Grange Park Toronto Canada

GPAC Meeting Minutes June 1, 2009

Grange Park Advisory Committee

Meeting of June 1, 2009

Held at University Settlement

Members in attendance:

John Burns, St. George the Martyr Church

Rupert Duchesne, Co-Chair, AGO

Councillor Adam Vaughan, Co-chair

Bev Carret, AGO

Peter Couto, resident

Ken Greenberg, resource person, AGO

Mazyar Mortazavi, member-at-large

Mike Mahoney, AGO

Dr. James Moy, OCAD

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, resident

Debra Shime, University Settlement

Margie Zeidler, member-at-large

Observers and guests:

Jennifer Chan, Councillor Vaughan’s office

Bill Smyke, resident

Jennifer Tharp, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Netami Stewart, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Regrets

Mark Emslie, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Debbie McGuinness, resident

Pat McKendry, resident

Marguerite Newell, resident

Matthew Teitelbaum, AGO

Summary of Discussion:

Introductions:

Jen Tharp advised the meeting that she has taken on new duties in the City Parks and Recreation Department. Jen introduced Netami Stewart, who will replace her as an observer of the GPAC committee.

Approval of the minutes of April 22, 2009

Minutes were approved with the following clarifications:

Deb Shime noted that the concern expressed by University Settlement over the treatment of Grange Road was primarily around access to drop off and pick up children at the daycare.

Business Arising from the minutes

A question was raised about the rationale for neighbourhood involvement in the new protocol between the City and the AGO. Adam noted the benefit of enabling neighbours to provide input and flag issues that help protect and preserve the park. He cited the example of the recent Walk for Israel event, where neighbourhood feedback through the GCA and GPAC surfaced a problem with the setup that could have potentially damaged the park and helped to identify a solution. Grange Park will continue to be operated as a public park and will follow City policies. However, the neighbourhood’s familiarity with Grange Park can inform decisions made by City departments.

Ceta asked if the fence at the northwest corner of the park is going to be replaced now that the AGO’s remedial work to restore the area post construction has been completed. Mike Mahoney will contact Mark Emslie about this. Rupert suggested that a temporary barrier be put into place in the interim to prevent vehicles from entering the park and to help the new sod to take root.

Review of agenda for community meeting

GPAC members undertook a final review of the agenda for the community meeting following immediately. Questions arose around the item “Criteria for Grange Park permits”. It was confirmed that draft criteria will be provided to the meeting for discussion purposes to encourage community feedback. They will be presented as guidelines to follow in addition to requirements set out within the parks permit application process. Adam stressed that the purpose of these criteria is to ensure events are appropriately scaled to respect the park’s natural environment.

Other Business

GPAC endorsed the Grange Festival event in Grange Park, planned for August 7 by University Settlement.

Next meeting

The next meeting will be held on Monday, July 13, 6:00pm at the AGO.

June 1, 2009 at 10:31 am | GPAC Meeting Minutes | No comment

GPAC Meeting Minutes from April 22nd, 2009

MEETING NOTES

Grange Park Advisory Committee

Meeting of April 22, 2009

University Settlement, 23 Grange Road

Members in attendance:

John Burns, St. George the Martyr Church

Rupert Duchesne, Co-Chair, AGO

Councillor Adam Vaughan, Co-chair

Peter Couto, resident

Mark Emslie, City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation

Ken Greenberg, resource person, AGO

Pat McKendry, resident

Mazyar Mortazavi, member-at-large

Mike Mahoney, AGO

Debbie McGuinness, resident

Dr. James Moy, OCAD

Marguerite Newell, resident

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, resident

Debra Shime, University Settlement (US)

Margie Zeidler, member-at-large

Observers and guests:

Max Allen, for discussion re OCAD project

Peter Caldwell, for discussion on OCAD project

Jennifer Tharp, City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation

Donald Schmitt, Architect, for presentation on OCAD project

Persis Lam, with Diamond Schmitt

Eric Fung, with Diamond Schmitt

Regrets

Bev Carret, AGO

Matthew Teitelbaum, AGO

Summary of Discussion:

•1. Approval of the minutes of March 2, 2009.

Minutes were approved as circulated.

•2. Business Arising from the minutes

Discussion ensured regarding the May 24 Walk for Israel through Grange Park. The organizers have made commitments to use walkways and remove any waste. It is not clear what washroom arrangements are in place or required. Deb Shime indicated that University Settlement (US) had a discussion regarding support needed but given the proposed numbers of about 17,000, this could not be supported by US facilities. Since there were different end points for the walk, there might be a significant reduction in the number of people passing through Grange Park. Mark Emslie will follow up to confirm arrangements, particularly with respect to any requests for washroom facilties and portolets. No specific monitoring was in place, however residents might want to take photos for documentation and for evaluation of impact on Grange Park.

•3. Feedback on design brief

Various comments were made regarding the section of the draft brief on “Next Steps”. Ceta circulated her comments to kick off the discussion. The draft will be revised by Ken Greenberg to reflect the discussion regarding the following points: reflect that City, AGO and GPAC are working together; that ultimate design relates to the available funding. It was agreed that there be no reference to a fund-raising target but that work would proceed when funding is in place. With respect to the selection of design consultants, it was understood that the primary concern of GPAC is with the design rather than who would do it. It was agreed that language would reflect the Park being rehabilitated rather than viewed as a construction project. It is expected that design work would begin in summer of 2009 and that the work in the Park would commence in 2010 with a proposed completion target of 2011. Pat requested that the word “youth” be added to page 2 – 3rd paragraph under “realizing Grange Park’s full potential”.

Deb Levine indicated that the draft was shared within the US community. They are delighted with the plan but there is a concern around how Grange Road would be treated particularly with respect to access to the building for deliveries and access to existing parking. In addition many parents wanted to see “traditional” play continue – e.g. swings, slides and sandboxes. Many were amused by the notion of the plastic materials being viewed as “traditional”. It was understood that “traditional” referred to the “types of play activity” rather than materials. The Wychwood Barns has modern play equipment which allows for “traditional” play. It was suggested that photos of these could be shown, as long as it was understood that this would not necessarily be what would turn up in Grange Park. The US is planning its 100th anniversary celebrations in 2010 with major activities taking place in July. It was hoped that the work schedule would take that into account.

A final version would be provided by May 1 for posting on the US website and for the community meeting on June 1.

•4. Protocol between the City of Toronto and the AGO

Adam advised that the Government Management Committee (GMC) had approved the process for making changes to the 1911 agreement. He expressed his delight that there will be a permanent staff person assigned to work in Grange Park and that there is understanding on the base line services that will continue to be provided. Final approval is expected at City Council within a week. Copies of the letter from the Grange Community Association sent to the GMC were circulated. It was noted that the recommendations from the committee mandated that deliberations between the AGO and the City include the Ward Councillor and that the amended agreement would include a mechanism for the neighbourhood to be involved with park management on an on-going basis.

Adam thanked the PFR staff for their role in advancing this new arrangement. It was agreed that the chairs would send a letter to PFR staff expressing GPAC’s and AGO’s appreciation for their efforts. Bev would be asked to follow up with Rupert and Adam.

•5. Grange Park – Update on remedial initiatives

Ken advised that two meetings were held with PFR staff to discuss how to move the work along. Discussion topics included the current base level of support and the implications of moving support to a higher standard. He noted that the difference between the base level and a higher standard does not seem to be insurmountable with respect to cost and who would do what work. With respect to the activities arising from the PMA report, a basic principle is that that on-going stewardship is essential.

Mark advised that the worksheet has been revised and sent to Bev. This will be forwarded to the committee at a later date. Calculations were based on having one classification of staff in place, but they are also looking at another classification. It was noted that S.37 funds cannot be used for maintenance.
With respect to the workplan, PFR staff proposed that until such time as a design was a place, major work should be deferred, including tree removal except for those trees which needed to be removed as soon as possible. Reference was made to the ash trees beside the church as being in the urgent category. No one had memorized the tree numbering schedule.

Soil decompaction has been completed around 6 trees close to the AGO construction area at the north end of the park. Mulch has been added around trees. In addition, grading and soil replacement is underway in the north area. Ceta noted that it may be necessary to replace the fence/or barricades at the northwest corner to prevent vehicles from continuing to park in that corner as has been observed in recent days. Mike will check out the situation.

The preferred time for soil decompaction is the fall and only selective pruning should take place in the spring. The AGO is seeking funding to continue work. About $25K has been requested from the TD Environment Foundation, who had supported the earlier study by PMA.

Rupert indicated that it was AGO’s intention to raise funds for the entire project. Adam noted that we could not necessarily count on the flow of S.37 funds as some construction projects are on hold. In addition, he noted that irrigation and watering would be taking place this summer with full time PFR staff being assigned, and that community volunteers would likely not be required.

•6. Communications strategy

John Burns advised that the website had been secured through the efforts of Bev and AGO staff. It will be www.grangeparktoronto.ca The Committee will meet in early May to map out content, which will include GPAC’s terms of reference, minutes of meetings as well as resource documents such as the PMA brief. It was also proposed that the tree mapping system be included on the web so that members of the community would be able to identify their comments to a specific tree.

The site will be up before the June 1 meeting.

.

•7. Community meeting – June 1 – US Auditorium

The communications team was asked to provide notification for the meeting and to work with Bev to develop the agenda. It was understood that although the previous two community meetings were joint meetings held with GCA, this meeting was being held by GPAC. GCA would be given an opportunity to make announcements. Marguerite noted that at the last public meeting residents observed that they were not provided with enough time for discussion.

Information would be presented on:

(1) Design Brief

(2) Progress on work undertaken to date

(3) New protocol – City and the AGO

If a new staff person is in place, that person would also be introduced.

A subcommittee of Adam, Debbie and Marguerite was struck to work on formalizing the protocol for issuing permits for Grange Park. Mark agreed to provide a copy of the current special event packages. It was agreed that this protocol and criteria for issuing permits for Grange Park would be added to the agenda for the community meeting on June 1.

Ensuring that communications would be bi-lingual is a priority. Ceta advised that Bev indicated she was planning to pay for a postal walk in advance of the June 1 meeting and that these notices would be

bi-lingual. It was proposed that this meeting be also used as an opportunity to thank Max Woolaver of St. George the Martyr Church which is an important partner in the GPAC process. A separate neighbourhood event might also be considered. This matter was left with the agenda setting committee.

•8. Other Business

Mark advised that a request was received from a Ryerson Student to place an installation in Grange Park.

The installation consisted of a number of chairs being placed over a 7 day period during which there would be an exposure to a recording. Not too many details were available. Adam indicated that additional information had been provided to his office and that the recordings were intended to address issues of sexual assault. Since this is a public park, there was some concern around how the content would be experienced by a park full of children. Comment was also made about the proposed length of the installation, location as well as security around what would be included. No support was expressed for this proposal.

Deb Shime advised that the US was very concerned about the amount of speeding through the park by bicyclists. All agreed that this was a problem and perhaps might be addressed through the park design.

Adam advised that Dale Duncan in his office was working on a city wide issue to engender more respectful behaviour by cyclists.

•9. Next Meeting – June 1 at 5.30 pm at US prior to the community meeting.

•10. OCAD re-design project

After a round of introductions, Adam advised that OCAD was invited to attend the GPAC meeting because of the proximity to the park and how their proposal would affect the park.

Peter Caldwell gave background on what why OCAD needed to expand and the time lines they were under with respect to the availability of federal and provincial infrastructure funding. He noted that they did not have the capacity to respond to student demand nor be able to respond to faculty they would like to recruit.

Donald Schmitt outlined the scope of the project. There are a number of elements under consideration including: refurbishing the Reid wing, recladding the entire 100 McCaul building including using living walls, upgrading interiors, consideration of extending the front of McCaul Street for offices; infilling above 100 McCaul below the table top; infilling a portion of space about 20 feet above Butterfield Park under the table top. Peter also noted that there was unused density from the previous project.

A wide ranging discussion took place including proposals to remove the public washrooms in Grange Park, demolition of the Victorian houses at Grange and McCaul; including washrooms and office for Grange Park activities in the expanded OCAD building; providing space on OCAD lands beside the art store for same.

Discussion also included the effect of any in-fill of space under the table top and what effect that would have on the view of the table top. Adam proposed that OCAD consider using materials to mock up a life size version of what is proposed for the table top so that the community would be able to experience its effects. Computer modeling was also requested regarding sight lines for McCaul Street towards the table top.

Adam also reminded the group that the proposal would require considerable discussion within the community given the basis upon which residents had supported the previous expansion.

•11. Adjournment – 8.40 pm

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS REQUIRED:

April 22, 2009 at 10:33 am | GPAC Meeting Minutes | No comment

GPAC Meeting Minutes March 2, 2009

Grange Park Advisory Committee

Meeting of March 2, 2009

Held at OCAD

Members in attendance:

John Burns, St. George the Martyr Church

Rupert Duchesne, Co-Chair, AGO

Councillor Adam Vaughan, Co-chair

Bev Carret, AGO

Peter Couto, resident

Mark Emslie, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Mazyar Mortazavi, member-at-large

Mike Mahoney, AGO

Debbie McGuinness, resident

Dr. James Moy, OCAD

Marguerite Newell, resident

Debra Shime, University Settlement

Observers and guests:

Bill Smyke, resident

Jennifer Tharp, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Regrets

Ken Greenberg, resource person, AGO

Pat McKendry, resident

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, resident

Matthew Teitelbaum, AGO

Margie Zeidler, member-at-large

Summary of Discussion:

  1. 1. Approval of the minutes of January 21

Minutes were approved with no changes.

  1. 2. Business Arising from the minutes

No business arising

  1. 3. Grange Park – Status of immediate remedial initiatives

Adam’s office has set up a meeting on March 4 with Parks staff, AGO, Ken Greenberg and PMA to discuss how to proceed with the immediate remedial initiatives identified in the PMA report. The AGO has contacted TD Friends of the Environment Foundation, which provided $50,000 last October towards the costs of setting up GPAC and hiring PMA for the environmental study. The foundation is prepared to accept a funding application between $25,000-50,000. This second grant would be used to fund some of the most time-sensitive remedial initiatives. The March 4 meeting will also explore the possibility of using Section 37 funds held for Grange Park for these immediate remedial initiatives.

  1. 4. Review of updated Design Brief

GPAC members provided feedback to the updated draft design brief prepared by Ken, which incorporated elements of the PMA study findings and recommendations. The meeting agreed to incorporate all changes submitted by Ceta via e-mail. It was noted that the design stage should include consultation with parents about the security of the playground. The meeting also agreed that the document should end with a “next steps” section. Ken will be asked to add this last section to the brief for review by GPAC.

  1. 5. Communications strategy

Peter provided a brief recap of recommendations from the communications team. A communications system needs to be set up to make sure the local neighbourhood receives timely and consistent information about the Grange Park revitalization project. The most time-sensitive information to share will be the findings of the PMA Landscape study and the timing of the immediate remedial initiatives. This information would be shared with the neighbourhood about 2 weeks before any work is scheduled to begin. Communication would be via:

We will set up a Grange Park website over the next 2 months. The Sibelius Square website (www.sibeliussquare.org) is a good model to follow.

A community meeting hosted by GPAC will be set up for early June to provide neighbours with a forum to ask questions and share feedback.

  1. 6. Other Business:

Luminato and the AGO would like to have an installation by projection artist Tony Oursler in Grange Park during Luminato 2009 (June 6-15). The artist’s proposal consists of installing three 6-foot house-like structures in the park where images would be projected during the day. In the evening, the projections would float from the “houses” into the sky and trees. Luminato security officers would be stationed in the park to prevent children from climbing the structures. Luminato would also provide docents (information guides) to explain the installation to park visitors. The meeting acknowledged this would be an interesting first test of art in the park. The experience from this installation will help inform future decisions about interactive art. GPAC requested that the installation be ended at 10pm every evening.

GPAC reviewed the request of the United Jewish Appeal to use Grange Park as a watering station for the Walk for Israel on Sunday May 24th. The meeting agreed to support this request, but asked that the group remind walkers to use the footpaths in the park.

Mark raised the request by a few groups to use Grange Park for yoga classes and boot camp. GPAC asked for more information about the needs and size of these groups. It was also suggested that the courtyard at St. George the Martyr Church be considered for these activities.

  1. 7. Next meeting

The next meeting will take place on Wednesday April 22, 6pm at University Settlement – 2nd floor staff lounge.

March 2, 2009 at 10:39 am | GPAC Meeting Minutes | No comment

GPAC Meeting Minutes January 21, 2009

Grange Park Advisory Committee

Meeting of January 21, 2009

Held at the University Settlement House

Members in attendance:

John Burns, St. George the Martyr Church

Rupert Duchesne, Co-Chair, AGO

Councillor Adam Vaughan, Co-chair

Bev Carret, AGO

Mark Emslie, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Ken Greenberg, resource person, AGO

Mazyar Mortazavi, member-at-large

Mike Mahoney, AGO

Debbie McGuinness, resident

Pat McKendry, resident

Dr. James Moy, OCAD

Marguerite Newell, resident

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, resident

Observers and guests:

Bev Ambler, PMA Landscape Architects

Jim Melvin, PMA Landscape Architects

Bill Smyke, resident

Jennifer Tharp, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Regrets

Debra Shime, University Settlement

Matthew Teitelbaum, AGO

Margie Zeidler, member-at-large

Summary of Discussion:

  1. 1. Approval of the minutes of December 8

Minutes were approved with the following addition under “PMA Study Progress Report”: A survey was undertaken of 169 trees in Grange Park and surrounding area (St. George the Martyr Church).

  1. 2. Business Arising from the minutes

Rupert asked GPAC members for feedback about the GPAC presentation at the community meeting. The overall impression was that feedback was generally positive. The meeting agreed that it will be important to set up a regular communication system, including a community meeting once every six months and a website. GPAC will also make use of other neighbourhood communication vehicles, such as the Grange Community Association newsletter, University Settlement newsletter, the Ward 20 newsletter, notice boards at the library and various buildings. An information board could also be re-established in Grange Park. The proposed time frame for the next neighbourhood meeting would be in May.

  1. 3. Grange Park Environmental Study – presentation of final report by PMA Landscape Architects

Jim Melvin and Bev Ambler from PMA provided a brief recap of the final report. The study involved an assessment of all trees in Grange Park, plus the trees on St. George the Martyr Church property; soil study; density study; sun study. Overall, the park is in good shape. 90% of the 169 trees are healthy. The soil is good quality loam, but is easily compacted by the active daily use of the park. The sun study indicated there is not sufficient sunlight getting into the park, due primarily to the prominence of heavy shade trees.

PMA identified the following immediate remedial initiatives:

GPAC agreed to endorse the immediate remedial initiatives identified by PMA. The total cost of this work was roughly estimated at $135-170,000. Jim noted that some of the pruning activity could be phased over five years. Bev will check the possibility of further funding from TD Friends of the Environment Foundation to help underwrite some of this work. Adam will also check the status of Section 37 funding for these initiatives.

The PMA study also identified three general environmental zones in the park: a more heavily shaded area at the west end that is conducive to quieter activities; an open area in the middle of the park for games, Frisbee/catch playing, etc.; and the east zone with moderate shade, which is well suited for children’s play. Ken noted that these three zones show the capability of the park to support a wide range of activities. This information and other detailed studies in the report will help inform the design phase. The report also recommends a series of ongoing maintenance activities that should be regularly undertaken to keep the park in good condition after the design phase.

  1. 4. Next Steps

Ken will incorporate the key findings of the PMA study into the design brief, for GPAC review.

Rupert advised that the AGO is continuing discussions with potential donors. Some notable interest, but nothing concrete to report yet. It is understood that any signage would be very limited.

Adam shared that the neighbourhood group overseeing the Sibelius Square revitalization undertook a very successful children’s consultation session, led by Judy Markle. He suggested that a similar consultation be taken with local children for Grange Park. Adam will approach Judy to gauge her interest in working with GPAC on a children’s consultation. Support was expressed for this approach.

  1. 5. Other Business:

Bev tabled the interest of the AGO to organize a projection installation in Grange Park by artist Tony Oursler during Luminato. GPAC reiterated concerns that these installations should not impact on regular park users, nor should they put undue stress on the park’s natural environment. The AGO will reinforce this to the artist as he prepares his proposal. Bev will share the proposal with GPAC as soon as it is received.

Jim Melvin is involved with the Toronto Conference of Landscape Architects and put forward the proposal to screen two films to conference members in Grange Park the night of August 15. The public would be welcome to take part. He anticipates approximately 300 people would attend these screenings. GPAC voiced some concerns over the suitability of Grange Park for this type of activity. They suggested Jim look into showing the films on the grounds of the Italian Consulate, which hosted a similar activity during Nuit Blanche. Jim will provide more information about the two films to GPAC.

  1. 6. Next meeting

The next GPAC meeting will be on Monday, March 2, 6:00 pm at OCAD, Room 284

January 21, 2009 at 10:41 am | GPAC Meeting Minutes | No comment

GPAC Meeting Minutes November 3, 2008

Grange Park Advisory Committee

Meeting of November 3, 2008

Held at the University Settlement House

Members in attendance:

Councillor Adam Vaughan, Co-chair

John Burns, St. George the Martyr Church

Bev Carret, AGO

Mark Emslie, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Ken Greenberg, resource person, AGO

Pat McKendry, resident

Marguerite Newell, resident

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, resident

Debra Shime, University Settlement

Margie Zeidler, member-at-large

Observers and guests:

Max Allen, resident

Peter Couto, resident, alternate member

Jennifer Tharp, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Regrets

Rupert Duchesne, Co-Chair, AGO

Dr. James Moy, OCAD

Debbie McGuinness, resident

Mazyar Mortazavi, member-at large

Mathew Teitelbaum, AGO

Summary of Discussion:

  1. 1. Welcome new members

Adam welcomed Margie Zeidler as a GPAC member-at-large. Margie is the founder of Urbanspace Property Group; president and creator of 401 Richmond Limited; co-founder of the Centre for Social Innovation, and received the Jane Jacobs Award in 2003.

Adam also announced that Mazyar Mortazavi has agreed to join GPAC as a member-at-large. Mazyar works with Mavi Developments Inc., builder of sustainable development, including the M5V condominium at King and Peter Streets, designed to meet LEED accreditation.

A third member-at-large position may be filled in the future.

  1. 2. Approval of the minutes of October 1

Minutes were approved.

  1. 3. Business arising from the minutes

No business arising from the minutes.

  1. 4. Landscape and Maintenance sub-committee update

Ceta reported that the Landscape and Maintenance sub-committee met with PMA Landscape Architects on October 10. At this meeting, PMA reviewed in greater detail the work to be undertaken as part of their study. Since some of the work required small samples to be taken from some trees and soil, as well as tree tagging, the L&M sub-committee decided an e-mail should be sent to the neighbourhood to advise them of this work in advance. This e-mail was sent out on October 21.

  1. 5. PMA study progress report

Ken provided a brief update on work undertaken by PMA to date. The arborist has already undertaken a survey of all the trees in the park and will do a fine coring of selected trees. The agronomist will be on site within a week to take soil samples and do sun/shade studies. The City has provided PMA with the environmental test findings for 4 Grange Road and information on the existing irrigation system. Mark suggested that PMA contact Tom Feeney at the City to get additional information about the irrigation lines. Overall, the work is proceeding on schedule.

  1. 6. Update on the December 8th community meeting

Ceta reviewed the agenda for the meeting. GPAC has been allocated 20 minutes for its presentation, including a question and answer session. It was agreed the GPAC presentation should include a brief summary by Jim Melvin about PMA’s environment assessment. Jim will present these findings to GPAC prior to the community meeting.

The GPAC presentation will include:

  1. 7. Communications sub-committee update

John provided a brief update on the Communications sub-committee meeting on October 28. The sub-committee is considering the following vehicles, with a commitment to provide information in both English and Chinese whenever possible:

  1. 8. Next meeting

The next GPAC meeting will take place on Monday, December 8, 5:30pm at University Settlement, Room 211, prior to the community meeting which begins at 7.30 pm

  1. 9. Other Business

Bev reported that the AGO will launch with three free days for the public, starting Friday, November 14 at 4:00pm. McCaul Street will be closed from Dundas to the crosswalk just north of OCAD on Friday only, to accommodate the crowds waiting for the AGO to open.

Adam advised the meeting that in the short term there will be a moratorium on filming in the Grange neighbourhood except for the series that has already been approved. Public areas such as Grange Park would only have one shoot per year. All subsequent film shooting requests will require a neighbourhood poll.

November 3, 2008 at 10:43 am | GPAC Meeting Minutes | No comment

GPAC Meeting Minutes October 1, 2008

Grange Park Advisory Committee

Meeting of October 1, 2008

Held at the University Settlement House

Members in attendance:

Rupert Duchesne, AGO (co-chair)

Councillor Adam Vaughan, (co-chair)

John Burns, St. George the Martyr Church

Bev Carret, AGO

Mark Emslie, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Ken Greenberg, resource person

Mike Mahoney, AGO alternate for Matthew Teitelbaum

Debbie McGuinness, resident

Pat McKendry, resident

Dr. James Moy, OCAD

Marguerite Newell, resident

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, resident

Debra Shime, University Settlement

Observers and guests:

Max Allen, resident

Peter Couto, resident, alternate member

Ralph Daley, resident

Pearl Quong, resident

Bill Smyke, resident

Jennifer Tharp, City of Toronto Parks Dept.

Summary of Discussion:

  1. 1. Introduction of PMA Landscape Architects

Ken introduced Jim Melvin and Fung Lee of PMA Landscape Architects, the firm retained to undertake Phase One of the Grange Park Revitalization Initiative. This work will focus on assessing the environmental health of Grange Park. Jim and Fung reviewed the scope of their work (see attachment), which will examine the existing trees, soil conditions, drainage and irrigation. Based on the findings, PMA will put forward recommendations for remedial measures to improve the natural ecology of the park, as well as a Conservation Use Plan (CUP) which will outline a recommended proactive maintenance regime to continue building the strength and resilience of the park.

PMA confirmed that the study will identify the location of tree roots, which will inform the placement of elements like pathways in any redesign of the park.

John suggested that the natural environment of St. George the Martyr’s property be included in the study. The meeting agreed that the study should be inclusive wherever possible.

Ralph suggested that PMA connect with Dr. Andrew Millward, who directs the Urban Forest Research & Ecological Disturbance group at Ryerson University. Dr. Millward has been conducting a similar assessment on Allan Gardens and is logging this information into a database and a publicly-accessible, web-based server. Jim agreed to contact Dr. Millward.

Mark confirmed that 7 trees were removed from Grange Park this fall, including one on the AGO construction site, as they were either dead or dying. All seven trees will be replaced in the redesign phase of the Grange Park revitalization project. Ken noted that the age and life expectancy of the trees will form part of PMA’s assessment. This information will provide the foundation for an ongoing stewardship plan to help protect the existing trees and plant new ones in order to ensure a consistent mature tree canopy for future generations.

Rupert confirmed that the PMA study will present a full range of recommendations to build the strength and resilience of Grange Park. GPAC will then review and prioritize within available funding.

  1. Review of minutes of August 27

Minutes were approved.

  1. Business arising from the minutes

– Design brief

The meeting approved the revised design brief with the following addition:

Under “Weaknesses”, add “mature trees vulnerable to loss”. (Final version of the design brief is attached to the minutes)

– Landscape and Maintenance sub-committee

The Landscape and Maintenance sub-committee will meet on Friday October 10 with PMA architects to review the proposed study in greater detail and provide input.

  1. Co-chairs update:

– Members at large

Adam to put forward the following names to be invited as GPAC members-at-large:

Adam will approach these three individuals to gauge their interest in joining GPAC. Some additional names were suggested in case any of these persons could not participate.

It was also suggested that GPAC reach out more to the local business community, particularly as it moves into fundraising to support Grange Park. Rupert noted the best timing to strike a fundraising sub-committee would be when we have a tangible design and budget for Grange Park.

  1. Community meeting

It was agreed the best approach to update the broader community on GPAC’s work would be to incorporate it into the founding meeting of the Grange Community Association (GCA) scheduled for December 8.

  1. Next GPAC meeting

The next GPAC meeting will take place on Monday, November 3, 6:30pm at University Settlement, Staff Lounge, 2nd floor.

October 1, 2008 at 10:45 am | GPAC Meeting Minutes | No comment

GPAC Meeting Minutes July 9, 2008

Grange Park Advisory Committee

Meeting of July 9, 2008

AGO Board Room

In attendance:

Rupert Duchesne, AGO (co-chair)

Councillor Adam Vaughan, (co-chair)

John Burns, St. George the Martyr Church

Bev Carret, AGO

Ken Greenberg, resource person

Mike Mahoney, AGO alternate for Mathew Teitelbaum

Debbie McGuinness, resident

Pat McKendry, tenant rep – social housing

Eric Nay, OCAD alternate for Peter Caldwell

Marguerite Newell, resident

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, resident

Debra Shime, University Settlement House

Summary of Discussion:

  1. 1. Welcome

Co-chairs Adam Vaughan and Rupert Duchesne welcomed members to the first meeting of the Grange Park Advisory Committee.

  1. 2. Introduction of Committee members

Committee members introduced themselves and the constituency they represented.

Pat McKendry clarified her role to be a tenant representative for the various social housing communities in the neighbourhood. Ken Greenberg will serve on the committee in a resource role. It was noted that a representative from City Parks and Recreation has yet to be named to the committee. Councillor Vaughan indicated that because of the immediate priority to be addressed, he would be seeking someone who has knowledge of park maintenance. For the at-large members of the Committee, there was general agreement that efforts should be made to include members of the Chinese community. The Co-chairs would address this for report back to the next meeting.

  1. 3. Project Background

Adam gave a brief recap of what’s happened to date with Grange Park. There has been a growing concern in the neighbourhood about the declining ecological state of Grange Park. The City initiated a Grange Park revitalization project in 2004 that involved a proposed redesign of the park. This redesign attempted to address all neighbourhood issues, but lacked an overall vision for the park. The formation of the Grange Park Advisory Committee provides a new governance and stewardship framework for Grange Park.

4. Role of Committee

Copies of the Committee terms of reference were distributed to all members. Adam noted that the GPAC terms of reference were endorsed by the community on May 21 and approved by the AGO Board of Trustees on May 28. The terms of reference will also be presented to the City.

5. Timeline

Rupert advised the meeting that the AGO wants to wait until after its opening on November 14 before there is any public announcement about the revitalization project for Grange Park. The AGO needs to focus public attention on the launch of the building. However, there is significant behind the scenes work that can be done in the meantime.

Ken Greenberg presented a two-year timeline for the project’s completion (attached). Phase One, which is to be undertaken between July and November 2008, identifies the following initiatives:

– define vision/design brief for the park

– identify remedial work that can be taken to prepare/strengthen the park for the revitalization project

– assess City’s capabilities to undertake remedial work

– select landscape architect to coordinate additional remedial work

  1. Next Steps

The vision statement articulated in the GPAC terms of reference states: “A restoration and revitalization plan for Grange Park that will be green, strikingly beautiful, resilient, sustainable, accessible, interactive as well as providing a place for contemplation while welcoming all neighbours, residents and visitors to our community by utilizing design excellence, state of the art conservation techniques and outstanding works of art. “

The meeting agreed that there was community consensus on this vision which was presented at the neighbourhood meeting on May 21. Ken will draft a more detailed design brief based on this vision and will present it at the next meeting for discussion. It was confirmed that the design brief would definitely include 4 Grange Road (AGO’s parking strip) and could also consider the inclusion of Grange Road, although this latter element would be more complicated. Inclusion of the private park owned by 50 Stephanie Street was also discussed, but it was noted that since this was private property, it was not an immediate priority. Marguerite suggested that we gather some historic photos of Grange Park to inform the design process.

It was noted that Grange Park is a relatively small area, so it will require a sophisticated design that responds to a variety of public needs with multi-purpose features. Successfully addressing this will create a design that will enable Grange Park to be a great neighbourhood park and a unique city landmark.

While GPAC develops the design brief, a number of key initiatives can be undertaken to improve the environmental health of Grange Park. As a first step, we need to ascertain with City Parks and Rec what work is already planned and scheduled for the park this summer. We can then supplement this schedule with other essential initiatives that will nourish and strengthen the park, such as irrigation. Adam will identify the funds that are available from Section 37 funding.

Debbie asked if The Grange house will be open and landscaped for the November 14 launch. Rupert confirmed that The Grange house and its surrounding area will be fully completed for November 14. More detailed information about programming for The Grange house will be shared at the next GPAC meeting.

Ken noted that a landscape architect would play a key role in coordinating the remedial initiatives for Grange Park in Phase One of the project, and would also be critical in developing the design for Grange Park in Phase Two. Ken will bring a short list of names for a landscape architect to the next meeting. Eric asked if there would be a competition to select the landscape architect. Ken advised that this may not be the best approach for the remedial work in phase one, given the nature and tight timing of the work. However, it could be a consideration when the full design team is struck.

  1. 7. Sub-Committees:

The meeting reviewed the sub-committees that had been identified at the neighbourhood meeting held on May 21. The sub-committees were: Communicaations, Landscaping, Maintenance, Playground sculpture, Policies ( including sponsorships, advertising, naming, heritage) and Programming (including recreation, events, permits,etc.)

It was agreed that the two subcommittees that need to be activated immediately are:

  1. 8. Committee housekeeping

The next two meetings were confirmed as follows:

It was agreed that the neighbourhood should be invited to take part in the September meeting. Rupert indicated that this was an opportunity to provide an update on what has been accomplished to date and the general workplan.

July 9, 2008

Grange Park Revitalization Project

Proposed Timeline:

Phase One: Identify Grange Park’s potential and needs – to be completed by November 2008

– identify remedial work that can be taken to prepare/strengthen the park for the revitalization project

– assess City’s capabilities to undertake remedial work + need to supplement

– select landscape architect to coordinate remedial work

Phase Two: Design development – to be completed by September 2009

Phase Three: Construction – to be completed by July 2010

Phase Four: Completion of the project – to be completed by September 2010

July 9, 2008 at 10:46 am | GPAC Meeting Minutes | No comment

GPAC Meeting Minutes June 9, 2008

Grange Park Advisory Committee

Meeting of July 9, 2008

AGO Board Room

In attendance:

Rupert Duchesne, AGO (co-chair)

Councillor Adam Vaughan, (co-chair)

John Burns, St. George the Martyr Church

Bev Carret, AGO

Ken Greenberg, resource person

Mike Mahoney, AGO alternate for Mathew Teitelbaum

Debbie McGuinness, resident

Pat McKendry, tenant rep – social housing

Eric Nay, OCAD alternate for Peter Caldwell

Marguerite Newell, resident

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, resident

Debra Shime, University Settlement House

Summary of Discussion:

  1. 1. Welcome

Co-chairs Adam Vaughan and Rupert Duchesne welcomed members to the first meeting of the Grange Park Advisory Committee.

  1. 2. Introduction of Committee members

Committee members introduced themselves and the constituency they represented.

Pat McKendry clarified her role to be a tenant representative for the various social housing communities in the neighbourhood. Ken Greenberg will serve on the committee in a resource role. It was noted that a representative from City Parks and Recreation has yet to be named to the committee. Councillor Vaughan indicated that because of the immediate priority to be addressed, he would be seeking someone who has knowledge of park maintenance. For the at-large members of the Committee, there was general agreement that efforts should be made to include members of the Chinese community. The Co-chairs would address this for report back to the next meeting.

  1. 3. Project Background

Adam gave a brief recap of what’s happened to date with Grange Park. There has been a growing concern in the neighbourhood about the declining ecological state of Grange Park. The City initiated a Grange Park revitalization project in 2004 that involved a proposed redesign of the park. This redesign attempted to address all neighbourhood issues, but lacked an overall vision for the park. The formation of the Grange Park Advisory Committee provides a new governance and stewardship framework for Grange Park.

4. Role of Committee

Copies of the Committee terms of reference were distributed to all members. Adam noted that the GPAC terms of reference were endorsed by the community on May 21 and approved by the AGO Board of Trustees on May 28. The terms of reference will also be presented to the City.

5. Timeline

Rupert advised the meeting that the AGO wants to wait until after its opening on November 14 before there is any public announcement about the revitalization project for Grange Park. The AGO needs to focus public attention on the launch of the building. However, there is significant behind the scenes work that can be done in the meantime.

Ken Greenberg presented a two-year timeline for the project’s completion (attached). Phase One, which is to be undertaken between July and November 2008, identifies the following initiatives:

– define vision/design brief for the park

– identify remedial work that can be taken to prepare/strengthen the park for the revitalization project

– assess City’s capabilities to undertake remedial work

– select landscape architect to coordinate additional remedial work

  1. Next Steps

The vision statement articulated in the GPAC terms of reference states: “A restoration and revitalization plan for Grange Park that will be green, strikingly beautiful, resilient, sustainable, accessible, interactive as well as providing a place for contemplation while welcoming all neighbours, residents and visitors to our community by utilizing design excellence, state of the art conservation techniques and outstanding works of art. “

The meeting agreed that there was community consensus on this vision which was presented at the neighbourhood meeting on May 21. Ken will draft a more detailed design brief based on this vision and will present it at the next meeting for discussion. It was confirmed that the design brief would definitely include 4 Grange Road (AGO’s parking strip) and could also consider the inclusion of Grange Road, although this latter element would be more complicated. Inclusion of the private park owned by 50 Stephanie Street was also discussed, but it was noted that since this was private property, it was not an immediate priority. Marguerite suggested that we gather some historic photos of Grange Park to inform the design process.

It was noted that Grange Park is a relatively small area, so it will require a sophisticated design that responds to a variety of public needs with multi-purpose features. Successfully addressing this will create a design that will enable Grange Park to be a great neighbourhood park and a unique city landmark.

While GPAC develops the design brief, a number of key initiatives can be undertaken to improve the environmental health of Grange Park. As a first step, we need to ascertain with City Parks and Rec what work is already planned and scheduled for the park this summer. We can then supplement this schedule with other essential initiatives that will nourish and strengthen the park, such as irrigation. Adam will identify the funds that are available from Section 37 funding.

Debbie asked if The Grange house will be open and landscaped for the November 14 launch. Rupert confirmed that The Grange house and its surrounding area will be fully completed for November 14. More detailed information about programming for The Grange house will be shared at the next GPAC meeting.

Ken noted that a landscape architect would play a key role in coordinating the remedial initiatives for Grange Park in Phase One of the project, and would also be critical in developing the design for Grange Park in Phase Two. Ken will bring a short list of names for a landscape architect to the next meeting. Eric asked if there would be a competition to select the landscape architect. Ken advised that this may not be the best approach for the remedial work in phase one, given the nature and tight timing of the work. However, it could be a consideration when the full design team is struck.

  1. 7. Sub-Committees:

The meeting reviewed the sub-committees that had been identified at the neighbourhood meeting held on May 21. The sub-committees were: Communicaations, Landscaping, Maintenance, Playground sculpture, Policies ( including sponsorships, advertising, naming, heritage) and Programming (including recreation, events, permits,etc.)

It was agreed that the two subcommittees that need to be activated immediately are:

  1. 8. Committee housekeeping

The next two meetings were confirmed as follows:

It was agreed that the neighbourhood should be invited to take part in the September meeting. Rupert indicated that this was an opportunity to provide an update on what has been accomplished to date and the general workplan.

July 9, 2008

Grange Park Revitalization Project

Proposed Timeline:

Phase One: Identify Grange Park’s potential and needs – to be completed by November 2008

– identify remedial work that can be taken to prepare/strengthen the park for the revitalization project

– assess City’s capabilities to undertake remedial work + need to supplement

– select landscape architect to coordinate remedial work

Phase Two: Design development – to be completed by September 2009

Phase Three: Construction – to be completed by July 2010

Phase Four: Completion of the project – to be completed by September 2010

June 9, 2008 at 10:47 am | GPAC Meeting Minutes | No comment

May 21st 2008

Summary:

Introductions:

Meeting Co-chair Phyllis Platt called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. and introduced herself, and Co-Chair Pearl Quong.   Approximately 75 persons were in attendance.

Translation into Cantonese, and Mandarin were available at the meeting.

Phyllis thanked the sponsors who made this meeting possible.

Purpose of the Meeting:

The Co-chairs reviewed the purpose of the meeting.   This meeting was called to receive feedback from the residents to a proposal for managing Grange Park that was developed by a group of residents over a series of meetings.

The Co-Chairs reviewed the manner of advertising this meeting to the larger community.

History

Following the AGO expansion, and Ontario Municipal Board appeal launched by the neighbours there was an agreement that the AGO should work with the residents on matters of local concern.

In the summer of 2007 local residents organized to water the park after it was discovered that City Parks employees would not be providing this service.  The reduction of service raised concerns among the local neighbours.

Tonight’s meeting is the culmination of one year of informal meetings regarding the maintenance of Grange Park.  It is also a preparation for a meeting to be held Thursday June 5th at USRC.

Welcome from Councilor Adam Vaughan

The Councilor thanked the residents of 168 John Street for providing this meeting place, and the residents and organizations for their support of this project.

Councilor Vaughan spoke of the opportunity to re-envision, and re-create a great park, through this process.  He stated that although we know the needs of the various users of the park, children, young adults, and seniors, we do not yet have a design that satisfies the needs of all groups. Councilor Vaughan expressed the hope that through this process of imagination and vision the participants will be able to deliver a design that the neighbourhood will be able to embrace and build.

Ralph Daley

A Draft Proposal for the creation of a “Grange Community Council” was available at the meeting.

Ralph Daley spoke to the need for a formal neighbourhood association to be known as the Grange Community Council.  The work of this committee would be related to the idea of redeveloping the park, but distinct from the Park management group.

The suggested geographical boundaries take in the area from College to Queen, and University to Spadina.

He reported that although there have been various working groups for particular issues in South East Spadina over the years there has been no umbrella group to seek a broad consensus on the issues that face this neighbourhood.  He identified these issues as ones of property development, and local business development.

This Community Council would seek to establish a coherent voice to respond to these issues, to interact with other residents groups, and to represent this neighbourhood in the new planning process for Ward 20.

The proposed timeline for creating this residents association is a planning meeting in June, meetings of smaller groups during the summer to work on drafting a constitution.  A general meeting would be called in the fall to adopt the constitution, and form the first council.

Those present at the meeting were invited to attend a planning meeting to be held

Thursday June 5th, 7:00 p.m. at USRC.

Proposal for the establishment of a Grange Park Advisory Committee

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh & Debbie McGuiness

A written proposal was available at the meeting.

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh reviewed some of the actions taken by local residents to maintain the Grange Park.  In 2007 the residents watered the grass, in previous winters the ice rink was created and maintained by residents. It was noted that the timing regarding the AGO redevelopment provides a unique opportunity for Park restoration.  Informal meetings have taken place over the past year to develop this proposal.

The overall goal is to establish a structure through which the residents, local agencies and the AGO can work together to restore and plan for the Park’s future.

Debbie McGuiness reviewed the structure of the Grange Park Advisory Committee (GPAC) as outlined in the written proposal.  This group would act as an Advisory Committee with the following goals

The membership of the GPAC would include stake holders from the many interest groups, such as

It is anticipated that local schools would be represented by the residents on the committee.

The AGO would administer the committee and would assist with communications such as creating a website to post minutes of meetings and updates of events and activities in the park.

Resident Feedback

The floor was opened to the meeting, and a question and answer session.

Comment: One participant observed that they were encouraged by the direction of the meeting.  They observed that development issues have been treated as individual neighbourhood problems, when they are actually larger problems.

Question: What is the time commitment for serving on the GPAC?

Answer: ongoing Monthly meetings, in the evenings – 2 hours in duration

Q: Will children be represented on the Committee?

A: Working groups would be established to consider special interests such as, horticulture, programming, and children’s use of the park.  All persons – as parents, teachers, service providers, etc., have a responsibility to represent children’s interests.

Q: What is the procedure for volunteering?

A: There are sign up sheets at the front desk.  People interesting in joining a committee should sign before leaving the meeting.

Q: Will decisions made by the GPAC be arrived at by building consensus?

A: The goal is to take decisions by building consensus.

Adam Vaughan spoke of the hope that committees will harness the ideas and concerns of the community for the redesign and ongoing maintenance of the park.  This is an opportunity to create a new parks management model.  This model should remove uncertainty about the maintenance and finance for the park.

Comment: Accessibility should be added to Diversity in the Mission Statement.

Q: Is this establishing a two tier system for what should be a responsibility of City Parks?

A: The AGO owns the park, but the City “maintains” it.  This arrangement has not provided a consistent level of service.

Q: How is it that the residents have become responsible for maintaining and watering the park?

A: Residents volunteer to assist the Parks staff. However it is expected that Parks workers and the existing budget allocation will continue to be part of the maintenance strategy.  This initiative is similar to that taking place at other parks across Ward 20 such as  the Music Garden, Wellington Square and Ecology Park.  The intention is to provide a new approach in which neighbourhoods  and residents can set priorities.  In most areas the partnership is between Parks and the neighbours.  In Grange Park the owner of the Park is the AGO.

Q: Will City finances continue to support the park?

A: In the long term the City is exploring allowing neighbourhoods to use their tax money locally.  The Committee will assign priorities for what services are to be provided and the timing.  For example the timing of grass cutting could be coordinated with programming in the park.  Tree trimming money could be allocated to trees when they are sick.  The goal is to respond to the needs of the people who use the park and rather than bureaucratic procedures.

Q: How will this Endowment fund be created, and by whom?

A: The AGO has been asked to establish an Endowment fund.  The GPAC will guide the program to be supported through this fund

Comment: A member of the audience stated that she had been living in the neighbourhood for 6 months and was impressed with the level and diversity of use of the Park.  She commented on how the park is a symbol of what the whole neighbourhood is; a safe place where neighbours can meet and talk.

Reply: Adam Vaughan replied that it is hoped the GPAC will gather momentum and create a mechanism for building community cohesion.

Q: Will the AGO make decisions about the amount of money necessary for this project?

A: The idea, the new vision, and the new governance structure should be on the table first.  Putting the money on the table first just creates conflict.  We won’t build a great park from a budget sheet.

Q: Has this been tried elsewhere?  Are we going to use the work done before to create a park revitalization plan?

A: The research and visioning already completed will be reviewed to develop the workplan of GPAC.  Other models that have been considered include parks in New York City – Central Park and Bryant park, and in Toronto – the Music Garden, the Friends of High Park, and Dufferin Grove Park.

Comment: Programming in the park should balance the park users and the residents

Reply: The proposal for  rock concert sponsored by Luminato was cited as an example of the type of activity that would damage the Park – as the proposal was for a concert targeted for between 5 and 10 thousand people.  Residents and the local councilor worked to relocate the event onto McCaul Street to reduce the negative effect on park ecology.

Programming in the park needs to consider people living around, walking through, visiting the AGO, or working on Queen Street and eating their lunch in the park as well as the various programs run by the USRC and the AGO.

Note: The interpreters were requested to see if there were any questions from the Cantonese and Mandarin speaking residents in attendance.  No additional questions were raised.

AGO Representative:

Matthew Teitelbaum Director of the AGO spoke on behalf of the Gallery.  Matthew expressed his excitement and optimism about the future of this project.  He observed that the AGO is a 100 year old institution that wants to plan the park to serve another 100 years with style.  This plan is coalescing around a great vision.  The community involvement with the AGO expansion improved the development.

The germ of this idea was emerged from informal discussions with local residents on Canada Day 2007, and a discussion about the need to make the park greener, and the trees healthier.  He expressed the opinion that we can work together to create a great park.

Concluding Remarks:

Adam Vaughan named and thanked the organizers of the meeting.

He observed that he has lived and worked on all four sides of Grange Park.  The most beautiful expression of the park is the early morning vision across the park – of the Tai Chi classes in with the mist rising, and the elders pushing clouds of mist.

He told the story of telling his 10 year old that this is where wind comes from.  Wind is a metaphor for change, and there is a change to come. Just as mist rises from the ground this change will come from the ground up.

The meeting concluded with a final thank you to the interpreters.

Adjournment 8:40 p.m.

Minute taker: Marguerite Newell

June 1, 2008

May 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Past Community Meetings | No comment

« Previous Page