top of page
This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.Start Now

Minutes

March 21, 2023  6:30 p.m.

4099 Erin Mills Community Focus Group 
Initial Meeting: Focus on 4099 

AGENDA

Introductions, current context of development in Mississauga, Ontario, Issues of concern with development site, informal discussion, next steps.

​

SUMMARY NOTES

INTRODUCTIONS: There are 16 volunteer members of the community. Each member introduced themselves, their connections to the community and highlighted concerns with the development. Members identified themselves, if they were certified professionals which includes an urban planner, traffic researcher, and architect. 

​

Current context of development in Mississauga, Ontario: Councillor Mahoney outlined the implications of Bill 23, Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs) and the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) formerly the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) process in relation to development in the current context. The implications are vast but include:

  • If a developer does not want to engage with the community, they can bypass the community, the city and request that the Ontario Land Tribunal hear their case and make a ruling.

  • MZOs could increase height restrictions of buildings.

  • A landowner is now permitted to build duplexes and triplexes on their property.

  • The case of the Ridgeway development, the developer kicked out all tenants to redevelop the property.

  • Councillor Mahoney confirmed that a new traffic study will be completed.

  • All members who reached out to Councillor Mahoney and wanted to be on the committee were permitted to join.

 

INFORMAL DISCUSSION:

Community members shared their questions and concerns with the rezoning proposal. There was unanimous belief that the development is not appropriate for the community and requires substantive change. 

Main concerns included:

  • Proposed density of the development

  • Removal of significant retail space

  • Site plan, layout of the development and shadow studies

  • Traffic concerns including Sawmill Valley traffic routing, construction trucks passing schools

Other concerns included:

  • Environmental impact of the development

  • Capacity of local schools and infrastructure

  • The treatment of current tenants and poor communication of plans

  • Development proposal cherry picking data and camoflauging probable issues

 

Other discussion points included:

  • Recognizing that there are those members of the community who are against any development of 4099 Erin Mills Parkway all together and how those citizens' voices can be represented. There will be a formal opportunity at the City of Mississauga for anyone to state their opinion or point of view to council about the development including being against it. 

  • There was a discussion for a community liaison/communication sub-committee to be formed to assist. It was decided that a website will be developed where minutes of each meeting will be included.

  • A suggestion was made to potentially create a Professional Sub-committee to further advise on technical matters such as layout, the number of appropriate units for the development and potentially map out a new layout for the developer to consider.

  • A discussion was had as to whether to make our names public to avoid accusations of a “secret committee”. Some felt our names should be public, but the majority felt that members' names should not be shared publicly since we are volunteers and do not actually represent the community. No member will share contact information externally to the group and no member can claim that they represent or speak on behalf of the entire working group e.g., to the media.

  • Concerns were raised about the construction and the impact on the community. Some members stated that while the construction phase was not pleasant, it would be inevitable and that a Construction Management Plan would be developed. 

  • One suggestion was to keep retail space along Sawmill Valley Drive and build on top of the ground level retail. 

  • It is believed that the developer proposed over 700 units, in anticipation of community push back. Therefore, further research needs to be done to find a more appropriate density.

  • There was general sentiment that the group is pragmatic and willing to work constructively and based on facts to come to a better outcome of the development. 

 

ACTION ITEMS

  1. Meeting with City Planner: A meeting will be held next at the same time. In advance of the meeting questions will be collected for the city planner to answer. Further actions will take place, including meeting with the developer after this meeting takes place. 

 

NEXT WEEK’S AGENDA

Asking questions for city planner Michael Franzolini.

March 27, 2023 7 p.m.

Thursday, April 6, 2023 - WebEx Virtual Meeting
 
Agenda

1. Transparency with Facebook Group

2. Summary of Finding Planning Justification

3. Traffic Study

4. Communication with local MPP

 

 

Notes

 

Transparency

  • There was strong interest from the Facebook Group regarding transparency with the Focus Group.

  • With 400 members in that group, timely communication is important.

  • Our website, along with Don and Art to liaise with the community should be sufficient.

  • As community volunteers, we do not report to anyone, however, will work to provide additional communications with the community in the future.

 

Summary of Finding Planning Justification

  • Member’s questions, correlated and compiled, will be approved by the Focus Group then forwarded to the planner. 

  • The ‘Summary of Finding of Planning Justification’ was presented. This is a detailed response to the Development Proposal.

  • Building a strong and effective case is essential to counter Bill 23.

  • Negotiations will be with the city, not Queenscorp, therefore we need a clear response consistent with city policies and bylaws.

 

Traffic Study

  • Planners are currently being directed by City Management.

  • Knowing the city’s parameters and guidelines for the developer’s traffic study and how the findings will be peer reviewed will provide information the developer needs to rectify any outstanding concerns.

  • Traffic Study ways and methods were discussed to determine if they covered our concerns.

  • Two members will be presenting our questions at the meeting.

 

Communication with local MPP

  • There was a discussion regarding the lack of response from our local MPP addressing our concerns. He has been inaccessible.

  • The decision was made to not continue at this time but to revisit should the issue go to the OLT.

 

Action

​

We need to identify our workable concerns with city first and how we can formulate a plan that dovetails with current regulations. Then we should consider a plebiscite to get the community views understanding retail needs of the community so we can include other public input in our final plan. it was stressed the need for a timely response for both May and September Council meetings

.  

There was a discussion that we need a consensus about the need for us to form a starting point consensus; how many units/design/retail, what is our vision for traffic exits, how much new density the community can tolerate. We need to understand some acceptable parameters.  

It was suggested that we all search and take pictures of developments we feel would be acceptable for this plan.   

The chair thanked the group for their hard work and closed the meeting.  

 

Next Meeting 

March 28, 2023 6:30 p.m.

March 28, 2023 6:30 p.m.

​

The agenda for the meeting was to submit questions to city and traffic planners and receive their responses. Please see the Question and Answer PDF for responses.

Thursday, April 6, 2023 - WebEx Virtual Meeting

 

Attendees 

Eleven members present, 5 absent

​

Agenda

1. Request from Developer to meet with the Focus Group (FG)

2. Meeting administrative issues

3. Website

​

Notes

 

Website

Several cosmetic changes and additions to the website were discussed.

 

  • Decision:  The website will serve as a repository of minutes and other documentation reviewed and approved by at least 5 FG members.

 

  • Decision: There will not be a feedback feature. Residents have access to the posts and comments on the various Sawmill Valley Facebook sites, which are reviewed from time to time by FG members.

 

  • Action Item:  As a member of the three Facebook groups, Don Barker will post an announcement including the www.4099focusgroup.ca.

 

Action item: A document that critiqued the developer’s Justification document will be posted to the website.

 

Survey of Retailers

 

  • One member spoke with some of the business owners in the plaza regarding the proposed redevelopment and current situation.  Their feedback was shared with the FG.  

 

Newsletter Flyer

  • A paper flyer to be authored then hand-delivered by the FG was discussed.  The primary goal was to promote the FG website.  This matter was paused for now, and will be revisited at a later meeting.  

  • The flyer from one of the Facebook groups will be shared with the FG members.

 

Preparation for meeting with developers

 

  • The FG will be meeting with the developer at the April 13 FG meeting at City Hall. 

  • The FG heard Matt Mahoney’s guidance that we should wait and see what the developer has to say before we present our counter-proposals or demands. 

  • There was discussion on the points and concerns the FG should have in hand in advance of the April 13 meeting.

  • It was agreed that we will prepare a document with bullet-pointed comments and concerns under four headings.

    • Density & Structure

    • Traffic & ParkingRetail Space

    • Retail Space

    • Community Centred Design

 

Other Business

 

  • One member mentioned that traffic studies carry a lot of weight at the OLT, and can be the basis for developments being rejected.

 

  • From Matt Mahoney office, no date has been set yet for the Statutory Public Meeting.  May 8 and 28 are options being discussed, but nothing set yet.

 

  • One member asked if we can get weekend traffic included in the new traffic study.  Another member mentioned that in conversations with Bo from City Traffic department that the Saturday will indeed be included.

 

 

Next Meeting 

 

Thursday, April 13, 2023

Mississauga City Hall

Time and Meeting room to be announced.

 

The meeting adjourned around 9:00 pm. 

​

Thursday April 13, 2023.

 

4099 Development Focus Group
Meeting with Developers from Queenscorp (Erin Mills) Inc.

 

Attendees 

 

Mark Bozzo,  President and CEO – Queenscorp (Erin Mills) Inc.

Ida Assogna,  VP of Development – Queenscorp (Erin Mills) Inc.

Tomislav Saric, Development Coordinator -Queenscorp (Erin Mills) Inc.

Glen Broll – Partner, GSAI

 

Matt Mahoney – Councillor Ward 8

 

Focus Group (FG) Eleven members present, 5 absent.

 

Agenda Items Identified by Queenscorp

​

1. Transportation

2. Parking

3. Retail

4. Density and Height

5. Connectivity

 

After brief introductions Matt thanks everyone for attending. 

​

  • Mark Bozzo (MB) thanks us for the invitation and assures his undivided attention.

  • Glen Broll (GB) askes the FG what results they expect from the meeting.

  • QC agrees to research areas that were discussed.

  • All parties agree that the Minutes will be reviewed and approved prior to public distribution.

​​

FG reads a Mission Statement (attached) and provides copies to QC attendees

  • It is agreed that communication of ideologies will be released from the group through the website, not by individuals.

 

Comments from MB

​

  • States a tremendous amount of compassion for our community.

  • Compiled many ideas from the comments from the attendees at the March meeting.

  • Noted the 5 major concerns (listed in the Agenda above)

 

Transportation

​

  • MB summarized the following points: 

  • Consultant report, (2019) did field testing and survey.

  • It is a high traffic area with peaks and valleys.

  • Secondary intersections, Erin Mills and Burnhamthorpe, Erin Mills and Folkway, were not originally considered.

  • Consultants collected further data Feb. 22,2022 and additional studies are scheduled for April 28 and 29 with data provided by May.

  • MB-consultants to collect more data at secondary intersections, Sawmill Valley and Burnhamthorpe, not looked at originally and commits to getting those numbers.

  • FG states concern with traffic on Sawmill/Burnhamthorpe and request further studies and notes increased concern near two schools.

  • MB- commits to further traffic studies to de done Wednesday to Saturday April 26-April 29 then will share data

  • MB indicated that the city identified issues with the 2019 study due to at-home working and schooling.

  • MB noted that Traffic counts done by QC in 2018 and 2019 spanned the closing of Michael Angelos, opening of Starskys in 2018 followed by a long delay prior to the opening of Iqbal in June 2019.

  • QC agreed to further study to be conducted from Wednesday to Saturday, including trip cycles, evening hours, comparing today with the forecasted future traffic.

  • GB confirmed an FG member is a traffic engineering expert; that member confirmed that he was attending as a concerned resident who lives within the vicinity of the site. 

  • FG questions access points, and questioned the potential for a possible traffic signal on at the Erin Mills entrance, closing off the Sawmill Valley exit. GB notes an additional traffic signal is unlikely.

  • FG notes concern with the Sawmill Valley exit, how is the expected volume of vehicle traffic determined. FG noted that there are only two access points to the community of over 1,100 homes between Highway 403, Burnhamthorpe Road, Erin Mills Parkway and Mississauga Road. Traffic from the development will either turn right and travel east past two schools with a 30 kmph zone or turn left and travel through the Sawmill Valley/Folkway intersection which has pedestrian traffic crossing to the Trapper Green Park, which will serve the proposed development; many users of the park are children. 

 

Parking

​

  • FG asked about the parking supply. QC confirmed that for the currently proposed parking supply, residents will have 1.1 space per unit and .2 per unit visitor (141 spaces, 39 above ground near retail spaces).

  • QC suggested that Unit purchasers often request a reduced purchase price in lieu of a parking space leaving vacancies. 

  • FG expressed concern that purchasers who decline a parking spot, will lead to  illegal on-street parking as an alternative, which will worsen existing traffic issues.

​​

Retail

​

  • QC originally had interest in purchasing in 2015 and found the property poorly maintained, retailers suffering, rent 35% below market. QC purchased the property Oct. 2021, retailers were selling due to experiencing losses.

  • It was QC’s assertion that the sale of premium products at Michael Angelos declined due to proximity with Walmart.

  • FG  suggested that the failure of Michael Angelos may have been due to many factors. One, a very expensive expansion at this location and the addition of a second location in the City of Markham.

  • QC noted that currently 68% of parking at the site is from Mississauga residents the balance coming from outside Mississauga.

  • QC suggested that not enough of the community visits to support other shops, and that retailers have been asking for rent decrease. Retail is desirable, however, 50k sq. ft. is unrealistic; MB felt that 8-10,000 sq. ft. is adequate and that some retailers were looking for less space.

  • MB indicated that he would build retail and asked for input on what to build. Retail succeeds if supported by the community. 

  • FG identified a number of potential retail franchises for consideration that would be suitable as a retail plaza serving the community.

  • QC confirmed that the retail study report distance covered 3.5 km distance including Erin Mills Town Centre to Dundas Street. FG noted that this is not a walkable distance.

 

­­­Connectivity

​

  • Items of concern from the FG:

    • Current design looks like a fortress.

    • Townhouse design on Sawmill transition to higher buildings at Erin Mills.

    • Current design too modern.

    • Open up the corner (Sawmill/Folkway) for better community access to green spaces.

    • Studies show shading on north side of Folkway.

    • Consider terracing to alleviate shading of nearby houses.

    • Currently there are two school bus drop off points, on Folkway and Sawmill at the southwest corner, both crowded busses cause traffic delays all directions.

    • Will the community have access to the greenspace within the development?

    • Townhouses on the south side are a concern regarding privacy for the Ferrier residents. Would a 3 story townhouse be considered at this location?

    • Can units be run above retail on Folkway?

  • Items of concern/response from MB

    • Feedback is welcome. What is the FG vision for Folkway/Sawmill frontage; wall, trees, doors/porches?

    • Studies show they are not shading homes

    • Current rendering is not indicative of the final rendering and can go back to the drawing board.

    • Retailers need a busy street. It is difficult to put retail on Sawmill/Folkway.

    • The greenspace/park within the development would be owned by the homeowners of the new community.

    • A partition wall will be considered for privacy for the Ferrier residents.

 

 

Density and Height

​

  • QC confirmed that they understand that this was an issue for the community, but there was not sufficient time to address this issue in this meeting. It was confirmed that this issue will be discussed at the next meeting.

  • MB agreed to the request of the FG to consider changing the building height at Sawmill Valley and Folkway.

  • FG proposes lowering the height of town homes backing Farrier and Sawmill but may require altering the floor plan of the units. It will be considered.

  • MB commits to going back to the drawing board. Density is not a number it’s a massing thing.

​

Action Items

​

  • QC to reexamine development design based on newly identified concerns regarding supplemental traffic study, accessibility to and through the site, vehicle exit and entrance points.

 

 

Next Meeting Agenda

 

  • The next meeting has been tentatively scheduled in 2 weeks (possibly April 24-28).

  • Density and the effect/benefit to the community should be considered.

 

This portion of the meeting adjourned. Mark Bozzo and his colleagues from Queenscorp (Erin Mills) Inc., were thanked for their enthusiastic cooperation.

 

The members of the Focus Group and Councillor Mahoney remained to briefly discuss the evenings proceedings. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:50 p.m.

bottom of page