Opening comments - more at end. This is a must read as it is done by a very knowledgeable insider, who is knocking down the house of cards bult by City staff and politicians. Hazel's hands must have burned as she read this. Even a City councillor can have spelling errors in their letters.
There is so much in this Memo, that I do not have time to do the numbered
comments but will soon.
May 19, 1989 Memorandum
To Members of Council From David J. Culham Dept. Councillor, Ward 6
Re: Bird Property - Stevens Residence
Since the arguments have been many I thought it appropriate that my views be put down in writing for the meeting.
Whether we like it or not the actions in January to request the Stevens to locate the cat; by the end of January, is linked in the public mind to the order to tear down the building. It was only at the Administration & Finance Committee, after decision had been made, that the justifying report was requested. It clearly appeared this was direction to staff to justify the actions and the previous understandings in January. It is peculiar when I requested these reports in January, and later in March with no positive results then, I then requested the report in writing, yet no such report came back to me as the Ward Councillor nor was given me without further request, prior to the A & F Committee. I found the behaviour of staff in January rather startingly out of character and I have found this tardiness in giving reports completely out of character with my previous eleven years of-experience.
The report submitted to me the day before the A & F meeting was not what was requested, but a copy of the August/88 report justifying not going ahead with the seminar facility.
In January it was thought a detailed report would be given and on that basis the issue of the budget allocation for demolition was not pursued. I trusted that sufficient justification would be later given and so informed the Stevens that I would support the demolition if justified.
Now it is known the feasibility study for the conservatory will not be ready until this fall, while a concept plan may not be commissioned, created, or approved for several years, at best. In the meantime, the Stevens operate a service to the public in a cat shelter that is properly managed. They also are present, as our staff in the next McEwan property, to monitor fishermen behaviour, etc. in the Valley. Most of the bad behaviour and the vandalism comes during the fishing season from outsiders to Mississauga and this is monitored and kept in line by people such as the Stevens.
- 2 -
There have been many weird and wonderful arguments used around the Committee that I wish to list and deal with one at a time.
(1) There is a need to accomplish a long term capital project in the conservatory, therefore the building. should come down.
(2) There is a liability on the part of the City because the building is deficient and there is slope instability that would create imminent danger of the slope failure and the home, therefore, to go down into the Valley.
(3) "The Stevens are breaking by-laws and conducting a business selling cats" and therefore should be remove.
(4) The Stevens are getting away with something because of friendships or influence with the Ward Councillor which brings discredit to the City in the process of by-law enforcement.
(5) The cat shelter if allowed here could then happen in all other communities without control.
(6) It is wrong to have people in a park or future park and sets a bad precedent.
(7) It is a difficult decision that must be taken and if not taken it will be more difficult in the future to get rid of anyone in a rented building.
(8) "If we have problems like this, we shouldn't rent any buildings out" or we should just give them over to Peel Non-Profit to manage. I guess the logical extension of that argument is that we should get these people out and don't have to stop renting in other parts of the City. I don't know of any but I expect there will be new ones come with the Council debate.
My response:
(1) The report at Administration & Finance Committee clearly indicates this building need not be demolished to accomplish any immediate program. We are six to nine months away from a feasibility study conclusion and we are probably two years away from an approved concept plan. The Horticultural Society has never looked to this property for their immediate goals in the next year or so. There is no immediate need to tear this building down. Previous to the site inspection, staff were resting their case on the foundation and the slumping of the Valley wall as well as code violations. I think it became obvious that the code violations are not serious and there is no community standard by which to compare this building since there are no immediate neighbours. Staff argument then must rest on the business of slumping of the valley slope.
- 3 -
(2) Let us deal with the instability of the slope wall. There is no evidence of slope toe erosion, any slumping of the Valley wall itself due to water absorption etc., or breaking away of trees, etc. While large trees have been cut most of the slope has been reforrested naturally over the last forty years. A tree stump curvature shown is normal and shows stability. There is no evidence of subsistance of the wall at the slope rim nor is there any evidence water seepage out of the Valley slope that would cause erosion or instability below.
The tiled terrace which was shown to slope towards the building does not slope towards the building with the exception of about one metre out from the building. The tiles here have slumped anywhere from 2 to 6 centimeters which is rather incredible given the age of the terrace. Far greater slumping occurs around a home of two or three years old than has occurred in this particular area. However, there is evidence that water has seeped from the deteriorating roof trough and has for sometime been dropping down into the foundation area. In the past this has rotted out some of the foundation footings but these have been replaced by stable studs secured to the shale foundation. Obviously wood sub-structures would rot as a consequence of this leakage but the floor is fully stable the corrective pegs put in years ago.
There is no evidence of washing away of the foundation or footings. There is no evidence of slumping or build up of run off water in the slope or above the slope. From my knowledge over the years at this property there never has been. The first house was built with subsequent structures being built around it and obviously there was no slumping or evidence of such at that time. I reiterate the wall at the top of the rim shows no signs of slumping. Liability can only occur if there is a realistic risk to manage. There is no realistic risk. The risk then relates to "the theory" that the Valley is unstable.
Because some Councillors may not understand my involvement, it should be explained. Putting aside my education, I have had a long term interest in the Valley and have read almost every geotechnical report over the years on soil instability. I was closely familiar with Dr. Harris' work at Erindale College, brought him to the Planning Committee in 1974, and had motions passed directing staff to develop the long term hazard slope policies.
As background work in 1974, I read the 1962 Engineering geotechnical reports on the slope failure in Credit Heights and I would indicate that this site is pointed out in all our walking tours in-the Valley. I was also involved with the CVCA and the City staff at Mississauga Crescent slope instability exercised during the 70's and 80's in which the recommendations to shore it up were changed, through Bill Taylor's recommendations, to a long term acquisition of the properties above.
- 4 -
I am also somewhat familiar with the glacial and bedrock geogology of the area, and I have also walked every part of the Credit River in Mississauga and have viewed slope stability as a particular interest over the years. I have also been involved with most if not all policy development with respect to the acquisition of the Valley and the development of the concept as an open space.
The diagrams to explain the theory upon which the liability is based has some flaws. Unlike the Credit Heights or the Mississauga Crescent situations, in which the slopes are higher (80 - 90 feet) with glacial till in the upper 50 feet, this location is a lower terrace (about 30 feet) with less till sitting on the Dundas shale bedrock. While in theory the steep slope will disintegrate in the manner shown by staff, the time is extremely indeterminate. Steeper slopes in the Dundas Valley and in the Noisy River Valley in the Collingwood area, have been there for some 15,000 years. Vegetated slopes with no toe erosion can remain intact indefinitely.
Slope failure occurs when:
(a) the weight of the material above is increased such that the pull of gravity overcomes the coefficient of friction of the material itself,
(b) where there has been a reduction in the-coefficient of friction in the material due to water saturation, and,
(c) where there has been increased slope curvature due to toe erosion by active water currents (river) at the base of the slope. Frequently, buildings too close to the slope with heavy swimming pools, create excessive downward pressure becomes troublesome when the yard drainage and roof leader drain into the slope. In heavy extended rainfall periods, the earthen material is *greased" such that the excessive weight above overcomes the apparent stability of a treed slope. In Mississauga, slope instability has resulted in failure only where the above two factors have been aided by toe erosion. In the Mississauga Heights situation, the homes were built too close on sandy material, with tremendous amount of water draining towards the slope, saturation during a heavy rainfall. Roof leaders were discontinued and drainage was directed towards the street away from the slope and facilities were put in the slope to drain it. In addition, the toe erosion was removed through erosion control devices. The slope has been stable since 1962 and is in the process of reforresting.
- 5 -
In the Mississauga Crescent situation, slow slope failure was created by toe erosion, and water seepage from between the till material and the bedrock gale. This water was forced towards the slope due to a faulty storm sewer damaged in the May flood of 1974. This increased rapidly the rate of erosion, with the exception of the heavy weight near the top of the bank, the conditions do not apply to the Bird property. The foundation if not immediately resting in bedrock, is very close to it. There is no toe erosion and no seepage working its way to the steep Valley wall. There is no 90 feet of gravitional pull but only 30. There are no minor slope failures evident, probably due to the heavily slope regenerated over the last 40 years. In the case of Mississauga Crescent, despite the toe erosion and despite the steep degenerating slope, the geotechnical expert, after detailed core sampling, indicated that it could be 25 years before a failure would occur. The City went ahead with the purchase not because of any imminent danger but because it was cheaper to purchase the properties than to stabilize the slope. In this case, if there was any realistic chance of slope failure some visible evidence would be available. There is none. Staff conclusions are based on inappropriate theory and not on probable grounds of slope instability.
(3) Interpretation of the Animal Control By-law is subject to the motives of the interpreter. There are at least three clauses that would suggest the Stevens operation is appropriate under the by-law, especially if there are no complaints. While it has been mentioned by members of Council two and three times both privately and in the meetings, that a business of selling cats was underway, it is very clear the Stevens' are not running a business but a service to the public at great expense in both money and time to themselves.
(4) Except for meeting the Stevens as constituents, I do not know them socially and have had little contact with them. If Council is caring to let the Stevens stay two years, they will even be gone before the next election and will not even be voters. This argument mentioned three times by a member of. Council is simply a distraction for sloppy arguments. It is not only the Stevens but other members of Ward 6 who have asked me to intercede and stop what appears to be a silly and poorly thought out action.
- 6 -
(5) A cat shelter here, clearly run well, in no way creates a precedent in other parts of the City. While this may impress newer members of Council, I can say unequivocally it does not relate to eleven good years of experience that I've had over the last fifteen years of involvement in Council. It's an argument that doesn't wash.
(6) What may have happened in Cranberry Cove has not been clearly indicated in terms of relevance in this case. Obviously, it has no relevance. Right next door the City Recreation & Parks Commissioner put a City staff member in the McEwan property to achieve what we get from the Stevens. The Stevens are a presence in a location where there is a parking lot for fishermen. What kind of supervision of this parking lot will we have if this house is torn down? In this case it makes sense.
(7) Council members can see their way through to making a decision to demolish the house at this time despite the good work in upholding a cat shelter, and despite the absence of good hard logic and reason, then surely it will be an easy decision in two years time when clear public need will make it clear to the Stevens that they would have to go. In the same context, on the Zaichuk Property, we are expropriating and having them move because we need control over the use of the lands. The Stevens are well aware that the Ward 6 Councillor will be strongly supporting the demolition of this building when there is a clear public need.
(8) Obviously Some Of the contradictions have created stress for members of Council and some have concluded that it is difficult to rent properties and if we don't get rid of these people we will have to stop renting out properties in the future. It is Council that created the problem here without clear justification. The Ward 6 Councillor would have supported vigorously the demolition of this property if I had been properly informed with appropriate justification.
The City has not had significant problem when it's purpose to vacate and demolish has been clear. The only problem that Council members have is that the purpose is obviously not clear. Council is trying to take action for which there is no clear supporting argument.
- 7 -
Some suggest that Council must be "tough" and not to take decision is a sign of weakness against the motherhood issue of the animal lovers. I have had a long political career in which I have proposed tough action where it was warranted against powerful forces. The Stevens are not strong opponents but are very vulnerable citizens at a very vulnerable time in their lives, two years before Mr. Stevens' retirement. It is not the tough thing to do to demolish and kick them out, it is simply "hard". Demolishing this house and kicking the Stevens and the shelter out is not in keeping with what I thought we shared in terms of a vision of a caring Mississauga. Staff have mistakenly, in my view, thought they were justifying Council's will. This is clearly a will that I cannot identify with in a vigorous way oppose.
The City should continue the Stevens, lease on a month to month basis for a period up to two years, as has been done in the last eight years, or until such time as the completion of the feasibility study or the concept plan makes the City's need the demolition of this building clear.
David J. Culham - Councillor
Ward 6
There were two diagrams attached. The first one was on the City's diagram that was drawn to try and show "potential slop failure line", later disproved and the other was hand drawn. If you are having a hard time reading the pages, you should save them and look at them in an image viewer, like paint shop.
PLEEASSE SIGN OUR PETITION
It will make a difference!
Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]