John Fisher JPS – Community MeetingDecember 21st, 2016 – 6:30 PM

John Fisher Junior Pubic School

Item Discussion Questions

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Moving ForwardSuperintendent Girdhar-Hill

Superintendent Girdhar-Hill thanked everyone for coming out. She then explained her role as Superintendent for LN01. She advised that she wears many hats with regards to John Fisher; that of a superintendent, principal and parent. She has been at many of the meetings since September 21st, 2016. There have been some issues with trust and communication and we are all now here to move forward, to understand and communicate in a different way. Around this table are people who care about this school and their students. We have the questions and concerns that you forwarded, not all of them will be answered tonight. ECOH is also here to answer questions regarding the risk assessment as well as we have a planning consultant who will provide some background related to the OMB.

3. Status UpdateAssociate Director Angelos Bacopoulos

We are going to have ECOH present its plans for the risk assessment and Bob Dragicevic will talk about the planning process. We will also be discussing the Early Years play area. Then we can address the questions that were forwarded by the community. Those questions that we do not have time to answer at our meeting tonight will be addressed at the next meeting. We will also discuss the timelines for future meetings.

Present from the Toronto DSB: Trustee Gershon; Executive Superintendent Beth Butcher; Superintendent Leila Girdhar-Hill; Marlene Harroun – Principal; Lee-Anne Maier – Vice Principal; Angelos Bacopoulos - Associate Director; Faris Mansur – System Facilities Officer Design, Construction & Maintenance; Jeff Latto – Senior Manager Major Capital Projects & Building Partnerships; Chris Broadbent – Occupational Health & Safety; Marcela Mayo – Communications OfficerOMB: Bob Dragicevic – Planning ConsultantECOH: Dr. Om Malik & Mary Anne Livinski

Parent Representatives: Tanya Razek, Jennifer Steele, Adria Rose, Sogol Shams, Mary Mowbray, Etienne de Villiers

French Connection: Wendy Lampert, Vlad Urukov, Steven Crichton, Cindy Fraiser and Farhan Haji

Item Discussion Questions

4. OMBBob Dragicevic

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2017.NY19.34

Bob provided the following information:

The demolition permit can be issued prior to site plan approval.

The demolition permit will probably not be going to the January Community Council meeting for consideration.*

* however, we have subsequently learned that a report is on the North York January 17th Community Council agenda and that City of Toronto (City) staff is recommending that the demolition permit be issued once a number of conditions have been satisfied. Please see the link in the column to the left that provides information on the City staff report. Trustee Gershon spoke to the Local City Councillor’s office about this issue and received the following message. "The Residential Rental Demolition Application for 18-30 Erskine is on the North York Community Council agenda for January 17, 2017. As all documents required under the Site Plan Application have not yet been submitted, Councillor Robinson will be requesting a deferral of this item. Along those lines, it is not necessary for parents to depute at the January 17 meeting."

Approval authority for Site Plan Control applications has been delegated to the Chief Planner or his/her designates by City Council. However, City Councillors retain the right to request that any individual application be reported to City Council for its decision. These are termed "bumped-up" applications. The bump up request would require a City staff report to Community Council and then City Council, which introduces a potential delay of 3 to 4 months. It is unlikely that that the developer will be interested in this scenario. Bob believes that the developer will more likely work to satisfy the concerns of the TDSB, many of which may be addressed as standard requirements of either the demolition permit or the site plan approval.

Q: Were you involved from the beginning?

A: Bob indicated that he was involved with the original file back in October 2012, but had no involvement in the OMB appeal matter but he is familiar with it.

After careful consideration and based on legal advice, the TDSB did not appeal the Erskine development by taking part in any OMB proceedings because the TDSB would not be able to significantly affect the scale of the development.

There were a number of parties opposing the development. [The City of Toronto, 17-30 Keewatin Neighbours Group, Sherwood Park Resident’s Association and a member of the John Fisher parent community]. Rather than proceed to a formal hearing, the OMB scheduled mediation between parties. The City staff, through its own processes, is provided with confidential legal advice on how to proceed at the OMB. This advice would take into consideration existing planning documents. [The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is the statement of the Provincial Government’s policies on land use planning. The site is located in a Provincial Growth Centre. The City of Toronto bases its planning on this document. The City’s Yonge/Eglinton Secondary Plan was prepared and approved on this basis. The lands for the Erskine development are designated ‘Mixed Use Areas’ in the Toronto Official Plan. This designation provides for a broad range of commercial, residential and institutional uses in single-use or mixed-use buildings, such as the multi-story building approval sought by Pemberton and now the KG Group development as approved by the OMB.]

One can only infer that that the advice that City Council received from City planning and legal staff recommended a settlement consistent with the final approval of the zoning bylaw amendment by the OMB. The result was that the OMB approved the zoning bylaw as agreed through the mediation process, which included a Section 37 agreement as negotiated by the City and approved by City Council. As is the norm, a Section 37

Item Discussion Questions

Bob suggested that the TDSB send a letter to the City of Toronto to put them on notice regarding a list of expectations that the TDSB will require for the developer to follow. Please see item 7 for a copy of the e-mail sent to the City Planning Department and the developer.

A parent representative thanked Bob for his time but indicated that the community needs to know how the TDSB will move forward. The parents and the community want to work with the TDSB. If the TDSB does a risk assessment and it comes back with risks to student safety, the risk assessment needs to be presented to the City. John Fisher is the first example of a school having a 35 storey building going up beside it.

Bob indicated that if the TDSB and the community push too hard, the developer has the right to go to the OMB to have this resolved by them. Taking that route, may not address the issues of the TDSB and the community.

A parent representative indicated that if the developer pushes hard, this community is not afraid to take action. They would go to a Superior Court judge if the need arises. The community is not afraid of the OMB.

agreement is not considered until the City is satisfied with the applicant’s proposal and that all the City’s criteria are met.

The TDSB does not always reject the concept of using the OMB to protect its properties. Two amendments to the City’s Official Plan which could significantly impact TDSB property have been adopted by the City (289 & 320). In each case the TDSB made submissions however, there were no accommodations made to address the concerns presented by the TDSB. The TDSB has consequently appealed both amendments to the OMB for hearing.

5. ECOH (Environmental Consulting Occupational Health)Dr. Malik

Dr. Malik (through a power point presentation attached) introduced his company, ECOH Management Inc. He indicated that ECOH has worked with the Ministry of Labour for 16 years. He advised that ECOH tailors solutions to individual clients and has worked with several different school boards including Lambton-Kent and the Ottawa-Carleton DSB. He explained what an IAQ assessment was, as well as a sensitive receptor.

He explained that a Phase I assessment can take 5-6 weeks to complete and that a Phase II can take up to 3-6 months to complete, depending on the details of the construction management plan.

Parent representatives felt that the TDSB should set the standards that are acceptable for its students and that no one would question the TDSB if it took the position that

Q: Given all your experience, is it possible to construct a building with no risk to students?

A: This is a decision for the decision makers once the risk assessment is concluded and reviewed.

Q: Will this risk assessment talk about the John Fisher school as well?

A: Yes

Q: Can we accelerate Phase I?

A: We need to first identify the risks. This is a sensitive job and we want to do it right.

Item Discussion Questions

no risk is the acceptable standard. The TDSB should demand zero risk to students, as an overall expectation.

Parents’ explained that at first there were no buffers proposed by the developer when staging was to occur. Because the TDSB had construction projects at some of its other schools, they are not comparable to the situation to this site. Risk needs to be minimized before any construction starts.

The parent expectations are that the risk assessment should include health & safety as well as educational impacts. Also need to know what the impact of the new building will be on school operations.

The daycare indicated that they need a minimum of 8 weeks in order to re-locate, if that is an option.

Q: Has the Toronto District School Board been in touch with the City about our concerns?

A: We have been in touch with Toronto Public Health and their Planning Dept.

6. Early Years Play AreaAssociate Director Angelos Bacopoulos

At this point in time only the wood chip area playground is being moved in order to relocate away from the construction site. Heat tracing will be put on the roof to prevent ice buildup. The reason the early years playground is being moved at this time is because the TDSB was concerned that if construction activities were to take place in the Spring/Summer, it would impact the existing early years playground and it wanted to have a playground ready in the Spring for the early years children to use. The other playground will remain.

Some Parents indicated that with Tridel working in the area, there might be a huge impact on traffic and the movement of the early years play area might not be the right choice. That is why a 5-7 year plan is needed and that the risk assessment should review the traffic impact of Tridel construction activities already in the area.

Should the demolition happen in March, the daycare will need significant time to move. Marlene Harroun indicated that she will speak with French Connection and provide information back to the committee.

Q: If we re-locate what happens to the day care?

A: TDSB Planning is looking into this and hopefully information will be provided at the next meeting.

7. Next StepsExecutive Superintendent Beth Butcher

A letter will be sent to the City of Toronto and the developer by December 23rd, 2016, putting them on notice that the Toronto District School Board will need

Item Discussion Questionsadvance notice before any construction work can be done on this site.

In order to adhere to the timelines set out by the parent representatives for future meetings we will need any items for the next agenda by January 9 th so that the agenda can be posted by January 12th.

8. Date of Next Meeting January 19th, 2017 at 7:00pm

Please note that the attachment in embedded in item #7 was emailed directly to the City of Toronto and the Developer.