►
From YouTube: City Council - May 15, 2019 - Part 1 of 2
Description
City Council, meeting 7, May 15, 2019 - Part 1 of 2
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=15353
Part 2 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR-d5-35x2I
Meeting Navigation:
0:12:24 - Meeting resume
B
A
A
Members
of
council,
we
will
not
review
and
confirm
the
order
paper.
There
are
26
items
left
on
the
agenda.
Yesterday,
council
decided
to
consider
item
CC
7.3
on
proposed
bill
went
away
and
more
homes,
more
choice,
act
2019
in
the
housing
supply
action
plan
will
be
the
first
item
of
business.
This
morning,
City
Council
will
consider
member
motions
at
2:00
p.m.
our
first
item
apt.
A
You
remember:
motions
with
the
item:
CC
7.1,
the
Toronto
Ombudsman
2018
annual
report,
and
that
will
be
followed
by
item
CC,
7.12
and
caribbean
Canada
versus
the
City
of
Toronto
proposed
settlement
and
I
anticipate
that
counts.
That
council
will
meet
in
closed
session
on
that
item.
So
if
I
can
just
ask
members
of
council
that
have
been
interest
on
this
item,
would
they
like
to
go
in-camera
on
this
item?.
A
C
A
D
D
D
In
the
context
of
the
provincial
release
of
a
new
piece
of
legislation,
so
just
to
give
you
some
start
with
some
background.
The
this
bill
bill
108
was
tabled
on
May,
the
2nd.
There
is
a
30-day
comment
window
for
the
report
it
provides.
Our
report
provides
you
with
our
preliminary
comments
on
on
the
effect
of
the
legislation.
D
The
focus
of
the
report
is
on
the
changes
that
the
legislation
together
provide
if,
in
a
way,
the
legislation
provides
or
addresses
the
framework
that
the
city
has
for
managing
growth.
The
way
that
we
plan
the
city,
the
combination
of
the
Planning
Act,
the
DC
act,
the
l-pad
Act,
the
Heritage
Act
all
really
work
together,
and
they
represent
our
toolkit
for
planning
growth.
How
we
really
link
a
new
population
in
this
city
to
the
community
infrastructure
that
we
need
for
livability
for
achieving
a
healthy
City,
how
we
achieve
an
economic
and
socially
responsible
City.
D
Our
report
highlights
where
we
believe
there
are
impacts
in
the
bill.
These
impacts
will
be
financial
they'll,
be
on
planning
outcomes
such
as
parts
and
other
community
infrastructure,
on
the
process
that
we
all
desire
to
work
collaboratively
collaboratively
together
with
our
communities
and
on
the
pressure
that
we
will
put
on
heritage
resources.
I
want
to
emphasize
that
this
province
is
not
issued
regulations
and
we
really
do
need
these
regulations
to
fully
understand
the
implications
of
the
legislation.
D
I'm
gonna
use
a
lot
of
May
and
could
words
today
because
of
the
level
of
a
certainty
that
we
are
judging
this
with
so
background.
The
backdrop
for
the
bill,
I
think,
is
a
collective
desire
that
we
all
have
with
the
province
and
our
communities,
certainly
City
Council,
is
seized
with
this
to
address
our
housing
needs.
D
Fundamentally,
it
asks
a
question
and
we're
asking
the
question:
can
the
city
supply
its
way
to
affordability,
can
the
city
and
what
kind
of
city,
what
kind
of
city
will
result
from
really
an
oversimplified
approach
to
planning
in
a
way
is
a
very,
very
complex
business.
All
of
you,
council
understand
that
Toronto
builds
a
lot.
These
numbers
represent
are
very
robust
pipeline
units
that
have
been
built
units
that
have
been
approved
and
not
built
currently
under
review.
We
are
big
time
in
the
planning
and
building
of
housing
in
the
city
of
Toronto.
D
We
are
well
achieving
our
growth
plan
expectations
and
well.
We
focus
on
housing
and
must
focus
on
housing.
We
have
to
plan
for
the
long
term
livability
and
how
we
actually
manage
and
fund
infrastructure
for
this
growth.
I
want
to
emphasize
as
well
that
we
have
achieved
housing
and
community
infrastructure
in
lockstep.
We
have
a
very
good
track
record
of
doing
both
one
does
not
have
to
be
at
the
exclusion
of
the
other.
D
It's
also
about
how
we're
growing,
when
you
think
very
carefully
how
this
city
is
growing.
You've
seen
the
cranes,
you
know
that
more
people
are
living
in
tall
buildings.
We
have
to
calibrate
how
we
use
these
provincial
tools
to
our
Toronto
context.
This
is
very,
very
important
in
a
built-up
environment
where
we're
seeing
more
mid
and
tall
buildings
on
smaller
Lots
with
smaller
units.
D
These
are
vertical
subdivisions,
that's
what
they
are
and
with
community
infrastructure
needs
that
must
be
matched
with
the
type
of
people
that
are
living
in
these
buildings
and
how
they
go
about
living
their
daily
life.
These
are
very,
very
important
principles
to
remember
when
you
undertake
planning
to
be
people
centered.
The
limited
toolkit
that
we
have.
This
council
is
often
seized
with
very
difficult
matters,
around
revenues
and
costs.
D
This
is
our
on
the
on
the
left.
Side
of
the
screen
is
our
current
toolkit.
It
works
in
different
ways
for
different
reasons.
The
37
many
many
of
you
have
had
experience
with
section
37.
It's
a
negotiated
agreement
between
the
city
and
landowners
in
accordance
with
the
Official
Plan.
It
deals
with
local
benefits
that
have
been
exchanged
for
decisions
to
increase
height
and
density
development
charges
are
a
per
unit
charge.
There's
they're,
applied
citywide
and
they're,
substantiated
by
a
very
complex
and
elaborate
background.
D
Study
parks
levy
been
around
since
1973
or
earlier,
is
based
on
land
value,
and
it's
calibrated
to
where
the
city
has
the
greatest
need.
In
fact,
areas
of
the
city
that
have
deficit
the
bill
proposes
a
single
approach.
Moving
to
the
right
side,
a
single
approach
of
community
benefits
charge
which
would
be
capped.
It's
based
on
a
strategy
that
we
presume
is
related
to
some
sort
of
assessment
of
need.
It
requires
us
to
undertake
a
community
benefit
strategy
in
advance
of
in
charge.
It
blends
all
of
these
tools.
D
It
limits
the
use
of
parks
levy
it
repeals
our
alternative,
raped
provisions,
it
restricts
municipalities
and
that
they
must
choose
really
between
a
parks
levy
or
utilizing
the
CBC
charge
we
cannot
use.
Both
the
financial
impacts
could
be
significant
if-
and
we
recommend
this
principle
in
the
report-
if
this
is
not
revenue
neutral
to
the
city
and
I
would
emphasize
that
this
will
be
very,
very
difficult
to
discern
because,
as
I
have
been
quoted
as
saying
we
are
blending
apples,
peaches
and
pears,
different
types
of
revenue
tools,
different
types
of
planning
and
growth
tools.
D
The
current
budgeted
funding
for
park
infrastructure
in
the
capital
plan
is
significant.
The
numbers
on
the
screen,
and
certainly
the
past
performance
of
section
37
for
local
community
benefits
and
facilities,
is
significant.
Bill.
108
introduces
a
cap
that
cap
is
not
known.
It
requires
a
background
study.
There
are
provisions
for
timelines
restrictions,
exceptions
which
our
finance
officials
are
quite
tentative
about
in
terms
of
the
actual
exposure
to
revenue
reduction
that
these
changes
represent.
D
This
slide
highlights
the
services
that
bill
108
impacts,
10
services
that
would
be
rolled
into
the
community
benefits
charge,
part
of
our
10
year,
capital
plan
across
a
really
broad
scope
of
infrastructure
is
impacted
by
this,
and
I
am
NOT,
saying
that
this
money
is
gone,
but
I
am
saying
that
we
are
exposed
to
a
reduction
in
the
budgeted
infrastructure.
That's
called
for
in
the
temp
10
year,
capital
plan
on
parks.
We
currently
use
an
alternate
rate
for
us
on
a
sliding
scale
for
larger
sites.
D
D
60%
of
the
sites
are
typically
much
much
smaller,
so
if
we
are
only
restricted
to
a
base
rate
of
5%
for
residential
and
we're
not
allowed
to
calibrate
for
density,
and
you
can
see
the
amount
of
density
that
one
might
be
able
to
achieve
on
a
given
site,
a
small
site.
Really
all
we
can
look
forward
to
on
the
majority
of
sites
is
a
small
park
which
we
estimate
is
about
half
the
size
of
a
NBA
basketball
court.
D
The
all
of
you
all,
the
members
of
council
have
experienced
complete
Community
Development
in
you
are
in
your
districts.
I
can
think
of
Agincourt
Mall,
where
we're
going
through
a
process.
Now,
in
Scarborough,
honest
teds,
a
famous
one
downtown
a
couple
in
the
in
the
West
recently
plant
world
or
even
Northwestern
Hospital
on
keel.
D
This
one
at
Lawrence
and
Dufferin
is,
and
just
one
of
many
many
examples
where,
under
the
current
system,
we've
been
able
to
achieve
growth
and
community
infrastructure
and
how
bill
108
would
affect
and
limit
our
ability
to
achieve
that
infrastructure
and
the
kind
of
utility
that
we
would
need
on
a
site
this
this
size
and
the
utility
that
would
result
as
as
through
a
much
much
smaller
Park
and,
in
fact,
yes,
an
increase
in
housing.
But
remember
we
plan
for
balanced
growth
in
the
city.
D
D
You
know
our
goal
is
to
try
to
strike
a
balance
between
all
of
our
planning
goals
when
we
undertake
this
kind
of
exercise
in
in
planning.
Just
a
few
final
slides
I
mentioned
DC's
they're
a
citywide
tool,
so
they
underpin
in
many
many
ways:
social
cohesion
in
this
city.
They
especially
in
in
a
city
where
some
areas
are
not
experienced
a
kind
of
growth
and
change
that
other
areas
are
experiencing.
D
There
are
many
communities
in
need
and
where
investment
can
be
made
in
service
and
enhancement
of
well-being.
A
famous
example
of
the
renovation
of
the
Albion
library
development
charges
are
there
to
help
advance
our
capital
budget
planning
childcare.
Another
major
concern
when
we're
building
complete
communities,
the
the
10
year
capital
plan
includes
many
services,
which
alone
or
in
combination,
are
funded
from
37
and
DCs.
In
fact,
12
centers,
with
over
580
spaces,
are
planned
for
utilizing
these
tools.
D
Just
to
finish,
the
a
few
other
highlights
summarized
in
the
report.
The
timelines
were
going
back
to
a
pre
bill,
139,
it's
actually
less
than
pre
bill,
139
timelines.
In
my
experience
in
my
35
years
of
doing
planning,
this
is
just
not
practical.
You
cannot
do
a
rezoning
in
90
days,
I,
don't
care
how
good
the
application
is.
I,
don't
care
how
good
and
collaborative
the
process
has
been.
It
is
not
practical
the
limited
use
of
inclusionary
zoning.
D
We
are
working,
bringing
forward
an
inclusionary
zoning
package
for
councils
consideration
in
accordance
with
the
legislation
that
has
not
been
taken
away.
However,
its
utilization
has
been
limited
to
certain
locations
around
major
transit
station
areas
and
it
actually
has
been
tied
to
the
implementation
of
major
transit
station
areas
and
development
permit
the
use
of
a
development
permit
such
that
it
could
frustrate
the
timing
of
bringing
forward
in
inclusionary
zoning.
D
Finally,
we
are
returning
to
an
OMB
like
adjudicative
process,
really
without
having
fully
experienced
the
bill
139
process,
it's
only
been
up
and
running
functionally,
maybe
four
nine
months
and
it
it
is
now
being
repealed
and
we're
going
back
to
the
rules
that
maybe
some
of
council
may
be
familiar
with
in
in
our
past
life
for
the
entero
Heritage
Act
two
highlights
that
I
would
draw
your
attention.
Are
thematically
it's
about
making
the
process
of
listing
and
designations
more
like
development
applications.
D
Some
of
that
may
be
appropriate
insofar
as
we've
always
been
concerned
about
making
giving
proper
notice.
However,
it
will
introduce
new
burden,
administrative
burden
and
complexity
into
the
process
and
both
from
a
notice
of
procedure
and
an
appeals
point
of
view
limits
on
designations
may
also
be
problematic
for
what
is,
admittedly,
an
often
challenging
process
of
getting
out
in
front
of
development
when
we
are
trying
to
determine
and
discover
what
appropriate
heritage
resources
exist
when
we
have
the
considerable
backlog
of
that
work
to
manage.
D
At
the
same
time,
you'll
recall
Mountain
speaker
that
counsel
dealt
with
a
report
in
January
February
about
the
growth
plan,
amendments
that
were
introduced.
The
growth
plan
has
been
brought
forward
and
its
final.
The
amendment
has
been
brought
forward
in
its
final
form
as
part
of
this
package.
It
comes
into
effect
tomorrow,
so
all
decisions
will
have
to
comply
with
or
be
confirmed
with,
the
new
growth
plan
as
of
tomorrow.
D
The
few
things
to
emphasize
here
is
that,
as
we
reported
in
February,
the
conversion
of
of
employment
lands
has
typically
only
been
through
a
municipal,
comprehensive
review.
This
amendment
opens
a
window
in
Toronto's
context
for
one
third
of
our
employment
lands
to
be
exposed
to
potential
conversion,
and,
as
we
reported,
this
is
a
hundred
and
eighty
thousand
jobs
that
are
supported
in
these
employment
lands
in
the
in
the
orange
and
blue
on
the
map.
D
The
the
the
the
staff
at
the
ministry
are
interested,
of
course,
in
further
opportunities
to
identify
peas
as
they've
advised
us
of
that.
Our
worry
is,
though,
that
a
window
will
open
tomorrow.
People
may
advance
interest
in
in
conversion
and
we
will
have
to
manage
this
manage
this
process
through
a
work
program
adjustment
to
to
undertake
local
area
studies,
to
support
and
be
able
to
give
counsel
advice
as
to
whether
or
not
these
these
conversions
would
be
appropriate.
D
So
a
summary
of
what
we've
got
in
front
of
you,
I
realize
it's
complex
and
it's
there
represented
in
35
recommendations
that
touch
a
whole
host
of
city
divisions.
We
are
formally
asking
the
problems
for
an
extension
on
the
comment
period.
It
simply
isn't
enough
time
we
were
requesting
the
problems
to
issue
draft
regulations
to
fully
understand
and
comprehend
the
legislative
change
that's
called
for
so
many
of
the
details
will
be
in
regulations.
D
Wanting
to
have
a
continued,
transparent
and
thorough
stakeholder
consultation
is
as
our
norm
here
at
the
city
and
a
series
of
other
recommendations
that
deal
with
the
other
specifics,
specific
acts
and
the
growth
plan.
We
will
just
complete
my
presentation.
We
will
be
continuing
to
do
an
assessment
of
the
legislation
and
will
be
in
any
event
supplying
the
minister
with
both
our
staff
report,
any
any
decisions
or
comments
that
come
from
this
body
and
any
further
analysis
that
we
were
able
would
take
before
June
the
first.
C
E
A
C
C
E
E
C
C
E
C
F
You,
madam
Speaker,
the
the
capital
projects
for
our
rate
budgets
are
fully
rate
funded.
Where
we
see
the
impact
is
the
10
year,
capital
plan
specifically
related
to
transportation.
On
the
overall
10-year
plan,
tax
supported
twenty
six
point:
seven
billion
8.1
percent
of
that
is
the
development
charges,
which
is
about
two
billion
and
of
that
I
think
transportations
about
five
point:
four
billions
of
twenty
percent.
We
can
do
the
eight
percent
on
5.4
we'd.
Have
that
number
sorry.
F
Support
in
total,
the
tax
supported
capital.
Ten
year
plan
is
26.2
billion
over
the
ten
years,
that
is
absent,
Toronto
water,
solid
waste
and
parking
authority,
which
are
rate
based
and
funded
there.
Of
that
number
eight
point:
one
percent
relies
on
development
charges,
which
is
approximately
two
point:
1
billion,
that's
for
the
totality
of
the
city,
including
transit
expansion,
TTC,
etc.
On.
F
So
the
2.1
is
a
part
of
the
total
twenty
six
point:
two
million
right,
so
the
categories
where
we
see
it
as
transit,
expansion,
Renault
Transit,
Commission
transportation
services
and
then
facilities
and
fleet
PFN
r
has
already
discussed
other
city
services,
shelter,
support
and
housing
and
onwards.
So.
F
C
F
F
Speaker
my
questions
are
about
the
conservation
authorities
Act,
which
wasn't
really
covered
in
the
brief
I.
Don't
know
who
wants
to
answer
those
questions?
The
first
is,
you
know
this
looks
like
it's
a
bit
of
an
omnibus
bill.
Can
you
just
speak
to
what
the
changes
are
to
the
conservation
authorities
Act
and
how
those
might
have
implications
on
the
city
of
Toronto.
D
I
Speaking
with
government
relations,
what
Greg
just
mentioned
is
absolutely
true,
so
we're
still
in
the
early
days
in
terms
of
formulating
our
opinions
of
it,
but
the
consultation
period
is
not
cut
off
as
of
June
1st,
so
we
still
have
opportunity
to
review
and
and
gather
our
thoughts
and
put
them
forward.
Okay,.
F
Just
I
I
know
that
this
government
wants
to
make
changes.
The
conservation
that's
already
act.
They
tried
to
under
bill
66
I,
think
they're,
trying
it
again
in
her
bill
I
think
we
have
to
be
very
careful.
Our
area,
as
you
know,
like
water
courses,
don't
follow
municipal
boundaries,
so
I
think
we
have
to
pay
close
attention
to
that.
Okay
on
that
front,
I'll
follow
up
with
you
offline
on
this.
My
additional
questions
are
about
section
37.
Could
you
tell
me
how
they're
currently
calculated.
A
D
F
D
Through
the
speaker,
that
is,
that
is
something
that
has
been
observed
about
section
37
over
the
years
and
we
are
steadfastly
resolved
to
avoid
that
kind
of
characterization.
We
look
at
the
entire
breadth
of
the
Official
Plan
and
the
policies
in
the
Official
Plan.
We
come
to
an
opinion
about
whether
or
not
that
project
is
good
planning
from
a
built
form
point
of
view
and
from
policy
conformity
point
of
view
across
official
plan.
D
The
speakers,
so
the
the
the
use
of
37
is
a
is
a
local
planning
tool.
It
associate.
It
is
associated
with
the
growth
and
change
that
is
happening
on
a
local
area
basis
and
certainly
acknowledge
that
growth
and
change
is
happening
unevenly
across
the
city.
Some
areas
are
confronted
with
a
lot
of
change
other
areas,
none
at
all.
That
is
why,
in
the
toolkit,
the
parks
levy
tool
and
the
DC
tool
are
also
important.
F
D
Through
the
speaker
on
a
local
area
basis
meeting
a
local
test,
certainly
we
have
had
experience
in
the
past
where
a
park
may
be.
You
know
the
object
of
a
community
benefit
contribution
and
that
part
may
be.
You
know,
in
of
interest
to
a
couple
of
councillors
in
a
couple
of
communities,
and
certainly
that
would
be
an
appropriate
section.
37
benefits
so.
F
D
The
way
that
we
read
the
draft
legislation
is
that
the
community
benefits
charge
would
be
a
charge
applied
to
all
development
above
a
certain
threshold,
and
it
would
lose
its
utility
on
a
local
area
basis
and
be
completely
pooled
on
a
citywide
basis.
Unless,
in
the
regulations,
there
was
a
way
to
maintain
a
local
lens
which
I
would
submit,
we
would
be
desirous
up
because
you're
still
dealing
with
growth
and
change
in
some
areas
which
are
experiencing
such
significant
growth
and
change.
That
37
is
the
only
tool
to
mitigate
against
those
changes.
Thank.
J
J
D
Not
aware
of
anything
in
the
legislation
that
speaks
specifically
to
the
types
of
things
that
we're
looking
at
through
the
development
of
the
Hotte
plan,
for
example,
different
a
range
of
different
tools,
as
I
indicated
in
my
presentation,
it's
a
supply
based
approach,
which
we
feel
is
it
not
specifically
targeting
a
subset
of
the
objective
around
actually
producing
affordable
housing.
Just.
J
Thanks
just
picking
up
on
the
supply
side,
there
I
think
that's
a
good
point.
We
talk
a
lot
about
supply.
A
lot
of
people
you
know
feel
supply
is
the
panacea
to
address
the
affordability
challenge
in
this
city,
but
we
have
built
two
hundred
forty
two
thousand
units
in
the
last
fifteen
years
or
so
is
that
correct?
Yes,.
D
A
very
small,
a
very
small
percentage
I
have
those
numbers
somewhere,
but
I,
it's
a
very,
very
small
percentage
in
it
and
and
as
we've
acknowledged
in
other
staff
reports
and
other
initiatives
through
the
housing
now
initiative,
the
city's
11
site
initiative,
the
open
door
program,
the
ability
to
approve
and
move
forward
on
a
thousand
units
or
more
a
year.
All
of
these
initiatives
are
around
acknowledging
that
the
supply
side
itself
is
not
going
to
help
us
with
our
affordability
objectives.
So.
D
J
Let's
pick
up
on
I
said
inclusionary
zoning,
one
of
the
new
tools
that
we
have
to
sort
of
secure.
Some
of
that,
if
you
were
to
estimate
how
many
units
of
affordable
housing
could
be
secured
under
inclusionary
zoning
based
on
the
powers
in
bill,
seven,
which
was
the
bill
that
introduced
that
and
the
bill
139
system.
How
does
that
compare
to
what
we
might
expect
to
get
under
bill
108?
So.
D
Through
the
speaker
is
a
very
difficult
question
to
answer:
the
the
new
bill
limits,
the
applicability
of
inclusionary
zoning
to
major
transit
station
areas
and
hooks
it
to
other
tools
around
the
approval
of
the
MTS
A's
and
development
permit
system.
So
the
conclusion
preliminary
conclusion
we've
reached
is
that
it's
restricting
our
use,
whereas
before
with
bill
139,
we
could
apply
it
geographically
to
a
broader
range
of
instances
in
situations
across
the
city.
I
can't
give
you
a
specific
impact
number
other
than
to
say
it
will
be
less
so.
D
J
D
J
D
D
Did
provide
comments
requesting
that
we
go
to
95/5
split
on
lands
inside
and
outside
for
eventually
significant
employment
zones.
They
have
not
modified
the
maps.
To
date,
they've
indicated
a
willingness
to
continue
to
discuss
that,
but
that
would
have
to
manifest
itself
in
a
further
growth
plan.
Amendment
I
will
highlight,
however,
they
did
transition
our
OPA
231
package
of
conversion
requests
that
are
currently
at
the
L
pad.
That
is
something
that
we
did
ask
for.
D
J
You
very
much
gonna
jump
over
to
our
city
manager
very
quickly,
so
there's
a
lot
still
to
come
from
the
province,
which
I
think
and-
and
that
was
the
caveat
here
in
the
presentation
of
the
devil-
is
in
the
details.
There's
a
lot
of
information
we
don't
know,
but
have
we
heard
anything
from
the
province
on
bill,
one
that
would
indicate
the
province
will
be
providing
additional
resources
for
planning
more
reese's
resources
for
tribunals,
I
understand
that,
but
what
about
for
planning
when
they're
talking
about
updating,
MT,
SAS
and
other
policies?
Thank.
A
J
I
I
Is
that
there's
a
need
for
us
to
be
able
to
sit
down
and
work
through
in
advance
the
regulations
being
developed
and
maybe
some
effort
being
made
to
better
understand
the
true
implications
of
built
1:08
and
certainly
as
it
relates
to
what
your
chief
planners
talking
about
so
which
I
on,
which
is
clearly
identified
in
the
recommendations
as
something
that
needs
to
happen.
And
so
I
can
say
that
there
certainly
is
a
willingness
to
just
sit
down
and
talk
about
what
it
is.
That's
being
contemplated.
Thank.
K
D
Through
the
speaker,
the
details
will
come
in
the
regulations
there
it's
indication
of
of
a
cap
an
overall
cap
on
the
amount.
So
when
you're
translating
the
total
value
of
3742
and
soft
DC's
with
the
new
CBC,
we
that,
knowing
that
cap
is
an
essential
piece
of
piece
of
information.
If
we're
trying
to
translate
on
a
revenue,
neutral
basis
and.
D
The
speaker,
I,
don't
know
about
a
new
division,
but
certainly
an
intra
divisional
team
will
have
to
be
struck
to
deal
with
developing
the
legislation
does
call
for
the
city
or
municipalities
in
Ontario,
develop
a
community
benefit
strategy,
which
is
not
unlike
something
like
a
background
study
that
we've
done
for
DC's
to
understand
what
our
needs
assessment.
What
needs
we
have
and
assess
those
needs
so
that
that
can
be
baked
into
the
community
benefits,
charge
and
tied
to
our
long-range
budgeting
process
like.
K
Currently,
right
now
we
have
applications
that
are
sitting
pre,
OMB,
post,
OMB
and
elpac,
and
then
there's
going
to
be
another
need
to
transition
again
into
the
new
bill.
108
l,
Pat,
/,
OMB
regime.
You
will
not
need
additional
staff
to
to
manage
all
those
changes,
need
additional
resources
to
do
this
work
and
process
the
application.
So.
D
Through
the
speaker,
I'm
not
saying
that
at
all
I'm
I'm
today
giving
you
a
report
on
the
implications
of
the
bill.
We
do
have
a
line
in
the
financial
implications,
about
resource
impacts
needing
to
be
assessed,
and
that
will
come
in
the
in
the
coming
months.
I
can
I
can
pretty
much
conclude
that
there
will
be
resource
impacts,
especially
through
the
transition
period
that
may
last
several
years
of
getting
new
systems
and
procedures
up
and
running
and.
K
D
It
is
staffs
view
that
that
sets
up
something
that
many
of
us
have
experienced
around,
pushing
the
conversation
more
toward
an
adversarial
conversation
instead
of
a
collaborative
conversations,
and
when
we've
done
some
of
our
best
planning
working
with
developers
and
communities.
It's
been
through
the
collaborative
process
and
not
through
the
adversarial
process
and.
K
Would
you
say
that
this
this
new
process
that's
being
set
up
that
will
speed
up
appeals,
not
necessarily
approvals
change,
the
dynamic
of
collaboration
to
one
of
perhaps
more
adversary?
Is
it
going
to
give
us
better
planning
outcomes?
Will
it
give
us
better
buildings,
city
building
achievements?
Will
it
overall
build
healthier,
more
affordable,
livable
communities?
Well,.
D
That's
through
the
speaker,
that's
something
certainly
that
we
have
our
our
eye
on
all
the
time
in
making
and
giving
counsel
advice
about
whether
or
not
to
accept
a
rezoning
is
all
of
the
things
that
you
identified
in
your
question.
The
the
attention
that
this
sets
up
is
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
recommend
a
good
planning
outcome
in
accordance
with
the
official
plan.
D
The
speaker
I'm
not
going
to
speculate
on
winners
and
losers
and
the
characters
that
are
involved
in
the
in
the
play
in
the
play
I
think
the
what
we
have
been
able
to
achieve
at
the
City
of
Toronto,
our
good
balanced
outcomes
that
are
in
accordance
with
our
official
plan,
where
communities
accept
change,
we're
very
we're.
A
great
deal
of
very
good
development
by
good
developers
has
happened.
That's
where
my
mind
is
at
that.
We
want
to
reorient
the
legislation
toward
a
much
more
positive
approach
to
city
planning,
Thank.
L
You,
madam
Speaker
I,
just
had
a
couple
of
questions
in
they
were
for
the
chief
planner.
First
can
I
assume
correctly
that
the
applicability
of
the
financial
engineering
here
at
our
expense
on
growth,
paying
for
growth,
but
the
applicability
of
that
financial
engineering
in
earing
would
be
the
same
for
any
growing
municipality
in
the
problem.
So
if
you
look
at
the
city's
largest
urban
centers,
for
example,
or
even
look
at
smaller
urban
centers,
that
were
growing,
that
the
financial
engineering
and
the
pot,
the
possibilities
are
probabilities
of
the
effects
that
you
outlined.
L
D
This
to
speaker,
mr.
mayor,
this
is
a
provincial
piece
of
legislation.
It
applies
both
the
fast-growing
areas,
such
as
parts
of
Hamilton,
for
example,
I've,
been
in
touch
with
Hamilton
with
Durham.
Our
staff
have
been
in
touch
with
many
municipalities,
even
in
a
suburban
example,
there
are
concerns
coming
from
Durham
Region,
so
we
it
applaud
and
Toronto
has
both
fast-growing
urban
and
suburban
environments
to
plan
so
in
in
so
many
ways.
This
is
an
Ontario
issue
that
needs
to
be
resolved
in
in
many
different
urban
contexts,
suburban
context
across
the
province.
Well,.
L
In
commending
you
for
an
excellent
report,
you
already
really
sort
of
answered
my
second
question,
but
it
was
have
you
been
in
contact
with
some
of
the
equivalents
to
our
chief
planner
to
yourself
to
to
to
see
that
they
would
share
this
concern?
That
seems
very
evident
from
your
presentation
that
we
are.
You
know
we
run
the
risk
of
seeing
gutted
some
of
the
funds
that
we
rely
upon
to
do
things.
L
Frankly,
we've
been
criticised
for
not
doing
in
the
past
for
the
kinds
of
things
that
were
ferreted
out
by
some
of
the
questioning
from
Catholic
receeding.
Do
they
that's,
based
on
these
conversations,
you've
had
to
date
share
the
concerns
that
it
would
appear.
This
bill
is
going
to
got
very
adversely
affect
those
those
funds,
yeah.
D
Through
the
speaker,
mr.
mayor,
we
have
been
in
touch,
staff
have
been
in
touch
I've
personally
been
in
touch.
We
have
both
structured
and
unstructured
relationships
with
Ontario
municipalities
and
we'll
be
continuing
to
discuss
that
with
with
them
through
the
through
the
commenting
period.
Thank
you
thank.
A
F
Thank
you
through
you,
madam
Speaker.
Am
I
right
in
understanding
that
the
principle
of
growth
paying
for
growth
that
we've
calculated
our
development
charges
is
out
the
window
with
this
legislation
through.
D
The
speaker
we've
been
cautious
in
in
raising
the
concern
and
our
reading
of
the
legislation,
the
lack
of
regulation.
We
are
concerned
about
the
revenue
neutrality
when
you
look
at
the
restrictions.
The
time
limits,
the
other
legislative
necessities
that
have
been
put
in
the
bill.
It
is
hard
not
to
conclude
that
it
will
be
a
reduction
in
our
revenue
and
that's
I
believe
an
opinion.
That's
shared
by
our
financial
officials,
because.
F
D
Correct
and
I
I'm,
looking
at
my
finance
friends
over
there,
but
my
understanding
is:
we
have
a
series
of
services,
six
services
that
are
75%
of
our
DC
revenue,
I,
think
it's
ten
or
twelve
that
are
20
about
25
percent
of
our
DC
revenue.
It's
the
10
or
12,
and
the
25
percent
of
our
DC
revenue
that
is
scooped
up
and
roll
into
the
community
benefit.
F
Isn't
good
planning
acknowledged
that
we
need
those
those
areas
as
well
to
grow,
as
our
population
is
growing
as
our
city's
growing
so.
D
Through
the
speaker,
that's
the
conclusion
that
were
that
we're
unavoidably
coming
to
that.
If
we
cannot
assure
council
in
in
recommending
a
rezoning
without
the
assurance
that
you've
got
the
community
infrastructure
to
go
with
it,
they
connect
the
growth
plan,
has
them
connecting
so
that
the
two
connected
it
it
makes
it
difficult
to
say
that's
good
planning
so.
F
D
The
speaker,
I,
don't
believe,
there's
any
line
of
sight
in
the
legislation
that
connects
reduction
in
municipal
cost,
which
is
what
the
preamble
of
the
bill
says.
Excuse
me
to
a
affordable
housing
unit.
There
is
no
line
of
sight,
so
we
have
no
we're
able
to
draw
no
conclusion
that
the
bill
aleshire.
F
F
F
H
F
D
M
Thanks,
madam
Speaker
I'm,
not
sure
who
answers
this
question
in
the
past
major
bills
coming
for
bill
103
that
created
the
city
in
fact.
Well,
you
would
have
before
you
proceed.
It
was
something
that
far-reaching
in
that
permanent
you'd
have
a
thing
called
a
Queen's
Park
Standing
Committee
hearing
has
such
a
thing
been
contemplated
for
this
bill.
M
M
Staff
have
been
very
thorough
in
their
in
the
report.
The
chief
planners
report
really
has
every
regulation
request
or
advice
or
change
that
we
would
ask
for
within
the
recommendations,
I'm
grateful
for
those.
So
I
want
to
talk
about
about
why
we're
asking
for
those
in
inclusionary
zoning,
in
terms
of
targeting
it
closer
to
transit
stations,
certain
need
for
this
bill.
Have
we
have
we've
been
bad
at
that,
but
am
I
living
in
a
bubble
at
Don,
Mills
and
Shepherd,
and
requesting
that
near
my
subway
station
through.
D
K
D
Exceed
them,
so
that
is
something
that's
kind
of
in
our
wheelhouse
already.
We
look
forward
to
being
able
to
use,
though
the
inclusionary
zoning
tool,
both
in
Mt
SAS
and
outside
of
them,
as
we
discussed
last
term
and
this
term,
to
to
make
our
tool
kit
more
powerful
and
achieving
affordable
housing
right.
M
It's
fair
to
say,
then:
isn't
it
that
in
terms
of
I
said
or
even
or
even
the
sort
of
the
weaker
tools
we
had
before
their
recent
and
so
the
minute
we
can
put
them
in
the
pipeline
that
we
put
them
in
the
pipeline.
They're
just
not
built
out
yet,
but
we
we
as
soon
as
we're
given
a
tool.
We
use
it
here
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
Don't
we
we
have
the
opportunity,
certainly.
M
We
want
the
flexibility.
We
also
want
to
be
able
to
apply
that
if
we
have
a
large
site,
that's
a
little
further
away,
but
it's
it's
still
an
area
that
has
you
know
a
historical,
a
height
presence
and
such
we
want
to
be
able
to
apply
it.
Even
if
we
do
get
a
little
further
away
from
the
subway
makes
sense.
Do
we
not
absolutely.
D
M
Need
that
tool,
section
37,
your
presentation
outlines
for
us
how
we
have
things
in
three
distinct
buckets
right
now,
and
the
proposal
is
to
have
it
bill.
108,
they're,
two
measures
and
they're
they're,
either
or
you
would
either
use
one
or
the
other,
and
things
are
no
longer
separate.
Why
did
why
in
bill
139
realm?
Have
we
kept
them
separate,
wires,
they're,
DC's
and
then
42
and
then
37.
D
D
Our
issue
in
the
city
is
we're
building
more
intense
communities
and
we
need
to
calibrate
our
parks,
dedication
policies
to
be
better
in
line
with
that
intensity
and
we're
right
on
the
threshold
of
producing
that
draft
recommendation
to
planning
and
housing.
Actually,
as
this
comes
along,
so
that's
one
area
that
we
have
traditionally
and
I
think
for
good
reason,
treated
separately,
a
second
basket,
the
development
charges,
the
the
the
this
is
a
citywide
tool
calibrated
on
a
per
unit
basis,
based
on
a
background
study
done
every
five
years
right.
D
It's
a
key
tool
across
municipalities
to
provide
support
for
growth
through
that
through
that
tool,
that
is,
by
and
large,
a
fair
way
of
sharing
the
burden
of
growth
right,
section
37.
Finally,
a
local,
basically
a
locally
negotiated
outcome,
specific
to
a
development
application.
Really
it's
a
planning
tool
to
to
actually
address
the
the
local
impact
of
that
change
happening
in
that
community.
We've
been
able
to
successfully
a
couple
all
three
in
a
way,
even
though
they
are
very
distinct
tools
that,
and
they
don't
always
apply
to
every
situation.
So.
M
B
D
B
You
accept
dramatic,
okay
in
terms
of
you
know,
one
interesting
thing
about
this
bill.
I
know
you
didn't
have
time
and
I.
Thank
you
for
all
the
work
your
staff
did
on
this
and
I'm
sure
you're,
probably
the
only
chief
planner
has
been
able
to
do
this
and
with
a
gun
to
our
heads
here.
Thank
you
for
doing
that.
In
the
middle
of
this
bill,
which
I
call
the
developers
lottery
act
bill
108,
there's
a
there's,
19
pages
that
you
didn't
refer
to,
and
that
is
the
gutting
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act
schedule.
B
D
Through
the
through
the
speaker
and
I
believe
the
city
manager
addressed
the
conservation
changes
there
are,
as
I
indicated
in
my
presentation,
we
focused
on
the
four
pieces
of
legislation
that
bundled
together
deal
with
the
the
planning
file
so
to
speak.
There
are
other
acts
that
influence
planning,
certainly,
and
there
are
other
consultation
timelines
that
are
associated
with
that,
and
there
are
staff
reviewing
those
pieces
of
ledge
and
we'll
be
submitting
comments
on
those.
In
the
time
we
have.
We
focused
on
the
four
I
understand.
B
D
B
D
In
the
analysis
of
the
financial
implications
section
of
the
report,
it
does
identify
the
the
challenge
that,
if,
if
the
revenue
drops,
the
city
can
choose
number
one
not
to
provide
that
service
or
reach
that
service
standard
or
number,
two
find
another
source
of
revenue
which
could
include
taxes.
Okay,.
B
D
B
D
B
This
legislation
stands
right
now:
the
obligations
for
the
development
industry
to
pay
for
their
projects
in
all
of
our
wards
and
by
the
way,
the
one
you
mentioned
here
in
my
ward
at
Lawrence
and
Dufferin,
that
the
park
that
was
dedicated
is
still
not
a
park
after
three
years
that
people
have
moved
in
is
still
contaminated
and
still
not
being
used
by
the
people.
So
I
just
wish.
D
N
N
F
J
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
at
this
point
in
time,
we
don't
see
any
impact
to
the
specific
development
charges
that
Toronto
I
can
charge
for
water,
sewer
and
storm,
though
in
bill
108.
There
is
some
slight
changes
to
approvals
for
sewers,
that
they're
piloting
that
we're
looking
at
that
could
shift
some
liability
and
who's
the
owner,
etc,
but
we're
still
assessing
that
but
dollar
wise
right.
Now
we
don't
see
any
specific
change
and.
D
The
speaker
that
transition
provisions
have
not
been
provided
to
municipalities-
all
I
can
say,
is
if
somebody's
under
construction
they've
got
a
building,
permit
I
hope
they
paid
their
DC's
so
for
somebody's
under
construction.
I
wouldn't
think,
there's
a
concern
for
someone
sitting
with
a
rezoning
bylaw,
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
made
two
years
ago,
but
they
haven't
pulled
any
permits.
Yet
I
can't
answer
your
question.
N
D
J
Through
the
speaker,
there
are
some
issues
that
we
have
to
examine
with
respect
to
timing,
because,
with
respect
to
my
answer
that
I
provided
to
you
about
the
total
dollar
amount,
there,
we
don't
see
any
changes.
There
are
potential
changes
to
when
the
money
gets
paid.
So
the
timeline
can
change
and
we're
still
examining
that.
So
when
development
charges
are
payable
are
being
looked
at
and
we're
going
to
have
to
compare
that
against
old
applications
versus
new
applications.
So
so.
N
J
N
D
N
D
N
Than
more
than
30,000
is
it?
Is
it
safe
to
say
that
we
settle
or
approve
more
than
50%
of
the
applications?
I
would
say
so,
yes,
I'm,
so
tired,
much
higher,
so
right
now,
there's
a
three
year
waiting
period.
How
long
would
the
waiting
period
be
if
the
City
of
Toronto
stopped
approving
applications
well.
D
N
O
O
D
So
our
reading
of
the
proposed
legislation
is
that
community
benefits
charge
would
assemble
all
of
those
values,
whether
they
be
cash
or
in-kind
and
roll
them
up
with
the
DCs
and
the
parks
levy
into
one
charge.
So
that's
that's
the
difficulty
really
in
how
this
new
legislation
works.
Is
that
you're
dealing
with
quite
distinct
tools
in
the
planning
process?
Well,.
O
That's
right,
I
mean
some
of
the
applications
in
Ward
6
we've
had
them
built
a
daycare.
We've
had
them
do
stormwater
management
or
sewer
upgrades.
We
never
really
put
a
value
on
those
on
those
benefits,
but
we
made
it
as
part
of
the
agreement.
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
how
this
could
quash
those
side
agreements,
but
maybe
well.
D
Again,
some
some
examples
that
you're
using
are
the
cost
of
development,
so
there's
certainly
stormwater
other
matters
that
are
required
for
the
development
under
other
sections
of
the
Act
they
in
our
reading
won't
be
affected.
It
is
the
anything
that
would
be
captured
by
a
section
37
or
a
DC.
Soft
DC
would
be
affected.
The.
O
D
O
We've
touched
on
conversions
today
from
employment
lands
to
residential.
Obviously,
in
the
area
represent,
the
minbari
lands
are
of
concern,
350
acres
that
will
be
vacant,
probably
in
the
next
three
years
or
so.
How
does
a
parcel
like
that?
How
is
a
parcel
like
that
impacted
on
with
this
legislation.
D
Through
the
speaker,
the
Bombardier
lens
specifically
are
included
in
one
of
the
provincially
significant
employment
zones,
so
they
would
be,
they
would
be
considered
in
the
context
of
the
next
municipal,
comprehensive
review.
The
other
important
factor
with
Bombardier
is
that
the
lands
are
included
in
a
secondary
plan
area,
so
we
will
have
to
develop
a
process
that
takes
into
account
both
the
MCR
and
the
existing
secondary
plan
in
in
looking
at
the
future
of
those
lands.
The.
O
I
guess
the
legislation
is
tentatively
called
more
homes,
more
choice,
act
and
yet,
in
the
last
sentence
of
your
report,
you
mentioned
that
bill
went
away,
does
not
provide
any
mechanisms
to
ensure
that
any
savings
from
reduced
development
charges
in
Section,
3742
planning
out
contributions
are
passed
through
to
future
buyers
and
renters.
How
is
this
more
homes
and
more
choice?
It
sounds
like
no
less
choice
and
less
homes
through.
O
D
Pops
are
a
publicly
accessible
private,
open
space,
part
of
our
normal
planning
process,
whether
or
not
that
gets
conflated
with
the
community
benefits
charge.
That's
something
that
we'll
have
to
work
out.
My
you
know,
that's
the
best
answer.
I've
got
for
you
with
the
amount
of
information
that
we've
got
today,
putting.
A
O
F
Thorough
report
on
a
short
timeline,
but
a
really
intelligent
one,
so
you've
you've
talked
about
the
the
need
for
livable
communities
and
the
requirements
under
the
growth
plan
for
complete
communities
and
how
we
may
lose
that
ability
so
to
the
extent
that
we
lose.
That
ability
will
that
make
many
of
our
applications,
not
good
planning
just
because
or
premature,
because
we
no
longer
have
the
tools
to
to
create
those
complete
communities.
So.
D
If
we
can't
give
advice
to
council
that
there's
a
good
strong
connection
and
a
good
reasonable
expectation
that
those
two
can
be
conjoined,
at
least
at
some
part
in
the
future,
maybe
it's
in
the
capital
budget,
then
we
I
presume
we
will
struggle
more
often
with
having
to
come
to
you
and
say,
is
good
planning
and
that's
the
fundamental
problem
with
D
linking
that
that
is
in
the
legislation.
So.
F
Might
we
need
to
link
them
again
with
holding
provisions
that
the
develop
we,
you
know
it?
We
would
approve
the
the
one
part,
but
if
the
other
part
doesn't
exist,
we'll
just
have
to
say
you
can't
build
the
first
part
until
we
have
the
ability
to
provide
the
complimentary
infrastructure
and
services
to.
D
J
A
D
D
We
don't
know
specifically
why
an
individual
owner
might
choose
to
get
a
rezoning,
but
not
build
and
I.
Think
those
circumstances
in
fairness
to
landowners
could
vary
between.
You
know,
they're,
not
it's
not
their
business
model.
They
don't
have
an
investor.
There's
lots
of
reasons
why
people
get
a
rezoning
and
don't
build,
but
it
remained.
Maybe
the
market
isn't
there
to
sell
the
units
yet
so
we
can
speculate
on
why?
But
the
fact
remains
that
we
have
that.
We
do
approve
a
lot
in
this
city
that
that
does
not
get
built
in.
D
This
this
is
just
a
broad
set
of
statistics
that
represent
our
pipeline.
These
statistics
are
always
moving
and
at
any
one
time
the
city
is
approving
around
17,000
units
a
year
and
actually
under
construction,
probably
around
15,000
units
a
year
and
it's
a
moving.
It's
a
moving
number
are
a
direct
line
to
whether
or
not
we
have
enough
staff
or
not
enough.
Staff
is
I
can't
make
that
direct
relationship.
D
A
A
D
Through
the
speaker,
the
previous
legislation
introduced
inclusionary
zoning
and
our
ability
to
use
it
all
over
the
city.
This
legislation
restricts
the
use
of
inclusionary
zoning
to
areas
around
major
transit
stations,
roughly
500
to
800
meters
away.
So
the
the
actual
geography
of
where
we
can
use
inclusionary
is
less
than
it
was
under
the
previous
legislation,
and
our
concern
is
that
we
don't
want
to
be
fettered
by
our
circumstances
in
Toronto
that
certainly
there's
a
good
logic
to
having
inclusionary
zoning
at
major
transit
station
areas.
A
Can
you
tell
me,
because
that,
with
all
the
parks
and
that
are
coming
forward
with
new
developments
and
there's
there's
hundreds
of
them
in
some
areas,
we
have
a
lot
of
parkland,
but
yet,
where
we're
building
more
parks,
do
we
have?
Are
you
do
we
have
the
operating
cost
to
maintain
these
parks
once
once
they're
dedicated
so.
E
E
The
speaker,
that's
something
we
would
have
to
look
to
our
labor
management
folks
about
and
look
to
the
provisions
within
the
collective
agreement
around
how
we
would
do
some
of
those
things.
We
do
have
a
number
of
active
volunteer
groups
that
support
parks
and
parks,
clean
up
in
environmental
pieces
and
the
rest,
as
you
likely
know,
thank
you.
Thank.
G
F
G
F
D
Upping
our
game
on
on
addressing
housing
needs
in
the
city
that
are
unique
to
the
city,
especially
with
the
number
of
affordable
housing
units
that
we
need
to
produce
so
that
that,
broadly
speaking,
that
is
what
we've
heard
from
the
province
you
can.
You
can
read
in
the
preamble
to
the
bill
a
number
of
specific
intents
around
their
view
that
increasing
the
supply
alone
will
in
will
and
speeding
up
the
approvals
process
will
advance
the
the
the
interest
of
building
more
housing.
D
F
D
Speaker,
our
submission
is
that
we
we
do.
This
council
does
approve
a
lot
of
housing
every
year.
Whether
or
not
it
gets
built
is
is
the
prerogative
of
individual
landowners,
but
we
do
keep
the
pipeline
well
fed.
We
have
a
significant
need
in
this
city
for
housing
and
we
share
that
goal.
It's
really
how
that
manifests
itself,
whether
we
have
the
financial
tools
to
make
sure
we
build
livable
communities
and
and
whether
or
not
the
planning
outcomes
results
in
in
in
achieving
our
official
plan
objectives.
F
So
let
me
go
back
to
my
to
my
first
question.
So
you've
had
no
conversations
whatsoever
with
the
provincial
anyone
at
the
province.
Saying
look,
you
know
we
got
a
real
problem
here.
You
know
too
much
too
much.
Stick.
You
know
that
you
know
developers
are
getting
stuck
through
this
process.
They
can't
get
their
projects
off
the
ground.
You're
charging
them
way
too
much
money
for
things
like
community
benefits
or
park
space.
F
D
Through
the
speaker,
that
province
has
held
consultations
with
thematic
consultations
with
the
industry,
where,
with
municipalities
and
the
province
with
community
organizations,
I
have
attended
and
our
staff
have
attended
some
of
those
consultations.
They
were
broad
somatic
consultations,
some
of
the
issues
that
you
raised,
whether
it
be
anyone's
notion
of
red
tape,
the
speed
of
approvals,
the
transparency,
predictability
of
the
process,
the
cost
of
the
process.
Those
issues
were
all
were
spoken
to
by
various
perspectives
around
the
table.
P
Holiday,
thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
My
questions,
I
believe,
will
start
with
a
chief
planner
and
maybe
augmented
by
the
chief
financial
officer
and
others
when
we
receive
planning
reports
at
Community
Council
in
here,
preliminary
reports
and
final
reports
there's
a
little
section
that
says
financial
implications
and
it's
always
really
shorter.
It's
usually
really
short.
It
just
says
you
know,
there's
no
financial
implication
of
adopting
this
report,
because
it's
a
policy
if
bill
108
goes
through.
Are
you
able
to
do
that
anymore?
P
D
The
speaker
you're
quite
right,
the
the
use
of
the
financial
implications
section
in
our
reports
is
quite
rote.
We
we
we
do
not
attach
it
to
a
program
or
capital
implication,
typically,
I
think
in
some
of
our
larger
applications
we
have
built
in
a
larger
financial
implications
statement.
Certainly
some
of
our
large
revite
sites
have
financial
applications,
sections
I
think
moving
forward
as
I
indicated
to
councillor
Fillion.
P
P
In
the
report
you
talked
about
the
cydia
acting
as
a
bank
and
I
wondered
if
you
could
explain
that
a
little
bit
better
to
me.
I
understand
there
are
some
milestone,
dates
that
are
potentially
different
on
when
we
would
collect
development
charges
and
have
to
essentially
float
those
charges.
Could
you,
in
in
a
few
seconds
just
help
me
understand
that
just
a
bit
better?
It's
it's
a
it's
a
bit.
Financial
nerdy
and
I
need
a
bit
of
basic
understanding
and
how
that
works.
H
In
this
case,
with
this
legislation,
the
date
at
which
the
amount
payable
would
be
determined
would
be
advanced
or
in
many
cases,
to
a
planning
trigger,
such
as
a
site
plan
application
or
a
zoning
application,
and
in
some
cases
that
could
advance
the
calculation
of
the
amount
payable
by
years.
At
the
same
time,
for
many
developments,
they
have
added
a
feature
where
the
payment
date
could
be
deferred
until
a
five-year
amortization
period
after
occupancy,
so
the
payment
in
those
cases
would
be
deferred
for
another
six
eight
years.
H
So
we
what
they're
introducing,
is
a
big
timing,
difference
between
the
calculation
of
how
much
is
due
and
when
you
pay
it,
and
they
have
indicated
that
there'd
be
some
compensation
to
the
municipality
through
an
interest
rate
set
by
regulation.
But
our
concern,
of
course,
is
that
that
interest
rate
would
not
reflect
the
market
value
of
a
construction
financing
and
that
it
might
undermine
the
the
city's
understood.
P
P
I
P
H
H
A
G
G
G
How
will
this
new
bill
reflect
on
our
ability
to
be
able
to
add
parkland
community
space,
recreational
space
and
also
new
schools?
I
mean
in
one
area
I'm
getting
right
now
in
the
pipeline,
something
like
about
13
towers
at
300
units
apiece.
That
would
be
something
like
about
four
thousand
five
thousand
units
and
one-third
of
them
would
be
a
units
we'll
have
two
and
three
bedrooms.
That
means
that
we're
gonna
have
need
for
you,
schools.
G
D
D
We
right
now
approve
a
lot
of
development
in
the
city
and
we
bring,
alongside
in
lockstep
a
whole
suite
of
community
infrastructure
via
community
centers
parks,
pools
and
arts
facilities,
and
a
long
long
list
by
D
linking
and
not
assuring
us
that
we
can
can
can
continue
to
plan
in
that
way,
then
the
types
of
development
that
you're
witnessing
in
your
ward
could
be
entirely
different
places
and
and
and
perhaps
much
less
desirable
places
to
live.
You
don't
have
that
full
suite
of
community
infrastructure
with
them,
but.
G
End
of
the
day,
because
we
are
the
ones
that
look
after
buildings
and
putting
houses
up
and
putting
condos
up
the
people
of
Toronto
once
we
don't
have
that
infrastructure
in
order
to
and
the
amenities
in
order
to
support
where
they
live,
they
will
turn
around
and
playing
the
city
versus
actually
blaming
and
putting
the
finger
on
the
province
that
is
causing
us
not
to
be
able
to
provide
in
both
amenities.
What
I'd
be
correcting
this
to.
D
The
speaker,
we
rely
on
a
legislative
framework
to
achieve
balanced
growth.
Whether
people
blame
you
know
where
they
go
to
blame
is
is
their
business,
but
from
our
perspective,
from
staffs
perspective,
we
want
to
be
able
to
recommend
good
quality,
complete
communities
so
that
the
the
amount
of
blaming
that
goes
on
after
the
fact
is
substantially
reduced.
Well,
okay,.
G
That's
a
political
political
question,
so
I'm
not
gonna,
be
it
try
to
involve
staff
in
it,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
when
we
don't
have
the
money
in
order
to
do
this
and
the
developers
to
not
come
up
with
the
money,
that's
a
developer
comes
to
Kolkata,
it's
a
developer's
lottery.
You
will
win
so
where
are
we
gonna
be
able
to
get
this
money
and
where
we're
going
to
be
able
to
get
the
ability
in
order
to
build
these
facilities?
D
The
speaker
growth,
we
go
by
the
principle
of
growth,
paying
for
growth.
That's
why
we
have
the
suite
of
tools
that
we
have.
If
those,
if
that
suite
of
tools
operates
differently
and
it's
not
revenue
neutral,
then
we
have
a
service
standard
issue.
We
have
to
lower
our
services
or
adjust
our
services
or
we
have
a
revenue
problem.
We
need
more
revenue
to
sustain
those
services.
How.
G
D
The
speaker
in
the
report
we've
hesitated
to
give
you
a
bottom
line
answer
because
of
our
lack
of
information
around
the
the
regulations.
What
we've
given
you
is
a
broad
understanding
of
where
we're
exposed
the
types
of
services
where
we're
exposed
the
amount
of
money
we're
ever
exposed.
It's
in
the
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
that
are
outlined
in
the
report
and
without
further
information.
It's
difficult
for
us
to
be
more
than
your.
G
Estimate,
if
we're,
let's
say
what
is
coming
down
the
pipeline,
if
we
were
able
to
get
a
hundred
million
dollars,
what
would
we
be
able
to
charge
now?
What
percentage
can
we
we
expect
that
we
able
to
charge
twenty
thirty
million
I
mean
I'm,
just
looking
for
a
guesstimate
of
the
percentage
that
we
can
charge
versus
what
we
were
going
to
be
able
to
charge
through.
D
A
K
You,
madam
Speaker,
just
a
couple
questions
I
wanted
to
ask
specifically
about
the
TTC.
As
you
know,
recently,
we've
had
a
report
indicating
we
have
a
thirty
3.5
billion
dollar
challenge
over
the
next
15
years
on
capital
and
maintenance.
That
does
not
include
expansion.
The
thirty
three
point,
five
billion.
So
what
I
want
to
understand
today
is
how
would
this
potentially
impact
the
TTC's
funding.
H
K
H
Well,
I
think
there's
there's
sort
of
a
transitional
risk
where
we
development
applications
could
could
slow
down.
While
we're
waiting
for
all
of
these
issues
to
be
resolved,
and
then
there's
a
long
term
risk
about
how
the
actual
act
and
the
regulations
will
will
affect
revenue
and
those
those
uncertainties
could
certainly
put
the
city
in
a
position
of
deciding
whether
it
it
would
continue
to
spend
at
the
same
rate.
Okay,.
K
Thank
you,
I
want
to
ask
Lou
a
question
and
I've
asked
him
this
before
at
committee,
Yonge
and
Eglinton
very
densely
populated,
if
not
the
most
densely
populated
urban
growth
center
in
the
Greater
Golden
Horseshoe.
As
many
of
us
know,
you
know,
we've
talked
a
lot
about
infrastructure
today,
I
bring
it
up
at
every
public
meeting
as
do
residents,
but
let's
get
as
basic
as
water
and
pumping
water
up
to
the
top
of
these
towers
and
some
of
the
cost
implications
for
the
city.
J
Through
my
speaker,
with
respect
to,
in
specifically
the
Midtown
area,
what
we
identified
is
there's
a
need
to
upgrade
the
services
in
that
area
from
water
and
and
server
perspective,
so
there's
up
sizing
of
water
mains
that
are
required
in
order
to
meet
not
just
the
population
growth,
but
also
fire
flow
regulations
to
provide
sufficient
flow
to
deal
with
high-rise
structures.
In
that
area
sewers
we
need
to
upgrade
the
sewers
to
handle
the
additional
sewage
that
will
come
as
well
as
stormwater
pipes.
J
We've
got
those
projects
identified
and
they're
within
Toronto
waters,
capital
program,
as
growth
related
the
potential
implications
that
we
see
right
now
we
heard
about
the
timing
and
phasing
issues
that
we're
trying
to
understand
right
now
we
we're
forecasting
to
receive
a
certain
amount
of
revenue
from
development
charges
at
a
certain
rate
per
year.
If
there
are
delays
with
respect
to
when
we
get
those
monies
I
don't
perceive
the
read
delays
and
when
that
infrastructure
needs
to
be
built,
so
try
water
we'll
have
to
find
a
way
to
finance
the
building
of
that
infrastructure.
J
It's
either
going
to
have
to
use
its
its
reserve,
which
will
draw
it
down
more
quickly
and
or
borrow
which
we've
never
done
in
Toronto
water
is
we
have
a
pay-as-you-go
model
or
change
the
capital
program
over
the
10
year
and
I'm
crowding
up
the
state
of
good
repair
funding,
so
those
are
all
different
options
that
would
need
to
be
explored
all
based
on
the
changing
revenue
stream.
You
might
have.
K
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
and
to
the
chief
planner,
our
guests
from
the
United
Nations
Planning
and
Housing
Committee
said
the
day
before
on
CP
24,
but
also
I,
believe
that
the
committee
she
talked
about
the
housing
supply
and
and
stalk.
She
indicated
there
isn't
an
issue
with
that:
it's
the
type
of
stock
and
affordable
housing.
So,
but
she
said
big
picture,
there's
not
an
issue.
Would
you
concur
with
that
comment?.
D
Through
the
speaker,
yes,
we
we
provided
statistics
that
demonstrate
that
we
have
a
robust
pipeline
that
we
feed
every
year
with
approvals.
I
think
the
issue
more
in
Toronto
is
around
affordability
and
our
particular
need
across
a
spectrum
of
need.
Much
of
that
need
will
not
be
addressed
by
the
market
and
requires
a
elaborate,
a
fairly
elaborate
program,
all
the
way
from
municipal
shelters,
TCH,
open-door
housing.
Now
all
the
different
initiatives
that
were
underway
with
to
address
aspects
of
housing
need
that
are
not
addressed
by
the
market
and
won't
be
addressed
by
the
market.
Okay,.
K
D
F
You
speaker,
I'm
gonna,
start
with
a
question
to
the
city
solicitor
right
now
we're
mired
in
a
lengthy
hearing
on
the
regulations
we
brought
in
around
air
B&B.
Madam
speaker.
Yes,
that's
correct,
Minister,
Municipal,
Affairs
and
housing
has
a
legal
tool
available
to
him
called
a
ministerial
zoning
order.
F
Rental
accommodation
viola
is
a
zoning
bylaw
and
the
minister
does
have
zoning
Authority.
So
if
the
minister
of
municipal
affairs
and
housing
wanted
to
create
6,000
rental
units
in
the
city
of
toronto
tomorrow,
he
could
pass
a
ministerial
zoning
order
which
effectively
puts
the
air,
B&B
or
short-term
rental
bylaw
that
we
had
into
effect.
Are
you,
madam
Speaker
I'm,
not
familiar
with
the
number
of
units
currently
being
used
for
Airbnb.
H
F
F
D
F
D
Would
suggest
that
it
it's
highly
dependent
on
a
transition
provisions
where
the
the
both
parks,
the
affordable
housing,
other
community
infrastructure
involved
in
making
a
complete
community
on
that
site
may
be
in
jeopardy,
depending
on
the
way
the
transition
provisions
are
written
for
the
new
legislation.
If
they
take
us
back
in
time,
then
maybe
the
new
rules
will
apply
to
that
site
and.
F
D
Proposed
rules
would
have
us
assemble
all
of
the
so-called
community
benefits
or
community
facilities,
including
affordable
housing,
accumulate
them
all
and
collect
them
all
up.
37:42
soft
Dacey's
create
after
we
do
a
strategy
after
we
do
it.
After
we
do
a
citywide
strategy
which
may
have
local
aspects
there's
a
number
of
dominoes
that
have
to
fall
first,
and
we
would
come
back
to
the
question
of
before
and
after
judgment.
D
F
Would
it
be
fair
to
say
that
the
application
for
the
OPA
on
that
site,
we
have
a
tool
in
hand
that
would
guarantee
affordable
housing.
But
if
the
applicant
looks
at
the
new
rules
and
says
to
themselves,
you
know
what
I'm
gonna
reapply
under
the
new
rules.
We
have
uncertainty
instead
of
certainty,
I.
F
This
puts
some
affordable
housing,
which
we
have
certainty
around
at
risk.
That's
correct!
Okay,
thank
you!
Thinking
about
the
same
site.
They
haven't
come
in
yet
for
their
zoning
bylaw,
because
there's
a
lot
of
complexity
around
it.
When
on
a
large
site
to
do
a
zoning
review,
we
would
upfront
charge
a
considerable
amount
in
planning
fees.
F
To
two
million
dollars:
if
because
this
site
is
near
what
the
provincial
government
refers
to
as
a
major
transit
service,
our
station
area
and
we
are
put
through
a
development
permit
system
on
those
sites,
are
we
able
to
charge
the
applicant
fees
upfront
to
do
that
planning
work?
That
was
your
last
question.
So.
D
A
few
years,
if
you
speaker
a
few
years
ago
when
we
brought
forward
an
official
plan
amendment
for
development
permit
system
and
which
is
at
the
L
Pat
under
appeal,
we
did
I
believe
canvassed
that
issue
and
my
view
would
be
that
we
would
have
to
still
operate
on
a
cost
recovery
basis
going
forward.
So,
even
if
we
had
a
new
planning
system,
we
would
still
be
interested
in
evaluating
the
car
of
administering
that
planning
system
and
passing
those
costs
on
to
the
applicant.
A
L
Madam
Speaker,
thank
you.
First
of
all,
I
should
say
that
I
believe
counsel
area.
I
was
going
to
move
a
motion
at
the
end
of
the
of
the
debate
today.
That
I
hope
will
take
into
account
a
number
of
the
points
that
have
been
made
in
what
has
been
a
very
enlightening,
an
excellent
both
question
period
and
and
and
a
discussion
that's
been
happening.
You
know
it's
of
interest
to
me
that
you
know
in
this
time
that
I've
been
in
this
in
this
job.
There
are
a
number
there.
L
There
are
many
criticisms
that
we
hear
about
things,
but
if
you
looked
at
some
of
the
ones
that
are
most
prevalent
I
guess
maybe
the
single
most
prevalent,
one
aside
from
concerns
about
traffic
would
be
that
we
have.
We,
the
city
government
as
a
whole
over
time,
has
allowed
too
much
development
to
take
place
without
the
accompanying
necessary
infrastructure,
social
infrastructure.
You
know
neighborhood
infrastructure
and
so
on.
A
second
criticism
that
I
think
is
almost
risen
to
first
place
in
the
last
couple
of
years.
L
Certainly
during
the
election
campaign,
for
my
reckoning,
is
that,
yes,
indeed,
we
have
lots
of
housing
being
built
in
the
city,
but
there's
a
huge
sort
of
gap.
That's
missing
for
people
in
the
middle.
You
know
people
who
are
in
need
of
what
we
call
affordable
housing.
There
has
been
a
third
criticism
and
I'm
only
giving
a
partial
list,
because
we
all
know
what
they
are,
that
we
have
collected
a
lot
of
money
over
time,
but
that
we
haven't
invested
it.
L
To
this
is
that
what
you
have
happening
here
through
this
process,
as
it
now
appears
and
that's
a
process
that
says
you
introduce
a
bill
with
very
little
advance
consultation,
certainly
not
with
us
and
with
the
public's
that
we
represent
and
it's
a
bill
that
brings
about
fundamentally
in
part
changes
to
planning
to
municipal
finance,
to
of
housing
and
to
other
aspects
of
social
and
infrastructure
policy.
You
know,
without
without
any
discussion
whatsoever
in
some
respects,
it's
it's
actually
worse,
because
you
know
you
can
deal
with
a
year-to-year
budget.
L
Huge
changes
that
have
huge
implications
and
I
think
they
have
a
huge
implications
financially
for
us,
and
what's
of
real
concern,
is
the
fact
that
they
have
allowed
for
30
days
on
these
fundamentally
important
planning
out
social,
financial,
municipal
finance
matters,
30
days
of
consultation
and
as
councillor
Carroll
pointed
out,
no
other
legislative
body
where
and
they've
had
to
have
at
this
government.
So
far,
I
must
say
of
actually
having
major
bills,
including
the
one
that
affected
the
size
of
this
council
with
no
legislative
hearings
at
all,
I
mean
I.
L
L
It
actually
isn't
such
a
bad
requirement
that
they
put
on
you
when
it's
all
said
and
done.
These
huge
decisions
are
gonna
be
left.
Is
the
chief
planner
pointed
out
two
regulations
passed
in
secret
with
no
consultation,
and
so
what
do
you
get?
Well,
you
get
the
net
result
of
dramatically
reduced
funding
available
to
provide
for
precisely
the
infrastructure.
L
They
need
a
place
to
go
that
might
be
a
library
or
community
center
that
takes
back
so
make
no
mistake.
I
think
what
this
amounts
to
and
I'll
conclude
on.
This
note
is
taken
as
it
would
appear
from
what
we
know:
a
an
even
bigger
financial
cutback
for
the
city
at
the
end
of
the
day,
in
a
long-term
way
for
really
important
infrastructure,
as
opposed
to
day-to-day
operating
costs
than
even
the
budgetary
debate
that
we're
having
right
now
and
I.
L
Just
think
that
the
most
easily
understood
examples
of
that
are
the
discussion
that
was
had
by
Miss
romoff
with
regard
to
parks
and,
secondly,
in
the
childcare
12,
centers,
500
spaces
gone
and
thirdly,
affordable
housing.
The
number
one
priority
of
the
people,
which
I
think
the
questions
from
the
deputy
mayor
brought
out
very
well
so
to
me.
I,
would
think
that
very
least
and
councilor
viola
will
have
a
number
of
recommendations.
L
It
starts
with
proper
consultation,
meaningful
consultation
places
we
can
go
and
I
believe
we
will
be
in
common
cause
and
that's
what
my
questions
were
devoted
to
with
the
chief
planner
with
the
other
cities.
I
think
I
can't
believe
we
won't
be
in
a
very
common
front
that
I
just
don't
know
if
anybody
will
listen.
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
Q.
L
I
should
I
should
say
through
you,
madam
Speaker,
that
I
think
whether
it's
me
or
whether
it's
the
deputy
mayor
or
others
I've
had
meetings
with
the
minister
of
housing.
I
went
to
see
him
and
he
came
to
see
me
I
think
that
the
problem
here
is
not
that
we
haven't
been
making
an
effort.
If
that's
the
implication
of
the
question,
the
problem
has
been
that
that
they
don't
want
to
listen
and
that
they
they
you
know,
they
don't
seem
to
have
taken
into
account.
L
L
Some
of
that
is
in
my
ward,
but
maybe
I
could
just
finish
the
answer
and
I'll
finish
quickly,
not
the
kind
of
housing
we
necessarily
need
for
the
marketplace
taken
as
a
whole
and
that
this
notion
that
they're
going
to
speed
up
housing
is
is
the
it's
not
necessarily
the
housing
that
we
need
in
total
and,
secondly,
that
it
is
going
to
impair
our
ability
to
provide.
If
you,
even
if
you
do
speed
up
housing,
the
infrastructure
we
need
so
we've
made
those
points
of
you
know
how.
G
L
Whenever
they
never
told
me
anything,
I
mean
they
were
they.
They
said
publicly
that
they
were
gonna,
make
some
changes
to
the
planning
process.
They've
said
that
over
the
last
couple
of
months
you
were
glad
well
I've
had
meetings
with
the
minister
I've
had
meetings
with
the
premier
since
that
time,
but
if
you
said
did
they
lay
out
for
me
what
they
were
gonna
do
by
way
of
affecting
minimus
of
all
financing?
This
way,
absolutely
not
not
even
a
hint
of
it
and
didn't.
L
Said
they
were
gonna,
be
making
changes
to
apply,
and
that
was
said
publicly,
but
they
didn't
give
me
any
hints.
Just,
as
was
the
case
with
the
transit
plan,
I
mean
you
know.
We
literally
found
out
the
night
before
on
the
transit
plan.
What
they
were
gonna
do
and
even
then
it
was
incomplete
information
and
on
the
council.
L
As
you
know,
we
found
out
the
night
before
so
there
there
was
no
detailed
briefing
that
I
had
I
can
assure
you
or
even
a
series
of
questions
that
would
lead
you
to
believe
it
was
going
to
be
exactly
like
this.
The
broad
parameters
of
they
were
talking
about
sort
of
trying
to
speed
up.
Things
was
said
publicly
in
the
newspaper,
but
there
was
nothing
added
to
that
in
the
meetings
that
so
he
had
you.
G
Know
going
back
council
transportation
on
this
one.
This
shows
a
disrespect
from
the
problems,
the
city.
It
shows
the
disrespect
to
you
or
maybe
a
vendetta
against
you
and
we
don't
get
this
information.
I
mean
you
know
what
is
there.
It
needs
to
be
done
in
order
to
change
that
that
thought
in
the
province
or
from
us
to
them.
Like
I
mean
it
seems
to
me,
there's
no
coordination,
no
working
relationship,
they're,
ignoring
us
and
they're,
just
telling
us
to
take
a
flying
leap
over
the
lake
I.
L
Know
speaker3
you
to
the
memory
you're
very
fond
of
saying
it
somehow
it
shows
a
disrespect
for
me.
I
think
it
shows
as
much
disrespect
for
you
and
all
the
members
of
council
and
of
cities
generally
across
the
province.
This
is
the
this
is
where
your
argument
with
respect
Falls
down
about
this
being
some
personal
thing.
First
of
all,
I've
said
in
the
media
in
response
to
you're.
G
A
L
Said
yesterday,
in
response
to
the
assertions
made
by
the
member
that
this
was
a
personal
thing,
it's
not
personal
for
me,
not
one
iota
of
my
view
on
this.
It's
all
based
on
sound
public
policy
and
what's
best
for
the
City
of
Toronto
and
I
guess
if
it
was
a
personal
thing
how
come-
and
this
is
part
of
why
I
asked
the
question
not
invited.
L
How
come
if
it's
so
personal
and
if
I'm
being
disrespected
or
whatever,
as
you
say,
how
come
they're,
also
disrespecting
all
the
other
mayor's
and
all
the
other
cities
in
Ontario
and
how
come
the
budgetary
provisions
that
we're
talking
about
here
also
apply
to
all
the
other
cities
in
Ontario?
And
that's
where
you
should
give
your
head
a
shake,
and
these.
L
Madam
Speaker,
through
you,
if
I
thought
it
would
achieve
anything
except
possibly
a
negative
result
to
do
that.
I
would
do
that
and
there
are
people
that
we
may
well
end
up.
I
would
hope
they
provide
us
with
the
opportunity
to
have
some
representatives
of
the
City
of
Toronto,
whether
it
be
public
service
staff
or
councillors,
to
sit
down
and
discuss
the
budget
and
discuss
these
changes,
and
that's
exactly
what
I
said.
L
We
were
asking
for
proper,
meaningful
consultation
where
they
actually
listened
and
I
said
on
TV
the
other
day
when
it
comes
to
the
budget.
Madam
Speaker
I
don't
care
if
they
invite
the
man
on
the
to
represent
the
City
of
Toronto.
If
they
only
would
agree
to
have
meaningful
discussions
about
the
budget
and
I'd
say
the
same
about
this
bill,
then
I
would
be
happy
and
if
they
choose
you
to
go
up
and
have
those
meaningful
consultations,
then
then
at
least
it'll
be
better
than
what
we
seem
to
have
today.
So.
I
The
other
motion
is
actually
staff
have
requested
that
this
be
part
of
it,
because
it's
in
their
summary
and
their
report,
but
it's
not
a
recommendation.
This
is
an
additional
recommendation,
essentially
to
ensure
that
there
is
predictability
in
our
ten-year
law.
There
are
long-term
capital
plans
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
better
way
if
they
are
going
to
be
moving
to
a
community
benefits.
I
Church
model
that'll
be
done
in
a
way
that
follows
the
the
individual
in
the
units,
rather
than
the
the
the
unpredictable
fluctuation
and
land
value,
which
is
not
a
good
way
to
ensure
that
we
provide
the
basic
infrastructure
and
services
that
communities
rely
on
in
every
part
of
the
city.
What
we
are
seen
in
bill
108
colleagues,
is
nothing
less
than
a
transfer
of
costs
for
basic
services
such
as
parks
and
childcare,
and
libraries
and
recreation
centres
from
the
development
industry
to
the
taxpaying
residents
of
Toronto
and
the
City
of
Toronto.
I
It's
we
rely
on
infrastructure
and
services
to
support
a
great
quality
of
life
in
our
communities,
and
this
should
be
about
community
planning
rather
than
supporting
the
development
industry's
profit
margin.
The
chief
planner
said
very
clearly
earlier
bill.
108
does
not
provide
any
tools
to
create
more
affordable
housing.
This
is
a
government
that,
in
the
same
year,
withdrew
all
rental
guidelines
rent
guidelines
to
protect
tenants
in
any
new
units
here
in
Ontario,
this
is
not
about
affordable
housing.
This
is
about
the
affordability
of
developers
working
in
our
area.
I
It
is
also
a
dysfunctional
piece
of
legislation.
It
essentially
triggers
an
appeal
in
most
cases,
mr.
Linton
said
very
clearly
that
it
is
not
practical
to
expect
that,
our
that
our
planning
staff
are
able
to
write
up
reports
within
the
90
days
prescribed,
rather
than
allowing
them
a
reasonable
amount
of
time
to
be
able
to
deliver
the
reports
to
Council
for
their
consideration
it
it
essentially
subsidizes.
We
are
subsidizing
as
a
city,
the
cost
of
growth.
I
We
need
pipes,
we
need
electricity,
we
need
school
capacity,
but
if
you
go
to
Yonge
and
Eglinton,
for
example,
now
you
will
see
signs
from
the
Toronto
District
School
Board,
making
it
very
clear
that
if
you
are
a
family
moving
into
the
neighborhood,
your
kid
may
not
even
be
able
to
go
to
the
local
school.
That's
just
bad
planning,
that's
not
acceptable,
and
the
Ford
government
should
not
be
making
it
worse.
I
This
also
puts
heritage
in
jeopardy
as
well.
This
makes
it
completely
unpredictable
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
be
able
to
move
forward
with
our
plans
to
bit.
Madam
Speaker,
if
you
could
pause
my
time
just
for
a
moment,
I'm
just
having
a
little
trouble
hearing
because
of
the
conversation
going
on
now,.
I
This
threatens
our
ability
to
preserve
the
remains
of
our
cultural
and
architectural
heritage
in
the
city,
which
we
have
not
good
enough
done
a
good
enough
job
on
in
the
past,
but
we
have
a
remarkable
heritage
planning
staff
who
are
more
moving
forward
with
innovative
tools
in
the
future
to
be
able
to
do
a
better
job.
I
want
to
thank
by
the
way
Greg
Glen
turn
chief
planner,
Lynn
turn
and
his
staff,
all
of
whom
you
see
here,
all
of
whom
are
deeply
concerned
and
are
sitting
here
in
the
chambers
today.
I
There
are
many
reasons
why,
when
I
am
no
longer
a
city
council,
I
will
look.
Counselor
I
will
look
back
and
appreciate
and
be
grateful
for
the
time
that
I
was
here
to
serve
the
community
that
I
love.
But
there
are
no.
There
are
no
group
of
people
who
I
feel
more
privileged
to
be
working
with
than
our
planning
staff.
They
want
our
communities
to
have
a
great
quality
of
life.
I
They
want
to
plan
in
a
way
that
it's
not
just
about
yes
to
growth
or
no
to
growth,
but
it's
to
ensure
that
growth
leaves
the
place
better
than
it
found
it
that
we
have
great
schools.
We
have
great
childcare,
we
have
affordable
housing.
We
have
infrastructure
to
support
their
quality
of
life.
A
kid
should
be
able
to
go
to
their
local
school
and
at
least
at
the
very
least.
I
You
should
be
able
to
predict
that
the
water
is
going
to
come
out
of
your
tap
or
your
toilets,
gonna
flush,
that's
what
planning
is
all
about.
It's
about
making
sure
that
our
communities
work.
This
is
a
handover
of
the
planning
process
to
the
development
industry
in
their
lobbyists.
We
need
to
push
back,
we
need
to
say
no
and
at
the
very
least,
we
need
to
have
reasonable
time
to
be
able
to
review
the
legislation
and
the
draft
regulations
before
they
are
enacted.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
M
You,
madam
Speaker,
madam
Speaker
I,
had
motions
I
wanted
to
move,
but
instead
what
I've
done
is
is
hand
them
to
the
the
chair,
planning,
I.
Think
the
mayor
is
right.
I
think
we
have
to
have
common
cause
now
and
we
have
to
get
behind
our
leaders,
whether
we
like
it
or
not.
We
do
we
actually
don't
get
invited
to
go
and
sit
in
the
premiers
office
along
with
the
mayor.
Otherwise,
if
he
could
he'd
take
all
25
of
us
every
single
time,
that's
just
not
how
it
works.
M
We
have
to
we're
not
talking
about
something
that
might
make
it
difficult
to
do
our
jobs
for
the
amount
of
time
that
we
are
elected
when
you
start
fundamentally
messing
with
the
Planning
Act
and
the
13
other
acts
of
legislation,
environmental
safety,
when
you
start
messing
with
all
of
these
in
a
bill
you're
talking
about
something
that's
going
to
affect
our
grandchildren,
and
so
we
better
find
common
cause
and
we
better
get
on
it.
I
I
was
frustrated
all
day
yesterday
that
this
report
wasn't
ready
and
now
I'm
glad
we
waited.
M
It
was
worth
waiting
for
mr.
Lyne
turn.
It
is
so
thorough.
The
presentation
is,
one
I
can
easily
use
now
with,
so
that
my
community
can
understand.
What's
at
stake
for
them
and
then
what
will
they
do?
Well
at
the
moment,
they
can't
do
a
damn
thing:
there's
no
consultation!
There
is
no
Queen's
Park
standing
committee.
Public
hearings
on
something
this
major.
M
That
is
unheard
of
the
mayor's
already
told
you
in
his
knowledge
of
this
sort
of
system
goes
back
to
the
70s,
just
in
the
very
last
term,
when
they
did
the
OMB
Reform,
they
had
a
Queen's,
Park
Standing
Committee
public
hearing
on
it.
They
also
had
consultation
out
in
communities.
They
went
to
the
far
north.
In
fact
they
went
everywhere.
They
needed
to
go
to
make
one
simple
change:
the
appeal
part
of
planning,
but
now
we're
fundamentally
changing
planning
itself
and
when
I
say
we
should
be
having
that
hearing.
M
Birk
I
know
that
the
developers
will
all
line
up,
they'll,
all
line
up,
they'll
demand
slots
and
knowing
that
the
slant
of
this
bill,
the
government
will
give
them
as
many
slots
as
they
can
so
they'll
speak
to
those
regulations.
If
you
are
gonna
make
amendments
before
third
reading,
these
ones
don't
change
these,
but
we've
got
to
be
able
to
speak
to
the
ones
that
we
know
we
need
changes
on
they're
all
outlined
in
the
recommendations
of
the
chief
planner
is
provided
for
us.
M
We
have
a
duty
now
to
inform
our
communities
about
what's
at
stake.
That's
why
we're
all
scheduling,
town
halls
and
we've
got
the
tools
now
with
this
presentation
to
go
out
and
give
those
presentations.
Mr.
Linton
is
making
himself
available
and
as
much
places
as
possible,
but
then
our
community
has
to
have
their
ability
to
speak
as
well,
not
just
to
us
but
to
the
government
to
tell
them
what's
at
stake,
because
meritorious
right
on
every
development.
What
you'll
hear
is
real
concern
that
we're
not
building
enough
infrastructure
to
meet
the
demands
of
the
density.
M
J
Very
much
madam
Speaker
bill
108
dropped
on
us
on
May
2nd.
So
I
would
like
to
echo
the
thoughts
that
we've
heard
and
commend
the
city
staff,
our
chief
planner
and
others
all
the
staff
here
for
the
tremendous
amount
of
thoughtful
work
that
they
put
forward
in
this
report.
I
also
read
this
eagerly
last
night
and
happy
to
say:
I'll,
be
supporting
all
38
recommendations
that
our
staff
are
coming
forward
with
they're,
smart
and
they're.
J
Thoughtful
I'll
also
be
supporting
the
motions
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
from
councillor
Matt
Lowe
and
the
motions
that
councilor
viola
will
be
bringing
forward
shortly.
In
particular,
I
want
to
highlight
something
that
the
staff
did
a
great
job
of
calling
out
in
the
report
and
that's
identifying
the
estimated
nine
hundred
and
twenty-four
million
dollar
impact
on
our
10-year
capital
budget.
If
these
changes
are
imposed
on
us
now,
we
spent
a
lot
of
this
council
meeting
so
far
talking
about
cuts
and
bill.
J
These
are
all
at
risk.
With
this
legislation,
the
property
tax
base,
as
we
know,
simply
cannot
support.
Building
this
kind
of
infrastructure.
So
for
me,
I
would
suggest
that
the
approach
by
this
government
isn't
just
cavalier.
It's
also
contradictory.
On
one
hand,
we
are
be
told
being
told
that
we
must
build
more
to
improve
report
affordability,
but
we're
not
being
given
any
of
the
actual
tools
to
fun,
build
or
secure,
affordable
housing.
J
On
the
other
hand,
we're
choking
the
mechanisms
that
we
have
as
a
city
and
as
planners
to
actually
help
build
the
infrastructure
we
need
to
to
support
this
new
growth
so
that
that
doesn't
make
any
sense,
and
it's
put
forward
on
the
basis
that
this
government
with
claims
they
can't
really
support.
So
this
whole
conversation
around
the
El
Pat,
not
really
working
I'm,
not
sure
about
that.
J
What
we're
setting
up
now
is
yet
a
third
tribunal,
a
third
tribunal
process
that
applications
will
be
going
through,
and
this
this
reduces
processing
timelines
from
180
days
to
210
days
under
the
old
new
legislation
to
now
120
days,
and
this
is
actually
going
to
result
in
more
files
ending
up
at
the
tribunal.
What
does
that
mean
that
actually
means
longer
wait
times
for
hearing
more
delay
and
more
uncertainty
for
applicants
and
residents?
This
legislation
will
actually
take
powers.
J
That
would
help
that
will
actually
take
away
the
powers
that
would
help
municipalities
secure,
affordable
housing
by
linking
inclusionary
zoning,
which,
as
we've
discussed,
is
a
very
important
tool
for
us
as
a
city
to
major
transit
station
area
plans.
We
risk
delays
because
the
policies
for
identifying
and
adopting
MT
SAS
aren't
even
in
place
right
now.
We
haven't
seen
the
additional
resources
that
would
be
required
or
new
governance
models
that
would
help
implement
a
new
planning
framework
to
support
this
policy.
J
So,
like
many
of
our
communities,
beaches,
East
York
has
a
wide
range
of
opinions
on
new
development.
But
what
we
all
generally
agree
on
is
that,
if
we're
building
new
homes,
there
should
be
a
big
component
of
affordability
and
it
should
come
with
the
critical
infrastructure
like
transit,
like
parks
like
childcare
and
recreation
facilities,
to
support
that
growth,
growth
must
pay
for
growth
and
bill.
J
108
is
a
wrong
approach
to
building
complete
communities,
so
as
a
planner
I've
been
very
public
in
my
support
for
planning
reform,
I
want
to
see
shorter
review
timelines
and
set
that's
something
that
we're
gonna
have
coming
forward
from
our
staff
here
through
the
end-to-end
development
review
process.
I
want
to
see
more
transparency.
I
want
to
see
more
clarity,
I
want
to
see
more
predictability
in
the
process.
I
think
those
are
all
good
ideas
and
things
that
we
should
be
working
towards
and
I
think
all
Torontonians
want
to
see
more
affordable
housing.
J
So,
while
thematically
bill
108
speaks
to
these
things,
I
think
the
proposed
execution
of
it
just
doesn't
get
us
there.
It
relies
on
the
false
notion
that
producing
market
housing
will
lead
to
more
affordable
housing.
That's
always
going
to
be
part
of
it,
but
that's
not
all
of
it,
and
this
legislation
lacks
any
of
the
tools
that
would
actually
secure,
affordable
housing
or
pass
on
those
savings
to
would-be
buyers.
It
also
suggests
we
can
build
more
housing
without
the
services
and
facilities
that
we
need
in
place
to
support
it.
J
A
B
You,
madam
Speaker
and
I,
well,
just
want
repeat
that
word.
This
is
catastrophic.
It's
probably
the
most
significant
you
have
do
you
have
a
motion,
oh
yeah,
I
have
my
motion.
My
motion
is
that
the
City
Council
request
the
chief
planner
and
executive
directors,
City
Planning
and
consultation,
the
chief
financial
officer
and
treasurer
to
include
a
comprehensive
list
of
soft
and
hard
infrastructure
cost
such
as
childcare,
centers,
sewer
construction,
sidewalk
construction
in
the
financial
impact
section
of
all
final
planning
reports,
and
just
to
speak
again
before
the
speaker
cut
me
off.
B
B
Who
knows
how,
many
years,
how
many
property
tax
increases
we'll
have
to
pass
on
to
people
because
of
this
bill,
because
they're
gonna
have
to
pay
for
child
care,
centers
sidewalks
libraries
that
Clippers
used
to
have
to
pay
for
in
part
as
a
result
of
them,
building
these
housing
units,
these
condo
units
now
they're,
basically
going
to
pay
less
much
less
and
the
taxpayer
is
going
to
pay
more.
It's
catastrophic
because
of
the
fact
is
that
it
essentially
makes
the
final
decision
of
planning
in
Toronto
and
all
the
province.
B
It
puts
it
in
the
hands
of
unelected
people,
a
stronger,
unelected
group
of
people
with
the
new
OMB,
with
a
different
name,
they're
back
at
it,
and
you
can
imagine
who
they're
going
to
point
to
this
new
OMB.
They
think
gonna
be
environmentalist.
It's
not
going
to
be
child
care
advocates.
It's
going
to
be
friends
of
developers
that
are
going
to
be
appointed
to
this
unelected
body.
That's
gonna
make
decisions
and
we
represent.
The
people
of
Toronto
are
going
to
have
less
say
in
the
planning.
B
Decisions
can
affect
our
city,
it's
going
to
affect
traffic
and
transit,
because
if
you're
gonna
have
more
housing
more
building
in
our
already
saturated
neighborhoods,
like
you
know
like
we
need
more
condos
at
the
Yonge
and
Eglinton.
You
can't
walk
across
the
street.
We're
gonna
have
to
put
crossing
guards
there,
so
people
can
walk
across
the
street
to
get
onto
the
subway.
B
You
can't
get
on
the
subway
in
the
morning
and
they
want
another
20
condos
going
up
in
my
ward
and
councillor
Matt
Lowe's
Ward,
we
could
use
more
yes,
quality
of
life
is
going
to
be
affect
cuz.
It's
we're.
Gonna,
have
less
money
for
parks,
less
money
for
child
care,
centers,
less
money
for
libraries.
This
is
the
future
of
the
city
in
this
piece
of
legislation
that
was
introduced
without
consultation,
again,
never
mind
with
us
with
the
whole
province.
It's
been
done,
rushed
through
the
legislature
jammed
through
and
I
know.
B
Councillor
Carol
said
where
we
should
go
to
committee.
So
don't
waste
your
time.
The
opposition
is
invisible
up
there,
there's
no
opposition.
We
are
the
opposition,
we're
the
only
ones
able
to
say
this
is
wrong
because
they're
said
deafening
coming
from
up
the
street
to
this
kind
of
draconian
legislation,
so
the
future
of
our
city
is
at
stake
for
years
to
come.
It
is
untenable
because
the
fact
financially,
we
can't
afford
all
these
costs
of
new
development
and
they're,
taking
away
our
bill
to
even
to
decide
what
kind
of
development
best
suits
our
neighborhood.
B
Then
our
our
residents
are
all
going
to
be
shut
out
because
the
ultimate
decision
will
be
made
by
our
planners.
It
won't
be
made
by
the
local
councillor.
It's
gonna
be
made
by
the
faceless,
nameless
developers,
friends
who
are
gonna,
be
on
the
new
OMB
who
will
rubber-stamp
all
these
and
they
won't
have
to
pay
for
the
infrastructure
cost
they're
gonna
be
off
the
hook.
That's
why
I
call
it
the
developers
lottery
winning
act
there.
B
There
isn't
one
developer
councillor,
Kerry
Janus
that
I've
heard
say
one
word
against
bill:
108,
not
one,
and
god
bless
him.
The
development
industry
has
done
so
well
in
Toronto
and
they've
helped
build
Toronto,
and
we
know
they've
done
a
lot
of
good
things,
but
you
think
one
of
them
would
say:
hey,
there's
a
mistake
or
there's
something
wrong
with
it's,
not
one.
A
deafening
silence
from
an
industry,
that's
benefited
by
our
great
city.
B
Our
great
city
is
provide
them
the
opportunity
to
make
billions,
and
all
we
say
to
them
is
please
respect
the
city,
respect
the
people.
No,
we
want
to
make
more
billions,
maybe
trillions
they
want
to
make.
So
this
is
maybe,
rather
than
a
billion
dollar
boondoggle
for
developers,
it's
a
trillion
dollar
boondoggle
for
developers,
councillor
Carol
Janice.
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay,.
A
G
Clarification,
thank
you.
Can
we
have
the
motion
back
up?
Please,
madam
speaker,
thank
you
very
much.
Councillor
Cole
through
the
chair.
You
were
up
at
Queen's
Park
for
a
decade,
15
years,
if
I
remember
correctly
and
also
a
minister
would
that
be,
and
yet
you
bring
a
fathom
of
information
and
I
want
to.
You
know,
like
I
mean
what
you
bring
where
you
is
that
a
fourth
platform
proach
from
when
you
there
yeah.
A
G
B
You
for
that
question,
counselor
I'm.
What
I'm
trying
to
do
in
this
motion
is
basically
say
that
when
a
report
comes
from
planning
about
an
application,
what
we
need
to
do
from
now
on
in
is
ensure
there's
a
comprehensive,
robust
outline
of
the
cost
of
all
these
facilities
like
year.
20,000
new
homes
are
coming
into
your
ward,
the
cost
of
that
that
would
result
from
the
approval
of
those
20,000
new
homes.
So
I'm
saying
we
need
to
have
that
in
the
planning
report
in
a
detailed
manner.
Would.
B
What
happened,
what
happens
is
that
there's
a
sometimes
a
separation
from
reality
of
Queen's
Park,
and
that's
why,
a
number
of
years
ago,
I
think
in
1999
I
moved
a
private
member's
bill
to
abolish
the
OMB
it
took
about
15
years
to
get
that
abolished,
so
we
got
it
abolished
that
all
of
a
sudden
that
does
dracula's
back,
so
you
can't
get
rid
of
it.
It
just
keeps
coming
back
what.
N
B
I
think
Thank
You
counsel
courage
as
I.
Don't
the
critical
thing
is
our
planning
staff,
which
has
got
35
years
of
experience
for
our
chief
planner.
They
were
not
even
given
the
courtesy
of
a
phone
call,
even
a
heads
up
on
the
most
dramatic
piece
of
planning
legislation
ever
put
on
the
floor
of
this
council.
In
all
this
years,
Thank.
B
J
A
A
A
J
B
Councillor
and
I
respect
your
years
of
education
and
working
as
a
planner.
This
is
so
dangerous
to
the
city
of
Toronto.
The
impact
is
going
to
have
on
our
property
tax
bills
that
I
want
to
be
more
aggressive
than
just
looking
at
the
physical
I
think
we
need
to
have
it.
The
real
cost
of
the
development
has
got
to
come
up
front
because
we
cannot
no
longer
assume
that
there's
going
to
be
the
development
charges
section
37,
section
4,
so
we're
in
a
whole
new
world
here.
B
A
J
O
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker,
and
Thank
You,
counselors,
Bradford
and
Cole,
for
giving
most
of
my
speech
and
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
also
thank
the
staff
for,
for
this
report
is
sobering
and
catastrophic
as
the
implications
of
this
are
and
I'm
not
shy
about
using
the
word
catastrophic,
because
if
you
look
and
read
between
the
lines,
this
could
have
extreme
negative
implications
for
the
city
for
the
long
term.
The
legislation
that
we're
currently
looking
at
today
will
probably
amputate
most
of
the
10-year
capital
plans
for
most
of
our
most
critical
divisions.
O
Infrastructure
may
not
be
flashy,
but
it
is
the
talk
of
the
town.
It
is
the
major
point
of
conversation
along
our
roads
and
stormwater
systems
sewer
systems.
If
you
look
south
of
the
border,
you
can
see
a
completely
dysfunctional
political
system
between
the
two
parties,
but
there
is
one
thing
they
will
be
agreeing
on
in
the
next
60
days
and
that
is
a
two
trillion
dollar
infrastructure
project
across
the
United
States.
So,
despite
all
their
disagreements
down
there,
they
believe
that
infrastructure
is
one
of
the
big
priorities
across
the
Western
world.
O
The
parks
that
we
promise
may
not
happen
the
recreational
assets
that
we
wanted
may
not
occur.
The
library
branches
that
we
wanted
to
build
may
not
take
place
as
a
matter
of
fact,
if
this
legislation
was
designed
to
speed
up
the
planning
process,
I
would
argue
that
its
complete
opposite
I
would
argue
that
this
legislation
creates
conflict,
creates
conflicts
between
councillors
and
developers,
creates
conflicts
between
residents
and
developers
and
creates
conflicts
between
staff
and
developers.
O
Those
development
applications
that
the
planning
in
the
building
industry
mistakenly
believe
that
they
will
get
fast-tracked
are
actually
will
be
slowed
down
and,
moreover,
if
they
think
they're
going
to
be
saving
money
on
this
I
would
argue
the
complete
opposite
there.
Their
sales
will
sag.
When
people
looking
at
buying
a
condominium
will
see
that
there
will
be
no
new
park
in
their
neighborhood.
O
There
will
be
no
new
daycare
in
their
building
and
that
and
there
will
be
no
new
recreational
in
the
area
and
there'll
be
a
full
local
school
that
they
won't
be
able
to
send
their
children,
and
when
people
make
a
buying
decision,
they
want
a
complete
community,
and
this
legislation
negatively
affects
the
ability
to
to
build
those
complete
communities.
Of
course,
communities
are
also.
What
we
cherish
here
is
social
cohesion,
okay,.
O
You,
madam
Speaker,
in
Ward
6
in
recent
years.
We
have
two
new
daycares
because
of
section
37
we
have
four
new
parks,
either
up
and
running
or
pending
because
of
section
42.
We
have
a
new
gym
at
the
euro
bells
community
section,
primarily
because
of
section
37.
We
are
now
building
up
much
of
the
infrastructure,
that's
leading
to
basement
flooding
and
and
stormwater
management.
This
also
is
paid
for
through
section
37.
O
At
the
end
of
the
day,
this
is
supposed
to
create
more
choice
and
more
opportunities,
but
on
the
last
page,
as
I
mentioned
in
questions
on
the
last
page
of
the
port,
page
35,
it
says
bill.
8
108
does
not
provide
any
mechanisms
to
ensure
that
any
savings
from
reduced
development
charges
and
section
37
and
42
Planning
Act
contributions
are
passed
through
the
future
and
who
home
buyers
and
renters.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
this
overall
package
is
not
respect
for
taxpayers.
It
is
soaking
taxpayers.
O
If
the
process
that
we
have
in
place
now
is
basically
a
private
public
partnership,
we
are
getting
the
private
sector
to
pay
for
much
of
the
infrastructure
and
community
assets
across
the
city.
What
the
province
is
asking
us
to
do
is
let
the
taxpayer
pay
and
soak
them
and
create
a
situation
in
which
there's
no
affordable
housing,
but
extra
car
housing.
K
K
108
I
recall
a
number
of
conversations
over
the
last
nine
years
that
I've
spent
in
this
chambers
and
in
planning
meetings
and
discussions
with
planning
staff
and
with
community
of
all
the
things
that
the
planners
wanted
and
what
the
developers
wanted
and
bill
108
reads
exactly
as
a
menu
as
if
it
was
a
policy
that
was
actually
designed
and
crafted
and
written
by
the
consultants
who
actually
are
hired
by
the
developers.
It's
exactly
what
they
have
been
asking
for.
K
In
so
many
different
conversations
at
the
negotiating
table
over
the
years-
and
it's
cannot
be
a
coincident,
madam
Speaker-
that
this
policy,
this
new
bill
is
drafted
with
only
the
developers
and
the
development
industry's
benefits
in
mind.
And
what
is
that
risk
is
just
about
everything.
The
Endangered
Species
Act
is
pretty
much
irrelevant,
based
on
what's
proposed
and
bill
108,
you
can
pretty
much
pay
to
kill
and
pay
and
continue
on
to
sort
of
destroy
everything
that
that
they
have
determined
as
endangered
in
Ontario
and
there's
been
number
of
times.
K
Where
developers
have
said
you
know
you're
taking
too
long.
The
application
is
taking
too
long.
Well,
the
application
process
was
not
taking
too
long.
They
just
weren't
giving
the
City
Planning
staff
what
they
needed
in
order
for
them
to
move
this
positive
staff
report
and
all
of
that
led
us
to
many
different
discussions,
including
op-eds
and
appearing
before
Queens
Park
I,
know,
I
have
I,
know,
councillor
Matt
Lowe
has
where
we've
actually
just
been
pushing
and
pushing
and
pushing
for
OMB
reforms,
and
that
was
after
a
number
of
years
of
advocacy.
K
So
when
the
announcement
came
out,
I
made
a
second
that
the
OMB
was
coming
back.
I
have
to
say:
I
was
devastated
personally
devastated,
but
what
I
didn't
know
was
that
the
OMB
is
not
just
back,
but
it's
back
in
an
uglier,
more
regressive
form
than
ever
before.
Today
we
saw
today
we
received
a
yesterday.
We
received
the
report
that
that
was
excellent,
38
recommendations.
K
All
excellent
and
the
recommendations
and
the
amendment
that
will
come
from
councilor
by
Lao
are
equally
equally
good,
supporting
the
motion
from
councilor
mallow
to
team
up
with
now
team
Ontario
municipalities
to
go
fight,
Phil
108
all
excellent
moves,
but
let's
come
back
a
little
bit
to
what's
at
stake
here
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
500
million
dollars
annually
are
collected
from
DC's
annually.
That's
gonna
be
impacted
annually
about
123
million
dollars
of
sections
there
42
and
annually
about
100
about
30
million
dollars
of
section
37.
K
K
So
the
impact
here
is
not
just
180
million
dollars
that
we
that
we
wrangled
over
yesterday
between
the
healthcare
cuts
and
the
the
cuts
to
daycare
and
and
the
streams
in
between,
but
it's
actually
much
much
larger
than
that
we're
heading
into
a
billion
dollar
a
year
cut,
depending
on
what
other
secret
and
special
announcements.
Last
minute
announcements
come
out
of
Queens
Park
on
a
Thursday
or
a
Friday
afternoon.
K
C
Thank
You
speaker
much
of
what
I
was
gonna
say
has
been
said,
so
I
will
be
very
brief.
This
bill
was
written
by
and
for
developers.
That's
it
without
notice,
without
warning,
without
consultation,
what
is
being
presented
to
cities
across
this
province
undermines
planning,
it
undermines
heritage
and
undermines
conservation.
It
doesn't
in
any
way,
as
our
chief
planner
has
articulated,
contribute
in
any
manner
to
affordability.
In
fact,
it
comes
on
the
heels
of
this
government
ending
rent
control.
C
It
takes
away
our
capacity
to
invest
in
the
infrastructure,
both
the
social
and
hard
infrastructure,
to
make
our
city
livable
goodbye
to
parks.
You
can
say
goodbye
to
childcare
and
community
centers,
my
goodness,
you
can
say
goodbye
to
some
of
the
money
we
put
into
Toronto
water,
and
so
you
have
to
imagine
the
city
you
want
before
you
can
build
it,
and
this
act
will
take
away
our
ability
to
plan
our
city.
It's
just
that
simple.
If
you
want
to
build
a
city,
you
got
to
plan
it
and
you
got
to
invest
in
it.
C
L
N
N
It's
coming
up
on
the
screen!
I!
Have
it
right
here
to
thank
that
City
Council
requests
the
general
manager,
transportation
services
in
consultation
with
the
city
solicitor,
to
report
back
to
the
June
18th
and
19th
2019
City
Council
meeting
on
the
legal
implications
of
denying
all
road
occupancy
permits
for
development
sites
and
forcing
developers
to
build
on
site
there.
It
is
so
clear
who's
benefiting
from
from
this.
This
piece
of
legislation
developers
will
be
able
to
build
higher,
more
density
in
larger
areas.
N
They
won't
have
to
listen
to
the
community,
they
won't
have
to
listen
to
the
city
and
they
won't
have
to
pay
for
the
development,
the
impacts
of
their
development
on
our
city.
This
is
written
entirely
for
the
development
industry.
I
suspect
most.
If
not
all,
communities
across
the
province
will
agree
with
that
cuz.
You
know
one
theme
that
we
all
shared
over
the
last
decade.
N
We
all
hated
the
OMB,
that's
why,
just
a
couple
years
ago,
the
reform
from
the
OMB
well,
first,
why
do
we
hate
it
because
it
was
undemocratic
because
it
was
unfair
to
communities
because
it
made
it
harder
for
people
to
participate
in
the
decisions.
Worst
of
all,
it
meant
ins,
someone
from
outside
of
your
city,
outside
of
your
community,
perhaps
from
halfway
across
the
province,
was
ultimately
making
the
decision
on
how
a
community
would
grow.
N
It
makes
just
as
much
sense
to
have
someone
from
downtown
Toronto
and
that
planning
and
that
planning
framework
adjudicate
over
something
in
Northern
Ontario,
as
it
does
for
someone
from
Northern
Ontario
to
be
adjudicating
over
what
happens
in
downtown
Toronto.
It
makes
no
sense
at
all:
it's
not
fair
for
them.
It's
not
fair
for
us,
and
after
decades
of
fighting
all
parties
agreed
on
that
and
supported
the
reforms
that
went
forward,
but
now
a
new
government,
a
new
set
of
backroom
deals,
a
new
bunch
of
handshakes
happening
at
whatever
club
that
they're
at.
N
And
what
do
we
end
up
with
a
piece
of
legislation?
That's
gonna
run
over
local
local
community
planning.
That's
gonna!
Take
money
out
of
the
pockets
of
cities
to
deliver
services
and
give
the
minister
more
say
over
what
happens
in
our
communities
now,
I,
don't
know
what
other
explanation
we
could
have
for
such
a
terrible
piece
of
legislation
to
come
forward.
You
look
at
the
number
of
buildings
that
are
going
up
in
the
city.
You
measure
the
number
of
cranes.
N
What's
going
on
here
is
trying
to
make
a
cheaper
and
easier
for
developers
to
get
what
they
want.
Look
at
DC's
like
if
we
look
at
DC's
more
than
community
benefit,
but
DC's
will
take
away
our
ability
to
fund
the
basic
elements
of
infrastructure
for
a
city,
water
pipes,
roads
and
we've
learned
that
affordable
housing
is,
could
take
a
hit
of
twenty
million
dollars
a
year
that
they
right
now
get
for
the
open
doors
program
directly
from
DC's
this.
This
threatens
it's
not
it's,
not
all
about
child
cares
and
community
centers
and
parks.
N
It
should
be
because
those
are
important
elements
of
a
community,
but
it's
all
of
those
very
basic
things
that
are
put
that
are
put
at
threat
now
I
put
forward
this
motion
and
I
wanted
it
to
go
further.
I'll
tell
you
I,
wanted
it
to
go
ahead
and
tell
developers
if
you're
not
willing
to
play
by
the
rules
that
the
city's
already
laid
out,
and
you
want
to
take
advantage
of
this
provincial
sidestepping
then
you're
gonna
get
denied
at
the
city
that
we're
gonna
just
reject
your
your
approval.
N
I
wanted
to
put
that
in
I
was
talked
out
of
it
by
our
chief
planner,
but
let
me
serve
notice
to
developers
that
if
you
want
to
sidestep
the
city
policies,
you're
gonna
find
a
road
block
left
right
and
center
getting
something
built
in
my
in
Ward
11.
Next
week.
We
have
road
closure
permits
coming
forward
for
large
buildings,
major
developers
and
if
they
were
down
there
at
the
fundraiser
or
the
Board
of
Trade
event,
cheering
on
the
premier
in
his.
N
A
N
A
B
Because
you're
brothers,
paradis
I,
just
want
to
ask
about
your
motion,
talked
about
these
sort
of
obstructions
that
occur
when
they
build
these
condos
on
Main
streets.
I
know,
I
was
I,
think
it's
in
your
ward
on
bathrooms
and
blue
or
the
other.
The
emerge,
Center
I
know,
there's
all
kinds
of
crane
work
and
big
concrete
blocks
on
the
public
sidewalk.
There
isn't
it?
Yes,.
N
B
That's
the
kind
of
thing
you're
talking
about
that
if
they
apply
for
these
sidewalk
closures,
in
some
cases
they
go
right
to
the
road
I,
don't
think
there
they
go.
So
these
are
the
ones
that
go
to
the
road.
How
many
of
these
do
you
have
in
your
I
know?
You've
got
a
lot
of
development.
How
many
do
you
have
in
your
award.
N
So
the
the
ones
on
Bloor
to
get
very
specific,
are
simply
on
the
sidewalk
and
they're
there.
A
safety
measure
we'd
probably
have
to
keep
doing
those,
but
the
road
closure
on
Bathurst
is
a
great
example.
I
would
guess
I,
don't
know
for
sure,
but
we're
talking
dozens
dozens
of
road
closures
that
make
it
easier
for
developers
to
build
their
building,
and
that
means
they
don't
have
to
set
aside
space
on
site
to
do
their
loading
and
when
they're,
actually
fabricating
the
building
in
some
some
places
around
the
world
they
make
them.
N
Do
it
on
site.
It's
not
not
often
easiest
for
the
developer,
sometimes
they're
in
it
creates
them
delays
which
are
costly,
but
you
know
what
we're
the
ones
deciding
whether
or
not
we
should
give
them
that
road
closure,
or
not
lots
of
them,
get
lengthened.
These
things
go
on
for
years
years,
they're
getting
they're
getting
a
great
deal
on
real
estate
on
our
Main
streets
that
are
clogging
traffic
that
are
making
a
big
disruption
for
the
city,
you're.
B
Getting
a
lot
of
complaints
from
motorists
are
trying
to
get
up
and
down
these
streets,
and
they
have
to
go
into
one
lane
rather
than
two
lanes,
because
of
so
the
real
I
think
critical
thing,
you're
trying
to
say
is
especially
when
it's
road
closures
that
you
want
to
really
ensure
that
this
is
not
just
given
out
without
the
implications
of
this
road
closure
as
a
result
of
a
development
going
on
in
the
residential
street.
Well,.
N
I
think
you
know
you
got
a
look
at
the
impacts
that
developer
and
developments
have
on
the
city,
the
impacts
of
once
they're
built,
and
we
need
the
those
critical
pieces
of
infrastructure,
as
well
as
how
they're
building
the
buildings
and
so
I
think
this
is
like.
If
we
would
like
to
ensure
that
we're
minimizing
the
impacts
during
construction,
then
this
would
be
this.