Fair enough. Thank you very much for that. I I really wanted to elicit from you um a response which you have given me basically saying there are challenges to this particular site and whether or not it's a forplex sixlex sixlex I don't think That is not allowed. No council is being prototype and so on. No six plexes. Yeah. So I really just wanted to have your sort of um opinion on responding because some will say uh the deputens in the community are focusing on nimism and so on and want no development. That's not actually what you're saying. Correct. saying that this is not in keeping with respect to the community in terms of its tradition, the the build of the community and this is certainly out of place. I mean, it's a monstrosity of a building quite frankly. That's what I see. It is and it's not necessary. It is a rental. It doesn't solve any of the issues that we have in the city. Right. And so I was going to get there. No, that's fine. Um because we have a obviously in in Scar Bro there are 22,000 people waiting for RGI to income for example and in fact my office has just done some math in terms of looking at the housing needs the way in the the amount that we're building now to meet our 12,000 goal in Scar we've done 250 you could actually wait for 77 years to get housing so that means you could be born and basically pass away without actually getting housing. You are in favor of supportive housing that's actually constructed and built area specific that actually is warranted. Of course, growth within the the community that fits within the community, we are all for, right? But, you know, we we work against things like the the tree canopy where there are guidelines around that. We so we work with that as well but we are not against um growth that fits within the secondary plan fits within the context of our community and doesn't destroy other things in the process. Right. And so my final question for you would be what would be your concern um if this matter went to the OOLT for example which takes it out of our hands take it out of the community's hands and then to a body um a quasi judicial body that actually has no real consideration at least as my words for the community's interest. They're simply looking at obviously verbiage on paper that allows them to make the decision. How do we kind of rightize that piece of it and and your leadership on behalf of a community and community as a whole? How do we rightsize that with respect to the application? Yeah, that's a great question. Um our we would prefer it not to go to OOLT. Um there's no ability for us to provide our case. Um there is no back and forth and I believe the majority of everything that goes to OOLT is passed. In fact, committee of adjustments, we've had people that want COA to decline because they want to go to OOLT because it's easier. So I think there is a disconnect there that needs to be corrected where people prefer to go to OOLT as to talk to this this area. Um that is all kinds of wrong to me. So a preference would not be to go to OOLT. So again, I I think that if we can keep it within the secondary plan, this this property isn't close to that, right? 11 stories is nowhere near like we're not allowed that. So I I don't know how to manage those two together uh and prevent it from going to OOLT. I would prefer it not to, but I don't have an answer for how that's going to work. When the developer has made concessions, which is great, but the concession is instead of 12 stories, it's 11. You know, instead of one step back, okay, we'll give you a couple of extra meters. That's not what we are looking for. That is still well outside the guidelines. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Council. Council Myers. Uh thank you through you chair. Um you said in your deputation that there is no evidence that this housing is needed. Um what are you basing that on? So I've been in meetings with UTSC. Uh we asked them about student housing. We asked them about the growth of the students that are going to campus. In the next five years there is no growth. Uh even after that it is nominal. So confirmed by UTSC, there is no student housing requirement. Um they are building their own student housing. Um I'm not sure they might have more on the go for student housing. So they are looking after that themselves. So they didn't see any need to have outside student housing. And have you spoken to Centennial College? Uh no I have not. Okay. Um, and in your conversation with the University of Toronto Scar Bro, uh, did you ever have conversations with the students union? No. No. Okay. Um, and then I guess the other the final question is is did University of Toronto Scar Bro provide any sort of written um, confirmation that this was not needed or was it just a verbal conver this this? So, um, the representative for the developer did say that the UTSC was at the community engagement. That was Brent Duga from UTSC who verbally said not, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, did not necessarily it was not needed. He said that there was no um, no partnership, nor was there any foreseeable partnership, and there was also no increase in the students. So I would have to go back to Brent to see exactly what he did say or meant to say at that. But that was the implication in front of a full house at that consultation. Thank you. And just for my clarification, was that no increase in students due to the fact that the federal government has limited the number of foreign students or you don't know? No, actually I do know. So the foreign students itself had has little to no impact on UTSC. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Council Meers. I believe that is all the questioners and that Joy is the last deputent. Thank you very much, Joy. And we're taking it into committee for questions to staff. Questions of staff, council, thank you. Um, Mr. Chair, uh, through you to staff. Um, I want to start with the question around the secondary plan and the avenue policy. Um, can you clarify how you see those two documents intersecting? So through the chair, the um avenue identification does form part of map 2. The secondary plan means that it is not a corridor wide and blanket permission underneath that designation from a land use perspective on the land use maps in chapter 4. Each consideration of an application would be on a siteby-sight basis as is before you today. Um but the work phase two of the avenue work which would individually on a corridorwide basis is underway and I believe two wards have been completed. W 25 is in stage three of that process. Thank you. when you say case by case um you know when this proposal was being discussed they often talked about the building opposite to it and and how much of existing buildings dictate what the next case by case because if it's done once uh the the the worry is that with lack of infrastructure if elsewhere starts to intensify the similar way it would increase the strain tremendously in the local community on number of public amenities So through the chair in reviewing a a case by case application by application basis, it's reviewed against both the existing and planned context. As you pointed out, across the street, um the student residence building is uh similar in scale. It's a meter or two shorter in in height, but a similar mid-rise building. And um the land use designation immediately across the street is institutional areas. We can't really speak to how that those lands will develop. Bill 185 removed universities from uh council's purview under the planning act. So any plans that they have they'll show us but we can't necessarily influence or or change but um this sort of context of military trail and and is contextualized by larger mixeduse buildings. Um as you move further east of course it is primarily a residential low density context. Thank you. Um the the type of tenants that will end up being in this building is not a consideration that you've used for this approval process. It's part of a later discussion. You've just looked at the physical part of the is that right through the chair that's correct. The tenency of the building while contextual does is not secured in the zoning bylaw. Okay. And it's not something that you'll be able to use in your tool tools to refuse or accept approve an application through the chair. That's correct. Um, have you had conversations with UTSC and it's it's a comm this is actually looks like when if it's built it will look like it is part of their buildings. It's just right located right in there. Has there been any communication formal or informal that's communicated to you what their uh challenges or support if there is um through the chair our our staff meet bi-weekly with a a project committee at uft which includes Mr. do good as the deputent put up. Um there's no formal relationship between the university and and and this building. However, it's um I'll say reflective of what we see around other post-secondary institutions. Um the downtown uft campus, there have been a lot of uh rental buildings constructed that are tenanted by students because it's close to where they study. Um and by extraction, they would just be walking across the street. class. So they would need less vehicles and um traffic generated. They would be walking cycling to their classes. Thank you. My next question is around infrastructure analysis that was talked about by Darl, one of the deputants. Uh have we done a bit of a understanding of what the impact of this or possibly similar intensification would have on uh we saw that in we are seeing that on Kingston right now you know potentially elsewhere. Has that been done and and looked at? The reason I asked this I'll contextualize as we lead to the kind of the time limit is that you know in waterfront LRT is being built possibly for a population that is going to be coming whereas Cabra has population but we've had to struggle so many years to get a subway extension and now let alone this LRT project that that is not really um seen as a priority for other levels of government. So are we building for something without having the context of how far and and and so that infrastructure analysis is can you do have we done that with the current structure in addition to thinking about what the possibilities of future is through the chair and I'll try to be brief and potentially my colleague Mr. Khan may be able to layer on an answer. So council has obviously last week made made moves to um advance the STERT. Uh there is an infrastructure review that's undertaken with every application on a case- by case basis that takes into account background growth. We have a decent handle around the infrastructure necessary to grow the university to its aspired 35,000 students and 2500 faculty. That's what the university wants to grow to. and um this zoning bylaw in front of you. In principle, we understand where the pipes will drain and what the work is that needs to be done uh to confirm and that is why the application is subject to a hold. So, it will not proceed until that work is completed such that we are comfortable that there is enough capacity to advance the application. Chair, I'll I'll ask for extension maybe after the speakers have finished for the round of questions if that's possible. Okay, let's see how our colleagues see first. Myers, thank you. Uh through you, chair. I guess I'm maybe I'm not cap maybe I'm not understanding something. So if there's a similar building that's being built by uft of a similar scale and size, uh did it encounter a similar similar level of community concern? Uh through the chair, um testing my memory, this would have been in the in 2020. Uh there were public meetings there was um a level of uh uh concern around uh scale but um dare I say because it was a university project a little bit more latitude was given to it but there were deputants related to the the size and scale of the building I believe at community council that day. Okay. So this project then is sort of not setting any precedent. the precedent was already set by the initial project that University of Toronto went ahead through through the chair. It is uh a different land use designation across the street. So and the avenue and the avenue the avenue overlay was not in place at the time. So an institutional areas designation across the street on university lands. These are neighborhoods designations that have been requested to be redesated to mixed use under a new avenue overlay. So it's a a different policy context that exists than in 2020. So there's a different policy context, but the the scale of the buildings are similar. If I was just to walk past both buildings, I wouldn't say, well, this is residential, this is institutional. Through the chair, the scale of the building is is similar. Um, one is obviously clearly marked as a student residence. Okay. And then regarding the um provision for the hold, does the hold also include so I see um the proposal will intensify an underutilized site uh according to the Avenue policy. Does it also include the hold also include the Egllington East LRT or I guess now the Scarbo East rapid transit and the Durham Scarbo bus rapid transit lines through the chair. The hold is for uh below grade infrastructure only. Sorry. Below grade infrastructure only pipes and sewers. Pipes and stuff. So would it not make sense then to have the hold extended to also include the I don't know what's happening with the Durham bus rapid transit. Hard for me to comment on the bus rapid transit. However, the hold for mobility um is uh is not recommended because from a transportation perspective, the review concluded that the network can accommodate the additional trips generated by the development. the existing transit network, the theist, the existing uh vehicle trips generated by the development as well as buses. There's uh approximately 20 or so buses that pass the site on a daily basis plus go and Durham service at the U of Transit Plaza just around the corner. Thank you. And then have you staff have conversations directly with uh University of Toronto Scar Bro um Centennial College and or the students union at either school to sort of understand the need for um student housing in this area. um through the second through the sorry through the chair um not recently I would say from a student perspective through the secondary plan process the uft scar bro is um currently developing a secondary plan which is generally a governance document at this point given our lack of planning act authority but um most post-secary education institutions are large trip generators as it relates to faculty and students people come from distance to campus UTSC has expressed a desire to be less of a commuter campus So more walking and cycling with their um advocacy on their their cycling work, their their pedestrian networks and of course their advocacy for transit through the STRT process. So would this proposal then be consistent with the vision of where UTSC sees itself going less of a commuter campus, more of a campus where students are living on the campus as well as studying? Yes, through the chair that's that's generally correct. Again, they expressed the desire to grow to about 35,000 students in the next 20 years or so. Uh there's a a recently opened instructional building on Military Trail. The medical academy is under construction. Their parking lots are turning into buildings. So they need people to be a little closer by to attend those attend those classes. And did when in your conversation with UTSC, did they I think it was Joy, the last deputy, said that they believe that this was not needed. Is that consistent with your conversation through the chair? Um it's hard for me to equate. I know that the international student limit has slowed their growth projections. Um, but they still do wish to grow uh largely because the other campuses at U of are pretty landlocked and have limited growth potential and there's a lot of growth potential north of Belme here. And final question, have you had uh conversations, I guess, with Centennial College because I don't recall in in this area any uh student housing for Centennial students. And have you do you know if the students of the expected medical campus, would they have adequate residence in this area based on what uft UTSC is currently building? um through the chair I believe the residence that was current that is now built is an undergraduate residence only. Um the medical school will have a mix of graduate and um undergraduate students. Uh Centennial College we haven't had a lot of conversations around this particular campus more around the um central campus just to the east of us here. There is a new building that is under construction and and about to be completed at Morningside in Elmere that is geared towards students. I believe they even branded it the residence um which 20 something stories and 300 units. So there's clearly a need for housing in the area plus pressure is put on the neighborhood from a multiplex multi-tenant housing which has been a long-standing issue in the neighborhood trying to meet that housing need. Okay, thank you very much. You're over. Thank you. Uh Councelor Thompson, questions of staff. Um thank you very much. Um Mr. um set the table for me uh with respect to this matter if it is refused by this council in terms of the direction on the OOLT um consideration of this application. What are some of the areas where we are either negligent and or our policies does not support the development of this particular site which is in keeping with respect to the application that's being proposed. Um it's a big table by the way through through the chair council councelor I'll have to answer in general terms and then maybe you can follow up if that's okay. Yeah. Um, so should the application not be successful, um, given that staff have recommended approval, the city solicitor would be, um, defending council's refusal, uh, without the benefit of, uh, staff evidence. Uh, the city solicitor, my my colleague, Mr. Peele, can elaborate, would need to retain outside planning consultants to defend council's position if we can get them. If if if if they're available. Yeah. Or if if somebody will take that position as as a as a professional planner. Did you want to add anything through the chair? No, my colleagues answered. All right. So, I just want to make sure I reset and right set this this matter going to the um process is simply to look at planning application and planning policies. Would I be correct with respect to that assessment through the chair? So the Ontario land tribunal functions as basic what they call adhering denovo. What that means is is the tribunal will assess all of the evidence and apply the statuto tests under the planning act application and assess whether the application constitutes complaint. So the community's position is largely weakened by obviously the steps that Mr. Ventresa has just stated which is a a city staff are actually recommending this application. Firstly, could you answer that? There was a question there saying the committee's position is simply weakened largely because a uh the staff is actually recommending this B, we have to ensure or find outside planning consultants who would be obviously uh refuting the staff's uh position. So they would be against so we'd be paying as a city to have someone come to them basically oppose the recommendations of our staff. Would that be correct through the chair? So what would happen in circumstances of what you've described? Yeah. I just want to be clear. City Council establishes the city's position on matters of appeal. Sorry, maybe you can speak up so everybody. City Council through its decisions establishes the city's positions on an appeal, right? Um the public record in circumstances like this would certainly include a positive recommendation from city staff, right? Um the city solicitor, however, would marshall the evidence that it felt would be necessary to represent city council's instructions to oppose if that's in fact what the instructions were. So precedent setting and given your expertise and our legal expertise, where does this particular application stand in terms of a um a line of um if you will uh approval similar to this particular application that has been taken to the OLT where we've actually had or enjoyed success. Have we had much success? So through through the chair perhaps I can answer generally the question I think starts turning into the uh direction of providing legal advice for which our recommendation is always that those discussions I'm not asking to provide legal generally speaking however um the Ontario land tribunal is subject to the laws of Ontario with respect to procedural fairness natural justice and the like. Uh it is a full hearing um and the city solicitor uh and the city pardon me on matters of appeal um gets a full hearing as does the applicant. I don't have numbers at the ready as to the um the outcomes how often one side wins and one side loses. Got you. Um however the city will does win appeals uh before the Ontario land. Good. Um would the residents particularly the residents association would they have the ability to be part of the application in terms of the appeal? So through the chair um appeal rights under the planning act have been uh limited to a certain class of parties over the last number of years through legislative amendments. People may still participate in the tribunal process either as a party or as a participant. That is a standing different than appellent. It is a reduced standing. Right. So I what I wanted to know though would this community group or organization would they qualify to participate as part of the appeal should there be an appeal subject through the chair subject to the residence group satisfying the tests under the act there is an opportunity and what are those tests for the residents for the sorry counselor if you can wrap up I know I just wanted to get that information thank you so um under the planning act parties must participate prior to a decision being made either writing or orally is in a meeting such as this and the tribunal must find reasonable grounds to add them as a party. Fantastic. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councelor Thompson. Other questions of staff on this item? Sorry, councelor before we go to second. Sure. Councelor Mantis, do you have any questions? Nope. Councelor Candel, no. Okay, thank you. Uh, so I have some questions. I'm just, so I'm trying to understand, um, so UTSC and Centennial College, UTSC in particular, has a strategic plan for intensifying the area over the next 50 years. How does that mesh with um, our secondary plan and our vision for the area through to you? Um they are currently the university uh began a process with the city to update uh their land use vision through the creation of a secondary plan for their lands only. They currently form part of the Highland Creek secondary plan area. um that is was under review and was charging right along until legislatively our our council's um land use authority powers over the university was removed. Uh there are still discussions about how to bring that document forward as it relates to governance. City streets will still traverse the campus lands. Uh city services will still be required to make sure that water and and and wastewater can be handled and and the university has been a great partner through the years. Um but it is certainly an area of growth even under the current secondary plan policies um trend uh juxtaposed against the Highland Creek secondary plan which outside of the Highland Creek village is not uh generally an area for high growth. And what authority do we have? So we look at their strap plan and their secondary plan um and their projections for what they do on the campus. What ability do we have to say to them, you don't have enough student housing in your plan? Through the chair, uh, post bill 185, we have, um, no authority. Um but through our conversations there is a housing strategy that is um being discussed about how they can meet some of the housing need. Um every post-secary sorry every post-secary campus has that pressure on its surrounding areas with uh student housing that um is met in various ways. Uh in some cases through higher density forms that are specifically marketed and geared to students in other ways through um lower density missing middle type permissions. um lived experience as a uft student downtown. Uh I lived in a multi-tenant house. I lived in multiplex and a basement apartment through my student and a student residence through my career at uh UT. Okay. And then when it comes to developers, so there's this developer that's clearly decided to market this building to student housing. Uh there's another building that's going up right now at Manson Kingston Road that was uh it's on the north west corner. It was initially came in as condominium and now it's they're clearly marketing to to student housing. They've got the whole development wrapped in student housing banners and how close it is to the valley. What what ability do we have to say to a developer yay or nay on how they market like switching from a condominium to rental and then saying hey this is a great opportunity for student housing um through the chair uh as a land use planning authority and as a land use planner there's no influence on marketing to use that word or or or who um the end user may be geared towards in the same way that uh if it was a a building geared towards older adults and seniors as but still an apartment without specific things that classified as a different land use, we wouldn't be able to appine or or transact on that matter. Um part of the overall housing pressures uh crisis has been thrown around quite a bit is the fact that there is not enough housing for a full spectrum of folks who need housing in the city. That includes um students, older adults, young families um and and you know sort of traditional households. uh multigenerational households is also a pressure and and it's sort of uh uh there are other builders who are building things and calling them student residences which is a different category of land use. Okay. And then um up until a few years ago, so former councelor McKelby and I we had a huge issue uh with the illegal rooming houses. Students have there were students a few years ago that unfortunately died in a in a fire. We've legalized uh roommate houses or multi-tenant housing citywide. Um is there any data on the uptake on converting houses in this area to multi-tenant housing to accommodate students? Um there is a through the chair to you there is a monitoring process. I'll be I'll be very careful because the the the folks in the room are also very good at monitoring the ones that don't come through um building permits. So, our monitoring program is based on uh building permit applications and we could get you data offline if need be. Um but even with the legalization and the licensing program, um there are folks operating outside of those parameters to still create housing that would not meet the standards set out through count by council through its uh multi-tenant housing program. Okay. All right. Thank um sorry, councelor Shan, you wanted a second round of questions. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I want to go I asked a bit more general questions last time. I want to go into the into the actual proposal now. Um you you were at the meeting where people had raised a few concerns or not few a lot of concerns but I want to kind of mark the ones that are that are more um uh related to the decision we have at at hand. um questions about parking, shadow, um privacy, water table, and setbacks. Maybe I I'll just put those things together and ask, do you see that the that changes have been made to the initial proposal uh sufficiently enough uh to address all of those concerns? Uh yeah, through the chair. Uh so as detailed in the staff report and uh through the applicant who just spoke earlier, a number of revisions were made uh to lessen the impact and to result in a building that is more appropriately scaled uh in relation to the existing context. Privacy was already touched upon um by Mr. Testiguso already with regards to the lack of balconies uh the ground floor. I think the loading activities has have been flagged previously. Uh the loading activities are contained within a caner lever level um that is concealed from that property to the east 13 just over 13 meters from the eastern property line uh with a door um and there are supporting columns. So so a lot of those activities are concealed um from from that that neighboring property. Um, in terms of shadow impact, again, that was spoken to, but staff have concluded that the shadow is adequately mitigated on the properties, especially within the hours of 9:18 to 2:18 p.m. where the majority of the shadow actually falls on the public realm on Elmere Road. And then it's just a couple of hours in the later afternoon where the shadows is cast on the eastern properties within the neighborhood and that is considered to still meet the intent of the official plan policies related to shadow impact. Just on the on the water table, I know they had submitted a report. Uh has uh due diligence been made within our own city staff engineering to make sure that that that's sufficient and I through the chair I can begin to answer. I can pass it to my colleague Mr. to expand. Um so through the the requirements of a complete application, a hydrogeeological study is required to be submitted by the applicant certified engineer. Um for the purposes of the development, the development should be certified as watertight um and can be adequately serviced and that has been certified through the submitted studies. Um and as mentioned, one level of underground um and Mr. Khan can speak to this further um does not has not has been certified not to disrupt the water table. Um there will there is no long-term watering dewatering that is required. Um as per the reports short-term watering will be dealt with at the site plan stage should the application be approved. Um did you want to add anything? Thanks Katherine through the chair. Uh city policy requires that no ground water need to be discharged in the city and that the applicant has proposed. They will be building a bath what they call where there will be no discharge in the city and that is what we are going with. If someone hydraologist or the arena demonstrate to us that they will not be discharging and the building can be designed water tight uh our policies accept that. Thank you. Um one last question um I know this is this decision is not based on who the tenants are but we had a lot of conversations about students and and uh you know how they're going to get their growth and so on. There is a building that is coming on the other side of uh Morningside 1650 military trail I think that's being built um that is actually um marketed as towards students as well. Um is that is that you that's not the one I think council was talking about. This is on mon court closer to mon court I think. Um was that was that application here? I wasn't here at the time as also pitching as a student uh housing through the chair there was no mention of of of tenency and um I believe in both those cases the intention is to or in that case particular the intention is to condominiumize which means student um any student residents in that building would either okay own the unit or or be renting that unit from an owner. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful to know what's what else is being built in the context. So thank you. Okay. Thank you councelor Shen Councelor Myers. Thank you chair. uh through you uh just clarification in the current secondary plan is this type of residence permitted through the chair no and when there is a conflict I guess between the two what should prevail between the avenues policy and the um the secondary plan what prevails through the chair the secondary plan would prevail if there was no application to amend the official plan. So the request to amend the official plan is a request to amend the secondary plan and the official plan to permit the proposed development. So here the request is also to amend the secondary plan through the chair. That's correct. The recommendation before you is to add a site and area specific policy to provide further development. And the secondary plan was that done in conjunction with the surrounding community? um through the chair predates um my time uh in Scarbo, but it was done particularly the Highland Creek Village component of the secondary plan which does provide for more mixed use intensification that was certainly done with a very robust community uh process uh was adopted by council with amendments. Those amendments were appealed to the OOLT and in some cases or sorry the OM at the time and in some cases it was they were returned to the original staff recommendations. And when was that roughly? How long ago? through the chair. I want to say 2012 2013 in that range. Okay. So not so long but not that long. Through the chair. The planning horizon is usually about 20 years. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Other questions of staff on this item? Seeing none. Um can I just ask so the Harmony Commons I think it's called at University of Toronto on the north side of Ellis mayor um that was approved and went through the same process we're going through today. We're looking at this application now. There's another one at um I think soon coming or col southeast corner southwest corner Collins Road in Elme. What what impact does the approving of the Harmony Commons application have on the surrounding community? Um for clarification through the chair, the southeast corner of um Conland's and Elmir was appealed and approved by the OOLT southwest corner, sorry. Thank you. Southwest corner, uh that's the plaza that has been reszoned for uh stacked townhouse, four-story stacked townhouse development about 15 stories. Okay. or 15 meters. Sorry. 15 meters. We have enough trouble with my own ward without Thank you. Um so the as I was as I was relaying to I believe it was questions from councelor Myers um the built context does form um and the emerging planned context does form part of the consideration reviewing an application on a siteby-sight basis. Uh the um developments further to the uh east as you move along Elmere are entirely lowcale. Uh there's the the plaza site which has been upzone for a more intense use for stack town houses. But the university this this node that's emerging under uh military trail and is a higher density context both from a planning context with the institutional areas designation and an emerging built context. So, Harmony Commons, uh, Highland Hall, which is the instructional building at the corner of Military Trail in Elmare, are taller, denser buildings than what currently exists on the south side of Elmere in the exact same location. Okay. And this application that's before us today would fall within that the context of that secondary plan, which within the secondary plan would be considered a suitable project on elsewhere through the chair. The secondary plan would require amendments to facilitate this project. Um, but the physical context surrounding the site we see as appropriate for the scale of building. Okay. And if this ended up at the OOLT, they would look at the how wide an area would they generally look at when they're look because I only ask because there's more nail court that has very tall buildings. 3050 Ellir has a I think a it has a 16 story going up. There's a condo at 3050 through the chair. The as my colleague Mr. Peele noted, it's a denovo hearing. So, evidence would be be presented that does look at the area context. So, you you've rightly identified the the Mornell Court, the cluster of apartments that that that are there, including a new one under construction. When you look at the university buildings, you see buildings of, you know, 24 to 35 uh meters tall. This building 36 meters tall and they would also examine the built form um policies of the official plan related to this type of use which is generally no taller than the right of way and Elmir is a planned 36 meter right ofway this is a 36 m tall building. Okay and then my last question I just want to ask around so planning transportation for the area like the the goal of the city is to have an LRT built through this area. Um Metro links talks about uh BRT from the Scarbor Town Center along Ellare um to the Ashawa Center. When we're looking at applications, how do we look at that component in terms of what a developer is coming or bringing forward? So through the chair, um Ellir is uh designated as a a transit corridor expansion opportunity. So there are policies that relate to how we would treat development along those um corridors. We protect for the infrastructure. So the applicant referenced the road widening that we would be taking to ensure that the Durham Scar bro uh bus rapid transit which the environmental assessment is complete and is under construction in Durham region but not yet funded for construction in Scar Bro. Um make sure that can be implemented. Um in uh one of the deputants I believe mentioned the transit station areas policy. Should high order transit form stops in the future that would change how the policies would treat this particular site which could invite higher and denser development than is what is currently contemplated. All right. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. Uh we're on to speakers. Speakers on this item. Councelor Shan your word. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a motion to move. Um, so this has been uh it's been an important conversation. I think uh we've struggled with making sure students have safe housing and uh you know part of the legalization of the multi-tenant housing structure to make sure that our students aren't living in safe conditions and their properties are managed and so on. So I think there is definitely need for student housing but I also hear um not a significant um outcry about it from UTSC and I think one of the key factors in this conversation is uh is uh there's not been a strong opposition from University of Toronto Scarbor campus but also there's not been a strong uh support saying that there is a need and I think there's a lot more to be understood as to what what is what is needed here but I think I want to also thank the the the developer to uh for taking some of the concerns that were raised at the community meeting and making sure some of those things were addressed around the uh the height uh of the the shadow part of the uh built uh the setbacks and and parking changes and so on. But I think for me the the three three major concerns are around in one is around infrastructure pressures uh particularly around transportation in that area. um and and we we don't have rapid transit connection yet to UTSC and already students are struggling to get there and if you go to that intersection and see how hard it's for students to cross that uh intersection um that itself is an indication of how and so if this was built and and further intensification happened around residents in that area um if it's if it's meant for student housing and didn't didn't turn out to be they'll be concerned as Um, I do think that it's important for us to also look at parking issues and and continuously try to make sure that our our methods of intensification is aligned with transit modes and methods that many of our communities rely on at this time in the absence of uh a dedicated rapid transit structure including a structure um that is fully funded. Right now we are talking about structures that are not uh under like Scarbo East LRT the provincial government has said that's not their priority at this time. We need to make it a priority but it is not a priority right now. So I think looking at those and looking at all the concerns that the community has expressed um I do understand this will probably end up being uh going to uh another layer of uh of process but I do think at this point I'm not able to support the application moving forward. So, I'm moving a a motion to refuse. Yeah. Yeah. Questions in the member. Councelor Mantis, councelor Shan, I'm looking at this application like I I heard all the arguments, but it's 11 stories. If we refuse it, this will probably to the oil and then who knows how tall this building will be that the developer will uh will ask to build. So are we really willing to take that chance and refuse it now and get a building that will probably be a lot taller than 11 stories? I am very comfortable making a decision based on what we have right now instead of what that hypothetical piece could be. You're very very right. We don't have control once the process goes to another layer. But I do think based on the concerns we have had uh I am comfortable not supporting it at this time. But I do understand that that's a concern that's not in our hand. Um if we make a decision that we are accountable to uh we will be able to answer. We won't be able to make a decision depending on what a bad decision another level would make. Um so I'm I'm comfortable with that right now but I'll leave it to you. Okay. All right. Okay. Other questions of the mover? Seeing none, I'm sorry, Council Shen. Um I'm going to hold your motion down. Um we do need um there is a risk with your motion with your refusal. The developer could proponent could take it to the OOLT. We need to have some wording within your motion if you could talk to the clerk about direction to the OOLT. Thank you. I would I would be happy to add those. Yeah, I can move the additional um I was going to do this at the council by holding the item to add the OOLT instruction, but I can do it now. Yep, there. Do it now. Yeah. Okay. So, there's your motion on the screen. Any further questions of the mover? Seeing none further speakers on this item. Councelor Myers. Uh, thank you through you, Chair. I I I'm struggling with this one in that I'm hearing the residents. I'm hearing the staff. I'm hearing the questions from my colleagues. Uh, I'm hearing the applicant. And it I don't know. I don't I don't know what the right move here is because I also share councelor Mantis' concerns that if this goes to the OLT, you will be looking at potentially a much larger development and from the conversation that I've been hearing, uh, I believe that this applicant has been working with the community to try to resolve some of the issues. Uh, I'm also considering the fact that there was a secondary plan that was developed in consultation with the community. It had significant community input uh, and buyin and to to approve a development outside of that sort of planning framework would alter the trust that the community has in the process. And that if they participate, if they make the appropriate compromises and they get to a place where everyone can uh live that those sort of tradeoffs and um processes are meaningless when someone just comes in with the development to sort of um say, you know, we want to do something completely different. So, I I'm I'm struggling with this one. I I hear my colleague, uh, Councelor Shen, he obviously knows the area. He's been listening to the concerns, and I will reluctantly be supporting his, uh, proposal. Um, I I think though that this potentially could end up leaving a bigger impact in the community uh than what is currently before us. And I would just urge my colleague strongly uh to consider all the ramifications for that. I heard his point on you know we can't make decision based on um what another order of government will do but unfortunately that's the reality that we govern in um and we have to make those types of decisions all the time. Uh and with that I will pass it on. Thank you. Thank you councelor Myers. Councelor Thompson. Um thank you very much Mr. Chair. for you. Um I too uh struggle with this um application and the decision. Um I respect the uh members of the community who have come out to speak um with respect to your strong opposition. Um I think it's pretty clear though that going forward to the OOLT the community will actually lose. I want to make that clear based on everything that I know based on the old experience with the OOLT the community will lose and I think you should be expecting that decision which certainly is not something that we want for you. I just think it's really important for me to be clear to you what my thoughts are based on looking at all the information based on the experience and the expertise of our professional planning team our legal staff and so on. That being said though just because it appears that you may lose doesn't mean that you don't fight for what is in the best interest of the community based on your views. I don't live there. I don't have the experience that the local counselor does. And so I'm going to be supporting his motion, but I support it reluctantly based on everything else when you factor all of it and you weigh the scale as Mr. Brown has made a presentation using the scale and Mr. Brown that was quite effective. So, thank you for that. Um, I I think it's an unfortunate situation and has been stated. We have all of these different layers of decision making. More times than not, people think that the body of council is a final arbit of decision making. It's not unfortunately. Um, the OOLT is not a government body, but it is a body that is a quasi judicial body that makes decisions that has impact. It's unfortunate, but also when you assess all of the surrounding areas and the matters as it relates to University of Toronto has a similar building across the street, you know, I I think it's be hardressed for me to envision a decision from the OOLT that would be supportive of the community. Not that I don't want it for you, but quite frankly, based on everything else, I think it's really important for me to clear my conscience to tell you that in as much as you're fighting for this because you justly believe that this is the wrong decision, wrong building at this particular location at this time, the evidence doesn't really support that. And so, the local counselor is making a move. I'm going to support him because he believes that this is the best interest for the community. And so we will leave it at that, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Thompson. Other speakers on this item. Councelor Candel. Thank you, Chair. Um I'll be brief. Um a similar sentiment. Um I'll be supporting councelor Shan's motion. he does know the community and I think the argument uh presented by councelor Shan and members of the audience um of the community spoke that there's this uncomfortable tension between an existing secondary plan and now what is before us as an official plan amendment um bears weight um in my ward u many this point last year we refused an application a 12story on Kingston Road um and we were successful at OLT and of course as my colleagues have alluded to that is not always the case. Uh but it is as councelor Thommpson mentioned the opportunity for the counselor this council and our representatives to fight uh this this presentation. Um and I uh I think the arguments put forth by councelor Shen reflect the committee that he knows well. Uh so I'll be supporting his motion. Okay. Thank you, councelor Shen. Any other speakers? Councelor Manis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, I'm not going to support Shan's motion only because of the reasons that I said before that the uh the chance of going to the Oil T and having this application be a lot larger in density than what it is now, I don't think is the right move. Uh I understand the argument of of uh of saying of denying the But the risk I believe that going to the OT is a lot larger than the 11 stories that we have here right now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. I believe that's that's everybody. So, um I'm going to be supporting the the refusal of that application um pretty much with the same sentiments of all my colleagues um with years of experience. Um, and I want to thank our staff for all of the work that they've done on this application, trying to make sure it's the appropriate path forward. Um, as a city councelor with the ward on the west side of Morningside Avenue, um, I've watched and grown up in this community, I've watched UTS prosper and grow. Um, they have a a strategic plan, a secondary plan for growing their campus over the next 50 years. I can remember Centennial College where it is now at the Morningside campus was a parking lot. Um there's a lot of growth in this community. We're looking at running an LRT through that's a priority of city council that was reaffirmed last week. Uh we just put more money into it. Uh I know Metroinks is determined to put a BRT across. We try and make sure the community um has the right mix of housing. Um, but I do hear the community, you have your concerns about it. Um, one of my concerns in the community is student housing and not having enough student housing. Um, I think we need to change some rules and regulations at the city. Um, because I clearly think that University of Toronto and Centennial College, they get off the hook in a lot of ways around planning housing and having housing in the community. Um, on my side of Morningside Avenue into the Seven Oaks community, I know there's a lot of illegal basement apartments, a lot of illegal multi-tenant housing. Just because we legalize multi-tenant housing under former Marritori, just because you have an illegal uh rooming house or multi-tenant housing, you're under no obligation to go and get a license for it. I know that that continues. I have buildings in my ward. Um on the other side of Morningside at Mornell Court, um there's a condominium being built. I know that's being targeted for student housing now. I have a condominium beside it. When I first got elected, it was full of um it was a condominium straight up. I when I knock on doors now, when I knocked on doors in the last election, I'd have a student that was either at Centennial College or uft answering the door. When you look past them into the condom into the apartment or what should be a condominium, you don't see your standard condominium anymore. the large part of the units in that building, when you look over the shoulder of the person answering the door, you see mattresses on the floor because they've turned it into student housing. There's four or five kids living in what should be a two or a one-bedroom condominium. So, you know, I I I definitely think that the university and the college have gotten off the hook around providing adequate housing. Um, but I will also echo the comments of my colleagues from years of experience that there is a danger that the developer is going to take this to the Ontario Land Tribunal. They're going to ask for to increase the height of the building. So, it's always a risk. The other concern we always have now is that a few years ago, the provincial government took away um section what is called section 37 and section 42. Now, if you have a condominium or a building like this for community benefits, the money goes into a pot of money. Eventually, it's supposed to flow through the province back to city hall. Uh instead of going directly to the Highland Creek community, councelor Shan will have to fight for that money for community benefits. That's no longer tied. So the other risk of going to the Ontario Land Tribunal is that you get a taller building with more people in the neighborhood with less community benefits for the neighborhood. So I am going to support your counselor and support this, but there are a lot of risks going forward with this application if it goes to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Thank you. Okay, so we have Councelor Shan's motion. All in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. That's it. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Sorry, Councelor Thompson. Mr. Chair, thank you. Um, Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could just vary the agenda. We have a presentation, the new business item, uh, regarding the hub. Um, the students have to leave. I don't know whether or not they have to get back to class or what they have to do, but they do have to leave within an appointed time. The next item, we have numerous speakers, which seems to suggest that they will take a fair amount of time that would actually create a challenge for the students. So, I'm just wondering if the students could we could be the agenda to have them give their presentation. We can have our questions and basically just deal with that. It shouldn't take long. Okay. So, we've approved the agenda. I need a vote to bury the agenda. All in favor of burying the agenda here to the student presentation. Any opposed? Nope. And that carries. So folks, we're just uh we've just varied the agenda to hear the last item. It's a presentation by a group of students. So we're going to hear that and then we'll go back to item number two on the agenda. Thank you. M Mr. Chair, can I te it up? Whatever. you want to introduce them? Yeah. Yep. Go right ahead. Mr. Chair, um thank you. Um we have been working on establishing a technology hub for Scar Bro and um we have been working with a number of different organization. the DMZ which is um out of TMU along with the community the city uh economic development um along with um Centennial College. In that process we were able to um connect with North Pine um which is a philroic organization foundation um led by um led by and and and Kathy Phillips and they have indicated an interest in working with us on this. And so we have asked um through communication with Neil Joshy who is a program lead for the students at University of Toronto um to help us and they have actually done some work. I wanted them to present to the community council to um set the table and and and sort of give the formation as to the process that we're going to go through in order to establish the uh AI tech hub which will be located here in this building. We're looking at allocating about 3,000 square feet of space uh for this particular hub here in Scar Bro. And it will be an opportunity for um young people in Scarough to be able to have greater access to not only training uh with respect to technology and so on, but being able to develop and learn through an AI entrepreneurial work program that will spirit the interest of Scarbor youth and of course will involve all of us working in collaboration in establishing this particular process. So um we'll just get the students uh started and um while they're setting up. I would just simply say that we were very fortunate in terms of uh the developing of this hub process where the North Pine Group came in uh to simply talk to us and um have expressed an interest in helping us with respect to funding. The city has allocated recently $300,000 to be uh directed towards uh this development and uh we have been sitting on about $1.3 million of section 37 funds which I've collected over the years for this particular initiative, Mr. Chair. And so as we move forward, it will be in the best interest of all um residents in Scar Bro, particularly youth between the ages of 18 to uh to 30 who will actually have the opportunity to learn new skills and to create great opportunities for them to be able to develop uh their um their business and entrepreneurial ACU acument in in order to um create more opportunities here in Scar Bro. So, while they're setting up, I keep filling the air, Mr. Chair, trying to ensure that they're able to um to get set up and be structured and so on um in order to provide us with an overview as to what uh they have presented and so on. Madam clerk, I thought we had the presentation already sent to you. I'm not sure what's happening with uh with the staff, but they're actually working on it. Mr. Chair, maybe we'll just Five minute break, I guess. Is that possible? They're almost And while they're doing that, Mr. Chair, I'm just thinking that our Scarbor youth uh will have great understanding in terms of how to improve the technology connection that we need always um sure that we're uh moving ahead. Are we having a compatibility tech issue? Yes, we do. Maybe we can just use a projector and use your slides and just show it from your slides, folks. Maggie, are you ready? Mr. Chair, see there's augmented technology utilization. That's right. That's exactly what we're asking for. So, this is perfect. Good. We can see it. You guys ready? Good morning everyone. I'm Sunny. I'm here with my team Aiden Vincent and Dami. So, thank you councelor Thompson to have us here. To get started, Scabbo is one of the fastest growing parts of the city. But young residents are actually trying to enter the workforce and navigating a system that isn't built for them. Not because programs doesn't exist, but because nothing connects. Today, we are proposing a solution that changes that cost the city far less than building a new program and is ready to move forward. Physically, the hub will be located at the Scarbo Civic Center, a trusted, accessible, and community-based location. Okay, now the key question is why is the hub and why is it needed? To answer that, we grounded our approach in direct engagement in scab. We conducted a survey, spoke with 13 youth at Scab Scarro Town Center and had a focus group discussion with about 25 participants. Most of them came from low-income communities in Scarro and faced significant barriers and was we interviewed a government official across all the engagements. The finding were highly consistent. During the interview, one of the 19 year old job seeker told us just like most the other most of the other interviews that we encountered. It feels confusing. I just don't know what is legit. Another user told us that they were searching for part-time jobs but didn't know where to look at beyond social medias like LinkedIn or on Google. So people are trying, they just don't know where to go next. In our focus group, most of the participant told us they wanted careers in social services and leadership but lack of clear directions, networks and most importantly clear pathway to get there. One of them said it's hard when you don't have a mentor. We also heard from youth whose education pathways were disrupted during the co years ago. Once young professional told us that co totally derailed their career for like two years. Nothing exists anymore and which feels like starting over from scratch. She told us that the hardest part was that uncertainty of not knowing when stability would return. So the issue is not that scar lacks of programs when there's no coordin um when they need what they need is not inspiration anymore but more of a practical and media support structure that they can trust on. So when there's no coordination between education training and employing opportunities people fall in uh through the cracks. Besides, we have also interviewed a Ontario public sector hiring professional and she told us that many of the current opportunities are concentrated in downtown Toronto which can feel geographically and socially distant from Scar Bro communities and especially youth. So we need a stronger pathway directly in scarab and here that we proposing in the scarab pacific center. At its core we are specifically targeting underserved youth in scar bro who are actively trying to enter the workforce but are facing barriers along the path. These are not disengaged individuals. In fact, many are making efforts applying for jobs and exploring programs, but the system is not supporting them in moving forward. Through the hub, we want to provide structure, clarity, and continuity so that people are not left navigating the fragment services on their own. As an example, I'll walk you through the four stages of a participant's experience in first-person perspective. Stage one, entry assessment zero to three month. I joined the hub with an interest in healthcare. My background, interest, and readiness are assessed. I'm guided into a suitable pathway while being connected with the right training progress. Stage two, training and support 3 to six month. I'm enrolled in the training program and the hub supports me in staying on track and helps me overcome barriers. Stage three, progression and transition six to 12 month. My progress and it's monitored and I receive support with applications. I'm guided towards internship placements and more advanced training opportunities. Stage four employment's outcome 12 to 24 month. I'm transition into a healthcare job. My outcome are tracked including cost per successful placements. Periodically I receive checking calls from the hub. So here is our hub model. First the hub offer centralized intake system. This is a preliminary step to differentiate participants based on their background, interest, bias, and level of readiness. Based on the assessment results, participants are assigned into different pathways. Second, the progression management and tracking to help actually managers participants flow across stages. This includes application support, navigation, advising, followup, and re-engagement. The goal is very simple. No one falls off the path without being noticed. Third, the hub connects participants with inquirers and training programs. On the program side, it defines shar progression criteria and aligns expectations between stages. For example, if a pre-inccubtor like DMZ requires a validated business idea upstream programs are adjusted to include idea development and validation support. On the employer side, the hub works directly with employers to understand hiring demand, your requirements and entry level accessibility. Then the hub translate this requirements to the participants. Finally, the hub can use data from different programs across the system to identify bottlenecks, figure out the root causes of drop off and adjust our program design accordingly. This creates a feedback loop from data to insights to interventions and finally to improved outcome. We are recommending where the city helps launch the hub but does not directly run it. The system's role is to provide initial funding with no ongoing operational obligation, space support, and help bring planners to the table. Day-to-day operations would be led by an independent executive director and an operations team. We also recommend a community advisory board that includes representatives of scarboard residents, youth, nonprofits, employers and educational institutions so that decisions can stay grounded in what the community actually needs. The model relies on delivery partners as well. They can provide specialized expertise support. For example, DMZ can support later stage entrepreneurship pathways. Protexa can provide AI training. Centennial College can offer industry aligned training programs in areas such as business, technology, and applied trace. This also helps prevent duplication. Right now, there are many people who already applied multiple programs at the same time without without knowing which one is the right fit. The hub can act as a centralized intake and navigation system to help ensure resources are distributed efficiently. At the end of the day, the delivery of the hub model itself is not sufficient for our definition of success. Rather, our goal is to observe actual life improvements for people in Scarbo. At the individual level, we want to see people move into real opportunities and progress through the system. We'll track these outcomes using the pipeline and progression indicators such as participation rates, transition rates, and drop off rates. As a baseline, for example, we want to target transition metrics of around 60 to 70% in the short term. Intermediately, readiness is a key indicator. For us, progression alone is not enough if people are moving forward without being prepared. As such, stage entry requirements, improvements in technical skills, business readiness, and confidence over time are all important trackers to level up people's business acumen at a macro level. The wider economic impact, this helps build a stronger local workforce across the board. From healthcare to retail, this help connects local talents to opportunities that already exist in Scarbo. The impact goes way beyond just jobs. where young people have clear pathways to stable income, families can become more financially able, communities can become safer, and Scarbo can become stronger over time. At a high level, we propose an initial 604D allocation. Approximately 60% supports the hub as the coordination infrastructure, including onetime setup costs. The remaining 40% is deployed through partners to deliver pathway specific support. We also structure the investment across four stages. First we establish the hub, finalize intakes and pathway designs and line core partners. Then we onboard the first cohort of 100 to 150 participants. Next we track progressions and identify drop off points across stages. Founding at this point becomes more performance orientated. Last but not least, funding is tied directly to outcomes including employments, training progressions and entrepreneurship entry. We also recommend tracking cost per successful outcome. In closing, Scarbo does not lack talent. It lacks clear pathways. The proposal helps ensure that as Scarbo grows, its residents grow with it. Thank you. Welcome your questions. Thank you very much. Really appreciate the presentation. Councelor Thompson, did you have questions? Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wonder if you could all introduce yourselves. I know we had some technology issues at the start, but you didn't uh take a moment to introduce yourself. I wonder if you could do that for me, please. So, hi everyone. My name is Ming Kamisani. I'm the team lead for this group project. I'm graduating, like just graduating from University of Toronto. I'm really honored to be here. Hi everyone, my name is Aiden. I'm also a fourth year and I was in charge of the research and analysis portion of the project. Hi everyone, I'm Dami and I'm mostly responsible for the fieldworks and the inerson um interviews. Hi everyone. So you packed a lot in here and we have a limited amount of time and so on, but um from what I'm ga gathering from your analysis and your work, there is a need for this type of initiative here in Scar. Is that correct? Yeah. Yes. And you have actually gone out and actually you have done some research consultation with young people. Yes. In the heart of Scarough at the Scarboro Town Center. Yes. Speak into the mic please. Sorry. Basically all the results, all the interviews that we conducted, uh the results were pretty consistent like everyone was saying that um they've never heard of a similar programs or even they heard of it but they just never had a chance to go into programs like this. So which I think like in general we have a programs that is lead by the city and then also that has other stakeholders uh interact with it will be pretty helpful for those used especially those that they wanted to have a chance to do it but never had uh never had the ability to do it. Thank you for that. And so we're partnering with DMZ which has set up hubs around the world which is part of TMU. Uh we're also going to have Centennial College which is part of our ecosystem here. Protexa which is a company that's focusing on AI and cyber training that's going to take place. Additionally, the city of Toronto's economic development department will also be part of the structure. So my question to you based on that and others could play a role of course we heard University of Toronto but the foundation and the principles that are actually established this is earmarked toward success based on the work that you've done. Would you agree? Yes or no will be fine. Sorry, can you repeat the question? So, basically what I was saying is that you have all of these partners who have defined uh credibility and they work around the globe. They're coming to participate and help us to establish this here in Scarbo and will work with young people here. I'm asking whether or not you think that is a formula for success as opposed to blindly and establish something without the structure. Uh yes, I would definitely think that as a uh yes because like we uh had in the presentation uh all the programs like let's say DMZ or other uh like Protexa when we were conducting our research we had uh see on their website that Protexa they already had like similar programs that designed for young uh for youth population but it was just never being implemented into a specific group or they just they wanted people to get involved but they never had a like any efforts that specifically go into the community or into the population. So like right now we have the chance to actually implement it to um their programs into our coordinated u structure that the community can actually participate and the model is structured to be able to have the intake a process that these young people will go through because at the end of the day it's about the outcome and the opportunity for these young people. Would that be correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions Mr. Chair. Thank you councelor Thompson. Other questions on this? Seeing none, councelor Thompson, do you want to speak briefly? Yeah, just briefly, Mr. Chair, I actually have a motion that we will receive the presentation. I want to thank the students and I also thank Neil Jooski from North Pine U foundation for bringing the students in. It was just an accidental situation in which we made the connection because we were already down the road in terms of wanting to do this work. This is years and years and years of work that have come to this particular point and also saving significant amount of funds to be able to establish this. You go around the globe, you see many other countries and cities having initiatives of this nature to help their young people. It was always a goal of mine to be able to establish this right here in Scar Bro. And my colleagues, I wanted to bring this forward because we're almost at that point where we will actually launch in September. I wanted to have the ability to bring this information here today so that my colleagues because we're all involved in this in terms of um advancing this opportunity for Scarra and all Scarbor residents um we want to build a model of success. We want to establish and ensure the full processes are in place um not only simply to bring the young people in but to ensure we don't amputate their desire their growth. We have lots of talented young people here in Scar Bro and we really need to create the vehicle the on ramp to opportunities for them. This is really what this is all about. We're going to use our city facilities. We're going to be able to collaborate with respect to external partnership hopefully with respect to North Pine but also Neil Joshy and his expertise. He's an outstanding uh person from Scar Bro who has developed a reputation of being able to be successful. So what we've actually done, we've aligned ourselves with outside partners who have successfully developed programs and initiative around the globe for us right here in Scar Bro. And this strategy is to ensure the success of all of our young people and to have something that will be sustainable uh beyond our term here in office so that these young people will actually have the opportunity to be able to develop apps to be able to develop uh veing programs to be able to respond to technological technological needs and to be able to work in areas like health sciences, transportation, government and all of these particular areas of focus. but focusing on what we see in Silicon Valley and other places where we provide opportunity. They provide opportunities. We see that as well. One of the other piece that I want to build into this is that we're going to work with large and small scar broil businesses. So we create opportunity when these young people have developed technology, have developed expertise that they have an opportunity to be able to uh get a job and or to develop but also to be able to be continue to be trained. And so I'm really excited about this for all of us, for all of the young people. It's been a long time coming. And I also want to thank um Northbound Foundation for their interest in wanting to support us. They were adamant that if they supported us, it's about outcome. It's about simply ensuring that if people go through this process, they're going to have opportunities. We see too many programs that are established where the program provides some training, but there's no other option for these people that are involved in these particular programs. This is not that. This is an opportunity to be able to help and expand the education, expand the knowledge and the awareness through the relationship with DMZ, Protexa, Centennial College, um, economic development and the board, the advisory board that we will establish will be key individuals with certain expertise to help to not only ensure the sustainability of the hub, but also to create opportunities for all of our young people so that we will be richly rewarded by them when we see them doing great things. We don't see them going to jail. We don't see them getting arrested. We don't see them in nefarious activities and so on so forth where we don't want them to be. We will see the success. The model that we're building here is Scar Brom made with respect to a global connection to ensure the richness to ensure that our young people have access to opportunity to be able to grow both their personal growth, social growth and their uh professional growth and so on. So, Mr. Chair, I'm really excited about this. We will be back at some point to just to finalize how we're rolling this out. Much work is actually being done. And I want to thank everybody for the collaboration that's actually taking place and I look forward to working to ensure the success of our young people and this will be a global reach for them. It's not just what they will do here in Scar Bro, but it is what they will do globally. Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you, Councelor Thompson. Other speakers on this item? Seeing none, so we have a motion to receive it. Sorry, Councelor Cannibal. Uh, yeah. I would just like to say a few comments. Okay. Go ahead. Uh thank you um Mr. chair and uh kudos to councelor Thommpson and the students here for presenting this uh opportunity that has tremendous value and I think you know when we talk about scar bro all of us have tremendous pride in a lot of the you know we recently had the walk of fame and variety of success stories across um different areas but one untold or undertold story is the uh scar bro to Silicon Valley pipeline we have an amazing number of graduates from Scarbor high schools that go on to tech programs. I uh study at the University of Wateroo and many of my Scarbor friends from across different high schools have gone into the US sadly and that's a bigger different story but uh the amount of tech talent coming out of Scar Bro is remarkable. Um two of my former students are at LinkedIn and Meta doing really well. So this is something uh in addition to our success in film, TV uh and sports of course is also the uh amazing talent we produce in in tech and I want to commend everyone to this and and North Pine has been incredible supporter of Scar Bro from healthc care to scholarships as we saw at the Scarbor Walk of Fame. Uh so very excited about this and looking forward to moving forward. Thank you chair. Thank you councelor Kendel. So, we have a motion before us to receive the item. All in favor? Sorry, can we have a recorded vote? Just recorded. We have a recorded vote. Madam, all those in favor to adopt the recommendation in councelor Thompson's letter to receive the item. Councelor Thompson, Councelor Shan, Councelor Myers, Councelor Mantis, Councelor Aninsley, Councelor Candal. That motion carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank that was carried unanimously by Scarro Community Council and thank you for your presentation this morning and looking forward to learning more about Todd. Thank you so much. Okay. Uh we're going to go back to our agenda. Um I'm just we have a couple of quick items with single deputants that I'm I think we can take care of before so we don't have the staff for those items here when they don't need to be. So um I'm going to take care SC 31.4 3000 3004 3008 302 and 3020 Kennedy Road draft plan of subdivision application. This is a decision report for final approval. We have one registered speaker, Chris Pereira from uh Mihar Planning and Design Limited. Sorry, chair. Just a quick point of order. I just want to release um quick release number 12. Yeah. So, the staff aren't here. Okay. Councelor Myers is releasing SC 31.12 Metro Links Subway Scar Bro subway extension temporary traffic modifications and public highway dedications Kennedy station connection emergency exit building three and scar bro center station awards 20 21 23 and 24 all in favor and that carries Mr. Per you have five minutes whenever you're ready. Good afternoon Mr. Chair, members of council. Uh my name is Chris Pereira. I am the principal of Embahar Planning Design Limited. We are the planning and urban design consultants for uh the owner. The application before you today is for a draft plan of subdivision approval. Uh we have worked closely with staff to resolve several technical details pertaining to the new East West public road. um and a number of other technical item items which this application covers. So just a bit of background flavor. On June 27th of 2024, city council approved bylaw 711-2024 which approved a maximum of 171 units. These were organized around nine stack townhouse blocks of three stories um of and three stories of height for the site. So in order to implement that approval, the plan of subdivision application before council today seeks to do three things. And the plan of subdivision itself can be uh very clearly viewed on attachment three of the staff report. I think it shows it very clearly exactly what this application is seeking to do to do here today. So the first part of what the application is seeking to do, the main part really is to delineate an east west public road that would be a 20- meter rightway through the site in an east west fashion. This would be an extension of Fort Dearborn Drive which will eventually connect out to Kennedy Road. The second component of the application uh is also to delineate two future development blocks on the north and south sides of the public road. Those can be seen uh clearly on attachment three. Um these areas will be subject to further uh application through plan of condo uh to delineate um shared driveways, parking areas, landscape areas and of course the condo blocks themselves. Um should the application be approved then we would move Pereira. Sorry with my deepest apologies. Um, I'm missing some colleagues and I can't continue the meeting until I have quum. There's one, right? All right. Mr. Pereira, you can continue. Sorry about that. No problem at all, Mr. Chair. I'm almost done. Um, as I was saying, the second component is really to delineate the two future development blocks on the north and south sides of of each road, which will, should the application be approved, will be subject to further applications through kind of condo to delineate driveways, parking areas, landscape areas, and then one further application, which would be the final step would be the site plan approval. So, we believe that the proposal is consistent with the provincial planning statement. It also conforms to the official plan as well as section 5124 of the planning act um and that sets out criteria when considering draft plan of subdivision. We have reviewed the staff report and the recommendations contained therein and we have no concerns. We have also reviewed the draft conditions themselves and as they are standard we have no concerns. I am available to answer any questions committee uh of council or staff uh excuse me or residents may have. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Pereira. I appreciate your time. Uh questions of the deputent. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate your time this morning. Question of staff on this item. Councelor Manis, Mr. Vasa, does it meet does uh does the sorry does the application meet all the requirements uh under your review? Um to the chair, the applications before you adise that um under delegated acting under delegated authority uh the executive director of development review or their designate in this case myself um will be proceeding towards approving the draft plan. Uh there are some technical changes that uh will be necessary to facilitate final conditions but otherwise we're in good shape on this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Other questions of staff on this item? Seeing none speakers on this item? Councelor Manis, I would just like to thank staff for all the work that they've done and uh to the that has come here today. Um, just going to be moving staff recommendations. Okay, councelor Manis is moving staff recommendations on SC 31.4. All in favor? And that carries. Thank you very much. Uh, the next item we're going to deal with is uh SC 31.5 3130 Danforth Avenue zoning bylaw amendment application decision report for final approval. Uh, we have two registered speakers. The first one is Mr. Eric Stark. Mr. Stark, you're online. Can you hear us? Yes, I can hear you. You have uh five minutes whenever you're ready to address community council. Yeah. Unfortunately, I don't think five minutes is enough. Um, I wasn't really uh informed of the application uh that was uh submitted by the director um until last Friday. And uh so there's so many issues here that I can't possibly go through everything. Um uh so the first thing that uh struck me was that uh the application was originally for um two addresses um 3130 and 3150 Danforth Avenue. Uh which created a lot of confusion for the people going to St. Dunston Church because St. Dunston Church was uh also had that address as uh 3150 Danforth Avenue. Um so what so when I informed uh um the powers uh that be that uh that this was uh a conflict. uh the the application was heardly um changed to say that oh 3150 is not included. So the the bottom line is why why was it originally included? Um why did the proponent um suggest that 3150 belong to them and that this this application applies to that. So that needs to be cleared up. Um and uh so I happen to live um right behind the this uh proposal where currently the beer store sits. Um I want to suggest that uh the beer store is a viable operation. It's important to the community. It's important for uh uh recycling especially. Um I see tons of people um bringing the recycling to this this facility all the time. Um and um it would certainly be a loss if we we we lost that beer store. And um where would people take their their empties? The the the grocery stores don't want them. uh because of fear of contamination uh for their food products. And uh the the other only other uh beer store that's nearby is uh also slated for redevelopment at the Golden Mile. Um so um that's uh one issue. Um the environmental site assessments. Um um I see that um the report says that um as noted above this preliminary phase 2 ESA was not completed in full accordance with O. Regulation 1534. um and that um um that uh they want they suggest that it needs to be completed. I see no evidence that uh the assessment was completed. It should be before the proposal proposed amendment is is uh passed. uh shadow impacts. Uh we lived directly behind the beer store and the proposed tower would be devastating for us. Um access to the sun would be blocked for many hours in the day. Um our fruit trees, our pear trees, cherry trees, raspberry bushes would no longer likely no longer bear fruit and uh it would be hard for our veget our vegetables to grow in the garden and our flowers. Um there's also a modular housing uh nearby that would be directly impacted at 11 Macy Avenue that um houses previously homeless persons, many with addictions and mental health issues that would be suffering uh significant shadowing. Um and also there's um a park mealine park right across the street um where the where's a playground that would be adversely affected by shadowing um especially at uh in the afternoons where um school kids uh would come out of school and uh many parents would want to take their their kids to enjoy enjoy the the playground in in in the sunshine. Um, that would be severely impacted. Um, okay. I have to check how much time I got left. Sorry, Mr. Shark, I need you to wrap up, please. Oh my goodness. I There's tree tree pre preservation issues and so on so forth. There's so many things I can't get done here. Um, so I'm I'm very I very strongly urge the counselors to defer this motion until um it can be dealt with uh properly. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stark. Any questions of the deputent? Seeing none. Thank you very much, Mr. Stark. Appreciate your input this morning. Uh the second de registered deputent is Craig Euans of battery planning and management. Morning. Morning, Mr. Yuans. You have five minutes. Whenever you're ready. Good morning, Mr. Chair. I have a presentation. Oh, well, it's getting plugged in here. Perhaps I'll address the Oh, no problem. I'll address the address uh concern that was raised by the previous speaker. The Is your microphone on? I believe I believe it is. Can you hear me, sir? Yep. Okay. There we go. Okay, thank you for the patience. I will let's go. Okay. Uh so before I get into the presentation here, I'd like to address one of the the comments that was made the previous uh speaker, but the address due to either a database issue or uh a clerical error well before we started the pre-application process with the city. The address 3150 appeared on several pieces of correspondence from us, from the city on previous um materials in the application. Uh it wasn't raised as an issue until very recently and we've taken all the steps we can to address that. we've gone out to the site and removed any reference to 3150 on all the zoning signs on the site. Uh I note the staff have um removed the address from any of the materials. I also note that what we submitted in terms of a zoning bylaw amendment draft includes only the beer store site at 3130 DM. And I understand that conversations with city legal were had as well to make sure there's no notice or statutory issues resulting from this. Um anyway, um my name is Greg Euans. um here from Vtori Planning and Management representing the owners of this property and we're proposing a a 33 story uh rental apartment building, mixed use building on the site which is currently the home of the beer store. Uh you can see the area is very well served by community facilities, by parks, by uh retail and other commercial spaces uh as well as the Victoria Park subway station which is a short walk to the north. It's in a protected major transit station area. This is an area intended by the city for growth. The site is a mixeduse area's designation. It's on an avenue. Uh it's an area where growth is intended and right now I I would submit that it's fairly underutilized as the existing beer store one-story commercial building and a large surface parking lot that you can see in the image above. What we're proposing is a 33story building with 445 new apartment units in a range of sizes, 806 square meters of commercial space, about 150 vehicle parking spaces, eight of which are located at the surface level and just under 2,000 square meters of amenity space. Here's the ground floor. We've gone to great lengths to try and uh increase the commercial space on site to create opportunities for retailers of various sizes, including even the beer store if they wanted to come back uh to come back to the site. So, this was in direct response to comments from council, the the local community uh and planning staff. Couple of renderings of the project uh provides great opportunity significant setbacks along all street frontages to animate Danforth, Macy, St. Dunston space for new street trees to maintain existing trees, new green space, new pedestrian areas, new public um uh pedestrian space. Here is the rear of the site. Uh there's a proposed uh private vehicle access or lane along the back where vehicle access would be provided. Loading is provided, so we don't need loading or pickup off the streets. It's all contained within the site. As I said, there's also some short-term parking on the site as well. Here's another view of the streetscape, and you can see the church just to the east there in its frame as well. And uh and the proposal well set back of the street providing lots of space for street tree planting, commercial activity, pedestrian activity. The application is the result of a considerable amount of uh collaboration between city staff, between council and your staff. uh and it we've made a number of changes that are reflected in the proposal before uh community council today for which staff have drafted a supportive report. We've reduced the building height from 36 down to 33 stories. We've also adjusted uh the mechanical space on top of the building to reduce that even from u the original application to try and diminish shadow on the park Meline Park as great as possible. We've increased the number of surface parking spaces and parking spaces overall. And we've also increased the ground floor commercial space again to respond to comments from the community and the counselor's office about creating vibrant retail space and an opportunity for lots of commercial on the site. Additionally, uh and this was highlighted by parks and the councelor's office quite early in the process and we're grateful for that. Um opportunities for off-site parkland acquisition. Uh we continue to work with city staff and the councelor's office to identify lands which might be provided for off-site acquisition um as part of this and there's a recommendation in the staff report that reflects our efforts in that regard uh as they're intended to continue. But in summary, what we uh were proposing here we believe addresses a number of city and provincial objectives. This is an area where growth is intended transit supportive growth. We're proposing a building which has been scaled, masked, and cited on the site to diminish impacts to the greatest degree possible. While balancing the objectives to support this growth, we're trying to provide uh expanded community or commercial space uh expanded space on all street frontages, street improvements, improved landscaping. The building design references colors and materials from the local community, uh local buildings, and finally, um we're continuing to work with the city on opportunities for off-site acquisition. Um again, thank you to staff and thank you Councelor Campbell and your staff for working with us collaboratively on this. and thank you for your time today. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Yuans. Uh questions of the deputent. Councelor Myers. Thank you, Chair. Uh through you. Uh just a couple quick questions regarding the uh unit mix. There's 445 rental unit uh dwelling units. How many of those are affordable? Uh the right now I'm not sure what the the status of inclusionary zoning will be by the time the um the project moves forward but as of right now the uh CBC benefit which would enable the affordable units hasn't been determined yet. So in the current proposal there aren't any specified affordable units but we do have a CBC requirement uh that is so far not spoken for in terms of the community benefit it will deliver. It could be affordable units. Thank you. Uh, and then I guess my second question is I'm just looking at there's 445 units. Um, and then there's 137 parking spots. So roughly a third uh is the expectation that most people in the building will be using transit. Yes, the uh this aligns well actually this this greatly exceeds the city's requirements for parking uh in these areas. Also, the the planning act require any parking in buildings in major transit station areas as you may be aware. Uh but we've undertaken a market exercise to determine what we feel is an appropriate amount of parking for the site considering the walkability of the area and the nearby transit options. There's surface and and subway transit options within close walking distance. So that's based on a analysis of what we feel the market requires here. That is 150 149 spaces some of which are visitors but the majority are for residents. Thank you. And then a final question. I note that there is 348 bicycle parking spaces proposed. Do you know if the city plans on putting in bike infrastructure in this area so that people can safely ride bikes? I I believe there's a plan along Danforth regarding expanded bike infrastructure. Uh I'm not sure of the status of that plan and I I am not aware of any uh improvements beyond the Danforth corridor. There may be uh things that have been proposed recently that we're not aware of yet. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Myers. Other questions of staff on this item? Sorry, of the deputy. My apologies. Councelor Kandaval. Yeah. Thank you, Chair Ensley. Just wanted to just reconfirm with the the deputent. Greg, thank you for working with us. And on the affordable housing question, um you you shared the recent provincial changes that that took away that mandate. Uh but for for the clarity of of of our group here, um there isn't anything stopping the applicant from from proactively offering affordable housing as this mix. Correct. No, there is nothing uh in legislation that would prevent the applicant from uh providing affordable housing. And as I mentioned, the CBC contribution provides an opportunity to uh provide affordability in some of the units on site. Uh thank you and uh thank you for clarifying the the the address mistake. It clearly isn't substantial in in um for the proceedings today. I was going to uh show that later on. Um on the shadowing, we've heard from many community members uh just the shadows cast on the park which is in a low income area that is used by many in the community. For clarity with my colleagues, the shadowing impacts on the park between heavy use times 3 to 6 p.m. occur uh during the equinoxes. Correct. Yes. And the shadows are cast northeast from the building which falls on a portion of Meline Park uh later in the afternoon during the equinoxes diminishing towards this middle of the summer of course. But yes. Uh those are the the two questions. Uh thank you. The if I could add just a point on shadows um councelor the one of the things we looked at in the past couple of uh months as we've been putting together the revised proposal is the impact of an as of right building on shadows. I I'll just make two quick comments. Um, under the city's MTSA policies, this site, uh, which allows six or greater FSI, would likely facilitate a building in the the low 20-ish stories, uh, the mid 20ish stories. And there's no, uh, prescribed area where that tower could be. This is a fairly large site. We're proposing one tower on it, and we've deliberately moved that tower as far south and west as we possibly can in order to further limit shadows toward the northeast. As I said, we've brought the height down and we've brought the um the mechanical penthouse scale down as well. And when compared to a building that would be at an as of right height located in other areas of the site, the resulting shadow impacts are are not all that different from what might be expected from an as of right situation based on the city's major transit station area policies. Thank you, Greg. And finally, what is the FSI on your application? Oh, I have to look at the plans for that. Um, if you can give me a sec. I don't have that up top. Oh, 9.4, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Sorry. Are there questions of the deput? Seeing none. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Speakers on this item. Councelor Cannibal. Uh, thank you, Chair Ensley, and I'd like to thank Greg and his team for working with us. Um, to u reiterate, I know it was a reason for some communication, but the address mistake is is negligible, not really affecting or impacting the proceedings here. Um, as the applicant spoke, there are merits to this in terms of design. I appreciate the commercial retail um, uh, provision. Uh, the setbacks, the new trees and and to some extent the streetscape looks promising. There is, however, concerns about clarity around the parkland dedication, what that means um, for the community. It is a dense neighborhood already with multiple towers in the Teasdale neighborhood, Denton, Macy. Um there is a question, it's pointed out that nothing is preventing the applicant from providing affordable housing, something both staff and I have requested in this application. Um and also finally is the impact this would have on a very newcomer Canadian um racialized lower income family neighborhood which has this limited park. um that will see impacts from the shadowing. That gives pause for me and uh as part of seeing this move forward, I'll be moving this without recommendations uh to help address these questions for clarity as well as improvement on parkland and shadowing. Okay. Questions of councelor Kennel. Seeing none other speakers. So we have the motion by councelor Kennel. I thought he had a motion. I thought he moved a deferral. No, without moving into council without Rex. Okay. Any questions of the mover? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion that carries. Good. Yep. So, I am going to move a motion to extend the meeting uh to finish the next item SC 31.14. Crab village street plans which is item number 14 and then uh colleagues breaking for lunch we have 19 chair um chair can I ask if the scarbor crescent tree item please because I won't be able to join um once lunch starts or once we're back from lunch so if we can if we can kindly have that item the scarbor crescent tree exemption moved up as well I don't know what's There's four. Mr. Chair, just a point of order. Yep. Councelor Thompson, point of order. The chief of police is actually here in my ward. There's an activity that's taking place with the chief. I'm having trouble. Sir, can you hear me? Okay. The chief of police is actually here in my ward. There's some activities taking place with other members of the community and so on and I do have to attend. I will actually go and uh hopefully come back but you have qu I know that councelor can try to be here but I I have to leave to go to that. Okay. So we'll have qu I'll come back after I'm done but um unfortunately I've got to go there. Sorry. And councelor cannibal you have to leave at one. Yes, there's four speakers here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I have no idea. There's four speakers. Okay. I think one person's repeated twice. I think Nicole Kurana is repeated twice on the 31.8 scarbor crescent tree exemption item. Okay. So, we'll do number eight, we'll do number 14, and then we'll break for lunch. Is that fine with everybody? Staff need a break. Okay. All in favor? And that carries. So we have So we're on SC 31.8 226 Scar Bro Avenue. Application to remove a private tree. This is deferred from our last April meeting. Our first speaker, Nicole Curado. Nicole, are you online? Yes, I am here. Okay, go ahead. You have five minutes. Okay. All right. I I Sorry, Nicole, we can't hear you. Okay. Yes. Yes. Well, I was going to say that about this this tree, this black walnut tree is completely healthy and it's it's not uh branches can be trimmed. You don't have to cut the tree and uh this tree is producing food and shelter for animals especially during nesting season. Tree is healthy and maintainable and and there's absolutely no protect this black wall. Tree animals need the the shelter and need the food. Walnuts. This tree really needs to be protected. Rubal dead recruiting. It will will produce the likelihood of future loom failure. So all this tree needs is a haircut. That's tree is perfectly healthy. You see pictures of this tree. Beautiful beautiful tree. Lots of lots of green leaves. Perfect tree. Healthy tree. just needs a little bit of a haircut. Trees trees. Absolutely. That's there's no need to cut down the tree. Maybe trim a few branches, but the tree itself as well. Okay. Thank you, Nicole. Trees are and Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions of the deputy then? No. Seeing none, our next registered speaker is Joan Wright. Sorry, Miss Right. Are you speaking for yourself and Lawrence, right? Or um No, I'm speaking first and then Lawrence is speaking after me. Okay, go ahead. You have five minutes. Yes. Thank you for hearing our appeal. I know you're very busy today. Do you need your laptop hooked up? No, I'm fine. Thank you. Yeah. Lawrence Lawrence and I are both 79 years old and have lived in our home now for 35 years. And the tree we wish to remove is a black walnut tree. And it's a large tree, but we wanted to remove for two reasons. It's first because it's we're very fearful of injury and damage to ourselves. It's it's become a nightmare to live with this tree. And second, as we age, we're finding it more difficult to deal with with all the work involved and all the issues and actually we're not as healthy as we used to be. We want the tree removed so much we're prepared to pay substantial amount of money to do that and are willing to pay for trees to be planted on our property and wherever the city would like some more trees planted. It's not about the health of the tree. This is really about the quality of life for us living with this tree. Um, we've had a number of huge branches falling down and some damage has happened to our table which was a glass table at the time and um we still fear there's more big branches coming down even though it's healthy. The tree has mountains and mountains of nuts that fall down at least every every year around two months of the year. September, October, we're constantly out picking up naps before they cause a real problem and squash down everywhere in the patio. Um, our main entrance is actually right onto the patio and we use that all the time and we have to be very careful when we're moving in and out of the house. It's hard. I'm not going through all my scripture, but it's hard to describe the horror really. I mean, we we get woken up at night with the with the nuts falling down. Um, and takes a while to understand what's happening because it comes down with such force. The tree now is about 80 feet high. So, we did have an opportunity when we first moved into this house to cut down this tree. We realized after a couple of years it was a problem. Um, we didn't cut it down at the time because we couldn't afford to. It's still at this point it's going to cost us about $9,000 to to cut down the tree along with planting new trees. I as I say it's very difficult to describe what we go through. The other thing that has happened is and the previous speaker mentioned the animals. We have many animals in our yard and we also have other trees growing. We have some very large maple trees as well. So, we love our trees really, except our nightmare tree, which we can't deal with anymore. Um, the squirrels have actually collected the nuts off this tree as well, and they managed to get into our attic. And we were having a problem listening to them roaming around until Lawrence found where they were coming in and was able to fix that problem, but who knows when it's going to happen again. There was a huge amount of nuts that they stored there on and in Arctic above where we live. Anyway, I um we're now approaching 80 years of age and we both have arthritis and our knees and our shoulders and everything are going. So, we just can't deal with this tree anymore. So, we ask that we be allowed to cut it down so that we can live our lives in this house that we bought as a retirement bungalow. And thank you for listening to me. My husband is actually going to follow up with some other problems. Thank you, Miss Wright. Uh, questions for the deput. You're waiting for Mr. Wright so you can get the full story. All right, we're waiting for Mr. Wright so we can get the full Okay, Mr. Rice has arrived. Um, can I hook my computer up? Yep. I just got some pictures. Pictures are worth a thousand words, right? There we go. Um, go ahead, sir. You have five minutes whenever you're ready. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for listening to me. Um, yes, I'm ready. Okay. So, Joan and I want to remove this tree because it's growing too close to our house. and to our neighbor's house. It if it was at the bottom of our of our back garden, it wouldn't be a threat, but but the canopy overhangs both houses and patios. I'd like to do a five points that I think are relevant to application to remove this tree. Um, first point, this tree is dangerous. Limbs are falling and pruning won't guarantee that they stop. Over the last few years, three large limbs have fallen. The most recent shattered Oops. One more. Okay. The most recent shattered out glass picnic table. But this despite the fact that we've had this tree pruned several times. But these leaves could kill someone. In the report to the council, urban forestry says good arborultural practices and the performance of routine tree maintenance will reduce the likelihood of limb failure. But we don't want to reduce the likelihood of limb failure. We want to stop it. And the only way to stop this likelihood is to remove the tree. In his submission to council, uh, urban forestry also says that the city's tree bylaws do not support the removal of this tree as is healthy and maintainable. But this is simply not true. As I've discussed in my written submission, I don't know if you've read it, but the bylaw does support the removal of healthy trees. in in subsection 18.1 it says simply the general manager may issue permits to injure or destroy healthy trees. So we're not we're not asking for a variance to the bylaw. We're asking that a decision made is made in accordance with subsection 18.1 of the bylaw. The third point, Toronto has another set of bylaws, chapter 632, which which says that we should remove dangerous trees. Half of our tree canopy overhangs the property next door. If a loom were to fall into their garden or onto their house, according to chapter 632, Joan and I would be held responsible for any any resulting damage, injury, or death. Chapter 623 um 632 deals with vacant or houseless properties. The subsection 5 says but the owner or person in charge of a property upon which a tree is located shall remove any decayed, damaged or dangerous tree or branch that poses a danger at a person or property. And that's exactly what we want to do. We are the owners of the property upon which this tree is located. And we sincerely and we sincerely believe that this tree is dangerous. It's our responsibility to remove it. Fourth point, the falling nuts can be dangerous too. It's not just the falling limbs that worry us for for two months every year. As Joan has said, our lives are dominated by thousands of nuts that fall on our on our house and patio. Joan has talked about the stress they cause and the problems of Kina. If the nuts aren't removed as soon as they fall, the husks are chewed up and spat out by the squirrels. These spat out husks are messy and we all know what can happen when no people sit and fall with broken bones and hospitalization. Fifth point, we believe that this tree will make it impossible for us to age in place. Jonah and I have seen our parents age and so we know what's waiting for us. We know As we age, our ability to cope with the for nuts and the constant cleanup will diminish to the point where we simply won't be able to deal with it anymore. While a nice while it might sound melodramatic, we don't want to be driven out of our house because we've been forced to live with a tree that we can't cope with. This refusal but to allow us to remove the tree appears to us to be in direct conflict with the city's aging place initiative. And finally, let's put this in perspective. In 2024, the city estimated that there were 11 and a half million trees in TR. Joan and I are asking for one tree out of 11 and a half million that be replaced. Not destroyed, simply replaced. We will planting new trees. In summary, that the tree is situated too close to our house and our neighbor's house. Pruning can't guarantee but that more limbs won't fall. Neither will pruning stop us falling on our roof and patio. But removing the tree does not contravene the tree by law. Moreover, removing the tree is in accordance with the vacant and houses property by law. And perhaps most importantly, for two months each year, lives are dominated by the train. As we enter our 80s, we want to minimize any dangers and to make life easy for John and Lars as they get old. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Questions of the deput. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you through you. Uh thank you to Mr. and Mrs. Wright for your presentation. And this is a a very unique scenario and a couple of things that I wanted to help clarify for my colleagues and audience. Um Mr. and Mr. Wright, this uh exemption you're seeking is not to uh further develop your house or expand the imprint of your of your home. Is it? No, absolutely not. We just want to get rid of the tree. Uh we have no profit or ulterior motive involved in it at all. Uh and you've clearly outlined that this is a a very unique the black wall as I learned through my site visit uh a very uh dense nut that has clearly demonstrated impact to your house and your safety and security. Correct. Yes. Uh we get thousands of nuts every year. Um, there was one year I couldn't get rid of all the nuts that fell and I had to um and I and I filled the back of my pickup truck. I' I've got an 18ft bed on my pickup truck and I estimated I put 3,000 nuts which I couldn't which I just couldn't dispose of by normal means. There's a lot of nuts and they create danger. They um and there have been children playing in our playing in our backyard who've got platforms. Um yeah. Um and uh beyond just the the safety of your home, uh this is this a question of accessibility for you and your wife in regard to your ability to continue to stay in your your current home which you you've been in for quite some time. Yeah. Uh yes, we've been in the house for 35 years. Um we um oh here's my wife. Um oh sorry the yes um our main entrance to our to where we live that gives out onto the patio. So every time we leave the house or come in we have to run the gauntlet of all these fallen nuts for two months of the year. And if we don't pick them up, the the problem is we can't hire somebody to come in and clean up the nuts because it's a constant it's a con it's a constant process of picking up the nuts as soon as they thought because otherwise the squirrels get in and they start chewing at them and husks go all over the um all over the patio and the husks are slippery. Actually, we didn't mention our next door neighbors too because um Dave next door had a stroke two years ago now and is in a wheelchair and it's pretty impossible to wheel a wheelchair through all the nuts that fall on their side of the fence and they probably get about the same number as we do on our side. So I don't know how they manage with difficulty and I I don't know if that's the case. The nuts again it's difficult if you don't live there to describe what happens. It's like sometimes it's like showers of golf balls coming down and when you start walking out the door you have to kind of duck back in and you know it's getting as I said it's getting harder to move as fast as we used to to avoid these nuts falling. They have hit us in the past but now the tree is bigger. They're just coming down faster, stronger, they smash open. This past year was was a bonanza, I think, because this this past year the nuts at the end of the uh season were bigger than golf balls and they were coming down so fast they were splashing, squashing on the uh patio right away. And the other thing is they bounce off the table or off the roof and they mess all our patio and our house actually is a stucco. It's um cream colored stuff. Oh, and every year we have to repaint the whole side around the back garden area. Um it's it you can't imagine what it's like to live with it for two months. We we just are on the Os. We need to have it done. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. and Mr. Mrs. Right. Appreciate it. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Canel. Other questions of the deputants? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Uh we're moving on to questions of staff. Questions of staff. Councelor Cannibal, do you have questions of staff? No. No questions of staff. No. Okay. Councelor Cannibal doesn't have any questions of staff. Councelor Manis or Councelor Myers? No. Okay. Can I just ask so where's my forestry staff? Can I ask in the report? So the arborist that they hired noted the trees poor condition, unbalanced crown, weight distribution over extended branches including bark and cavities, the presence of deadwood. I'm not sure what that is. I'm not an arborist. Um, city staff inspected the tree at the time of inspection determined it's healthy and maintainable. The tree has good structural form and vitality. The deputent showed pictures. Sorry, my line long-winded question. The deputent showed pictures of the tree that came down on their patio table. And I I have I I know what black walnuts can do when they get infected with moths. What's the discrepancy, do you think, between the arburist that they hired and the city staff that went and looked at the tree? Uh through the chair, I can actually confirm that I was been out on site and inspected the tree um and would also deem it as being healthy and maintainable. In terms of the discrepancy between the arborist uh and what I saw on the ground, I would have to um converse with the arburist in that situation and get a better understanding of what they were seeing which I did not see. Um as uh noted by the applicant as well as uh by my staff and myself is that the tree as far as I can see is healthy and containable. The limbs that have fallen could be a result of a number of different things. Unfortunately, I wasn't there when they did fall. Uh, so it could be that the tree branches were just overextended and they should have been pruned sooner. Could be that the tree branches were dead. Uh, you mentioned about not knowing what deadwood is. So on a tree branch, um, occasionally there's just dieback from as trees get older, certain limbs will drop or fall, potentially get infected, those kind of things. My apologies. Uh, that would lead to a deadwood limb. So we call deadwood anything that could be the size of a finger all the way up to the size of your arm. Right? So an arburish report indicating that there's presence of deadwood. Many trees across Toronto, in fact I would say significantly most of the trees in Toronto will have some sort of deadwood in them unless you're pring them consistently every couple of years kind of thing. Okay. And then um in terms so it's 373 cm in diameter. We just revised our tree protection bylaw. So this tree would be almost four times the size of what you're mandated to protect minimum. And then in terms So it's a 70. What is the life expectancy of a tree like this in an urban environment like Toronto? Black walnut uh through the chair. Black walnuts have a large long life expectancy. They're a very robust tree that can live hundreds of years uh no problem. Um and in terms of um yeah the size of the tree I believe staff and myself measured it being about um 73 centimeters in DBH. Uh so yeah that's almost three four times what we're proposing for the tree bylaw amendments moving forward. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh speakers on this item. Sorry. Councelor Cannibal, did you wish to speak? I'll go after Councelor Mantis. Well, it's your award. Yeah, I'll go last. I'll go last if that's fine with you, chair. Yep, that's fine. Councelor Manis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'll tell you a little story. So when I was a younger person, we had a neighbor that had a black walnut tree and the walnut tree was was just as big as the one that we see in this application. Leaves would fall, branches would fall, the the walnuts were anywhere between the size of a pingpong ball to to almost a baseball. Especially when they're green, they're very hard and they're even harder than when they're dry. and it was just a total mess. So in this application, it's not about the the health or the uh the prosperity of the tree. It's about the the living conditions and the prosperity of the homeowners because at the end of the day, they're the ones that are have to clean the tree, prune the tree, maintain the tree, and live at and live at their homes. and knowing that their neighbor is also in a wheelchair, I find it very difficult to accept the fact that we're we would deny the application on the facts of the health of the tree. Plus, the bylaw that we've voted upon isn't in effect until January 1st. So, right now, it's only twice the size of the tree, not four times the size of the tree. Just to mention that. So, I'm actually in support of the uh removal of the tree because has to do with the general well-being of all the residents around the home and not only because of the tree itself. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Other speakers, councelor Canaval. Thank you, chair. I want to thank Quinn um and staff for supporting our site visit. Um and uh we saw very clearly and it's been a bit of a a crash course for me on the impact of black walnuts. A tree all trees are not alike. Um and councelor Mantis' personal story highlights um the learnings that my staff and I um underwent through the visit and seeing the impact firsthand of uh the the the trees certainly drove home the messages from Mr. and Mrs. Wright on the impact on their safety, security and most importantly accessibility for them to age in place. as I shared with them, they they look great great for their age, but they're 80 years old. And for them to continue this um work is is very challenging, I can imagine. And and hence why I haven't typically uh in my two and a half years as a counselor supported tree exemptions, but this one I am. Uh it's clearly and obviously and clearly stated by the applicants. They are not doing this for a expansion of their home or property. Um, but this is for their security, safety, and accessibility. And I and I urge and ask my colleagues to support this rare exemption given the impact it's having on on their personal lives and the safety and security of it as they age in place uh a home that they've been um living at for for I think 35 years. So um I asking for this exemption. I know it may not be uh something folks but it's clear that the context in I think our bylaws or procedure allow for that discretion and here's a rare occurrence place that I ask for uh to support given the personal impact upon this uh this couple uh as they um age gracefully as seniors in their homes. So hoping to have my colleagues support in granting this rare exception. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Cannibal. Other speakers on this item? Seeing none. So, we have uh an amendment before us by Councelor Cannibal. All in favor? None opposed. And that passes item. Nope. Okay. Thank you. And then our next item is SC 31.14 Scarbor Village Street Plan. W 20 Scar Bro Southwest and W 24 Scarbo Gildwood. We have one registered speaker, David Signnaki. Good afternoon, Mr. Suknaki. I believe you understand how the rules work. You've been on this side of the table before. You have five minutes whenever you're ready. Sorry, you have to turn the microphone on. Sir, did you mute me already, counselor? Uh, so I hope to uh continue with my tradition of never using my five minutes. Members of council, I'm here to ask uh with respect to the streets plan for one amendment, please, and that is deletion of of recommendation 1A uh which is a set of speed bumps on Markham Road uh itself. Um I'm okay with absolutely the rest of it. Um it's no longer for me to say what people want on their streets or not or to be contrary to the streets plan. Um the reason for uh my request is that the area that I'm requesting that one stretch of street is the major ingress uh for all of the emergency services into the entire uh community. And I believe that it would be um just slower emergency services, slower ambulance, slower police, slower um uh all services including wheel trans into the community if that would be removed. Before coming here, I took a look at the um uh Toronto Open portal to take a look at what accidents there were on that set of uh road. The records are just great. They go back to 2006 and in the last 20 years there have been no accidents on that stretch at all. Uh there's actually only one accident at Markham and Kingston itself. Uh and that was due to a driver taking the wrong turn. Um with respect to the warrant before you, it's at 54 kilometers an hour. Um really that's not that high on a on a downhill uh on a downhill ramp. uh there's a plaza at the corner, so I don't think we'll be impacting a lot of of residents. And so I believe for the uh purposes of the community at large, it would make sense just on that one portion to remove the speed bumps. I will say personally that I walk that um every day uh every workday rather. That's part of my uh morning walk during the morning rush period and uh it's not an unsafe street per speaking personally. I've been in the since um that area for the last 26 years. So, please uh members of uh community council ask for your uh amendment. Other than that, uh I would certainly support the rest of the recommendations before you. Thank you. Look at that. Two minutes and 10 seconds. Well done, sir. Any questions of the deputy? Seeing none. Thank you, sir. Much appreciate your chair. Chair Ensley. Sorry. I don't know if you saw my hand go up. Councelor Cannibal. questions of the deputent. Uh thank you chair and um welcome back to Scarboard Community Council, former councelor Saknaki. Good to see you. Uh thank you for uh for coming out and and joining us. Always always good to see you. And just wanted to u just clarify, did you communicate to to either councelor or I about this request? Sir, yeah, I I put a call into your office uh earlier this week. I spoke with your assistant. Your assistant was quite helpful who actually asked the reasons for my uh coming down and uh a recommendation. So, I spent some time with him on the phone um as well. I spoke with uh councelor Aninsley uh who was good enough to start off the conversation by saying, you know, this isn't councelor Candel's room award uh so you better not lobby me. So he's he did a good job as well. Uh fair enough. It's a little I'm unsure about whether the Markham Road is my side or his side, but it's Yeah, sure. It certainly is a border. Um and finally, um uh is the concern that from your I know you've been there for quite some time that the the speeding or the traffic doesn't um uh provide for the the need for the speed hubs. Is is that the the basic? Yeah, there's there's two things there uh you're you're you're mentioning, counselor. Uh number one, the issue is of safety. So that's why I took a look at the um uh the data because uh I certainly don't observe that it's unsafe. Uh whenever uh certainly I'm pedest I'm a pedestrian and a walker there as are others. The cars do respect it and uh do give everybody a wide birth. The warrants also say that this the road is relatively slow. So um it's a safe road. So that's that's one issue. But I think the critical thing for this section is that that is the major uh entrance point for all of the emergency services um and city services uh coming into our community. So that's why I propose this this one section uh uh be be amended. But with the rest of that the report's fine in my opinion. Thank you. Thank you for your deputation, former counselor. Appreciate it. Thank you, Councelor Kennel. Uh, questions of staff on this item. Councelor Myyers. Thank you through you, Chair. Uh, regarding 1A, the 10 speed humps on Markham Road between Kingston Road and Hill Crescent. Uh, are there is there transit in that area? Are there TTC buses that are running over their speed humps? Through you, chair to the council, there is no TTC service on this segment of Markham Road south of Kingston. Okay. I think and on Markham Road mean sorry the segment of Markham Road south of Kingston Road. Okay. Thank you. Got it. Thank you councelor. Other questions of staff on this item? Seeing none uh speakers on this item? Councelor Canaval. Uh thank you chair. Just give me one second. I'd like to um appreciate the tremendous work done by staff. Uh the open houses were outstanding, very helpful in uh getting together uh all the relevant stakeholders within u the city to present and hear from residents the uh the the concerns about safety and and in Cliffrest Scarbor Village and certainly many aspects of this plan speak to uh the need for um community investment, city investment in making a safer um community for all. So, I want to appreciate the the work done by folks and um uh the engagement from the community was clear in the two open houses and the communications with our office and with staff directly. uh appreciate former counselor Saknaki's um advice and experience in relation to 1A and I'll be moving a motion to delete the request uh to delete part 1A uh this recommendation for speed hubs south of Kingston Road on Markham Road to Hill Crescent. Sorry, counselor, did you submit that? I believe council um Nancy and my staff are perhaps working on that. So if there's any other speakers, we can come back or if if if clerks can quickly draft the deletion motion. Yeah, we'll do that. May I provide some information in relation to that uh deletion? All right, sir. Thank you. We're both doing the same thing, councelor. I already have a motion deleted or drafted for the same thing. Okay. All is well. Okay. Yep. So, I don't need to I don't need to speak very long. I have the same motion. Councelor Cannibal and I can both move it since we we feuded over Markham Road. So it basically reads that recommendation number 1A be deleted uh and that two be re be recommendation number two be removed in conjunction with the installation of seed pumps. So it now reads Scarbo Community Council designate a 30 kilometer speed limit on Markham Road between Kingston Road and Hill Crescent and removing in conjunction with the installation of speed humps. So what this motion does is uh remove the proposed speed humps on Markham Road uh maintains the designation of the 30 kilometer speed limit. Uh I've been the counselor in the area for a number of years. Um, I've walked up and down the street, ridden a bike up and down it, drove up and down it. Um, I've not ever I've never seen a motor vehicle accident on it. Um, I actually don't get any complaints about the speeding on this. I get complaints about speeding on Hill Crescent and the adjacent roads. I've never had one for this stretch of Markham Road, which is below Kingston Road, south of Kingston Road. So, that's why I'm moving this amendment. All in favor of the amendment that carries. Oh, and thank you very much to staff for all of their work on this project and taking into account uh community feedback throughout this area. And the item is amended. All in favor? That carries. Now I believe we're breaking for lunch. Sorry till two. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. I don't So, I'm trying to manage the agenda and multiple people in this room as well as giving our staff an opportunity more so to have a break than I think the counselor is all used to working through our lunch, but this is more so for the our staff. So, we are taking a break. Thank you. Yep. Yep. Thank you. This meeting will resume at 2 p.m. What's going on? What's up? Yeah. Yeah. No, I don't know. Thank you. Oh yeah. Okay. Good afternoon everybody. I'm calling the meeting back to order. All right, good afternoon. I'm calling the meeting back to order. Uh just before we get to item number two, uh item number 19, which was added to the agenda this morning, um I believe everybody's had a chance to read it. I'm going to move the recommendations. All in favor? And that carries unanimously. Thank you. We are on to item number two. We're on to item number two, SC 31.2, 3718, and 3730 Kingston Road. This is a zoning bylaw amendment. This is a decision report for final approval. Uh the first registered speaker, sorry, the first I'm going to say the first three, Teresa Ho, Philip Ho, and Tony Sedara. Peter. Okay, thank you. Sorry, who's online? Teresa's online. Teresa, can you hear me? Hi there. Yes, I could hear you. Hi. You have five minutes to address community council whenever you're ready. Okay. Philip and I will be speaking together. So, go ahead. Okay. Do you five or 10 minutes? Uh, five is okay. Yeah, I think I think we could do it in five. Thank you very much. Um, thank you. Go ahead. Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh, I am a resident of Jeremiah Lane. Um, actually my my property is um is backing onto uh and facing the uh the proposed uh uh development, the condominium development, 24tory development. Um, I want to express my my strong opposition uh to the proposal. Uh, and uh, I have a couple of um, issues that I did bring up to the community meeting that happened not too long ago. Um, I wanted to um, reiterate them here um, for the uh, for for counselors and uh, other attendees here as well. Um, first is the the the shadow impact uh, and the loss of amenity. Um, as you can imagine, a 24-hour uh 20 24 story tower is going to cast a a a massive year round shadow over over the town homes impacted, especially adjacent to the the the property. Um, I think we we've heard a lot from from from people uh today speaking about the the loss of natural light um the uh the diminished enjoyment of property um and our private outdoor spaces that we that we paid for. Um and uh from the the shadow assessment that uh that we were informed about during our previous meeting, um it it looks like the the properties that that um that are very close to the the development will lose approximately 6 hours, 5 to 6 hours of that light and light will actually come back into the property at after 2:00. So, as you can imagine, if you were to live here, um being told that you're not going to have sunlight until way, uh till into the afternoon hours, um doesn't wouldn't sound acceptable, um to to property owners like myself, um and to the community as well. Um another concern I have is uh traffic congestion. Um if you live in the area, actually if you live very close to the area, you would know um Scarbo Golf Club Road is a very critical path for commuters, not just within the the area, but coming from the east and the west as as Scarbo Golf Club is a is a is a very important connection point to Kingston Road um and to Lawrence um and even as far as Ellir. Uh this particular um um street is known to have very congested um traffic uh in volume of cars um especially during the um the highest peak of uh of volume in the in the morning um and the uh and the afternoon. Um and it makes for a very difficult commute out of our communities. Um it it doesn't matter which direction you're coming from or going to. It's very difficult. Now, adding a 24story um um uh uh property is going to increase that traffic. Um and not only that, if you're also in the area, you'll notice that it is actually a it's a quite a dangerous uh uh place for pedestrians to um to to walk across. And there's a lot of blind turns for cars as well. The street is not exactly a 90°ree um um perpendicular uh arrangement. it's a little bit uh angled in either way. So, it makes for some blind turns as well. So, I I have concerns that we're creating a a a situation where it's dangerous for our our community members um as well as uh uh commuters in the area. Um my next concern is with parking and overflow as well. Um there seems to be 200 and some odd um um parking spots with this new development. I'm seeing that it has evolved from um from being a a lower story tower to the 24 that we have here today. Um and uh given that there's a lot of cars that are going to be going to be coming into the the area, I do have that concern. My last concern is around schooling. Um I'm I'm very disappointed in the fact that uh the the development uh company that that is is working to develop here had no connection with the district school boards and the schools to ensure that overflow um overflow student um numbers were incorporated. Um, I see them themselves as a as a very proactive organization um um coming into a community and helping the community and being proactive, but seeing as they haven't even consulted the schools or are leaving it to the schools to address an overflow, you know, that to me is unacceptable. We do have uh we do have an obligation um to our community to take care of our kids, our children, and our futures. um and therefore it not allowing our kids to have um access to local schools and have to figure it out themselves is is a very difficult situation for us to be in. But anyways, I've hit my fivem minute mark. Uh so um handing the mic back over. Okay, thank you very much. Uh questions of the deputants. Seeing none, thank you very much. Uh Tony Sedara is next on the list. Okay. And don't sit down, Peter. You're next. Yeah, I'm not picky. Sorry. So, next I have Elden Theodore. I don't think Elden lives in the neighborhood. Pet Afternoon, Mr. Theodore. You have five minutes. Whenever you're ready. Uh, good afternoon. Yes. And I did um upload a communication presentation. I'm not sure if that's available. If not, I can connect it from my laptop. I missed that. Um, I have a presentation that I uploaded as communication. Not sure if that can be shared. If not, I can connect it from my Okay. One of my IT staff will be down. presentation. There we go. And thank you and thank you for that. Um my name again Elden Theodore. I am a partner with MHBC here on behalf of the owner and just wanted to indicate that um my clients are also here. If there are any questions that I can answer, happy to answer that as well. Um just want to speak generally. Um, our team has been working through this process engaged in consultation, community engagement since the beginning of the application. That includes both city-led efforts of consultation as well as owner le. And that includes items such as background research, neighborhood introductions and door knocking, community organization interviews as well as a public information booth at the community fall festival. And we worked very closely with city staff throughout this process to come to the point where we are today. And again, um, we've also speaking to a number of area community organizations in addition to local residents in order to get a balanced perspective on the proposal that we're bringing forward. As you know, this property is located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Scarbor Golf Club Road. This is a growth corridor in the city. We're adding family-friendly units to community and walking distance of shops, services, and transit. Um we are proposing a design that we believe protects for light and access and privacy as well as limiting overlooks, shadow shadows and impacts and um show that in the next slides. And this proposal will ensure that there's full commercial frontage along the street. Um and in terms of the growth corridor, um we know that the Scar Bro East LRT is a top city transit priority for high order transit. This proposal reinforces growth intensification in this location. Um so as we evolve the application through the process, we have previously been looking at a 20story high-rise um and we move towards the current proposal which is a 24 story and that increase in height and units assisted in the project in supporting the increase in commercial floor area that we were able to achieve at grade 672 square meters of commercial floor area. And the project has several improvements since the initial submission when we started this application including increasing commercial floor as I mentioned by 65% slightly reducing the units from 435 to 419 increasing the percentage of familyfriendly units within the building increasing outdoor indoor and outdoor amenity and increased parking and loading. And these changes allowed us to this project to focus on quality living spaces which is a big um thing for my client and their projects as they they get approved throughout the city. And here we're just showing the evolution of commercial going from these smaller to what we are now proposing which is full commercial along the public streets to provide for that commercial amenity within the neighborhood. And similarly we've increased um parking. We have two levels of under underground parking as well as parking within the base that will be visitor parking that will be accessible to commercial as well as residents. Um in terms of shadows, I know shadows had been mentioned and I know at our uh community meeting we had talked about the shadows as well. We undertook a shadow study demonstrating the shadows move quickly throughout the landscape reflecting acceptable levels of shadows within a growth area and demonstrating there is no adverse impact. Similarly, we took an additional step and we undertook a solar access study. And what this does, it looks at how much sunlight people get throughout a property. And what we demonstrated both in the case on the left um with the tower and the case on the right without the tower, that we still preserve and protect for more than five hours of solar access, which is the um what is the objective of shadow studies within the area. So we've demonstrated that we are protecting that whether we have the a tower or whether we don't. And we've also provide for appropriate transition adjacent to the rear property line having a 7.5 meter setback with no laneway. So we have opportunity for landscaping and buffering within that space. And we will be undertaking transportation improvements in terms of uh cycle track uh pavement marking and signalization improvements. All part of the recommendations of our transportation study. Um, so that's it. I just want to thank staff for the recommendation report and working with staff and the community on this and happy to answer any questions the committee may have. Okay. Thank you, sir. Uh, questions of the deputy. Seeing none, I have a couple. Starting off in your presentation, the the shadow effect. So the last couple of diagrams you had a rent with the shadowing. So the first one at 9:18 a.m. Correct. Yep. So that seems to So you have like very little shadowing over the town houses to the north. Correct. But then one of your first slides, it has a large shadow over the townous. Sorry. one of the first slides are we talking about? Uh sorry, if you can go back to that one. Yep. So you have in that one there's a large shadow over most of the town houses. Are you saying that's not from your building? Uh I'm saying yes. If you can take a look and if I can move my mouse, you can see the tower form here and you can see the shadow moving across that way. Okay. So, that's not that may be a shadowing issue in the rendering, but it's not a result of the of the tower. Okay. I'm just just asking because you do have you have shadowing over most of the town houses in that diagram. I appreciate that. I would trust a shadow study as opposed to a rendering. Okay. And then can you explain so we've had three community meetings. The last one I arranged could so um I'm sure you've heard the issues and concerns you've had from heard from what would be the adjacent neighbors or are the adjacent neighbors for this property. Could you explain a bit about how they've been addressed? So, um, at that community meeting, I know a number of concerns were raised in relation to transportation, in relation to shadowing, concerns about parking, concerns about what we're doing in terms of the tower. What we tried to do at that both at that meeting and as well as part of this presentation is demonstrate how we believe that the concerns that had been raised had already been considered as part of our application and have been duly addressed. Uh that's why we undertook the additional work of undertaking the solar access study as it relates to shadows. And that's why we had our transportation engineer at that community health meeting explaining um that both uh city staff have evaluated transportation and the works that we're doing to ensure this development doesn't result in adverse impacts to the broader neighborhood. Um so we believe and I'm happy um as uh residents come up or any specific questions of this council in terms of those concern uh to speak to those specific issues and respond to them directly. Okay. And then can you explain I'm trying to understand your rationale. So we had two mandatory or legally obligated community meetings which your building was at 14 stories and now the prop after those meetings you revised the application for 24 I'm trying to understand the rationale for that and why because from the f first time it was brought to me it was always 14 stories you went through all the community meetings there's never any discussion around the fact you might be revising the application and only after the meetings the two meetings you revised it to 24 uh happy to uh to explain the evolution of that change so we did start at a uh 14story building, the difficulty they were having. And at that time, the new mid-rise design guidelines had come into place. And um our team was trying to work with those guidelines and take advantage and see how that helps to benefit the design and change the proposal. The difficulty that we were having was um even with those changes and the length of time that had changed and and how that impacted uh changes in the market, the units that we were trying to achieve um the quality spaces, spaces that have ample light um and as well as the construction efficiency of the proposal um was uh not um not working out in that mid-rise form. We found that in moving to a tall building, having a lower podium and having a slender tower, we're able to achieve, and you can actually see it on the floor plans, um, larger units that have greater light as opposed to situations where in a mid-rise building, you find a lot of, uh, bowling alley tunnel type units that are not as conducive to the larger familyfriendly units, and it's not conducive to the ethos of my client and the for projects and development that they try to construct which is um quality spaces for their tenants and quality spaces for the residents within the building. Okay. So I guess I'm going to say with your industry expertise, don't you find it unusual for a developer to go through a long period of planning for one size building, in this case 14 stories, and after the meetings are done with no discussion at all with the community that you revise your application and almost double the height of the building, double the size of the building. I think um as it relates to the um the change in the form. I think that was simply an oversight to the process. We've been working really hard with city staff from, you know, from 2021 um till about 2023. We were looking at a mid-rise building. 2023 till now, we've been focusing on that change and and what happens in terms of that bill form and what makes sense. So, a lot of the back and forth had been working with city staff and trying to get the details right and try to trying to make sure that we address issues and concerns that we had heard previously. Um, we're happy that um, councelor Angie, you were able to to hold that public meeting to be able to have the opportunity for the community to to to see that change and I think honestly it was just um, in moving forward this process um, it was just an oversight. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh the next deputy in Oh, and just for clarity, sorry, the second committee meeting that it was a 20s story building. So, okay. Thank you. Sorry, the next deputy in was uh Ron Parkinson. Ron Parkinson, Nicole. So Nicole Cra should be online and Jillian Swendell. I'm hijacking. I'm Janet May. I'm further down, but I'm really I just have a question. Sorry, the Mr. Parkinson has a deputation. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Uh sorry, I had to make a quick change on the uh on the start of this. So instead of good morning, it's good afternoon. Uh and thank you council council staff and scarbo residents. My name is Ron Parkinson. I live in the lived my life in various scarbor wards for over 35 years in my family in Trevor Park. I'm a co-founder and spokesperson for Sun Scarbor United Neighborhoods which began three years ago and consists of Scarbor volunteer residents who are passionate for the respective Scarbor neighborhoods. We're nonpartisan and committed to sharing information with Scarbor resident community group leaders and residents. There's strong opposition to the opposed 419 units that the developer has changed their plans from a 12-story proposal during the pre-application consultation in 2021 to a 24story high-rise development at 3718-3730 Kingston Road. This is questionable by the existing neighborhood and it completely changes the character of the Scarbor Golf Club neighborhood and will remain and will have a severe impact on the current home value. The proposed development claims to be part of the MTASA, which is false and raises concerns of the developer's motive to build, build, build, and then leave with the money. The Edgington East Scarbo LRT has been discussed for many years. Yet, it remains unfunded and speculative and would not be completed for at least another 15 or 20 years. Many of our schools are already at capacity and cannot guarantee space for new families. The proposal offers only 193 residents parking spots for 413 419 units. Current residents are already faced with insufficient parking and this massive development would inevitably forced hundreds of vehicles onto the local streets and will present a permanent parking and safety crisis. This is the perfect time to raise these general questions from our sun counselor forum on March 2nd where Cliffside South uh Cliffside Scarbor Village Southwest Resident Association their four-minute presentation was focused on following an achievable win for Scarbo. Achievable if and only if all of our Scarbo counselors work together. Today on behalf of Scarbo residents, I am following up on their request to our Scarbor counselors. Number one, pause the elimination for minimum parking requirements for new developments in Scar Bro until better transit is introduced. Two, create a bylaw that prevents new developments from permitting for from petitioning for street parking permits for new condo, town homes, and multiplex developments. Conclusion: Scarbor residents are depending on your support to value their existing community as much as potential for future residents. We don't need to set a precedence that prioritize developer profits over affordability, safety, and equity. A resident that was here this morning was going to ask the counselors, but I thought it would be better if I asked for him in in in place that he's not here. Is that for everyone in this room, uh, how would you react if this building was to the south of your house? On behalf of Scarbo Golf Club residents and all of Scarbo residents facing similar type of densification in their neighborhoods, I request that this proposal be rejected and returned to at least midsize mid-rise scale that fits the physical and social reality of Scarbo Village. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Parkinson. Uh questions of the deput. Seeing none. Thank you very much, sir. Uh, next the next deputent is Nicole Curado. Nicole, are you online? Nicole, can you hear me? Nicole, hello. Hey, Nicole, you have five minutes. So, this is which is which item is this again? Remind me. Uh it's the uh it's item number two, 3718 and 3730 Kingston Road. Please please uh pro preserve the trees and that current church that's there because everybody can benefit from a church and not everybody can benefit from not everybody will be able to benefit from uh you know condo buildings. It it seems like such a shame to destroy a a church that's been closed and to cut down a bunch of trees and to build condos when instead this could be turned into a community center and a park and and actually benefit everybody. Just saying what what a colossal waste of resources this is, you know, for something that could actually benefit the whole community. It seems selfish to turn it into a condo and you know to be destroying the trees and destroying a church which probably the church probably means a lot to people in the past because you know there probably a lot of people have fond memories of that place. So it's it seems sad to destroy it and turn into into uh condos. instead. There's so many beneficial uses for the church and and for the it'll you have a lovely park and a lovely a lovely uh a lovely community center or library or something. You could do something really nice with this this place. Thank you, Nicole. Any questions of the deputy? Seeing none. Thanks for your time, Nicole. Uh, our next delegate, sorry, deputent is Jillian Swendell. Uh, can you hear me? Okay. Uh, a little lower. way lower. Yeah, there is that. There we go. Perfect. There we go. Okay. Good afternoon, folks. I'm I'm very happy to be here. Um I I just sorry want to make a comment. I have to say I was absolutely gobsmacked when uh councelor Aninsley, you said um clapping wasn't allowed. And not only that, there was a bylaw. Geez, we got to do something about changing that. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. Um, the thing that concerns me about uh this building going up, there's a number of things. Um, it's just not uh conducive to the integrity of the of the whole area. They're all like two and threetory uh buildings. There are some taller ones further down Kingston Road, but and then you're going to have this 24 or whatever. Next time we hear about it, it'll be a 56 story. That's the other point I want to make. I heard it was eight stories originally, 12 stories, 24. What's it going to be next week? Like, make up your minds, folks. Um, it sounds like a really slippery slope that's going on here with the the height. I'm appreciative that it's going to be rental units for families. I'm very appreciative of that. As you know, we've got to find uh places for families to live. And I hope they're not those 400 square foot boxes that are downtown Toronto that 40% remain empty. So um so that's one of my concerns. The building's uh far too large and I think a three to sixstory building would be much more conducive but there are other concerns. Right. Um one other thing I just want to question because I don't know is this always one developer? Is there four different developers? Do they keep putting in plans going away? Like like what's going on there? It's very very very uh confusing. Um okay. So my concern is not the really the aesthetics of the area. I'm I'm more concerned um about a few things. One thing is we don't have the infrastructure. And I know I heard the uh representative for the developer was here talking about infrastructure. We do not have the infrastructure. We do not have the schools. I was my house, my backyard backs onto the townhouse complex. When those homes went up, the big billboards went up, no schools were available. And so the poor parents moving into here had to scramble looking for schools. And then of course, uh, the kids had to be busted out of district, so not in their local community. And then, of course, there was a busing problem. We do not have the infrastructure for a family building with children. Um the um the other thing I want to mention because I was a victim of the buildings of those town houses. There's all, as you probably know, you're all Scarbo folks, we have a lot of underground uh water systems, right? And underneath those town houses, there was a a water system. And when they were building two years in a row, my backyard flooded, not a little bit, like one to two feet of water. I had to get the counselor at the time to come and see it. So, that's a consideration. You know, I'm thinking about the situation. I know. I I can't compare to Florida. You know, the Florida big highrises are sinking and I'm wondering like what's the specs on the water systems? Is this what are they going to do to address that? Okay. So, it's that's a safety issue. Um, okay. And uh I guess one of my I'm almost running out of time. God longwinded. Um my major concern my major concern and please hear this is the access to this building is going to be off Scar Bro Golf Club Road. Right. And I thought I went there last night and I just turned onto Scarboro Golf Club from Kingston Road. I'm telling you right now, there's going to be accident after accident after accident because the minute you make a turn onto Scar Bro Golf Club from Kingston Road, you're going to be banging right into people turning. And if you're looking at a 24 story building, there's going to be a lot of cars. It is it's not safe. Um it's it's just not safe and it's going to be very very dangerous. And sorry, I know I'm uh going over my time. My apologies for that. And just one I've got way more. One more quick thing is I know on the diagrams it looked like there was a big green space for the kids. There's no green space there for the kids. Where are these children going to play? Where are they going to play? If you want to have family buildings, you've got to accommodate that and have the community resources. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much. Questions of the deputy. Seeing none, thank you very much. Uh, I'm just going to go back to Tony Sedaro, who I believe is online. Tony, can you hear me? Tony Sedaro, you need to unmute. Hi. Hello. Hey, Tony. You have five minutes whenever you're ready. Oh, terrific. Thank you. Okay. So, uh, first of all, I want to thank you all for allowing me to speak. I truly appreciate it. I know your time is valuable and it's late in the afternoon, so I'm going to try and make this as quick as possible. So, um, sifting through the massive documentation for this proposal, I can certainly appreciate all the complexities and the number of issues that are taken into consideration for the application. And so I just want to show my appreciation to all of the the planners uh because this is extremely complex and with all the bylaws everything needs to be taken in consideration. But on the note of the issues, the former 2021 application identified a number of the issues that needed to be grounded out. Uh they were clearly identified and they were made public prior to a community meeting which was held. Uh summary of the issues were appropri at that time it was 4.5 the appropriateness of the height at that time it was 14 stories transition to neighboring lands traffic congestion on golf club road light privacy and shadow considerations and then lastly the school and community services. That proposal was for 14 stories. I spoke at length at the time with planner Jeffrey Sinclair about those issues and I have to say it was very polite. We had very constructive conversations and I later found out that the applications was just dropped. So I never really followed up on it. Here we are, fast forward five years, and now we're facing ourselves with a proposal for 24tory approaching skyscraper height with an alarming increase in FSI from four and a half to five and a quarter. Now, there's a public information strategy document that was filed with this application and it makes reference to many of the same items outlined in from the um from the 2021 proposal. But the only item I saw that undergo any study was related to the sun shadow. The others appeared to be outstanding nor adequately addressed with any detailed plants. So I decided to to um to email the the planner beta Mahubi and I hope I pronounced that right of how the other issues would be addressed. And I was given a link to the same website that I was searching to get the information I was looking for in the first place. So I decided to research uh with AI assistance what are reasonable FSIs and building heights for a condominium in Scar Bro as per the bylaws and distance to major transit hubs and it gave me the following. Okay. So for 35 ft uh uh width road which is golf club an FSI of 1.5 to three with a heights of four to six stories for road width of 65 ft which is Kinson road an FSI of 2 to three heights of 6 to 12 stories and I'm going to say that I don't think you can use Kingston Road because there's no egress to it. So I don't think you can really use Kingston Road but we'll we'll take it in consideration. Now, it also said you can get higher FSIs, four to six and heights of 15 plus stories for developments within two to 500 meters of a major transit station area referred to as an MTSA. And it and it and it gave an example Scarbo Town Center. This location is under two kilometers, just under two kilometers to the nearest MTSA and that is Gildwood Go. So I propose there's no reasonable ground reasonable ground to use MTSA as a justification in this application with these extremely dense with these extreme density and heights. The numbers I previously me previously mentioned are quite s uh consistent with recent condominiums built in the area. I'll give you a couple of examples. Calire right beside Calire 10 stories. North side of Kingston Road between Morningside and Lawrence eight stories. 3655 Kingston Road on the south side at Egun, seven stories. I live on Gilchrist Drive to south Kingston Road and this proposal guarantees congestion and gridlock for drivers going northbound on Golf Club Road crossing Kingston Road and will be likely blocked by people trying to turn left into the complex. Previously mentioned there going to be accidents and that's because Golf Club is not a four-lane road. You add school buses and cyclists on the proposed dedicated lanes and the equation become uh the the problem exacerbates. When I moved into this u area 36 years ago, city planners at the time held community meetings to gather feedback in order to craft a strategy for the Kingston Road corridor. It was a novel idea. It was a great idea and we had many meetings, but I don't think a strategy for this quarter exists today. Without a strategic plan, approval of this proposal will set a dangerous precedent with developers itching to build higher structures with with denser FSIs on the many empty lots. Before long, the corridor will be congested with gridlock and lack of suitable infrastructure. any real sense of a community in adjacent neighborh ne neighborhoods will erode wrap up please. I will and I'm at my last point. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Paul Aninsley in January of this year you voiced and formally submitted your fierce opposition to the Department of Infrastructure on the application at 4241 Kingston Road. that is beside Gildwood re uh goal station for many of the same reasons this community has been raising and with that application being right at a major transit station area thereby thereby allowing higher density and building heights we still opposed it. Your main reasons were integration impacts of the high density skyscrapers on the Gildwood community and the stress on existing infrastructure. Your constituents in this community are hoping and counting on you to similarly oppose this application and ask for your equal support given on the 4241 Kingston Road proposal. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Sedaro. Questions of the deputent? Seeing none, thank you very much, sir. Our next deputent is Jean Patton. Sorry, I can't. Yep. Okay. Uh, next then I have Janet May. Now you have five minutes, Janet. Thank you so much. Okay. Um I only have one question really and it relates to the um there's a a sentence in the report the planning approval report and it says that this area is well served by both surface transit and emerging higher order transit networks through the Egllington East light rail. So I'm wondering is the emerging higher order transit a real plan or the concept of a plan? Will this be another poorly executed project by Metro Links? Unlike the planners who've approved this application or who are recommending approval, I don't think residents of this neighborhood would agree with that statement that it's well served by transit. I think it is poor planning to approve an application based on something that doesn't seem to exist in reality. Um, I I think that that higher density application approvals should be ba should not be based on pie in the sky infrastructure, which is what that statement is. As a resident of Toronto, I'm really tired of city council capitulating to developers and and to a province that is rapidly moving away from democratic process. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Uh, sorry, need my reading glasses. Um, thank you. Uh, Dant Good afternoon everyone. My name is Dame Kanton and I'm a resident of this neighborhood for 30 years now. Uh I've been sitting here listening all morning to different residents coming and asking for some reprieve and I think you guys aren't paid enough to hear all of us come here and plead our cases. And just just around this particular case, uh you heard different residents bring about different issues about whether it's shadows or water tables or the school or the infrastructure or the parking. So all of that is probably universal to every development opportunity. What I'm really here to say is this is a bunch of people who definitely feel connected to their neighborhood. This is why I took a day off and I'm here and most people have waited all morning to talk. And behind all of that is a commitment to preserve what we believe is the best part of Scar Bro, which is that we live in the middle of something unique and quaint. and I'm moved actually and it is open to the new immigration and the new people that come in our community. It's such a unusual situation. You got homes that are 80 years old next to um these lowincome apartments where all the immigrants come and we live in peace. This is actually a case for an example for how the world could look like. And in all of that, it's just a tiny little pocket. And what's being proposed is like an eyes saw. It doesn't make sense. Right across this building is a stone cottage that's been there for years, decades, and it's it looks like the original building. Right across is an an Anglican church. You have little homes that are unique and have been around for 82 longer than that. And people have residents who are 53 for lived there for 53 years. And right in the middle of it, we're proposing something that actually blows everyone's mind even looking at the rendering because it just doesn't fit. It fits maybe about a half a kilometer to the east or to the west, but it doesn't fit at that spot. So request Do not don't do this. Just do it with some care, please. Because people this is this is people's homes and not only homes that are temporary. We're not here for two years. We have actually this is where my children went to school. This is where I've seen my neighbors grandkids play for decades now. And you bring and make that complicated and you bring more crowd crowd you make it more crowded and there's no parking this becomes a completely different conversation for us so that's the request uh and I know others are going to speak to um all the technical points what needs to be done but really the I I think that is a request and not just from our neighborhood but across all of Scarabro neighborhoods is when we build and I totally understand the need for looking to optimize. So when Elden spoke and I got the world from business, how do you optimize and get your return on investment and it makes sense to take it to 24 stories or even 54 stories? But really what honors this people, what honors the land, what honors Gabro and its qualities because it's got lots. It's not just building homes or newcomers or uh just providing cheap housing for people. No, we're more than that. We have history and we have homes that have history and we want all we want to honor all of that. Um I think that's all I wanted to say. But before I said uh leave, Jean actually is a resident um and a neighbor and she couldn't be here. So she was really disappointed and she recorded something. So, I just want to play that to you. Wow. On the corner of Gates Avenue and I have seen all the changes and we don't object to places for people to live, but 24 stories in that place is ridiculous. And it's not safe. And I guess for so many reasons and Peter will tell you. I just want you to have a moment. I got it. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Any questions of the deputy? Seeing none. Uh next on the list and last on the list, Peter Thatchek. Peter, you're up. Good afternoon. Get this on. Good afternoon, counselors and staff. I don't know if any of you had a chance to read my submission. I led with the 45 degree plan uh plane and I am aware that planners have placed less reliance on it in the past 18 months. My only point including that is that as a tool it is more respectful of existing community than its replacement minimum setbacks. The point tower may be the preferred typology but it doesn't make it appropriate everywhere. the shadows cast from this 24tory bohemoth, call it a point tower, call it whatever, are still unacceptable. Uh uh have unacceptable impact on the abiding three stories to the north. So in essence, what I'm saying is that point towers may address form, but they don't in they don't address infrastructure strain. In order to justify this proposal, you have to cherrypick tall data points while ignoring the low-rise reality between this site and Markhamm Road and totally ignore that the two closest buildings that you can see on Eg stories, respectively. And neither of those two properties on Egudding low-rise neighbors. The 24story height is a massive 17 17s story jump from the sevenstory podium. It creates a cliff effect over the southacing backyards of the abuing townouses. This isn't a transition. And it's an intrusion that permanently strips existing residents of sunlight, privacy, and of course value. And it violates the city's prior promise to protect established low rise neighborhoods from aggressive intensification. Despite there being no minimum parking requirements, providing only 193 parking spaces for 419 units will result in a deficiency that will force spillover parking onto Scarbo Golf Club Road where there's already a pre-existing issue. Additionally, this is a perfect ingress egress storm brewing because of the insistence to close off Kingston Road, which is an entrance they have now, and restricting all traffic to enter and exit from an already congested Scar Bro Golf Club road. Additionally, the proposed birectional bike lanes that are part of the reimagining Scarbor Golf Club on Scarbor Golf Golf Club will necessitate all those entering and exiting the site to cross these same bike lanes to enter traffic, including northbound vehicles, and you heard somebody speak to it before that frequently block crossings. Even with the underutilized plaza there now, they frequently block block crossings, endanger pedestrians, and paralyze transit. In other words, the bus. I found it somewhat concerning that when we brought up an issue in the community consultation, the traffic planners rather cavalier response to our concerns was a simple, well, we didn't create the problem. He is correct. Of course, he didn't. They didn't. But that shouldn't be a green light to add to it as well. Apparently, just a couple of more points here, but apparently there have been numerous uh receiverhips in the industry in the past year. Why am I mentioning this? Because you would not want to see something half finished. Not suggesting that that's the case here. Just saying be cautious. The developer justifies the high-rise density based on the Egllington East LRT. And yes, I do know what an MTSA is. Yet this is currently an unfunded project with no guaranteed completion date. It is in my opinion irresponsible planning to approve transit oriented density before the transit actually exists. We are being asked to accept permanent highdensity traffic today based on a ghost train that may never arrive. So in closing, I would like to ask councilors, I'm urging you to reject this proposal. It fails the neighborhood in massing, in safety, and in infrastructure reality. Ask the developer to return. We're not against development. We just want to see proper transitioning. So, ask them to return with a mid-rise plan that respects the original missing middle avenue limits and the actual capacity of our streets. Thank you for your time. I'm here for any questions. Thank you, Peter. Questions of the deputy? Seeing none, thank you. Appreciate your time. We'll now take it into committee for questions of staff. Questions of staff. Councelor Myers. Thank you. Through you, chair. Uh we've heard a lot of deputations on development applications. Could you I think it's important just to level set. Could you please explain the the province's role in limiting the city's ability to shape a lot of these developments that come before us in terms of some of the legislation that has recently passed? um through the chair and in the interest of time because there have been num numerous um recent legislations have recent legislative initiatives have uh both limited the city's ability to shape applications and encouraged additional densities um as well as council decisions too I might add. So one of the deputants mentioned the uh shift from an angular plane as a transition mechanism to uh use of setbacks and separation distances. That was the decision of council. Um the province has limited the uh city's ability to control applications through site plan control through recent legislative amendments which are being amended further through legislation that's currently being consulted on as well as um encouraging minimum densities and min uh removing minimum lot size requirements in other parts of uh in other parts of development spectrums. Thank you. And the MTSA policy that's provincial policy correct? Um it was Council adopted uh policy to be uh in conformity with the provincial planning statement which council did. The modifications that have been referred to resulting in as of right densities to be assigned to sites was a modification of the minister. I should note just to correct the record though that this is not an identified protected major transit station area um as it has not been adopted by council nor approved by the minister because there's no um high higher order transit present. Thank you. And the Ontario tribunal. All of the appointees are appointed by the province. Correct. Through chair west, I think I can answer that. Um, so is it fair to say that while I understand the residents concerns and their frustrations with the process um, and the inability for their concerns to be adequately addressed? A lot of the issues actually res are being created by the province and the city councilors and the council's hands are tied to approve a lot of these development applications because as we heard in one of the earlier um uh issues that we were dealing with there's always a very real risk that if it goes to the OOLT you might get a even worse development application through the chair if I can answer it this way land use planning in Ontario is constitutionally the realm of the province. A lot of those powers have been delegated to the municipality to make decisions on certain matters, to hold official plans, have zoning bylaws, etc. In recent years, the province has undlegated some of those powers by uh broadening the scope of tribunal hearings uh removing the city's uh ability to govern development shape, form, and appearance. Um, and also, uh, I'll use the word imposed, but through zoning orders and modifications to official plan amendments passed by council imposing provincial policy upon city initiatives. Thank you. So, would it fair to say that if residents want to see the type of community building, the type of infrastructure, the type of collaborative approach that they would like to see how their communities develop and grow, they don't seem like they're all opposed to uh development. they should really be speaking to their MPPPS because that's where a lot of these changes are coming from the chair. I'm not sure how I could answer that in terms of advice to council. That's where the changes would come. Generally, the the changes that we are dealing with municipally are are as a result of provincial actions. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councelor Myers. Other questions of staff? Okay, I have a couple. Um, so based on the three community meetings that we've had on this proposal and the concerns from uh my area residents about congestion in particular around the Scarbo Golf Club Kingston Road intersection, are there any plans to mitigate traffic issues that have been outlined? Um, through the chair, I'll I'll I'll begin. The um I believe it's the reimagining Scoville Golf Club Road project does assist in some respects with a reconstruction that um simplifies some of the traffic movements, creates by cycling lanes to avoid mixed traffic. There was an item previously for south of Kingston Road, I believe, for um speed humps that was considered by community council earlier this morning. Um different mitigation measures through the application um can be explored through the site plan phase in terms of if there's opportunities for uh specific lane configurations or turning restrictions that would prevent um prevent congestion and and my colleagues may be able to elaborate on that through the chair. Uh so when we review the development application uh the applicant is required to submit a study called the transportation impact studies um through their professional uh consultant. Uh we reviewed that uh study thorly and uh there are a couple of changes uh recommended through the TAS which will not be secured through the resoning process. We usually secure those through the site plan process. One of them is looking at the how the intersection currently operating and if there is any room for for any signal optimization. So we intend to look into this during the site plan process. Um another um option we're looking at an additional uh left turn access to the site. So this will be the north of Kingston Road uh on Essoro Golf Club. So this will provide an exclusive left turning access to the site and elevate some of the left turning congestion currently happening at the intersection. Um we're also looking at how to improve the pedestrian connection uh fronting both Kingston and Scarboro Golf Club and also uh we are all uh closing up the existing access on the Kingston road to improve the pedestrian safety and accessibility as well. Okay, thank you. Um my next question I wanted to ask about so the developers talked about sunlight a lot and that the adjacent properties uh will receive five hours of sunlight a day. Um is that a industry standard or what's an acceptable isn't there an acceptable level of sunlight that a property can receive in a day? Uh so standard we have a green standard. Do we have a sunlight standard standards everywhere? Uh so to the chair, so there's no numerical standards within the official plan. Uh we do look to seek at least a minimum of five hours of sunlight on the public realm. Um, and for the properties to the north with the previous 14story midrise proposal, the shadowing on those northern properties would have been from 9:00 a.m. till 400 p.m. And in the case of the revised, the latest proposal before you um in the recommendation report between the hours of 10:18 and 1:18 p.m. there is shadow on those properties to the north and then it moves beyond 118 to the public realm to golf club road and beyond to Kingston Road. and staff have considered that as a minimal shadow impact. Okay. All right. And then the um can I get planning's perspective on the change from the we've heard the developers perspective on the 14 to 24. Can I get um planning's pers perspective on the change for clarification as a process mechanism or as a is the building performing differently? I I guess I just find it unusual to go through two community meetings and have a developer come in and then add 10 stories onto a development. I'm used to developments going the other way. The developer listens to community input, takes a bunch of factors into consideration, changes amenities in the community or on the proposal, makes offers to the city for more cash and loo but reduces the number. So, this one went the other way. Uh that's true. It's uh not infrequent, but I would also argue not irregular. Um we recently had uh a report come before this community council 2799 Brimley, I believe, which was a mid-rise proposal in council Thompson's ward revised to a tower. Again, that report was brought or that revision was brought to the community for community engagement, brought to community council for approval. Um similarly to improve performance of a structure down the street near Guildwood Go, which was a tall mid-rise building, a an 18story kind of slab construction which was reconfigured as a point tower through OLT mediation um and performed better from a sunlight and shadow uh perspective. So it was seen as a better form um for building performance. My colleague already spoke about the improved shadow performance of the tower building despite the increased height. Um it should also be noted that between the 14story mid-rise building and the current proposal before council um the unit count has decreased indic indicative of larger uh units within the proposal than what was currently or was previously before us as a 14story midrise proposal. Okay. And then my last question quickly. Um so as a municipality we spent a lot of time looking at a proposal for intensification of density and trying to figure out if our infrastructure is adequate that we make sure we have the proper uh community services for for a project like this. But the schools always seem to be an afterthought. And then there, you know, I know in this report that we reach out to the schools, but you know, I'm seeing more and more proposals now coming through the the pipeline and the reaction of the schools is either we're almost at capacity, we're over capacity, we need signs to be put up on the project saying that rack capacity and if you buy a unit in this building, you have to you might have to we might have to bust your to another school. I'm trying to understand why we don't have more interaction between the school boards to say, you know, this is our secondary plan for the area or, you know, we have an avenue study in the works. You need to look at capacity in schools. Um, I'll try to answer through the chair on two levels. The first uh the interaction level there's there's standing meetings between teams and city planning and the school boards to do exactly what you mentioned in terms of here are some growth related studies pulling in expertise. Um there are a number of and my colleague is here today a number of conversations on the scar bro center plan with the uh school boards and to make sure that school sites could be secured or at least um protected for in a secondary plan area. In this particular case the the wording of the memos was fairly clear. the elementary school capacity um is available. The numbers show that the growth um at Cedar Drive is is is approaching full utilization but not not there. And it was the secondary school where um it was it was approaching 100% utilization but that also is because it includes the IB program where a lot of out of area students come as a central special interest. So um you don't need to live in the neighborhood to attend IB at Laurier. Um and you know locally the the the location of the school is actually perfect for um kids walking from this particular development. just in behind a quick jaunt around the corner without crossing any major streets and uh their utilization in 2025 was only 92% of the capacity uh which was grow grow grew from 77% but uh Scarbor Village school in the area is also a large outof area um school which could be re rejigged as an independent school to accommodate more students from the area. Okay, thank you very much. Uh I believe that's the end of questions of staff speakers. All right, I am going to speak. So I have a motion uh that I would like to move uh that city council refuse the application to amend zoning bylaw 5692013 to permit the propos proposed development at 3718 and 3730 Kingston Road. Uh, number two, in the event of an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, City Council direct the city solicitor to attend the hearing of the appeal in respect of city council's refusal of the application to amend zoning bylaw 5692013 to permit the proposed development at 3718 and 3730 Kingston Road to oppose the appeal. and part three. In the event of an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, city council authorizes city solicitor to retain external consultants to provide expert opinion evidence in support of city council's refusal of the application to amend the zoning bylaw 569-2013 and to permit the pro proposed development at 3718 and 3730 uh Kingston Road. Um, so to my colleagues, uh, I'm putting this forward, uh, I have a lot of concerns about the development. Uh, you can see from the slide deck and the report. I want to thank staff for all of the work that they've done. They've had two legislated community meetings. Um, kind of forced them to have a third one. uh because my community and myself were very surprised that after two community meetings, very no outreach from the developer about this proposal, there was no inclination that this development was moving from 14 stories to to 24 stories. Uh you know, the original development at 14 stories, I can remember not even really adding an eyelash at it. There's a lot of buildings adjacent to this uh neighborhood on Angington Avenue that are just as tall as 14 stories or taller. I have a number along Kingston Road that have been there um for quite a while. Having a developer do the opposite of what I'm used to doing after having legislated meeting and getting input from the community to increase the height of a building by 10 stories. after the first two community meetings having a number of um concerns outlined around shadowing uh traffic in the impact on neighboring communities. We were already told by both school boards, for example, they didn't have capacity at any of the schools and that already with a 14story that a sign would probably have to be put up saying there wasn't enough capacity. And then to turn around and have an even larger building, um this it doesn't fit in with the character of my neighborhood. Uh you know, when we talk about compatible infill development, a 24story building to myself, that's a large scale development. It's not compatible um with the neighborhood and you've heard from my residents. Nobody's happy with it and so I'd ask you to support this motion I'm putting forward. Thank you. Questions of me, Councelor Myers? Just clarification. Uh so the you and the community were on board when it was 14. I can't speak for all of the community, but I was certainly fine when it was 14 stories. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh so the motion before us I just moved. All in favor that carries unanimously. Sorry item. Nope. Okay. So this application has been refused by Scarbo Community Council. Uh our next item is SC 33 31.3 1710 and 1712 Ellare Road official plan amendment zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision application. This is a decision report for final approval. I have we have three registered speakers. The first one is Gavin Bailey from Tridell followed by Gary Prudin and then Mary O'Harn from Community Living Toronto. Afternoon, Mr. Bailey. You have five minutes whenever you're ready. Am I on? Can you hear me? Yep. Excellent. Thank you. And uh good afternoon. Uh my name is Gavin Bailey. I'm the uh director of um planning and development for Tridel. Uh I'm here uh I'm pleased to speak to you today on behalf of our partner Community Living Toronto. Um the development applications were deemed to be complete in 2023. For approximately three years, we have been working with city staff through a rigorous planning process in order to bring this positive recommendation report before council today. If I was to provide you with a development proposal that checked off the boxes, which represents the merits of good land use planning, uh, complete communities and positive city building initiatives, this development proposal would check all of those boxes. Our goal with this development proposal is to bring a inclusive mixeduse community to Scar Bro Center, which exceeds accessibility standards throughout the development as a whole. The development proposal before council today reflects the growth vision for Scar Bro Center and it fits within the propo the proposed u the proposed context of the new scar bro center secondary plan. This development delivers most importantly a new facility for community living Toronto 281 rental units of which 30% will be offered at an affordable rental rate. a total of five towers uh that transition uh throughout the site in height and scale appropriately market condominium units of approximately 2,000. A new public road which will extend over the abuing TTC lands which is a key network for road infrastructure throughout Scarbo Center. A new public park, a full parkland dedication of over 1,600 square meters. It's actually an over park dedication. enhanced landscape pups and midblock connection areas as well. We have worked diligently and collaboratively with city planning staff throughout the entire process and I'm confident this positive collaboration and working relationship will continue as we traverse through the subdivision engineering and future site plan control application processes. I would like to thank city staff, especially Miss Cali Dyn and Sasha Terry, who are also here today for their guidance and leadership in advancing our applications through the planning process. We may not always agree on certain things as we go through that process, but we always found common ground and we always found a way to work together. So, I really do appreciate that and I think it needs to be noted. So, on behalf of Community Living Toronto uh and Tridal, I support the recommendations outlined in this report. We've read it, we are happy with it, and I'll be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Question of the deputy. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, next is Gary Prudin. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Gary Prudin and uh I'd like to uh express my appreciation to the staff and counselors who have stuck with this process all day long. I can now see how uh hard and arduous the process is. I'm here today as a volunteer with Community Living Toronto uh to provide some background on 1710 1712 Ellir the Lawson residence site. I should note that I've worked as a staff for community living Toronto for 33 years which included being the first regional director uh for Scarbor region. I also as a youth worked at the Lawson uh residence. So I know a fair amount about this site and the community that it supports. The origins of both the association, now Community Living Toronto, and the original Lawson and Development Project, uh, trace back to the late 1940s when families banded together and began lobbying for services and supports within their communities so that their children could remain close by and not in large, far away institutions. The initial response, which I think still is the largest response uh within Community Living Toronto, was to establish a $1 million building fund. Uh and it raised funds through fundraising and the Lawson School residence site was built and opened by the left tenant government, left tenant governor, sorry, in 1963. So there was a fair amount of fanfare about this event. The school was operated by the association until 1968. Why? Because education wasn't provided by the ministry of education until 1968. Uh so uh in n in that year education of the children with intellectual disabilities was assumed by the local school board and at that point we ceased to operate the school. The vision of the association was always the effective inclusion for persons in all aspects of their community. So the fact that children were now included in their local schools supported by the school boards was a significant milestone and encouraged the association to find homelike settings throughout the community uh for the children. Rosson residents eventually became but only as the community-based uh services both at home and in small group homes strengthen over time the paradigm has shifted dramatically away from any congregated services and we see the development of the lossen pro property now before us as an opportunity to build a worldclass inclusive community designed with accessibility and belonging in mind. It seems every day uh and certainly in election cycles that we hear about the need to increase housing stock, especially affordable and rental units. This need is even more acute for people with intellectual disabilities and we are confident that our plan addresses these priority needs for our community both people with intellectual disabilities and and the community more broadly. I would like to highlight the features of our tower plan of the one that will be operated by community living Toronto. Uh it is a rental only building with 281 units. 56% of those units will be onebedroom, 34% will be two-bedroom, and 10% 3bedroom. At a minimum, 30% will be assessed to be affordable units and 15% will be accessible units. Non-residential space on the main floor will be used to support a range of community services like community participation supports where people participate in recreation and work activities throughout our community, early childhood services, again throughout the community, adult protective service work for individuals and family support for individuals still living at home as well as a regional as well as regional admin services and meeting program space. Community Living Toronto will have the option also of buying a limited number of condo units in the other towers for residential support purposes. And this will also strengthen the inclusive nature of the overall community. And that concludes my remarks. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Question to the deputent. Councelor Thompson. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, um you talked a little bit about sort of the last point you just made with respect to having units for residential support. Can you unpack that for me? So you have the facility. Can you hear me? Or now this is going to sound like I've been here all day. ran. Sure, that's fine. All right, that's fine. I hope to be brief. Can you hear me from there? Can you hear me now? Great. I just wanted to understand with respect to the relationship you talk about having special units, right? That's over and beyond what is actually available for the um for the clients, right? Is that so? This is where those individuals who are providing services to the clients would live reside in the building. Maybe you want to go back to the microphone. That's really my question. I just want to understand a little bit. I apologize to your hearing aided. about 5% of the uh accessible units in our building will be operated by Community Living Toronto to provide direct supports to people uh who need those supports. But uh there will be lots of opportunity through the rest of the units, especially the affordable units where families and individuals can rent their own units and receive uh support to live independently, integrated, integrated, inclusive. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question. Other questions the deputy Thank you, sir. Thank you. Uh, next is Mario Hearn from Community Living Toronto. She's online. Mary O'Harn, can you hear me? Mary O'Harn. Mary O'Harn, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. Go right ahead. You have five minutes whenever you're ready. Okay. I'm trying to unmute. We can hear you loud and clear. Can you hear me? We can hear you, Mary. Okay, perfect. Okay. Hello, my name is Mary and I live in Scarbo. I am a person supported by Community Living Toronto. I am part of the CLTO influencer and a member of the board of directors and involved with the Scarbo Community Council. I am also a mother to a son with autism and I run a knitting group out at Community Junction. I'm here today to speak in the support of this development because housing and community changed my life almost 13 years ago. My life changed in a way I never expected. I had an injury and that moment everything changed. Before that, I had my independent. I had my own home. My son lived with me. After my injury, I ended up in a long-term care home. My son was no longer living with me. That was not the life I imagined. At the time, it didn't feel like an opportunity. It felt like a lot. It felt like everything was being taken away from me. But what I didn't know then was that this moment would lead me to something. I have always believed in which community is living. Through community living, Toronto was connected to to the APSW program. I had someone to support me with my finance, help me navigate system, and most importantly, help me move out of the long-term career back into the community. That was the first step. From there, I was introduced to the clubhouse. I started going once or twice a week. Then I started a knitting group and today I I'm paid for that work. I joined a women's group. Then I became part of the influence. From that point on my world opened. I went from being someone who could have been isolated to someone who is connected contributing and making changes. That's the power of belonging. But not everyone gets that chance. Right now, there's over 50,000 plus people with intellectual disabilities waiting for support and housing. Some are at risk of homeless. When my son was 17, he was in a respit home. The moment he turned 18, we were told that four or five months he might have to go to a shelter. That is not right. How are people with intellectual disability supposed to survive in shelter? People deserve their own space, their own home, a place where they feel safe and supportive. I also think about long-term care homes. I was there at 54 years old. That is too young. I met a younger man there with a down syndrome. Long-term care is not designated designed for people like like us. The supports are not right. The environment is not right. People don't belong there. They belong in the community. Today I live independently. I can tell you it is one of the greatest feeling in the world to have your home played to call somewhere home to feel like you belong. Projects like this matter. We already seen it through places like Birch Mount Green where people with intellectual disabilities are living in the community with the right support and thriving. This development is not just about building. It's about people. It's about giving people the opportunity to live with dignity, to be part of their neighborhood, and to build a life. We are we all belong somewhere. And right now, too many people are still waiting. So, I'm asking you to support this application because when you approve housing like this, you are creating opportunity. You are creating belonging and you are helping people like me, like my son to have a place to call home. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mary. And thank you for sharing your story about yourself and your son. Does anybody have any questions for Mary? Councelor Myers? Uh, just a quick comment. I just want to echo what you said. I thought your presentation was very powerful uh and moving and it was just very inspiring to hear your story. So, thank you for sharing it with us today. Thank you, Mary. Have a great day. You're welcome. Uh, our last deputent on this item is Hannah Erle. Nope. Hi all, sorry I I am actually not speaking. I was just uh here to support Mary. So I'm Okay. Thank you. You can speak if you want. You're on the list. Okay. Uh we're bringing this into committee uh for questions of staff. Questions of staff. Seeing none speakers. Councelor Thompson. Um, I just wanted to uh speak in support of this application, Mr. Chair. Um, I think it was I'm thinking it's like seems like four years ago or so that this was brought to my attention obviously award and um how pleased I was to hear about the relationship and um obviously with respect to living and in fact I went to a number of the events, summer events that they've had and to meet some of the people who they're working with just absolutely amazing. It it warms your heart. Um I will speak specifically to my area, my community. Um the uh Birch Greens that's been mentioned is a building that has been built in my area and um there have been a number of years of different groups coming through wanting to develop that site and so on and it just didn't work out and then finally group that came in to build this with respect to the philosophy of integration and collaboration and so on and this is like adjacent to the brain building which is on and at the intersection uh there are people living in that building some of them have brain injuries and so they are given amazing by their caregivers and then there are other individuals living in the building. It is integrated and it is absolutely fascinating in terms of how that actually works the um the sort of quality of life that is realized by individuals who are needing assistance and so on and the care that's given. I think it's really important for us to understand this relationship. have an organization, a company that has a steward history like Tridell working with um community living to address uh the development opportunity and need to build newer and more functioning facilities for uh people to live in dignity to live with pride. And we heard the speaker in terms of saying you know something happened to me unfortunately wasn't prepared for it to happen and the sequences that she's gone through and explaining about her son and what transpired and so on. There are so many people that are affected by so many different conditions Mr. J. And it's really really super important that we as a society society that we care about um the plight of people and the impact that um that they uh that their lives have if left unattended. And so I think it's really super important for us to care about people and to balance the interest. And I think we have a corporate who's looking to enhance certainly their um objectivity of growth and development with respect to their business purposes, but also being uh able to connect that to the community needs and the needs of individuals to develop and and to have a good quality of life. And I would see no reason why we would not want to step up and endorse and support this type of application. I think that we see so many people who are challenged with respect to the lack of opportunities and so on and the fact that we um have a unique situation here and I think this is a really great great example and again as I say we have in my ward a variety of different areas um the modular home that we have at 39 Dundock where there are 57 units and there people who uh otherwise would be on the street. And I know that when we as a community talked about facilitating this development and talk about welcoming uh these um people into our area because they came from other areas, but we needed to build the building to facilitate the needs that exist. And we've had to adjust. We've had to do certain things to accommodate the needs of the individual. So once home first would operates that particular facility, but people living in indignity. People are living with pride and for no fault of their own. Often they get into a situation which is uh you know a situation that can happen to any of us quite frankly where we could have a special requirement. I think we have to lay the foundation and endorse and support the structure where this isn't sort of a oneoff but it is part of a process part of a system that we actually built in to ensure the quality of life and the integrity of just living well. Thank you. Thank you councelor Thompson. Other speakers on this item? Councelor Meyers. Thank you through your chair. Just very briefly, uh, as chair of the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, uh, I just want to say a big thank you to Tridell and Community Living Toronto. I think this is a fantastic development. I think this will make such a huge difference in the lives of so many people as we just heard from Mary. And what's even more exciting is that this development will take place right here in Scar Bro and provide uh housing which is desperately needed for people with accessibility issues, particularly people with intellectual abilities uh issues as Mary described her son having. Uh so thank you for bringing this application forward and uh for investing in our community. Thank you councelor Myers. Other speakers. Okay. Um I just want to thank uh Gavin first and foremost for uh bringing this this project forward in Tridell. Um you've been here for the day. Uh I have to say that you know Tridell has been a pleasure to work with. Um councelor Thompson knows us very well. We've been working for a number of years on a Scar Bro Center secondary plan which I always am very happy to thank our our staff about. Uh but Tridal has worked very hard from day one uh to make sure this project incorporates well into the neighborhood uh incorporates well into the scar bro secondary plan. Uh I I can think of Tridell employees who I'm not going to name Gavin but reached out to me almost right away when this project was first proposed about where can we have a community meeting? How can we reach out to your community? what can we do to make sure this project fits into the community right from the get-go. So, I can't thank Tridel enough for being uh a partner for my not only a proponent for this project, but for a partner, and we've all heard from uh Gary about uh Community Living Toronto and the amazing work that they do, very evident in the deputation that we got from Mary and how uh Community Living Toronto has been able to support her and her son. And that's just one small example of all of the amazing work that community community living Toronto does across this great city. And I always appreciate having them. Uh when people say to me, you know, what's your goal as a city counselor? I always say that I need a strong, viable community where everybody can work, live, and play and feel welcome and uh and support it. And I think this project is an excellent example of everything that I try to achieve in building that community in my ward and and Scar Bro as well. Uh so I'm wholeheartedly supportive of this and I'd ask for the support from all of my colleagues. Thank you. I'm going to move this item and if I can have a recorded vote. Councelor Aninsley moving the um item to adopt the motion to adopt the item before you. Councelor Thompson, Councelor Shan, Councelor Myers, Councelor Aninsley. That item carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. All right. Our next item our next item is SC 31.9 to Fairfax Crescent application to remove a private tree in W 20 Scarro Southwest. We have reg three registered deputants. The first one is Nushra Jan. Nra Janna are you online? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. You have uh five minutes to address community council whenever you're ready. Thank you. So, good afternoon chairs and of my name is Nushra Jan. I'm here today as an agent on behalf of the owner at Fairfax Press. Um I want to begin by my sincere appreciation for the work urban forestry does. Like you, I value our city's canopy. It's one of the reasons we love living in Scarbor. I'm here today not to oppose the city's tree protection, but to ask for a collaborative case specific review of my application. I believe we can find a path forward that supports the city's housing goals while actually improving long-term health of her local environment. While urban or forest trees initial inspection noted that tit is healthy, a deeper look at the profession by the profession arborist from uh our side has raised some practical concerns that we feel are important for council to consider. Um am I echoing Yep, we can still hear you. Okay, thank you. Um, first, the canopy is currently holding a high volume of deadwood while multiple branches reaching diameters of up to 15 cm. These are not small twigs. These are heavy limbs that pose a direct risk to the property and the proposed garden suite below. More significantly at the 8 m mark, the trunk splits into two stems with included bark at the top of union. From our professional arborist perspective, included bark acts as a natural weak point where the tea doesn't have a strong wood to wood connection. It means the two stems are not fused with solid wood but are essentially pushing against each other with a layer of bark in between. As these stems grow heavier, this V-shaped union becomes the primary point of failure. We are not suggesting the tree is in an immediate danger, but rather it has a structural complexity that will require a significant ongoing professional intervention for a homeowner. This rep this this this present a long-term maintenance challenge that we believe is important to weigh against the benefit of proposed housing. The reason we are seeking this removal, this tree removal is to build a garden suite at the rear yard. We see this as our small contribution to the city's EHN initiative which is expanding housing options in neighborhood helping to address housing shortage by adding gentle density to our neighborhood. In today's economic climate this suit is more than just a building. It's a way for our family to stay resilient, provide a home for a loved one or a neighbor. We truly want to participate in city's vision for missing middle housing. However, because of the specific and the structural nature of the tree, we find ourselves difficult position where we cannot move forward with the suit as planned. We tried redesigning the proposal of garden street but due to space restriction and rear yard spatial constraints we couldn't find any more viable solutions. The e-hon initiative is a wonderful opportunity for homeowners across Toronto. We only ask for the same opportunity to contribute to community's growth. Applying the fee bylaws is vital, but a rigid application in our case might lead to an unintended outcome where a single structurally complex tree prevents a permanent housing solution. We believe in a balanced approach, one that looks at the unique constraints of this lot is the fairest way to move forward. We want part of coalition for trees to canopy. If this permit is granted, we aren't just looking to meet the minimum requirements. While Albert for forestry has recommended five replacement trees, we are fully open to planting even more or contributing further to Swedy's tree planting funds. Our goal is to ensure that sorry, could I ask you to wrap up? You're over your time. Yes. In closing, I believe it's the balance among supporting housing, recognizing economic reality, ensuring fairness, and still contributing to city's environmental goals. Thank you very much. I respectfully ask for your support in approving this permit. Thank you. Thank you. Questions of the deputent. Sorry. Can I just ask the garden suite that you proposed? Have you submitted an application for that? Yes sir. We have went to the zoning review and OBC review, destructal review and both are approved but the issuance of the permit is pending because we are here to approve for the tree removal. So I'm just looking at the diagram you have. is is the you think the tree has to come down because the construction of the garden suite will damage it. Uh we are not allowed construct unless the tree is removed. Uh but if we if there is another solution like we can do screw piles but in that case we can only build the ground floor not the basement and that will not lead to a functional dwelling a functional garden space the square meter will be very less than a standard and functional garden space. Okay. Thank you very much. Much appreciated. Um, our next deputent is Muhammad Hussein. Mr. Hussein online. Nope. Uh, how about Nicole Curado? Nicole, can you hear me? Yes, I can. All right, we're on the last item. Tree removal at two Fairfax Crescent number nine. Yes, I I would say that there is definitely a way you could build the garden suite without cutting the tree. I think that you don't necessarily need a basement if you make the garden suite a tiny home. It would be worth looking into tiny homes. They they're done very common in in Halifax and gardens. Yeah, garden suites can become tiny homes. Most tiny homes don't have basements and they're they're quite functional. You can actually fit a lot into a lot of functional space into a small into a small place. The problem is if you allow cutting this tree to build a basement and another place. I mean, one of the problems with building, you know, another basement and another place on on this is going to be things like flooding. So, you're adding more paved space, you're adding another basement, you know, where where there's a tree growing, where there's a tree growing, there's probably going to be water. So, I would presume that this is going to make the place more prone to flooding. Whereas if the tree will actually help shade a tiny home and it will help maintain the temperature, it will help keep it cool in the summer and and help insulate it in the winter by being acting as a windbreak. So it's it's you know, I would say there there definitely is a way that you can you can preserve this tree. just redesign what your redesign the the garden suite into a tiny home or because you know without it doesn't have to have a basement. It can it could be a tiny home. Usually what you have is you'll have you'll have two stories and and no basement. It's just on sometimes they're even on um sometimes they're mobile but sometimes they're they're stationary but they're they're they don't have to have a basement. Okay. Thank you, Nicole. Questions of the deputy? Seeing none, thank you very much. We're going to bring it into committee. Questions of staff? No questions of staff. Speakers? Anybody? Going once, going twice. Uh, so I'm going to support the recommendations in the report to refuse the application. Any questions of me? Sorry. No. I'm the keeper of the tree today. All in favor? That carries. Bills. That completes our agenda for the Not yet, gentlemen. We have bills. Councelor Meyers that bills 436 to 439 prepared for the April 30th, 2026 meeting 31 of the Scar Bro Community Council be declared as bylaws and passed subject to 226.9 of the City of Toronto Act 2006. All in favor? That carries. One more. That confirmatory bills to confirm the legislative proceedings of the Say it was your turn. Go ahead, councelor M. of the Scarbo Community Council acting under delegated authority at meeting 31 on April 30th, 2026 be declared as bylaws and passed subject to section 226.9 of City Toronto Act 2006. All in favor? Motion to adjurnn. All in favor? Carrie. Thank you. Thank you everybody.

Full Transcript