►
Description
City Council, meeting 36, February 1, 2018 - Part 3 of 3 - Evening Session
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=13088
Part 1 of 3 - Morning Session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDIpFVkO6IE#t=11m47s
Part 2 of 3 - Afternoon Session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMW_1Bs1Ko#t=7m58s
Meeting Navigation:
0:07:26 - Meeting resume
A
A
H
H
You,
madam
Speaker
part
of
the
interest
in
looking
at
those
warrants,
is
to
ensure
that
they're
actually
meeting
the
need
and
if
we're
seeing,
that
we
don't
actually
have
the
right
inputs
into
that
analysis,
then
we
need
to
modify
them
so
that
we
can
meet
the
need
of
safety
and
all
the
other
vision,
zero
requirements.
A
madam.
A
G
E
H
G
H
G
G
H
G
G
Now
the
ones
I've
seen
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
they
show
your
current
speed,
but
they
don't
show
the
posted
speed.
Is
that
correct,
that's
correct,
so
the
ones
I'm
more
used
to
as
they
show
both
they
show
the
posted
speed
and
they
show
your
speed
so
that
it's
you're
sort
of
guilted
into
slowing
down.
Now,
if
we
don't
see
the
posted
speed
right
next
to
how
fast
we're
going,
how
efficient
and
effective
are
these
signs?
I
think.
H
J
H
I
H
K
H
K
L
Fletcher
to
speak,
yes,
thank
you,
I
do
have
emulsion
right
there
and
it's.
What
I
was
talking
about
earlier.
I
won't
take
very
long,
but
this
is
so
great
to
have
the
city
committed
formally
to
vision,
zero
and
I
have
to
say
how
great
it
was
to
have
Barbara
Murray
and
her
staff
come
up
to
the
community
and
have
a
vision,
zero
workshop
and
maps
and
all
the
different
things
we
could
do
and
look
at
the
difficult
places
and
the
openness
and
willingness
to
look
at
making
our
streets
safer.
L
I
just
want
to
thank
you
and
your
whole
division
for
that,
and
for
lifting
up
this
issue
of
safety,
pedestrian
safety,
senior
safety,
school
safety
to
be
very
tangible
and
things
that
we
can
do
and
I'm
very
impressed
with
all
of
the
options
that
we
have
and
kind
of.
Let's
accelerate
certain
things
and
I
agree
with
all
of
the
acceleration.
The
seniors
owns
many
different
things,
but
what
I
do
want
and
I
think
somebody
was
describing
earlier
all
the
different
safety
plans
that
they've
worked
on
with
their
schools.
L
There's
bollards,
there's
new
that
I've
just
discovered
term
prohibitions
for
certain
times
of
day
around
a
school
zone
so
8:00
to
9:00
in
the
morning
3:00
to
4:00
in
the
afternoon.
They
actually
had
that
out
in
Kolberg
I
saw
it
in
Coburg
and
said.
Why
can't
we
do
something
like
during
the
peak
times
for
kids
crossing?
Maybe
you
shouldn't
be
crossing
the
street,
so
I
don't
want
it
to
seem,
like
things
haven't
been
going
on
in
our
city
and
that
we
haven't
had
lots
in
our
staff
toolkit
in
our
own
toolkit
and
I'll.
L
Add
speed
humps
in
there.
I,
look
for
the
day
and
I'm
sure
miss
gray
does
as
well,
where
we
don't
spend
thousands
and
thousands
and
thousands
of
staff
hours
if
we
added
up
all
the
hours
we
have
spent
on
writing
the
reports
on
speed,
humps,
both
of
them
and
say
how
many
FTEs
was
that
how
many
FTEs
was
that
that
could
have
been
out
working
on
road
safety
in
a
different
way.
I'd
like
to
do
those
numbers
and
I
think
we'd
be
shocked
at
that.
L
So
having
some
of
these
things
that
obviously
the
community
thinks
works
really
well,
they
want
speed
humps.
They
know
that
slows
cars
down
on
their
Street
and
around
schools,
but
they
don't
meet
the
warrants
because
these
streets
aren't
going
to
meet
them.
So
we
need
to
bring
those
things
together.
We
need
to
understand
that.
Maybe,
if
there
are
warrants
they
need
to
be
changed,
I'll
just
remind
everybody.
One
of
the
toolkits
is
to
reduce
the
speed
under
councillor
Matt
Lowe's
motion.
L
We
reduced
all
the
speed
limits
in
Toronto
and
East
York
to
30
kilometres
an
hour
and
all
residential
streets
blanket
because
that
was
the
safe
thing
to
do.
That
was
in
our
toolkit,
so
we've
been
marching
along
on
this
for
many
years,
and
now
we
have
this
fantastic
vision:
zero
that
everybody
seized
with
to
add
into
the
great
work,
they've
all
been
doing
and
I
know.
J
K
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
Madam
Speaker
I'll
be
very
brief.
I
pulled
up
the
2014
achievements
that
were
listed
up,
that
which
is
the
last
year
of
the
previous
council
and
I,
wanted
to
get
an
idea
of
comparing
them.
How
much
better
were
we
doing
now
than
we
were
before,
and
and
and
just
before?
We
give
ourselves
a
real
good
pat
on
the
back
I
think
we
should
keep
in
perspective
that
in
2014
we
installed
21
new
traffic
lights
in
2017
22
in
2014
we
installed
two
pxo
s
in
2017.
K
We
installed
four
in
2014
we
did
ten
school
zone
safety
audits
in
2017.
We
did
six
so
unless
we're
running
out
of
schools
to
do
them
with
that's,
that's
a
less
public
safety
of
schools
on
safety
audits
this
year
than
we
did
in
the
last
year
of
the
last
City
Council
and
then
finally,
I
did
the
quick
math
on
the
eight
mobile
stations
and
it's
roughly
equivalent.
We
have
these
23
permanent
ones.
Now,
arguably,
you
could
count
for
more
more
locations,
but
the
math
of
eight
times
14.
K
Three-Week
periods
is
roughly
140
and
we
did
150
watch
your
speed
locations
in
the
previous
council.
I
know
this
isn't
the
only
thing
that
we're
measuring
when
we're
talking
about
public
safety,
I
appreciate
that
we're
doing
we're
doing
other
good
things.
But
when
we
tried
to
accelerate
the
the
funding
for
for
for
measures
like
this,
because
it
would
law
it
comes
out
of
capital,
it
would
have.
We
could
have
put
it
to
use
faster.
K
Those
in
motion
for
my
colleague
councillor
long
Tam,
we
could
have
I
think
we
could
have
acted
a
little
quicker
on
some
of
these
very
important
pieces,
because,
if
we're,
if
we're
roughly
scoring
the
same
by
most
of
these
measures,
then
then
I'm
not
sure
we're
taking
as
seriously
as
we
could.
The
notion
of
of
vision,
zero
and
pedestrian
safety.
So
I
just
wanted
to
flag
that,
as
as
a
concern
and
I
hope
that
this
budget,
our
our
budget,
that
we
bring
forward,
is
reflective
of
our
commitment.
M
Thank
you
very
much.
Ma'am
Speaker,
I
I
read
this
report
and
obviously
it's
been
before
us
now
for
several
months.
Look
because
it's
a
it's!
It's
it's
been
building
on
top
of
each
other,
but
I
read
this
report,
madam
Speaker,
with
with
with
all
sorts
of
conflicted
emotions,
because
back
in
2016
in
July
I
had
moved
the
motion
on
the
floor
to
try
to
accelerate
vision,
zero
and
move
it
from
a
five
year.
M
All
that
being
said,
madam
Speaker,
is
that
you
know
if
we
really
truly
wanted
to
do
something.
We
would
actually
do
it.
We
wouldn't
just
talk
about
it
and
we
wouldn't
just
simply
write
reports
about
it
and
much
of
our
time
at
community
council
is
dealt
with
lots
of
little
reports
coming
back,
initiated
largely
because
of
concerns
from
local
communities
initiated
then
carried
forward
by
local
councillors,
trying
to
increase
road
safety
overall,
madam
Speaker,
in
the
various
neighborhoods
that
we
all
represent.
M
So
this
is
why
I
feel
somewhat
conflicted
is
because
we
now
have
a
report.
That's
before
us
that
doesn't
really
respond
core
in
in,
in
the
same,
during
the
same
way
in
the
budget
process,
it
tells
us
that
we
will
do
more
acceleration
and
it
talks
about
how
this
acceleration
will
lead
us
into
possibly
completing
this.
M
This
plan
now
into
with
a
further
acceleration
process
into
the
first
quarter
of
2019,
which
will
then
respond
to
and
revisit
existing
countermeasures
and
new
countermeasures
for
the
next
five-year
period,
and
that
will
then
bring
us
to
2024
I
can't
help
but
feel
like
it's.
It's
not
accelerating
very
quickly,
despite
the
fact
that
a
lot
of
language
is
in
there
about
acceleration-
and
this
is
by
in
no
ways
I
wanted
to
say
in
no
way
any
judgment
on
staff.
M
I
know
that
they're
doing
what
the
week
that
we've
directed
them
to
do,
but
coming
back
to
the
original
intention
of
the
motion
back
in
2016
in
July,
was
to
see
if
we
can
get
this
work
done
faster
moving
from
five
years
to
two
years,
and
even
if
we
came
back
in
two
years
and
say:
okay,
we've
got
it.
We've
we
got
four,
we've
got
90%
done
and
we're
almost
there.
M
Okay,
so
be
it,
but
at
the
rate
we're
going
we're
not
we're
not
accelerating
at
all
and
in
many
ways
actually
every
year
we're
gonna
have
to
battle
this
out
in
the
budget
every
year.
This
will
become
a
big
question
about
whether
no
we
can
get
done
in
time
and
between
the
timeline
of
getting
it
done
over
the
the
2021
hump
and
then
coming
back
to
revisit
countermeasures.
M
We
will
be
in
2024,
and
this
is
why
madam
Speaker
I
find
this
report
very
interesting,
because
it
says
one
thing,
but
we
seem
to
be
doing
something
different
and
it's
not
in
any
way
staffs
fault,
it's
it's
ours
and
we
have
to
go
and
make
sure
that
we
get
this
fully
funded
in
the
the
budget
process
and
that's
now
February
2018.
We
would
have
been
almost
close
to
finishing
the
plan
if
we
had
adopted
the
motion
to
accelerate
from
five
years
to
two
years
back
in
July
2016.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
N
N
So
we
know
that
to
be
true,
I
heard
a
stat
from
our
transportation
staff
that
roughly
80%
of
drivers
don't
come
to
a
full
stop
at
a
stop
sign
across
our
city.
Not
every
driver
follows
the
rules
at
our
traffic
signals
or
considers
P
X
OS
when
they
drive
in
the
53
division,
where
my
ward
is
in,
along
with
councilor
Burnside's
and
in
Robinson
and
long
Thames
and
others
I
know
a
Carmichael
grab.
Excuse
me:
that's
an
area
from
Lawrence
down
to
bluer
thorn
cliff
over
to
Spadina.
There's
two
traffic
cops.
That's
it.
N
Two
traffic
cops
enforcing
the
Highway
Traffic
Act,
so,
in
other
words,
how
is
it
possible
to
think
that
the
average
person
who's
driving
a
car
is
going
to
believe
that
there's
any
real
possibility
that
they're
going
to
get
caught
breaking
the
rules,
whether
it
be
speeding
or
texting
or
whatever
in
our
neighborhoods?
If
there
is
such
clearly
inadequate
enforcement
in
our
neighborhoods?
N
That's
why
I've
been
advocating
for
for
more
adequate
enforcement,
whether
it
be
through
technology
or
personnel,
we
need
to
set
the
rules
and
we
do
set
the
rules,
often
certainly
in
the
Toronto
New
York
area.
We
did
lower
the
speed
limits
on
our
local
neighborhood
streets
to
thirty
kilometers
per
hour.
Due
to
the
Medical
Officer
of
Health's
report.
That
unequivocally
argued
that
one
is
far
more
likely
to
be
killed
or
seriously
injured
if
they
are,
if
they
are
hit
by
a
car
at
going
at
forty
kilometers
an
hour
versus
thirty.
N
That
being
said,
though,
that
has
to
be
backed
up
by
enforcement
and
we
don't
have
adequate
enforcement,
but
another
pillar
of
vision.
Zero
internationally
is
the
configuration
of
our
roads.
Many
of
our
roads
were
designed
to
accommodate
50
kilometer
in
our
movement,
and
if
we
are
serious
about
making
our
roads
safer,
not
how
we
regulate
or
how
we
enforce,
but
the
roads
themselves,
then
I
submit
that
we
do
need
to
provide
the
resources
to
make.
N
You
know
Barbara
gray
and
her
staff
give
them
the
means
to
be
able
to
then
adequately
go
out
throughout
our
city
and
and
look
at
the
configuration,
the
design
of
our
roads
and
improve
them
so
that
it
doesn't
matter
if
you're,
a
responsible
person
or
a
selfish
idiot
that
those
roads
are
designed
for
safety.
I,
don't
know
how
many
people
care
about
this
I'm
not
certainly
experiencing
much
interest
in
the
issue
right
now,
but
I
must
say
we're
seeing
so
many
people.
So
many
pedestrians
getting
hit
like
it's
a
it's
a
real
thing:
council
councillors.
E
You,
madam
speaker,
madam
Speaker
I,
cannot
but
stand
and
say
thank
you
to
mrs.
gray
before
her
to
mr.
Buckley
and
the
staff
out
of
Scarborough
mark
Warren
and
mild
curry
Joseph
Titus,
with
all
the
help
that
they've
given
me
in
the
schools
that
we
have
as
a
matter
of
fact,
there's
one
school,
Kennedy
public
school,
on
Elm
Phillips
in
a
crescent
and
virtually
we
made
the
road
one
way
in
the
morning
and
in
the
afternoon.
So
people
can
go
from
the
north
side
coming
on
the
south
side
and
we
have
had
enforcement.
E
So
I
realized
that
you're
doing
your
work
right
across
the
city,
but
allow
me
ma'am
to
through
my
office
and
parents
that
I
represent
and
the
principals
and
the
teachers
that
have
come
out
and
spoken
to
community
council
inscribe
for
a
number
of
times
to
thank
you
publicly
for
all
the
good
work
that
you've
done.
We
need
a
little
bit
of
education.
That's
coming
a
long
way.
E
D
Said,
thank
you
much,
madam
Speaker.
I
too
want
to
thank
Barbara
and
her
staff
for
the
hard
work
really
appreciate.
This
I've
actually
been
advocating
for
Safe
Schools
since
about
1999,
if
not
actually,
no
1995,
when
my
first
child
actually
went
to
school
I
was
in
North
York
then,
but
when
I
came
down
to
Swansea,
where
I
live
now
I
was
on
Parent
Council
and
in
1999.
I
first
met
our
transportation
staff
and
we
looked
at
the
roads
around
the
school,
the
elementary
school.
We
changed
road
signage,
so
this
isn't
brand
new.
D
What
we're
doing
now,
though,
is
we're
making
it
a
priority,
we're
putting
funding
into
it.
A
lot
of
councillors
have
spoken
today
about
school
zones
and,
yes,
believe
me:
I
have
been
working
for
many
years
to
get
school
zone.
Safe,
I
also
had
a
motion
at
our
Community
Council
a
couple
of
years
ago,
trying
to
make
all
our
local
streets
30k
the
same
as
downtown
has
slowing
traffic
down
does
reduce
the
impact.
If
there
is
an
accident.
However,
my
motion
didn't
pass
and
now
we're
doing
it.
D
Street
by
street
by
street
cost
a
lot
more
money
cost
a
lot
more
staff
time.
I
would
also
like
just
touch
on
bike
lanes.
One
of
the
issues
we
know
we
have
across
the
city.
If
you
have
a
painted
bike
lane,
not
a
separate
bike
lane,
but
a
painted
bike
lane,
we
often
have
vehicles
parked
in
those
bike
lanes
that
puts
the
cyclists
out
into
traffic.
What
I
would
like
to
see
more
of
and
I
saw,
I
didn't
do
a
motion.
D
I
would
like
to
see
more
signage,
telling
the
driver
how
much
the
fine
is
for
parking
in
a
bike
lane
I
believe
it's
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
if
you're
caught
parking
in
a
bike
lane
well
that
hamburger
going
into
the
hamburger
store
is
suddenly
gonna
get
very,
very
expensive
if
it's
150
bucks,
plus
whatever
they
charge
my
hamburgers
on
I,
don't
eat
them.
So
I
don't
know,
but
we
need
signage
up
there
to
indicate
not
just
don't
park
in
this
bike
lane,
but
what
the
fine
will
be.
D
We
also
need
to
get
our
cyclists
from
the
separated
bike
lanes
safely
onto
the
other
streets.
Couple
of
us
counselors
have
a
Martin
Goodman
Trail
going
through
our
wards.
I
see
we're
going
to
be
doing
some
work
on
them,
but
we
also
need
to
look
at
the
timing
of
the
lights
once
a
year.
My
wood,
13
bikes
invites
me
on
a
bike
ride
around
my
ward.
D
Well,
if
you've
ever
cycled,
my
ward,
it's
hilly,
so
we
always
start
at
the
top
and
we
end
up
down
on
Lake
Shore
and
then
they
let
me
go
home
on
my
own
up
the
hill,
but
we
look
at
the
intersections
along
the
Martin
Goodman
Trail
one.
How
do
you
get
there?
But
how
do
you
get
off
there
and
we
know
that
the
timing
of
those
lights
are
still
timed
for
cars.
D
They're,
not
timed
for
the
cyclists
to
get
across
Lake
Shore,
which
is
I
believe
at
that
point,
a
six-lane
highway
at
certain
places
you
have
somewhere,
you
can
stop
Parkway,
but
sometimes
you
do
have
to
go
from
one
side
to
the
other,
so
I'm,
hoping
that
some
of
these
fundings
will
look
at
these
requests
and
these
reports
from
local
bike
groups
from
local
pedestrians
from
local
councillors.
We
can
start
fixing
some
of
these
intersections
if
a
car
has
to
wait
another
minute
or
two
so
be
it.
So
these
are
some
of
the
a
items.
D
I
would
really
like
us
to
look
at
putting
in
continuous
sidewalks
Wow
how
much
safer
can
we
keep
our
residents
if
they
actually
have
a
sidewalk
to
walk
on
from
one
end
of
a
street
to
another,
also,
how
much
safer
would
be
if
TTC
stops
have
Street
have
sidewalks
going
between
them
rather
than
having
to
go
down
to
an
our
little
dirt
road.
If
you
get
off
at
a
TTC,
you
shouldn't
be
put
in
the
middle
of
nowhere.
D
You
should
have
a
concrete
pad
to
land
on
and
you
should
have
a
safe
way
to
get
to
an
intersection
at
a
light
where
you
can
cross
safely.
Another
thing
I
know
we
are
putting
in
now
are
those
new
slowdown,
lawn
signs?
One
of
my
requests
has
been
it's
wonderful
to
have
him
here
at
City,
Hall
I.
Don't
have
a
constituency
office
in
my
ward,
so
for
me,
I
have
to
carry
those
signs
into
my
ward
when
a
resident
wants
them.
Why
can't
we
have
them
at
our
community
centers?
D
Why
can't
we
have
them
in
our
libraries?
Why
can't
we
have
them
located
there
so,
where
the
families
who
are
probably
going
to
want
the
signs
come,
they
can
pick
them
up.
They
shouldn't
just
be
in
the
counselor's
office
and
the
counselors,
the
only
ones
who
can
get
them
out
there,
so
I'd
love
to
see
us
putting
them
into
the
community,
so
residents
can
come
and
get
them
when
they
want
them
rather
than
having
to
book
time
for
us.
D
I
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
You
know
I'm
good
for
60
seconds
or
less
read
a
great
quote
from
Tim
Harper
and
the
Toronto
Star
yesterday,
and
he
was
actually
talking
about
a
different
issue,
but
he
said
legislation
no
matter
how
lot
about
cannot
change
a
culture
and
I
know
we
like
to
come
to
Council
and
pat
ourselves
on
the
back
about
what
we're
changing
this
law
and
how
we're
changing
that
law.
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
councillor
Matt
Lowe
actually
hit
the
nail
on
the
head.
It's
not
enough
just
to
change
a
sign.
I
You
actually
have
to
follow
it
up
with
something
and
that's
called
enforcement
and
I
know
councillor.
Matt
laws
been
working
on
that
with
53
division,
but
we
all
like
to
talk
about
how
serious
we
are
about
Road
Safety,
and
we
know
that
technology
based
enforcement
as
it
applies
to
speed
limits,
is
coming
within
the
year.
But
that's
not
going
to
do
anything
for
stop
signs.
I
E
Know
I
know,
I
know
this,
but
I
will
be.
I
will
be
less
than
two
minutes.
Madam
Speaker
much
less
anyway,
you
know,
there's
you
know,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
good
intentions
in
this
room
in
regard
to
mitigating
the
problems
we
have
on
the
roads.
Drivers
know
drivers
are
frustrated,
you
know
we
we
just
spent.
We
spent
enormous
resources
to
get
the
King
Street
pilot
going
to
move
sixty-five
thousand
passengers
a
day.
E
Pedestrian
pedestrian
fatalities
are
tragic,
no
matter
when
they
happen
and
and
they're
happening
all
too
frequently.
They
happen.
They
happen
for
a
number
of
reasons.
Pedestrians
are
inattentive,
drivers
are
inattentive,
as
councilor
burn
sites
said.
We
can't
do
anything
about
that.
Our
transportation
people
will
tell
us,
you
can't
engineer
your
way
around
stupidity
and
drivers.
Well,
drivers
will
behave
badly
and
pedestrians
will
behave
badly,
but
the
one
thing
that
I
don't
see
a
concerted
effort
on
the
part
of
Transportation
is
to
deal
with
this
effort
of
this.
E
This
problem
of
gridlock,
which
is
strangling
our
downtown
core,
it's
counselor,
D
channel,
was
talking
about
the
Queensway
in
Etobicoke
all
across
the
I
know.
Counselor
perks
is
smirking,
but
drivers
are
frustrated
and
frustrated
drivers
behave
badly.
We
need
yes,
thank
you.
I'm
almost
done
counselor
carriages,
okay,.
A
O
B
A
F
E
Just
trying
trying
to
locate
the
report
but
the
report,
the
report
had
statistics
saying
that
there
were
so
many
hundreds
of
interventions,
dozens
of
Park
surveys,
or
you
know,
moving
people
out.
How
can
one
person
possibly
have
done
all
of
all
of
this
I?
Don't
I,
don't
know
where
the
numbers
came
from.
They
see
an
apostle
3.
F
F
Many
people,
so
it
could
be,
it
could
be
working
with
number
of
different
things.
So
there
would
be
you
know,
referrals
that
would
come
in
through
community.
The
referrals
could
come
in
through
our
own
parks,
crews
that
are
in
the
park.
They
would
respond
and
it
would
be
looking
at
every
interaction
they
have
with
individuals
in
the
parks
over
the
summer
over
a
six-month
period.
E
F
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
many
safety
audits,
so
if
there's
a
particular
park
or
a
particular
neighborhood
in
the
city
that
is
experiencing
various
levels
of
vandalism
or
crime,
quite
often
pfn
are,
along
with
the
parks.
Ambassador
is
involved
in
a
generally
a
walk
around
the
community,
where
a
number
of
different
things
are
looked
at:
Park
Safety,
Park
lighting
and
a
number
of
different
things
from
a
number
number
of
different
divisions.
E
F
So
through
you,
madam
Speaker
in
cabinets,
are
when
we
have
individuals
who
are
staying
overnight
in
parks
or
may
have
an
encampment
where
their
their
living
home,
so
through
our
home,
through
referral
from
either
residence
or
through
our
parks,
crews,
the
parks
ambassador,
would
go
and
connect
if
they
can,
with
the
person
in
that
encampment
or
the
people
in
that
encampment
and
connect
them
with
our
streets
to
homes,
programs
to
try
and
find
them
some
reasonable
shelter
that
isn't
in
the
park,
and
that
would
be
their
role.
It's.
F
You,
madam
Speaker,
it's
not
certainly
regular
Park
staff
would
identify
these
individuals,
but
there
are
processes
to
be
followed
in
and
around
how
we
deal
with
encampments.
There
has
to
be
notification
to
the
end
of
it
Jules
before
any
encampments
are
removed
and
there's
a
whole
process
that
we
fall
and.
F
A
P
F
F
P
C
P
I,
thank
you
just
very
briefly,
and
I
have
a
motion
if
it
can
be
placed
on
the
screen,
which
is
along
with
this,
to
consult
with
the
City
of
Toronto
and
waterfront
stakeholders
that
was
advance
circulated.
Listen
just
very
briefly
I.
This
is
an
item
that
former
deputy
mayor
and
then
councillor,
McConnell
and
I,
and
now
counselor,
Troi's,
II
and
myself
have
worked
closely
on
I
think
it
is
a
pretty
self-explanatory
request
for
us
to
work
with
the
feds
and
I
hope
you'll
support
it.
Thank
you.
Q
A
B
B
C
C
C
R
A
C
J
D
J
G
C
R
C
J
Threw
you
out
of
speaker
to
city
staff?
Could
you
give
me
a
brief
explanation,
as
you
did
at
the
committee
as
to
what
we
had
asked
for
and
what
your
report
suggested
and
then
I
have
a
motion
that
has
the
recommendations
to
adopt
I
believe
what's
in
your
report,
if
you
can
confirm
that
what
I'm
moving
is
what
you
wanted
to
see
moving
that's.
C
My
question
through
you,
man
speaker,
our
report
outlined
a
number
of
concerns
we
have
with
the
proposed
regulation,
including
the
restrictions
on
securing
purpose-built
rental,
as
well
as
municipal
flexibility
related
to
a
unit
set
aside
for
affordable
housing,
so
the
province
is
that
quite
prescriptive
limits
related
to
that.
We
also
have
significant
concerns
with
required
measures
and
incentives
that
would
be
required
in
order
to
secure
new,
affordable
housing
units.
C
We've
identified
a
number
of
other
pieces
that
really
relate
to
enabling
municipal
flexibility
related
to
the
proposed
regulation
and
and
in
general,
those
kind
of
encapsulate
all
of
our
concerns.
The
recommendations
put
forward
in
the
report,
I
think,
are
included
in
your
motion
and
we
support
those.
J
Madam
Speaker
maybe
I'll
go
through
a
few
points
and
our
recommendations
and
those
of
other
municipalities
we
wanted
to
see
affordable,
rental
and
affordable
ownership.
Is
that
correct
through
the
speaker
that
is
correct
and
these
recommendations
from
the
province?
How
much
affordable
rental
can
you
do
it.
C
J
C
J
J
It
may
cause
property
taxpayers
a
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
dollars
to
achieve
only
ownership
units,
no
rental,
affordable
housing
units,
a
maximum
five
percent
anywhere
and
ten
percent.
If
it's
in
a
high-density
area
now
we
can
get
around
that
by
having
what
was
called
a
development
permit
system.
That's
we
asked
for
that.
Did
we
not
and
went
to
the
board
with
it?
We.
H
C
J
J
J
C
G
C
Through
you
ma'am
speaker,
the
original
legislation
that
the
province
released
for
consideration
by
the
legislature
included
a
requirement
that
section
37
could
not
be
used
where
you
were
securing
affordable
housing
under
inclusionary
zoning.
The
legislation
since
changed
that
and
now
the
draft
regulation
says
that
measures
and
incentives
which
mean
110
to
160
thousand
dollars
a
unit
would
be
required.
However,
you
would
still
be
able
to
secure
a
section
37,
okay,.
G
So,
just
for
clarity's
sake,
what
is
before
us
I'm?
Looking
at
PG
25.8,
it's
a
3,
3
8
emotion
here
about
a
meeting
supposed
to
take
place
before
January,
31st
and
I'm.
Looking
at
a
key
line
here
that
the
acting
chief,
planner
and
executive
director
City
Planning
report
directly
to
City
Council,
with
a
proposed
response
from
the
City
of
Toronto
on
the
provincial
proposal
for
inclusionary
zoning
legislation
and
it
hasn't
have
been
circulated,
encounters
a.
G
A
F
J
J
I
do
that
and
and
in
the
question
about
the
special
meeting.
My
colleagues
brought
this
item
to
our
meeting
and
had
a
few
speakers
there.
That
told
us
about
the
importance
of
what's
happening
with
the
provincial
ii
recommended
changes
which
were
they
may
as
well
been
in
another
planet,
because
they
were
nowhere
near
what
any
municipality
had
asked
for.
They
weren't
even
close.
They
made,
as
you
heard,
a
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
dollars
a
unit
of
municipal
dollars
to
go
into
an
affordable
housing
unit.
They
capped
it
at
five
percent.
They
could
it.
J
J
Taxpayers
have
a
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
dollars
a
unit
to
be
able
to
create
affordable
housing
units.
It's
not
going
to
happen.
This
means
affordable,
housing
won't
happen.
I
will
tell
you
my
colleagues
in
the
committee
and
councilor
vile
they're
are
so
passionate
on
this
and
they're
right.
So
the
intention
here
is
to
write
what
the
correct
changes
should
be.
We
had
a
special
meeting
staff
to
their
presentation.
We
had
members
that
were
non-members.
The
committee
come
members
of
committee,
we
reviewed
it,
we
understand
it
better.
J
Everyone
asked
great
questions
and
then
we
sent
it
on
to
you
to
support
and
what
I'm
doing
is
pulling
those
recommendations
out
so
their
particular.
We
support
those
recommendations
and
we
tell
the
province
to
do
what's
right
if
you
really
care
about
having
affordable
housing
in
the
city,
and
you
really
care
that
people
should
be
able
to
have
whether
affordable
ownership
or
rental
housing,
because
many
people
can't
afford
20%
down
payment
and
their
tenants.
J
It
will
not
result
in
the
creation
of
any
affordable
housing
within
the
city.
We
may
have
o
grind
to
a
stop.
If
this
is
the
way
you
go
forward,
it's
not
a
health,
it's
a
hindrance.
It's
an
expectation
that
a
developer
who's
building
doesn't
have
to
make
any
commitment
to
it
and
that
full
commitment
should
be
made
by
government
in
the
form
of
the
municipal
government
to
take
away
its
development
charges,
which
we
need
for
infrastructure.
Our
development
review
charges
which
we
need
for
the
staff
to
be
able
to
negotiate
these.
J
It's
to
a
denture,
better.
The
person
that
wants
the
parking
space
I,
don't
know
what
could
be
more
more
ridiculous.
Now
we
have
shown
by
example,
that
we
can
make
this
work.
We
do
have
affordable
housing
coming
on,
but
we
like
more
through
our
real
estate
company.
We
have
been
supporting
to
the
tune
of
over
700
units
over
700
units
in
the
last
year
and
a
half
at
an
average
cost
of
the
development
company
of
about
20
to
$22,000
deferring
development
charges
working
out
on
the
program.
I'm
chair
I
get
two
minutes
extra
right.
J
I
am,
madam
speaker,
you
know
you
know
and
I
haven't
gone
up,
passionate
on
anything,
but
this
I'm
on
paper,
passionate
upon
all
right
to
help
at
the
same
time,
in
my
apologies
to
my
colleagues
that
want
to
go
because
I
do
as
well
but
I'm
trying
to
explain
the
situation
that
we've
been
put
in
by
the
province.
So
we
can
understand
it
better
as
we
go
forward
and
support
this
to
try
and
do
what's
right.
Well,
the
provincial
government
is
doing
what's
wrong.
N
Two
things
I
want
to
say
one.
We
should
not
be
in
a
position
where
we
have
to
decide
between
community
benefits
and
affordable
housing.
We
need
both.
We
need
holistic
communities
that
support
people's
needs
for
social
services
and
infrastructure
and
housing
altogether.
Number
two
I
want
to
thank
Caravan
Baucus,
her
colleagues
at
planning
for
the
remarkable
work
on
this,
the
leadership
of
councillor,
chair
shiner
and
also
the
Minister
Minister
milchin
for
writing.
Recently
in
the
Toronto
Star,
where
he
said
this
is
a
first
draft.
N
N
A
T
Moreover,
millions
of
people,
too
old
or
young
to
drive
will
be
able
to
summon
a
vehicle
which
will
shift
many
trips
previously
done
by
more
specific
space.
Efficient
modes
people
may
even
choose
to
live
in
more
distant
locations
because
they
can
do
something
else,
while
they
are
in
the
car,
as
they
no
longer
need
to
focus
on
the
act
of
driving.
So
I
was
wondering:
is
it
possible
that
automated
vehicles
may
actually
increase
road
congestion.
B
H
You,
madam
Speaker.
Yes,
it
is
definitely
possible
that
automated
vehicles
could
crease
roadway
congestion.
One
of
our
approaches,
and
especially
with
our
strong
partnership
with
the
University
of
Toronto
and
other
jurisdictions,
is
to
try
to
develop
the
rules
and
regulations
that
will
ensure
as
much
as
possible
that
we
are
managing
that
type
of
influx
in
a
way
that
is
consistent
with
our
overall
policy
direction
in
Toronto.
T
Rates
thanks
for
mentioning
U
of
T
cuz,
I
notice
in
the
correspondence
from
the
University
of
Toronto
that
they
have
advised
that
an
AV
future
will
be
far
from
business
as
usual,
but
so
far
there
is
only
speculation
about
whether
or
not
AVS
will
increase
or
decrease
congestion.
Improve
or
exacerbate
social
equality
have
a
net
positive
impact
on
access
to
employment
opportunities.
Sorry,
madam
speaker,
sorry.
C
T
I'm
having
trouble
hearing
positive
impact
on
access
to
employment,
opportunities,
increase
or
decrease
mobility
and
transit
ridership
be
supportive
or
know
how
to
climate
action
plans
like
transform
geo.
So
some
have
a
very
rosy
picture
of
this
technology
and
dream.
It
will
preclude
the
need
for
investments
in
public
transit
and
did
some
of
the
deputy
tents
at
committee
not
warned
against
that
type
of
thinking
through.
H
You
a
madam
Speaker.
Yes,
in
fact,
I
do
believe
it's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
in
Toronto
or
look
to
as
a
leader,
and
that
we
are
really
trying
to
grapple
with
the
issues
of
how
to
manage
the
introduction
of
a
v's.
They
won't
some
people
think
they'll
happen
sooner
than
others
do,
but
we
want
to
be
able
to
manage
them
so
that
we
get
the
right
outcomes
and,
if
they're,
complementary,
or
enhance
our
mobility
options
and
not
shift
back
to
more
significant
congestion
on
our
roadways.
So.
T
My
next
question
is
probably
best
answered
by
planning
but
I'll
direct
it
to
the
chair
to
the
speaker,
and
it
can
be
directed
to
the
appropriate
staff,
but
it's
about
a
critique
of
automated
vehicles.
That,
though
common
does
not
seem
reflected
in
this
report.
For
example,
Richard
Florida
has
an
article
in
citilab
entitled
driverless
cars.
Won't
save
us
in
fact,
they'll
do
the
opposite
of
what
techno
optimists,
hope
and
worsen,
not
ease
inequality
and
I
was
wondering.
Are
those
types
of
concerns
on
staff's
radar
through.
H
We
we
have,
we
do,
run
the
risk
of
not
being
able
to
shape
that
future
for
ourselves.
So
we
are
aware
of
a
lot
of
these
critiques,
we're
aware
of
the
safety
issues.
I,
don't
know,
Ryan,
there's
anything
else
you
want
to
add,
but
we
are
pullet.
We've
pulled
together
this
workgroup
so
that
we
can
air
this
issue,
city
planning
as
part
of
that
work
group,
as
is
Environment
TTC
and
many
of
our
other
partners
in
trying
to
pull
together
and
make
sure
that
we're
staying
ahead
of
these
issues.
Okay,
thanks.
A
B
B
Thank
you,
I
did
not
want
to
belabor
it,
but
there
was
an
article
that
was
written
that
has
caused
a
lot
of
confusion
in
the
community,
so
I
want
to
give
you
an
opportunity
just
to
clarify,
especially
since
the
words
in
the
first
part
of
the
motion
say
that
since
City
Council
temporary
closed
to
vehicular
and
pedestrian
traffic,
and
it
mentions
that
they
January
31st
2018
yesterday,
all
the
way
to
December
31st
2021
around
the
AL
and
around
other
key
intersections
will
Eglinton
be
closed.
What
does
this
really
mean
in
the
real
world
through.
H
You,
madam
speaker,
thank
you,
so
ugly
Intan
will
not
be
closed
and
there
will
be
access
retained
to
the
Allen
Road.
This
is
extending
the
ability
to
do
temporary
closures
as
part
of
the
construction
project.
It's
the
same
restrictions
that
were
conditions
that
were
put
in
place
last
year.
They
run
out
at
various
points
over
the
point
of
this
year,
so
we
have
to
extend
them
to
continue
the
construction
so.
B
There
will
always
be
a
laneway
going
east
to
lane
we
going
west,
except
for
those
temporary
moments
when
they
have
to,
for
one
reason
or
another,
when
they're
staging
from
one
side
of
the
street.
To
the
other
side,
there
will
always
be
the
flea
flora,
free
flow
of
free
traffic
going
east
and
west
along
Eglinton
during
the
construction
period.
Well,.
B
R
Madam
Speaker
I'd
love
to
ask
some
questions
of
the
planner
on
this
item.
Believe
it's!
Oh
here's,
mr.
Cresswell
I
am
asking
questions
on
the
chart.
Form
of
the
following
table
illustrates
the
shortcomings
of
the
application,
as
it
relates
to
the
infill
townhouse
guidelines
we
have
before
us
a
enabling
regulation.
Should
we
decide
to
pass
it,
but
this
chart
is
a
part
of
the
original
report
that
staff
pretty
much.
The
wording
is
pretty
adamant.
It's
an
adamant
refusal
I'm,
wondering
if
you
wanted
to
highlight
for
us.
Q
Through
the
chair,
there
are
a
number
of
problems
that
staff
had
with
the
application
effectively.
The
bottom
line
is
our
opinion
is
that
there
are
too
many
units
on
too
small
piece
of
property.
As
the
table
outlines.
It
requires
a
public
road
which
means
sorry,
a
private
road
which
we
think
is
very
problematic.
It
creates
long
term
difficulties
for
the
owners
in
that
group
of
townhouses.
Q
Should
there
be
any
failures
on
the
road
there's,
no
public
services
on
the
road,
there's
no
sidewalk
on
the
road,
the
townhouse
you
are
too
close
together,
there's
no
parking
on
the
street.
The
driveways
are
too
short
to
legally
park
a
vehicle
on
some
of
the
building.
Setbacks
are
problematic.
Some
of
the
building
heights
are
problematic.
They
penetrate
the
45
degree
angle
er
planes
around
the
outside
of
the
property,
so
the
bottom
line
is
that
we
are
of
the
opinion
that
it
is
a
development
parcel.
Q
We
did
some
drawings,
which
we
provided
to
the
applicant,
which
would
show
a
development
of
somewhere
in
the
ballpark
of
45
to
50
units
which
would
meet
all
of
the
city's
policies
and
still
have
be
a
viable
development
option.
The
applicant
refused
to
do
them.
So
that's
why
we
brought
forward
the
requested,
refuse
report,
but.
R
R
If
you
could
just
review
because
it
was,
it
was
difficult
for
me
at
first
when
I
read
the
report
to
even
understand
that
it
was
initially
refused,
but
that
but
the
wording
caught
my
my
eye.
A
refusal
report
came
forward
and
ordinarily,
you
know
either.
We
all
support
it
here
in
this
community
council-
or
we
might
say,
take
another
month
to
get
to
yes
or
or
take
the
two
weeks
between
now
and
council
to
get
yes
and
you
might
be
directed
to
continue
to
try
and
negotiate
a
settlement.
R
Q
The
chair,
yes,
that's
correct.
We
got
to
the
point
where
we
understood
that
any
further
negotiations
with
the
applicant
would
essentially
be
fruitless.
The
application
had
been
in
for
about
two
and
a
half
years.
The
applicant
had
moved
quite
a
fair
bit
from
the
original
proposal,
so
we
did.
We
do
acknowledge
that
in
the
staff
report,
but
we
reached
the
point
where
we
had
said:
are
you
going
to
make
changes?
Yes
or
no?
The
applicant
said
no
and
that
prompted
the
refusal
requirement.
Okay,.
R
And
the
policies
that
this
contravenes
are
part
of
the
development
infrastructure
policy
statement
that
is
particularly
germane
to
to
infill
town
house
applications
like
this.
Is
it
just
my
word,
or
there
are
other
words
where
we've
had
the
challenge
of
when
you
create
these
townhouse
in
hill
town
house
two
complexes
and
you
you
build
them
with
private
roads,
you
squeeze
a
few
more
units
in,
but
within
a
few
years,
they're
back
to
the
city,
saying
we
don't
want
the
liability.
Why
are
we
getting
sued?
R
Q
Through
the
chair,
I
would
believe
that
that's
a
citywide
issue,
councilor
it's
it's
about
the
treatment
of
the
residents
of
the
city.
We
believe
that
a
public
road
treats
effectively
a
ties
development
into
the
larger
community.
It
also
creates
the
opportunity
to
get
municipal
servicing
on
the
road
that
you
don't
otherwise
get
through
a
private
road
right.
E
Q
J
E
B
Q
Q
Q
B
B
Q
D
Q
E
P
A
R
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker
I
want
to
be
clear
here,
I'm
a
little
distracted
by
councilor
D
Triano's,
active
shouting.
Thank
you.
Madam
Speaker
I
circulated
this.
This
is
the
list
of
shortcomings
that
that
I
read
inbreeding
the
agenda
over
the
weekend
and
I
circulated
these
first
thing.
In
the
morning,
I'm
gonna
be
moving,
madam
Speaker
that
City
Council
delete
the
Etobicoke
York
Community
Council
recommendations
and
adopt
instead
the
following
recommendations:
I
hope
I
can
consider
them
read.
They
are
the
staffs
original
refusal
recommendations.
Here's
the
thing
that
you
should
know.
R
Staff
have
been
very
careful
in
this.
If
you,
if
you
read
the
wording
in
the
original
refusal
report,
you
will
understand
that
this
contradicts
every
part
of
our
dip's
policy
that
is
supposed
to
serve
in
fill
townhouse
developments
that
we
all
know
and
love
and
have
such
trouble
with
when
we're
having
them.
R
This
contravenes
pretty
much
every
component
of
that
and
that's
why
it's
so
important
we
sometimes
get
caught
up
in
an
application
with
I
got
to
reduce
the
number
reduce
the
number
all
my
residents
are
worried
about
is
the
number
the
number
the
number,
but
there
is
so
much
more
to
successful
development
than
just
the
unit
count,
and
if
you
get
those
so
much
more,
all
those
other
things
wrong.
What
you
have
is
a
bad
spot
in
your
neighborhood
that
just
doesn't
work
and
eventually
the
residents
in
the
bad
spot
come
back
to
the
city.
R
Ten
years
later.
To
say
this
place
doesn't
work
for
us.
Why
is
this
road,
our
responsibility?
Why
does
it
end
here?
Why
am
I
so
close
to
the
road?
Why
can't
you
guys
fix
this
when
in
fact,
we
allowed
the
the
developer
to
build
what
he
built
and
here's
what
staff
have
done
to
serve
you
well,
because
of
the
way
this
motion
was
moved.
If
we
go
back
to
the
refusal
recommendations,
what
you
passed
on
consent,
councillor,
D
Tiana,
was
correct.
R
They
have
protected
you
from
from
making
a
bad
development
like
that
they
have
protected
poor
meritorious
in
every
planning
report
has
a
signature
at
the
end
of
the
report.
You
don't
have
to
make
this
permanent
bad
decision,
and
our
own
staff
will
be
able
to
defend
making
a
good
decision
that
is
refusal
so
that
we
can
uphold
our
policy.
That
can
all
still
happen
if
we
just
go
back
to
staffs
original
recommendations.
That's
what
I'll
be
voting
for.
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
E
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
Speaker
I'm
gonna
move
to
I'm
going
to
move
deferral
on
this
item
out
of
respect
for
my
colleague
who
is
it
not
attending
tonight?
Counselor
mammal
ad,
this
application
originally
started
out
with
over
a
hundred
and
thirty
townhouses
on
the
site,
stack
townhouses.
The
counselor
has
worked
with
the
community.
The
counselor
has
worked
with
staff,
it's
not
to
staff
satisfaction.
This
was
unanimously
passed
a
community
council
after
a
long
and
lengthy
debate,
and
so
I'd
like
to
move
deferral
to
the
next
day.
E
A
O
You
very
much
speaker,
I,
don't
need
to
hear
from
the
local
councillor
on
this.
The
the
planning,
the
planning
report
is
very,
very,
very
clear.
This
is
the
kind
of
thing
that
we
would
never
approve
if
we
were
paying
attention.
The
councillor
Carroll
laid
out
very
quickly
clearly
and
her
questions
of
staff,
where
the
deficiencies
are.
O
R
Carol
only
one
comment
on
deferral.
Madam
Speaker
I
have
to
take
umbrage
with
with
the
the
assumption
that
this
is
not
going
to
affect
my
ward
infill
townhome
applications
are
becoming
quite
popular
in
my
ward
and
if
I
don't
have
the
dips
policy
to
stand
behind
in
developing
those
infill
town
house
productions,
this
very
definitely
affects
my
ward.
B
Carol
sent
very
well.
Every
application
in
this
city
affects
every
similar
application.
This
one
is
clearly
one
from
the
staff
recommendations
that
should
not
be
supported
and
the
way
that
it
got
here,
I've
never
seen
that
before
it
just
has
an
odd
something
to
it.
So
we
should
be
supporting
the
staff
recommendations,
not
deferring
this
and
just
doing
the
right
thing
here.
A
P
Chrissie,
just
very
briefly,
I
respect
the
point
that
councillor
Campbell
mate
made,
which
is
that
the
local
councillor
is
not
here.
However,
if
this
was
important
to
the
local
councillor,
I
assume
I
would
have
heard
about
it
from
his
staff
and
I
haven't
or
from
him,
and
so
for
that
reason,
I
don't
think
this
is
a
good
enough
reason
to
defer.
P
I'm
listening
Anna
bata,
quite
puzzled
and
intrigued.
There
was
a
lot
of
information
provided
to
community
council
I'm,
not
sure
what
downside
there
is
to
deferring
it
for
another
month.
If
that
sends
a
signal
to
the
developer,
to
keep
talking
fine,
but
I
think
that
the
local
councillor
should
have
that
opportunity
to
bring
his
perspective
and
his
work
over
the
last
couple
of
years
on
the
file
and
then
we'll
work
as
a
council
to
go
figure.
This
one
out
but
I
think
an
immediate
decision
on
this
changes
the
course.
P
C
P
P
A
B
C
I
A
E
A
K
S
K
H
K
S
S
K
H
S
S
K
So
it's
about
the
same
in
the
downtown
area
now
I
was
gonna.
Ask
a
question
of.
If
there
are
more
than
one
car,
people
are
always
worried
that
there's
gonna
be
a
lineup
of
these
auto
shares
on
their
Street.
What
are
we
proposing
to
be
the
remedy
for
that
and
how
many
cars
share
cars
will
be
allowed
on
any
Street
in
any
given
time
through.
S
The
speaker
concerns
have
certainly
been
raised
about
clustering
of
car
share
vehicles
and
the
impact
that
may
have
on
residential
permit
holders
the
the
definition
of
clustering
in
this,
and
this
proposal
is
more
than
one
vehicle
of
a
car,
should
well
for
the
same
car
share
company
on
any
given
Street.
Thank.
K
T
Deputy,
so
thanks
very
much
to
the
staff
who
shared
with
members
of
council
their
supplementary
report
on
the
fines
that
have
been
incurred
since
April
of
2016
until
present
so
I'm.
Just
in
less
than
two
years
there
have
been
about
a
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
infractions
by
these
three
car
share
companies.
That
is
not
the
actual
magnitude
of
the
disruption.
That
is
just
a
number
of
violations
that
were
caught.
Is
that
correct.
S
T
So
if
the
parking
allocation
is
90
percent
higher
in
any
given
area,
we
stopped
issuing
visitor
parking
permits.
Correct
to
the
speaker,
that's
correct,
okay,
and
so
would
you
say
that
in
some
parts
of
the
city,
where
we
have
permit
parking
that
we
have
a
situation
where
people
who
live
on
a
street
are
not
able
to
actually
get
a
permit
to
park
on
their
street
or
in
their
area
near
their
house?
Is
that
correct,
that's,
correct?
Okay,
do
these
car
rental
companies
have
arrangements
with
the
Toronto
parking
authority
to.
S
T
So
you
were
saying
it
in
response
to
councillor
Layton's
questions
about
about.
If
you
went
to
the
ninety
percent
allocation
that
that
would
eliminate
some
areas,
so
I'm
wondering
in
those
areas
where
it
would
be
eliminated,
are
there
Toronto
parking
authority
parking
lots
that
they
could
still
park
in
through.
S
T
So
I
know
that
in
my
ward
permit
parking
holders
I
get
very
excited
when
they
get
to
access
to
toronto
parking
authority
law
because
it
saves
them
from
driving
around
and
around
and
around
looking
for
a
parking
spot.
So
I'm
not
sure
where
the
allocation
is
higher
than
ninety
percent
that
these
car
rental
company
customers
would
be
better
off.
So
my
question
is:
are
the
car
rental
companies
having
any
problems
with
the
toronto
parking
authority.
R
R
C
T
My
question
is:
are
the
car
rental
companies
having
any
problem
I'm?
Sorry,
the
car
share
companies
having
any
problems
with
the
Toronto
parking
authority
that
you're
aware
of
I'm
not
aware
of
any
problems?
No
okay.
So
if
we
made
the
allocation
cut
off
ninety
percent,
not
a
hundred
and
ten
percent,
if
the
predictions
and
the
report
are
accurate,
parking
permit
demand
might
decline
and
then
there
will
be
more
space
for
these
companies
correct
through.
S
T
S
The
speaker
I
understand
from
revenue
services
that
generally
with
respect
to
the
collection
process.
Some
tickets
do
take
up
to
two
years
for
the
city
to
collect
through
a
process
of
notification
and
the
Ministry
of
Transportation
license
renewal
system.
I,
don't
have
any
specific
information
about
about
car
to
goes,
car
share
per
ticket
and
fractions
so.
S
S
O
S
O
S
O
We've
run
into
problems
in
forcing
some
pieces
of
complicated
regulatory
systems
where
we
wind
up
and
it's
all
either
an
all
or
nothing
I'm.
Thinking,
for
example,
we've
had
problems
with
uber
and
you
know
their
data
breach
and
the
way
the
contracts
are
written.
We
basically
would
have
to
kill
their
whole
thing
because
we
can't
solve
that
one
problem:
is
it
possible
to
get
some
regulatory
tools
in
place,
so
there
are
ways
to
in
our
penalty
z'
in
an
incremental
way,
depending
on
how
big
the
problem
is
through.
S
The
speaker,
yes,
the
report
does
talk
about
enforcement
of
parking
regulations
and
the
terms
the
pilot
indicating
that,
in
the
case
of
non-compliance,
the
general
manager
would
issue
a
warning
letter
and
that,
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
the
non-compliance,
additional
additional
enforcement
could
be
done
in
terms
of
terminating
some
or
all
of
the
free-floating
car
share
permits
and
there's
language
for
the
recommended
amendments.
The
miss
will
code
there
that
speaks
specifically
to
the
terms
of
termination
would.
S
S
S
Through
the
speaker
in
general,
through
the
speaker,
the
the
changes
that
are
recommended
here
allow
exemption
beyond
the
three
hour
limit
on
non
permit
parking
streets,
so
that
is
proposed.
So
that's
outside
of
Toronto
East,
York
district.
The
service
area
for
car
share
companies
tends
to
be
in
a
downtown
area.
So,
okay,
they
set
their
service
area
in
what
their
home.
Okay.
F
S
Correct
through
the
speaker,
yes,
there's
an
existing
car
share
fee
within
the
fees
and
charges
viola.
What
tier
one
is
vehicle
per
share
vehicle
parking
that
doesn't
impact
on
any
residential
parking
permits
tier
two.
What
we're
recommending
for
this
pilot
is
the
amount
where
it
does
potentially
cause
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
residential
permit
parking
spaces
and
Tier
three
is
when
there's
metered
parking
in
place
so
do.
S
F
S
Is
not
overly
through
the
speaker
we're
looking
to
understand
what
the
impacts
on
residential
parking
permit
holders
would
be
through
this
pilot
and
potentially
changing
the
terms
of
the
which
streets
would
be
included
within
the
pilot
after
the
terms
of
the
pilot,
if
it
if
it
does
seem
too
successful,
but
there
are
some
impacts
that
are
undue,
then
reducing
the
this.
The
streets
could
be
something
that
we
would
recommend
within
a
year's
time.
I
just
think.
S
S
C
C
D
D
D
90
90:
how
would
this
that
work
when
we've
got
these
free
floating
cars,
because
we
won't
know
how
many
free
floating
cars
will
Park
on
those
90
percent
streets?
And
if
we
then
give
out
a
visitor
parking,
we
could
be
getting
them
to
a
hundred
percent,
which
means
someone
with
a
permit,
won't
find
a
spot
and
we'll
get
ticketed
on
another
Street.
So
I'm
talking
about
streets,
specific
permits.
S
D
If
we
were
to
go
includes
wait-listed
at
the
90
percent
that
would
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
work
out
how
many
more
cars
we
may
be
putting
on
the
street,
you
know
my
concern
is
a
fully
permitted
street.
You
add
another
vehicle.
A
resident
who's
paid
for
a
parking
permit
has
to
go
park
on
another
side
street
and
gets
ticketed.
That's
what's
happening
in
my
ward.
Now
before
we
bring
this
program
in.
D
Is
there
a
way
we
can
restrict
the
streets
so
that
if
we
do
get
a
couple
more
cars
on
that
or
someone
does
want
to
have
a
visitor
or
two?
It's
not
I
know
this
is
impossible.
It's
not
going
to
bump
a
resident
off
the
street
if
we
went
for
a
90
percent
rather
than
whatever
you're
looking
at
95
or
something.
S
Through
the
speaker,
having
it
be
dynamic
in
the
way
that
you
described
is
unfortunately
not
within
our
capability
at
this
time.
It's
something
we'd
like
to
understand
the
impact
on
and
bring
recommendations
back
in
the
future.
With
regard
to
the
with
regard
to
the
waitlisted
streets
and
as
they
change
sometimes
on
a
month-to-month
basis,
we
could
certainly
provide
updated
information
to
car
share
companies
about
what
streets
should
be
excluded
on
that
basis
and
Econ
in
a
more
frequent
timeframe
than
the
issuance
of
the
permit.
Okay,.
D
But
that's
actually
gonna
be
one
of
my
other
questions.
Would
you,
okay
with
me
putting
a
motion
forward
asking
permit
staff
to
I
was
going
to
go
every
six
months
when
we
have
to
renew
our
permits.
Could
we
then
either
update
the
streets
which
are
being
restricted
because
we
may
have
to
restrict
more
streets,
or
we
may
actually
be
able
to
release
some
streets
as
people
start
using
the
shared
cars
rather
than
owning
a
vehicle?
So
you're?
Okay
with
me,
moving
that
motion
through.
S
D
Sort
of
got
asked
before,
but
I
didn't
quite
get.
Are
there
any
of
these
companies
still
paying
TPA
to
be
avila
to
allow
their
customers
to
drop
that
are
not
talking
about
actual
designated
spots?
I'm
just
talking
about
dropping
a
vehicle
in
a
green
pea
lot
I
thought
one
particular
company
had
canceled
that
which
was
got
us
all
in
that
pickle
back
in
April.
H
Through
you,
I
can't
speak
to
the
pickle
back
in
April,
but
I
can
certainly
say
that
the
car
share
companies,
the
free
floating
car
share
company
that
currently
operates
here,
does
utilize
green
pea
Lots.
They
have
to
pay
the
people
who
use
those
cars
have
to
pay
that
fee
in
the
same
way
that
a
private
vehicle
would
have
to
pay
that
fee
same
as
it
pay
display
la
Paix
and
displays
spaces
on
the
street
right.
My.
D
Last
question
again:
I
just
need
clarity
on
this
one.
The
free-floating
will
give
them
a
permit
that
allows
them
to
park
on
a
perimeter
street
which
isn't
full
and
who
it
is
which
isn't
wait-listed,
as
if
it
was
a
resident
living
on
that
street,
with
a
permit
that
exempts
them
from
the
one
to
three
hours
on
that
specific
street,
but
not
any
other.
Okay,
yes,
sir.
So
that
means
that's
exempting
them
for
one
to
three
hours
across
the
city.
D
S
D
L
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
the
Supplemental,
which
shows
the
number
of
infractions
and
the
payment
and
I
understand.
We
said
that
may
take
up
to
two
years
to
collect,
but
doesn't
it
seem
a
bit
odd
that
everybody
else
has
managed
to
pay
up
to
97%
in
2017
and
Karthik?
--All
is
only
at
34
35
%
through.
H
You,
madam
Speaker
I,
can't
speak
to
the
anomaly
in
2017.
I
will
reflect
that.
That
is
pretty
much
the
only
anomaly.
So
all
three
companies
didn't
seem
to
have
a
challenge
paying
their
fines
in
2016
and
and
we
don't
have
any
further
information
about
what
happened
with
car2go
in
2017
other
than
as
Jacqueline
pointed
out
earlier.
Sometimes
these
infractions
take
some
time
to
process
so.
H
L
S
S
Hear
that
if
there's
a
three
hour
parking
limit
parking
is
allowed
up
to
the
three
hour
limit,
the
car
sure
vehicles
would
be
exempt
from
the
three
hour
limit
on
those
streets.
If
the
street
had
no
parking
or
other
relevant
parking
regulations,
the
car
sure
vehicle
would
have
to
comply
with
all
other
regulations.
So.
L
If
there's
a
street
that
we
have
a
number
of
streets
that
don't
have
permit
parking
so
and
there's
a
three-hour
limit
there
and
there's
a
three-hour
limit
during
the
day
in
permit
parking
when
it's
not
covered
by
the
permit,
so
they
do.
We
have
basically
have
a
permit
there.
If
people
have
a
permit,
are
the
regular
driver
are
they
allowed
to
park
on
any
street
that
doesn't
have
permit
parking
for
longer
than
three
hours.
L
S
S
L
That
decision
we
could
ask
you
to
bring
that
back
and
what
was
the
reason
they
left
green
pea
because
they
were
in
green
pea,
parking
lots,
car
to
go
and
they
simply
left
and
went
out
and
started
parking
in
permit
parking
areas
and
very
few
are
still
in
green
pea.
Do
you
know
the
answer
to
that
through.
S
The
speaker
I
know
that
the
free
floating
car
share
company
still
does
use
green
pea.
They
we
have
stats
from
from
trial
parking
authority
about
recent
usage
up
to
6000
individual
parking
transactions
in
the
last
month.
There
are
15
Lots
that
cart
ago,
has
home
base
for
group
for
for
cargo
vehicles
and
20
private
Lots
as
well.
Yeah.
L
Tell
me
how
what
the
change
in
use,
which
was
from
when
that
was
exclusively
where
you
could
pick
up
the
car
until
today,
you
don't
have
that
stuff.
I,
don't
have
that
static.
I
know
that
they
don't
have
that
stuff
and
what
about
up
in
North,
York
or
anywhere?
Where
there's
no
permit
parking?
Does
that
mean
they
can
take
their
permit
and
park
on
those
streets
through.
S
L
C
B
I'm
mildly
confused
by
this,
so
I
have
a
few
questions,
so
my
war
there's
no
permit
parking.
So
my
first
question
is:
can
one
of
these
cars
that
has
one
of
these
permits
park
more
so
in
my
ward,
it's
three
hours
right
max
or
three
hours.
Can
it
if
you,
if
one
of
these
cars
has
a
permit,
can
they
park
on
a
residential
street
for
more
than
three
hours
through.
C
H
H
P
You
speaker
I've
through
to
the
general
manager
and
her
staff
I
think
that
the
notion
of
parking
on
streets
that
is
not
currently
under
the
permit
parking
program
is
a
bit
contentious.
If
I
intended
to
place
a
motion
to
withdraw
that
particular
component.
Can
someone
point
me
to
the
exact
section
of
the
report
or
the
amendment
to
the
Municipal
Code
chapter
that
I
would
have
to
address
in
my
motion?
P
You
don't
have
to
do
that
right
now,
but
if
somebody
could
come
over
and
see
me
so
that
I
could
prepare
a
motion
of
the
contrary,
but
I
want
to
just
visit
the
the
90
percent
it
can
somebody
provide
me
the
policy
rationale
behind
the
idea
that
we
stop
taking
requests
for
temporary
permits
when
the
subscription
rate
hits
the
90
percent
ceiling.
Why
would
we
choose
90
through.
H
You,
madam
speaker,
that
particular
provision
of
retaining
that
sort
of
10
percent
could
be
only
allowing
visitor
permits,
in
those
words,
permit
parking
areas
where
there's
a
10
percent
capacity
is
was
adopted
through
bylaw
I.
Don't
know
when
it
was
adopted
through
bylaw
to
ensure
I
suppose
that
there
was
enough
capacity
to
have
a
visitor
parking
permits
issued
right.
P
And
if
there
was
less
than
that
capacity,
you
know
there's
casual
Parkers
and
that
sort
of
thing
it
would
be
counterproductive
to
sell
a
visitor
parking
permit
because
they
might
be
in
trouble.
They
might
actually
not
actually
find
the
spot.
Does
that
sound
like
a
reasonable
rationale
behind
that
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
why
we
stopped
at
90
and
to
further
point,
oh
to
reveal
the
question?
Why
are
we
proposing
something
different
than
90
for
the
car
share
program?
If
there's
some
rationale
on
why
we
would
use
the
90
threshold
I
think.
P
Help
me
understand
it's:
it's
a
bit
finicky
and
dynamic
figuring
out
the
subscription
level
of
the
various
parking
areas,
the
streets
and
the
zones.
What's
the
mechanism
that
we
will
convey
to
the
car
share
companies
that
this
streets,
okay-
and
this
one
is
not
recognizing
it
kind
of
changes
on
a
movement
basis,
so
there's
that
component
and
then
the
second
component
is
how
do
we
enforce
that
through.
H
S
Speaker
this
is
this
is
a
part
of
the
technology.
The
way
that
car
share
operates
where
a
user
would
start
and
end
their
trip
using
an
app.
They
would
not
be
able
to
park
a
car
and
be
have
it
be
closed
from
their
account
unless
the
app
says
that
they're
parking
in
acid
in
a
legal
location
to
do
so
so
streets
that
would
be
wait-listed
or
otherwise
excluded
from
the
pilot
area,
the
user
would
be
physically
unable
to
close
their
trip
on
those
streets.
S
P
If
the
user
took
the
the
cell
phone
out
of
the
car
or
whatever
it
is,
stood
in
the
right
place
and
dump
the
car
wherever
they
want
it
like,
is
there
any?
Are
there
any
ways
they
can
trick
it,
and
then
the
second
half
is,
is
how
does
our
parking
enforcement
people
know
that
the
right
thing
was
done
and
that
they
haven't
slipped
that
car
and
moved
it
somehow
on
to
a
street
that
it
is?
It
is
prohibited
because
of
the
subscription
level,
and
you
know
then
prompt
to
give
them
a
ticket.
S
P
P
H
F
S
R
S
Through
the
speaker,
we
were
not
provided
with
information
about
where
members
live.
We
understand
that
their
to
be
in
close
to
a
hundred
thousand
members
in
the
downtown
core
generally,
but
it
spread
wider
as
well.
We
don't
have
mapping
of
that,
but
we
would
ask
for
that
information
as
part
of
the
fight
there's
a.
R
F
F
H
Service,
do
you
that
that
that
is
absolutely
a
piece
of
this
IBM
the
ability
to
have
trip
choices
and
be
able
to
utilize,
depending
on
what
trip
you're,
taking
whether
you
are
best
suited
by
using
transit
or
walking
or
cycling
or
driving
a
car?
And
if
you
don't
own
a
car
because
you
may
not
have
access
to
a
parking
space
or
it
may
be
in
your
budget,
you
have
decided
to
utilize
resources
for
something
else.
F
H
E
E
S
E
B
S
Through
the
speaker,
yes,
this
is
a
pilot
proposed
for
the
City
of
Toronto.
The
exemptions
would
be
within
a
parent
parking
would
not
be
allowed
within
wait-listed
areas,
residential
parking,
wait-listed
areas,
and
they
would
also
be
allowed
to
be
parked
longer
than
three
hours
on
streets
with
a
three-hour
exemption.
Those
the
only
two
parking
regulation
changes
that
would
be
in
place
for
this,
but.
S
Through
the
speaker
anywhere
that
a
resident
can
currently
park,
a
car
sure
vehicle
could
still
put
Hood
Park
as
well.
The
three-hour
limit
would
apply
to
residents
the
car
sure
vehicle
would
have
longer
than
three
hours
under
this
proposal.
If
the
resident
cannot
park
overnight,
the
cars
her
vehicle
could
not
park
overnight,
but
when.
B
B
B
B
S
S
S
B
S
B
B
S
E
Thank
you
Venice
speaker.
My
question
is
for
the
legal
department.
If,
if
a
car
share
par
car
share
car
is
parked
on
a
residential
street,
where
only
three
hour
parking
is
permitted,
they
can
they
will
be
able
to
park
without
any
consequence,
people
living
in
the
neighborhood
will
have
to
will
have
to
bear
a
consequence
by
parking
for
over
three
hours
in
the
form
of
a
ticket,
or
is
the
city
opened?
F
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
the
law
does
prohibit
municipalities
from
discriminating
on
certain
grounds,
but
that
is
not
one
of
the
grounds
and
in
fact
the
City
of
Toronto
at
permits
the
municipality
to
discriminate
for
other
reasons
as
it
sees
fit
so
that
this
I
don't
see
this
particular
differential
treatment
as
being
a
problem.
Can.
F
P
I
Thank
you,
threw
you
back
to
legal
counselor.
Campbell
said
we
don't
know,
but
I
think
you
said
we
do
know
and
my
the
way
I
would
look
at
it
and
I'm,
not
a
legal
mine,
but
it's
essentially
a
floating
permit.
People
have
permitted
streets
and
they
get
treated
one
way
and
if
you
don't
have
a
permit
and
you're
on
a
permit
of
street,
you
get
treated
a
different
way.
So
is
this
not
kind
of
like
a
$1,500
floating
permit
so.
I
K
Thank
you
very
much.
Madam
Speaker
I
have
a
motion
I've
several
motions,
but
a
motion
on
the
on
a
referral
that
City
Council
refer.
This
item
back
to
the
general
manager
of
transportation
services
for
further
consideration
report
back
to
the
April
11
2018
meeting
of
the
Public
Works
and
Infrastructure
Committee.
This
is
a
reluctant,
very
reluctant
referral.
I'll
call
it
first
of
all.
I
want
to
clear
up
one
small.
K
What
I
hope
to
accomplish
through
this
is
to
take
all
the
motions
we've
prepared
and
I
would
ask
that
clerks
forward
the
motions
to
the
general
manager.
Can
you
not
do
that?
All
councilors
forward
the
motions
you've
written
to
to
the
to
transportation
or
to
me
and
I'll
forward
them
to
transportation?
Just
let's
get
them
to
transportation.
We'll
work
through
some
of
the
concerns
here.
I
think
that
that
some
of
those
concerns
have
been
voiced
loud
and
clear,
and
and
hopefully
what
will
come
back
is
something
that
will
be
more
palatable.
K
No
so
I
just
wanted
to
clear
up
one
thing,
because
it
kind
of
got
went
out
into
a
different
direction
here
than
I
thought.
The
reason
why
you
won't
have
car
shares
parking
on
your
on
your
streets
outside
of
the
downtown
core
is-
and
you
might
not
know
this
because
you're
not
members,
you
can't
end
a
trip
outside
of
the
service
area
which
ends
at
st.
Claire,
st.
Clair
Eglinton.
It's
a
Guinta
that
ends
at
Eglinton.
You
can't
end
a
trip
north
of
that,
so
you
could
drive
to
your
friends
house.
K
Some
from
my
neighborhood
could
drive
out
to
a
friend's
house
and
holidays
neighborhood
park
in
front
of
their
house
like
like
anyone
with
a
car,
would
go
and
hang
out
not
be
subject
to
that
three-hour
thing,
but
they
would
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
end
their
trip.
So
every
single
minute
that
goes
by
on
a
service
like
car
to
go.
The
clock
is
ticking
and
you're
paying
money,
and
you
can't
physically
say
I'm.
K
Just
gonna
leave
this
car
here
you
have
to
return
it
to
the
service
area,
which
is
the
Toronto
and
East
York
community
council.
It's
not
it
is
it's
not
anywhere
the
service
area
is,
you
can
drive
a
car
outside
of
it,
but
you
can't
end
a
trip
you
can
in
Lisa
South
of
Edmonton.
Oh
no
he's
a
member
I
know
they
could
change
the
service
area,
but,
right
now
the
service
area
is
pretty
confined,
so
just
to
try
to
clear
that
up.
So
let's
get
these
questions
answered,
let's
bring
back
the
report.
K
It's
reluctant
because
I
think
this
is
a
good
idea
and
I
think
what
it
does
is
adds
a
little
bit
of
equity
to
a
such
a
situation
where,
right
now,
if
you
own
a
car,
you're
allowed
a
parking,
you're
allowed
an
inexpensive
parking
space
on
your
street,
but
if
you're,
a
member
of
a
service
hundred
thousand
Torontonians
members
of
this
service,
we're
reducing
cars
by
23
percent
as
a
result,
car
36
ownership.
As
a
result,
it's
a
good
thing.