►
From YouTube: City Council - February 26, 2019 - Part 1 of 2
Description
City Council, meeting 3, February 26, 2019 - Part 1 of 2
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=15349
Part 2 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UqJ-LquLGs#t=4m53s
Meeting Navigation:
0:10:36 - Call to order
A
We
acknowledge
the
land
we
are
meeting
on
is
the
traditional
territory
of
many
nations,
including
the
Mississauga's
of
the
credit,
the
Anishinaabe,
the
ship
of
all
the
Hudnall
Shoni
in
the
when
debts
people
in
is
now
home
to
many
diverse
First,
Nations,
Inuit
and
maytee
peoples.
We
also
acknowledge
that
Toronto's
covered
by
treaty,
thirteen
with
the
Mississauga's
of
the
credit
for
the
benefit
of
those
who
are
connected
to
the
Internet,
the
city
clerk,
has
posted
all
of
the
agenda
materials
for
today's
meeting,
a
Toronto
dossier,
/
council
members
members.
We
have
two
presentations
this
morning.
A
C
Thank
You
Madame,
speaker
and
good
morning.
Everyone
thank
you
for
the
opportunity,
just
to
say
a
few
words
to
recognize
and
thank
a
pretty
long-standing
and
committed
leader
within
the
Toronto
Public
Service.
After
30
years
of
exemplary
service,
reg
Paul,
our
general
manager
of
long-term
care
homes
and
services
is
retiring
to
enjoy
more
time
with
family
and
friends.
C
Do
some
traveling
with
his
wife
and
continue
with
his
volunteer
work
and
I
know
that
his
wife,
Helen
zzz's,
is
with
us
today
and
Helen
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
for
sharing
bridge
with
us
and
for
supporting
him
throughout
his
career
here
at
the
city.
You
know,
as
general
manager
rich
has
been
instrumental
in
driving
positive
change
across
the
division,
always
focused
on
improving
the
level
of
care
and
service
to
residents
and
creating
a
positive
supportive
work
environment
for
staff
and
because
of
his
strong
leadership.
C
The
city's
long-term
care
home
division
is
actually
recognized
within
the
industry
and
across
the
province
as
a
leader
from
service
excellence
and
in
driving.
You
know
innovative
groundbreaking
approaches
to
support
healthy
aging
and
reg
himself
has
actually
received
two
provincial
awards
and
recognition
of
his
leadership
and
his
many
contributions
to
the
long
term
care
so
reg
on
behalf
of
all
of
us
here
today.
C
D
Care
residences
that
we
operate
at
the
city
of
Toronto.
I,
know
every
time
I
go
to
one,
and
it
really
is
regardless
of
how
old
it
is.
Some
are
newer
and
have
been
renovated
under
your
leadership
than
others,
but
there
is
a
standard
of
care
and
compassion
a
physical
plant
that
is
as
well-kept
as
anything
I've
ever
seen
going
across
the
province,
regardless
of
who
was
operating.
It
and
I.
D
Think
it's
been
a
source
of
not
only
great
pride
to
us
but
of
great
satisfaction
that
we
have
set
I
believe
what
is
the
top
standard
and
I
think
that
is
what
people
expect
of
Toronto.
It
is
what
people
would
hope.
Toronto
would
do
and
under
your
leadership,
that's
exactly
what
has
been
done
and
so
I
want
to
say.
Thank
you
to
me.
A
30-year
career
is
an
amazing
thing.
I
haven't
stayed
in
one
place
for
that
long,
and
also
the
notion
of
retirement
to
me
is
a
bit
mystifying
too.
D
D
What
we
give
you
to
mark
this
is
is
this
which
I
hope,
nonetheless,
that
it's
only
a
plaque,
but
it
is
also
something
that
I
hope
you
take
with
the
sincerity
with
which
it
is
given
to
say
thank
you
and
that
it
can
go
on
a
proud
place
in
your
home
and
so
that
your
family
can
be
reminded
every
day
of
the
great
public
service
that
you
render
to
the
people
of
the
City
of
Toronto.
Thank
you.
E
Mayor
Tory,
members
of
council,
colleagues,
friends,
family,
it's
a
true
honor
to
have
been
a
part
of
the
Toronto
Public
Service,
all
of
these
30
years,
a
few
years
ago,
when
we
were
still
known
as
homes
for
the
aged
I,
received
a
letter
from
a
family
member
who
had
inadvertently
addressed
the
envelope
homes
for
the
ages
and
I
thought.
That's
not
a
mistake.
That
is
a
prophetic
statement.
E
We
are
recognized
as
the
City
of
Toronto
long-term
care,
homes
and
services,
as
leaders
in
excellence,
with
a
true
commitment
for
caring
for
those
who
are
the
most
vulnerable
in
our
society.
I
want
to
thank
mayor
and
members
of
council
for
these
many
years,
both
past
and
present
members
of
council
for
supporting
long-term
care
homes
and
services.
No
leader
can
do
this
on
their
own,
so
I.
Do
we
want
to
acknowledge
the
tremendous
team
of
individuals
that
I
have
been
privileged
to
work
with
managers
and
staff?
E
E
While
we
were
dealing
with
issues
but
as
I
said,
this
is
a
true
honor
to
have
had
this
privilege
of
serving
as
part
of
the
Toronto
Public,
Service
and
I
want
to
you
to
know
that
I
will
continue
to
cherish
this
time
that
I
have
had
here
with
the
city
and
know
that
the
division
will
continue
to
do
great
things
on
behalf
of
yourselves
but,
most
importantly,
serving
the
people
directly
that
we
do
serve
so
again.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
D
Madam
Speaker,
before
I
just
begin
that
one
I
should
say
that
without
trivializing,
the
one
that's
to
come
or
the
one
that
preceded
it,
I
want
to
acknowledge
as
much
as
it
may
pain,
councillor,
Matt,
Lowe
and
I.
To
do
so.
The
excellence
of
a
team
that
participated
on
behalf
of
the
Toronto
Public
Service
under
the
leadership
of
John
Elvidge
at
a
trivia
contest
at
which
wood
burns
and
the
politicians
involved
they're
the
odd
couple
of
mr.
D
Marlowe
and
myself
councillor
Matt
Lowe
myself
did
mediocre,
but
they
finished
third,
which
I
was
a
bit
disappointed
because
I
thought
the
people
this
table
knew
everything
and
therefore
they
should
have
finished
first.
But
they
did
finish
third
and
got
several
pounds
of
the
scottie
which
I
viewed
as
a
city.
Asset
I
have
not
seen
it
since
that
evening.
D
D
You
know
community
center
and
seeing
what
a
beehive
of
activity
it
is
constantly.
You
could
almost
go
there
any
day
any
day
of
the
week
or
any
any
hour
of
the
day
and
see
people
there
doing
just
about
everything
that
you
know
could
possibly
be
done,
and
when
we
saw
the
pictures
on
television
there's
nothing
frankly
seeing
a
fire
or
one
of
these
kinds
of
disasters
of
that
kind
happening
to
a
place
that
you
know
to
cause
more
bad
feelings
and
more
feelings
of
deep
regret.
D
But
at
the
same
time,
I
know,
as
does
councillor
Janice,
who
was
visiting
and
in
particular
councillor
Ally.
Who
was
there
sort
of
repeatedly
and
continuously
what
a
fantastic
job
our
first
responders
and
city
staff
and
others
did
to
make
sure
that
a
bad
situation
was
not
much
worse?
And,
of
course,
that
starts
with
safety.
D
The
firefighters
were
kept
themselves,
safe
and
and
and
the
whole
thing
was,
was
miraculous
in
that
regard
in
terms
of
people
not
being
at
risk,
or
they
were
at
risk,
but
not
injured
or
otherwise
put
in
harm's
way.
And
then
it
went
on
from
there
to
what
was
a
magnificent
job
actually
fighting
with
a
fire
that
was
incredibly
stubborn
and
and
difficult
to
fight
and
the
preservation
of
large
parts
of
the
building.
And
then
all
of
the
transitional
arrangements
that
were
made
after
that.
D
And
it
was
just
one
of
those
things
where
you
saw
the
public
service
in
its
broadest
sense,
responding
to
something
that
was
a
very
difficult
circumstance
and
on-site
city
staff
were
the
first
to
have
to
deal
with
it
and
they
acted
swiftly
to
get
people
out.
The
building
was
evacuated
safely
and
I
will
say
to
them.
Thank
you
and
congratulations.
It
shows
how
training
is
obviously
very
important.
D
Then
we
had,
of
course,
our
firefighters
and
other
responders,
which
included
everybody,
including
the
EMS,
and
also
the
TTC,
for
example,
who
had
the
buses
there
to
serve
as
warming
stations
and
otherwise
helped
to
deal
with
people,
and
it
included
everybody
from
the
water
service
to
the
office
of
emergency
management,
strategic
communications,
the
police
of
course,
facilities
management,
the
fire
service
I've
mentioned,
and
our
PF
and
I
our
staff,
in
particular
the
staff
from
the
agent
community
recreation
center,
as
I
mentioned.
In
fact.
D
Now,
when
you
see
the
building
in
the
aftermath,
a
large
part
of
it
actually
was
rendered
relatively
unharmed,
which
I
think
will
be
beneficial
to
the
community
going
forward
without
presuming,
what's
going
to
be
finally
determined.
As
a
result
of
the
professionals
looking
at
what
can
be
salvaged
and
what
needs
to
be
done
to
restore
this
and
the
arena,
which
of
course,
would
probably
have
been
among
the
more
difficult
things
to
replace
if
we'd
had
to
do
so
looks
like
it
might
have
been
spared
by
this
fire
save
and
except
the
the
compressor
equipment.
D
D
Thank
you
to
them
for
their
leadership
and
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
the
other
rec
centers
in
the
city
that
step
forward.
I
think
there
were
three
at
least
that
were
major
contributors.
The
Toronto
District
School
Board
helped
with
this
some
of
the
schools
in
Scarborough
and
I
will
say
we
got
offers
of
help
from
when
I
say
as
far
away
from
as
far
away
as
the
city
of
Markham
and
the
mayor
and
others
there
who
said
if
they
could
help
that
they
would
so
the
city.
D
The
center
is
gonna,
remain
closed
for
the
foreseeable
future,
but
I
think
you
should
know.
I
certainly
had
conversations
the
very
same
day
when
I
was
out
there,
as
did
councillor
ly,
and
councillor
Kerry
Janice,
about
the
importance
of
moving
ahead
as
quickly
as
we
can
to
assess
what
needs
to
be
done
and
then
do
it
so
that
we're
looking
not
at
what
often
can
be
a
five
year
time
horizon
to
get
these
things
done,
but
a
lot
faster
than
that
I
want
to
recognize.
D
Councillor
lie
because
she
was
there
continuously
to
look
after
the
needs
of
her
residents.
Councillor
Kerry
Janice
was
there
as
well,
because
I
saw
him
there
and
I
just
want
to.
As
that
I
think
the
proudest
moments
we
would
all
have,
as
elected
representatives
in
this
city
are
those
moments
when
we
see
that,
whether
it
be
an
apartment
building
that
has
to
be
evacuated,
whether
it's
a
fire
or
other
things
like
this.
D
Some
of
the
other
tragedies
that
unfolded
in
the
city
last
year
when
we
see
our
emergency
people
and
our
staff
in
the
broadest
context,
responding
and
responding
as
professionally
and
as
effectively
as
they
do
and
so
I
wanted
to
just
ask.
There
are
a
number
of
the
people
who
are
involved
in
that
in
all
the
different
branches
that
I
mentioned,
who
are
here
today
and
I.
Think
they're,
mostly
here,
but
I
would
ask
those
involved
in
any
way
shape
or
form
in
this
who
are
here
with
us
to.
F
You
good
morning,
madam
Speaker,
a
couple
weeks
ago,
the
Maple
Leafs
had
a
game
out
in
the
square
and
it
was
pretty
well
received
by
their
fans.
They
practiced
out
in
Nathan,
Phillips
Square.
The
team
was
dressed
in
full
gear,
took
the
subway
down
was
quite
something
through
that
we
had
alumni
game.
City
Council
plays
some
of
them
night
Phillies,
but
the
next
day,
Mike
Williams,
approached
from
a
few
months
back
and
asked
me
put
a
team
together
and
kind
of
GM
this
team,
so
the
first
thing
I
did
was
go
and
hire
coach.
F
That
was
a
mere
Tory
I.
Don't
know,
he's
gonna
be
back
next
year,
but
we
caught
a.
We
gotta
got
it
handed
to
by
the
second
floors
those
counselors
on
the
second
floor
versus
city
staff,
the
other
general
management,
Mike
Williams,
and
we
got
it
handed
to
us.
So
I
was
concerned
about
coach.
I
came
down
to
the
bench
at
one
time
with
the
mayor
had
sent
out
eight
against,
therefore,
and
they
still
scored
on
us.
F
So
with
that
the
first
inaugural
game
I'd
like
to
present
this
trophy,
is
going
to
give
it
to
Chris
Murray,
but
he's
probably
embarrassed
that
his
staff
beat
the
counselor
team.
So
it
was
our
first
inaugural
second
floor
versus
city
staff.
Shootie
challenge
like
to
present
to
my
colleague
mike
williams,
the
general
management
team
and
we're
looking
forward
to
next
year.
But
I
didn't
have
a
lot
to
work
with
so
next
year.
We'll
start
practicing
and
we'll
give
this
to
you
so.
G
F
A
A
C
I
B
J
A
K
A
A
A
Okay,
members
I
will
now
review
the
order
paper.
The
mayor
has
not
designated
any
key
matters
for
this
meeting.
Members
of
council,
as
today's
meeting
is
scheduled
for
one
day,
I
propose
that
we
consider
the
member
motion
run
through
during
the
order
paper
review.
I
also
propose
a
City
Council
set
a
time
for
a
closed
session
if
required
for
later.
In
the
meeting
the
city
clerk
has
noted.
The
items
that
members
wish
to
hold
I
will
now
go
through
the
items
listed
on
the
order
paper
to
take
additional
holds.
A
E
E
E
I
I
A
A
Okay,
3.1
notice,
if
this
motion
has
been
given,
this
motion
is
subject
to
referral
to
the
Etobicoke
York
Community
Council.
Two-Thirds
vote
is
required
to
waive
referral
all
in
favor
of
waiving
referral
carried
on
the
item
on
favor
carried
3.2
notice
that
this
motion
has
been
given.
This
motion
is
subject
to
referral
to
the
executive
committee.
A
two-thirds
vote
is
required
to
waiver
borough
all
in
favour
of
waiving
referral
carried,
hold.
A
A
Three
point
up
for
notice
that
this
motion
has
been
given.
This
motion
is
subject
to
referral
to
the
Planning
and
Housing
Committee.
A
two-thirds
vote
is
required
to
waive
referral
on
favor
of
waiving
referral
carried
on
the
item
on
favor
carried
a
man,
3.5
notice
that
this
motion
has
been
given
this
motion
subject
to
refer
to
the
general
government
and
licensing
committee.
A
two-thirds
vote
is
required
to
waive
referral
on
favor
of
waiving
referral
carried
on
the
Holt
okay.
A
A
A
Mm
3.8
notice
if
this
motion
has
been
given
this
motion,
subject
to
referral
to
the
Toronto
in
East
York
Community
Council,
a
two-thirds
vote
is
required
to
waive
referral
on
favor
of
waiving
referral
carried
on
the
item
on
favor
Kerry
mm
3.9
notice.
If
this
motion
has
been
given
this
motion
subject
to
referral
to
the
North
York
Community
Council,
a
two-thirds
vote
is
required
to
a
referral.
This
motion
relates
to
a
local
planning
appeal
tribunal
hearing
and
has
been
deemed
urgent
all
in
favor
of
way
being
referral
carry
on
the
ID
pardon.
A
Mm
311
notice,
if
this
motion
has
not
been
given
that
two-thirds
vote
is
required
to
waive
no
notice.
This
motion
is
subject
to
referral
to
the
Etobicoke
York
Community
Council.
A
2/3
vote
is
required
to
waive
referral.
This
motion
has
been
deemed
urgent
by
the
chair
on
favorite
waving
notice,
carried
on
favorite
waving,
referral
carried
on
the
item
on
fit.
G
Yes,
I'd
like
to
move
the
motion
to
amount
of
Chair
Elect
into
the
motion
to
look
at,
have
staff
look
at
setting
up
a
ravine
protection
Conservancy
and
it's
urgency,
because
the
fact
is
that
we
have
an
imminent
danger
from
the
Norwegians
that
are
taking
over
our
ravines.
So
we
have
to
stop
the
invasive
species
and
we
need
an
analysis
of
setting
up
his
Conservancy.
G
D
Madam
Speaker
I
have
a
motion
to
have
City
Council
approve
from
our
end,
the
appointment
of
a
joint,
jointly
appointed
chair
of
the
waterfront
corporation.
There
is
a
provision
in
the
waterfront
revitalization
act
that
allows
for
a
chair
who
is
not
one
of
the
appointees
of
the
three
governments
to
be
appointed
specifically
as
the
chair
there's
been
an
agreement
reached
between
the
three
governments
as
to
as
to
who
that
chair
should
be
in.
D
F
A
Members
of
council
I
will
members
of
council
I
want
to
stress
the
importance
of
preparing
emotions
in
advance.
The
clerk
staff
are
here
to
help
you
prepare
your
motions
in
particular.
If
you
intend
to
move
a
motion
during
the
release
of
hold,
I
will
insist
that
your
motion
be
prepared
in
advance
and
given
to
the
clerk.
If
you
do
not
have
your
motion
ready,
I
will
not
recognize
you
and
I'm,
also
reminding
members
that
you
must
stay
your
motion
first
before
you
speak
to
it.
A
Remember,
city
council
follows
a
routine
for
the
processing
and
adding
of
any
motions
without
notice
during
the
meeting.
Please
remember
that
a
motion
without
notice
must
include
a
reason
for
urgency.
If
you
have
an
urge
of
motion
without
notice,
you
wish
to
bring
forward
at
this
meeting.
Please
give
your
motion
to
the
city
clerk
staff.
They
will
will
prepare
the
necessary
procedure
of
motion
for
my
review.
Along
with
your
motion,
the
chair
must
agree.
The
motion
is
urgent.
A
Before
you
can
seek
leave
to
introduce
it
at
this
meeting,
it
will
require
18
votes
to
add
a
motion
without
notice
to
the
agenda.
During
this
meeting,
motions
added
to
the
agenda
in
this
way
are
not
subject
to
a
vote.
To
waive
referral
to
a
committee
or
agency.
I
will
be
reviewing
all
motions
carefully
and
I
will
advise
counsel
at
each
recess,
which
motion
needs
a
motion
to
add
to
the
agenda.
Q
Good
morning,
I'm
speaker,
mr.
mayor
members
of
council,
I,
want
to
give
you
some
background
on
item
ph
2.4,
which
are
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
growth
plan
for
the
Greater
Golden
Horseshoe.
The
province
has
posted
proposed
amendments,
and
the
city
has
a
45-day
comment
in
a
period
with
which
to
provide
the
the
province
or
comments
I
just
want
to
emphasize.
This
is
a
draft
document
that
the
province
has
has
posted,
and
this
is
part
of
the
normal
process
of
the
city
being
able
to
provide
comments.
Q
A
Q
You
as
I,
was
saying
you
you'll,
receive
a
lot
of
paper
staff
report
and
other
comments
and
written
submissions
from
landowners
and
other
interested
parties.
All
of
that
goes
into
the
hopper
and
gets
sent
up
to
the
province
as
this
is
a
provincial
proposed
proposal
that
we're
commenting
on
the
what's
in
front
of
you
from
staff
are
two
reports:
the
report
that
was
prepared
for
planning
and
Housing
Committee.
That
summarizes
the
implications
of
these
proposed
amendments
and
then
an
additional
report
that
we
provided
for
you
just
yesterday.
Q
I
do
want
to
say
that
this
has
been
a
45-day
commenting
period,
31
business
days
to
get
this
together,
including
the
initial
report
to
P&H.
So
we've
worked
very
hard
to
be
able
to
put
you
in
a
position
to
give
you
some
advice
on
these
proposed
amendments,
understanding
that
it's
in
the
provinces,
purview
to
tact
as
they
see
fit.
Q
With
amendments
to
the
growth
plan
I'm
just
going
to
highlight
the
report
purpose,
the
policy
framework
that
we
work
with
in
our
recommendations
and
next
steps
and
then
I'll
join
my
colleagues,
and
we
can
certainly
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
as
I
indicated
they
they
asked
for
this.
They
posted
the
amendment
on
the
15th
of
January
and
we
are
do.
Our
comments
are
due
at
the
at
this.
Q
The
end
of
this
week,
very
short
timeline
and
I
just
want
to
emphasize
that
for
council
council
has
made
many
decisions
over
the
last
five
to
10
10
years
about
employment,
lands
and
I.
Think
these
these
the
the
whole
the
whole
context
of
our
employment
lands
is
essential
to
the
livability
and
economy
of
the
city.
Q
We've
got
over
1.5
million
jobs
in
in
the
city
and
just
over
400
thousand
of
those
jobs
are
in
our
employment
lands
and
council
has
adopted
many
policies
and
taken
many
decisions
over
the
years
to
sustain
the
growth
of
our
employment
areas.
Well,
balancing
all
of
our
other
interests
as
we
do
in
the
Official
Plan.
Q
The
province
stated
their
goals
at
the
beginning
of
this
process
to
streamline
the
planning
process
and
remove
barriers
to
increasing
the
region's
housing
supply,
so
they
are
looking
at
a
degree
of
flexibility
on
some
employment
lands
which
we,
which
we
principally
want
to
make
sure
works
in
the
city
city
of
Toronto
context,
a
little
bit
of
planning
101
just
quickly.
I
know
that
some
of
you
have
been
around
and
some
of
you
are
new.
So
the
context,
certainly
the
city's
official
plan
is
our
guiding
document
that
was
approved
by
the
OMB
in
2006.
Q
We
did
a
what's
important
to
understand
about
employment
lenses.
We
get
a
did
a
municipal,
comprehensive
review
in
2013
that
was
adopted
by
council.
We
have
also
done
further
amendments
to
our
ope
to
update
it
and
make
it
current
with
current
trends
and
the
environment
of
the
city.
On
the
provincial
side,
there
was
a
growth
plan
in
2006.
It
guides
the
regional
growth
and
management
of
infrastructure
across
the
region.
It
was
updated
in
2013
with
new
population
and
job
targets,
and
our
municipal
comprehensive
review.
Opa
231
was
an
exercise
to
conform
to
that
growth
plan.
Q
Recently,
the
province
in
2017
adopted
a
new
growth
plan
which
we
are
in
line
to
to
conform
to
and
then
finally,
the
government,
the
new
government
of
Ontario,
has
proposed
amendment
1
and
that's
what
this
report
is
all
about.
The
amendment
to
the
growth
plan
of
2017,
the
the
province
has
introduced
a
new
concept
for
employment
lands.
They
have
introduced
something
called
provincially
significant
employment
zones.
They
have
identified
certain
criteria
that
guide
the
choice
of
which
employment
areas
would
become
provincially,
significant
employment
zones
and
I
list
that
criteria
for
you
in
the
presentation.
Q
It's
a
new
concept.
It
essentially
introduces
a
two-tier
system
and
divides
the
employment
lands
into
two
into
two
groups,
and
this
was
used
by
the
province
to
establish
the
draft
plan
amendment
the
drop
pieces
I'll
refer
to
them
as
P's
Ed's
or
pieces.
This
was
used
by
the
province
to
establish
those
and
staff,
have
used
them
to
make
further
recommendations.
The
mapping
and
you'll
see
in
the
brown
those
are
the
provincial
II
proposed
pieces.
Q
This
was
shown
in
our
pH
C
report
and
we
reported
that
we
wanted
to
come
back
to
you
at
City
Council,
with
further
recommendations
to
add
to
the
provinces
suggested
pieces.
So
what
we've
done
on
these
maps
is
is
illustrate
in
the
cities,
employment
areas
which,
once
the
province
has
identified,
which
ones
we'd
like
to
add
to-
and
let
me
just
break
this
down
for
you
quickly.
The
the
province
started
with
identifying
67%
of
our
of
our
employment
areas
as
peas,
Ed's.
Q
These
offer
status
quo
protections
which
we
we
know
have
been
working
to
support
and
stabilize
our
employment
areas.
They
are
only
subject
to
conversion
time
of
a
municipal,
comprehensive
review.
In
our
report
to
you
from
yesterday,
we
are
recommending
additional
lands,
be
added,
so
this
this
adds
up
to
approximately
95
percent
of
our
of
our
employment
areas.
So
it's
really
a
in
large
part,
a
status
quo
recommendation
that
is
consistent
with
councils
direction
over
the
last
several
years,
and
importantly,
we
have
used
the
provincial
criteria
to
consider
which
lands
need
to
be
added.
Q
This
leaves
about
5%
that
would
be
subject
to
a
one-time
municipality
initiated
review
before
the
next
municipal
comprehensive
review
kicks
in.
So
what
we've
really
done
here
is
tried
to
limit
the
approach
that
the
province
has
suggested
to
limit
the
approach
of
having
a
two-tier
system
and
reduce
the
amount
of
land
that
would
ultimately
be
subject
to
consideration
at
least
of
earlier
conversion.
Q
Another
area
that
I
just
want
to
highlight
for
you-
and
you
do
see
many
of
these
reports
as
we
bring
through
settlements
on
Opa
231
that
have
been
happening
over
the
last
couple
of
years.
We
are
still
managing
84
appeals
to
OPA
231
there
at
the
ALP
at
what
we
are
recommending
is
that
those
appeals
and
many
of
the
letters
that
you
see
before
you
we're
recommending
that
those
appeals
continue
to
be
processed
through
the
OPA
231
process
and
and
and
really
transitioned
and
be
considered
in
the
context
of
the
earlier
earlier
growth
plan.
Q
This
is
really
important
to
maintain
the
consistency
of
councils
previous
position.
We
are
also
interested
in
a
or
we
have
proposed
a
recommendation
to
you.
It's
our
advice
that
office
parks,
which
do
include
about
60,000
employees
and
other
employment
uses
they
be
maintained
as
as
areas
employment
areas.
Q
The
provinces
suggestion
in
the
growth
plan
amendment
is
to
exclude
them
from
employment
areas,
but
staff
believe
that
there
is
no
basis
really
to
differentiate
these
office
parks,
they're
important
job
creators
and
we're
quite
concerned
that
the
residential
land
uses
would
outfit
very
quickly
the
residential
uses
in
these.
Are
they
the
employment
uses
in
those
areas?
Q
Finally,
the
major
transit
station
areas.
This
is
a
concept
that
was
introduced
in
the
2017
growth
plan.
The
province
is
a
proposed.
Amendment
suggests
that
they
be
enlarged
from
500
meter
radius
to
an
800
meter
radius.
We
believe
this
is
more
appropriate
for
areas
outside
of
the
city
of
Toronto.
Given
the
urban
fabric
of
the
city,
we
think
it's
going
to
be
challenging
enough
to
manage
the
intensification
that
would
be
called
for
in
the
500
meter
radius
and
we're
recommending
that
we
wait
that
we
leave
the
MTS
A's
at
the
500
meter
radius.
Q
Knowing
that
we
have
transit
capacity
issues,
we
have
infrastructure
issues
balancing.
All
of
that
we
believe
is
challenging
enough
and
we
would
prefer
to
leave
the
guideline
at
500
meters.
There
are
finally
other
staff
recommendations
that
are
consistent
with
the
planning
approaches
that
the
city
has
taken
around
requiring
office
replacement,
setting
minimum
employment
numbers
through
the
use
of
Zoning
with
conditions.
Q
Council
has
time
and
time
again
ask
the
province
to
approve
conditional
zoning
powers
and
also,
as
I
noted,
that
matters
in
process
that
are
under
appeal
should
be
transitioned
so
that
they
be
considered
under
the
rules
that
they
were
Thunder.
I
do
want
to
emphasize
that
we
are
recommending
that
we
support
a
provincial
proposal
that
unlocks
our
the
consideration
of
MT
essays
from
a
municipal,
comprehensive
review.
Q
In
other
words,
allow
us
to
do
the
MT
essays
in
tranches
or
batches
so
that
we
can
get
those
done
more
efficient,
more
efficiently
and
be
able
to
update
the
opie
in
the
zoning
bylaw.
The
advice
that
we're
giving
you
in
this
report,
I
appreciate,
is
coming
at
you
pretty
fast
I,
remember
I
did
say
that
we've
had
a
very
little
time
to
do
this.
There
has
been,
though,
a
real
effort
to
maintain
the
city's
position,
and
the
thrust
of
the
report
is
in
keeping
with
the
city's
efforts
to
maintain
the
stability
of
employment
areas.
Q
Over
400,000
jobs
exist
in
our
employment
areas.
They
are
vitally
important
to
the
economy.
That
approach
and
I
want
to
emphasize
this.
That
approach
is
working.
We're
going
to
report
to
PhD
at
the
next
meeting
on
our
annual
employment
survey,
that
is
showing
growth
in
our
employment
areas,
that's
showing
over
5,500
new
jobs
in
our
employment
areas,
so
the
policy
of
stability
and
keeping
speculation
away
from
employment
lands
is
working
and
I.
Think
it's
important
for
council
to
express
a
clear.
Q
My
advice
is
that
council
express
a
clear
position
on
this
to
the
province
of
Ontario,
the
the
the
approach
of
introducing
a
second
tier
of
consideration.
We
have
tried
to
limit
we've
gone
from
the
67
33%
at
Planning
Committee
that
was
initially
proposed
by
the
province.
We
are
recommending
that
they
modify
that
and
go
with
really
a
95
5.
We
should
only
be
putting
a
very
small
number
of
lands
into
the
hopper.
Q
This
would
allow
us
to
undertake
local
area
reviews
in
those
areas
and
carefully
consider
how
to
maintain
the
jobs
in
those
areas,
while
considering
whether
or
not
conversion
would
be
appropriate
again.
The
the
the
the
effort
is
a
bit
consolidated
here
for
you
and
I
appreciate
its
complexity
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
You've
got
I.
I
do
want
to
stress,
though,
that
council
does
need
to
make
a
decision
on
this
matter
at
this
meeting.
Thank
you
and
Avila.
Thank
you.
Happy
to
take
Thank.
H
Thank
you
very
much.
Madam
Speaker
I
guess
I'm
very
happy
to
see
this
report
and
some
of
the
recommendations.
I
guess
I
would
like
to
ask
the
chief
planner
just
about
use
compatibility
and
whether
City
Planning
will
have
the
tools
to
protect
the
lands
not
designated
during
this
one
time
window
through
the
PSE
said:
I
want
to
say
Pez,
but
through.
Q
The
so
the
policy
framework
that
we
have
in
place,
the
the
regulations
that
the
provinces,
the
province,
uses
through
environmental
legislation,
none
of
that
is
proposed
to
change.
So
we
would
continue
to
to
utilize
that
toolkit
to
ensure
that
compatibility
is
reviewed
when
we're
looking
at
a
policy
level.
Of
course,
okay.
H
And
you
did
a
good
job
in
your
presentation,
but
if
you
could
just
maybe
dumb
it
down
a
little
bit
on
the
the
impact
it
has
on
I'll
give
an
example
in
my
in
my
new
Ward
Ward
15
Leaside
Business
Park.
What
is
the
impact
of
the
creep
on
important
business
parks?
What
what
is
the
impact
of
you?
You've
cited
this
item
too
vulnerable
to
conversion
pressures,
whether
their
residential
etc.
So
tell
me
a
little
bit
about
what
the
long-term
impacts
would
be
if
this
creep
continues
into
these
business
parks.
Q
Q
We
all
know
the
office
market
is
changing
and
and
and
there's
a
great
deal
of
demand
for
office
uses
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
We
want
to
strongly
align
it
with
our
transit
system
and
our
future
transit
planning.
It's
important
for
ridership
those
parks
also
contain
many
other
mixed
employment
uses.
So
in
its
totality
they're
a
big
contributor
to
the
health
of
our
employment
areas
and
they're
there,
you
know
they.
A
lot
of
them
were
built
in
the
in
the
post-war
era
and
they
represent.
H
G
Q
I
think
what
we,
what
we'll
do,
is
we
have
a
very
comprehensive
comet
this.
This
is
really
a
comprehensive
comment
that
we're
making
back
in
their
consultation
the
provinces,
consultation,
we
we
have
continued
to
meet
with
provincial
staff
and
we
will
continue
to
meet
with
provincial
staff.
There
are
a
lot
of
submissions
here
that
we
will
work
with
provincial
staff
on
to
make
sure
that
counsels
advice
to
the
province
is
is
taken
seriously.
Q
We
know
that
our
housing
needs
can
be
met
in
our
other
areas
of
the
city,
where
we
have
other
land
use
permissions
that
support
growth,
so
we'll
be
taking
that
message
very
comprehensively
with
this
report
and
as
we
get
more
information
on
this
through
the
consultations
that
we
all
that
will
be
under
taking
will
bring
that
to
the
attention
of
the
province.
Thank.
J
Developments
called
global
fortune
is
at
Steel's
and
Kennedy.
The
map
from
the
province
shows
the
whole
area
between
Kennedy
to
Midland,
from
Steel's
to
Finch
is
an
employment
area,
and
yet
we
passed
through
here
updates
and
all
that
stuff
and
I
understand
that
there's
a
letter
from
the
lawyer
of
the
developer
I
was
just
wondering
if
we
can
take
that
into
consideration
or
if
you
want
a
technical
amendment
to
include
that
or
all
the
stuff
that
in
the
different
areas
that
have
been
missed
by
the
province.
J
Q
So
we're
quite
prepared
there
are
a
number,
as
I
indicated
there,
a
number
of
leather
letters
like
the
global
fortune
letter
that
identifies
decisions
that
have
been
made
through
the
OPA
2:31
process
or
other
initiatives
of
the
city.
There
are
a
number
of
areas,
for
example,
where
we
took
a
regeneration
or
peri
approach,
which
is
what
we
did
with
with
that
area.
Q
J
And
tell
the
folks
that
submitted
this
letter
and
written
it
to
us
that
they
can
be
rest
assured
that
this
will
be
taken
consideration
when
you
present
the
report
to
to
the
problems.
That's
correct
one
further
question:
if
I
may,
there
was
some
consideration
by
the
problems,
I
think
they
passed
one
bill,
139
or
230,
and
I
can't
remember
the
bill
that
allowed
intensification
around
go
stations
or
Metrolinx
stations.
J
How
is
that
affecting
us
when
you've
got
Metrolink
stations
that
are
around
areas
that
are
in
industrial
right
now?
I
will
refer
to
you
as
an
example.
In
my
part
of
the
world,
I
have
global
fortune,
which
is
at
steals
in
Kennedy
and
I
do
have
another
one
which
we're
planning
to
build
a
smart
route
as
a
smart
track
or
a
Metrolink
station
at
finishing
Kennedy.
Q
The
through
the
through
the
speaker,
the
city,
has
approximately
160
of
these
MTS
A's
they're
called
major
transit
station
areas,
many
of
them,
and
they
both
have
people
and
job
targets
in
them.
So,
depending
on
the
kind
of
transit
facility,
the
density
of
the
people
and
job
target
may
be
different
for
Mt
SAS
that
are
in
a
mixed
use
area,
you're,
looking
at
an
MTS,
a
target
that
will
deliver
on
people
and
jobs,
because
those
uses
are
permitted
for
Mt
SAS
that
are
in
employment
areas.
Q
The
city
position
is
that
the
employment
target
be
met,
because
we
all
know
that
you
can
get
employment
density
near
a
major
transit
station
area.
So
we
want
the
underlying
employment
designation
to
prevail
in
an
area
that
is
an
MTS,
a
near
a
transit
station.
We
know
that
we
know
that
transit
ridership
based
on
office,
for
example,
outperforms
residential,
probably
two
to
one.
We
know
that
jobs
need
transit
just
as
much
as
where
people
live.
J
Are
you
in
a
position
at
this
time
and
I
know
I
only
got
about
30
seconds
to
sort
of
project
when
we
can
take
another
regeneration
when
will
regeneration,
Zoar
cure?
You
know
and
I
brought
into
this
council
specifically
there
two
areas
that
I
represent,
and
there
is
others
that
tent
city
can
happen.
Can
you
project
that
we're
going
to
get
to
this
in
a
year
six
months
here
and
a
half
two
years
or
forget
it?
Councillor
he's
not
coming
at
all.
Q
M
L
I
think
Greg's
talked
a
lot
about
this
already,
but
to
sort
of
summarize
key
aspects
of
it.
First
of
all,
we
have
very
low
vacancy
rate
in
industrial
areas,
so
we're
down
in
some
areas
of
Toronto
two
percent,
which
is
the
lowest
we've
ever
had
that
in
in
record
that
I
know
of
in
in
my
career.
So
there's
high
demand.
L
L
L
We
lose
land
directly
to
the
new
use,
but,
more
importantly,
in
some
ways
is
it
then
creates
a
knock
impact
so
that
other
adjacent
lands
also
start
converting,
because
the
tax
burden
goes
up.
The
Ministry
of
Environment
rules
go
up
in
terms
of
truck
movements,
noise,
air
impacts,
etc.
So
this
sort
of
contagion,
as
was
used,
a
phrase
used
by
the
judging
on
Eastern
Avenue,
takes
over
and
we
lose
the
whole
area.
So
we
don't
just
lose
one
parcel.
We
end
up
losing
the
whole
area,
so
that's.
L
M
Q
Well
from
a
I
can
express
it
from
a
from
a
jobs
point
of
view
that
we
have
four
hundred
and
twenty
eight
thousand
people
working
in
our
employment
area
or
appointment,
areas
that
are
designated
in
the
Official
Plan
I
would
say
almost
entirely.
All
of
those
areas
also
have
employment,
zoning
that
permits
businesses
to
come
and
go
and
invest
and
everything
that
they
do
so
as
a
surrogate
to
the
to
the
amount
of
total
jobs.
Q
The
city
has
over
1.5
million
jobs
and
you're,
looking
at
over
400,000
of
those
being
in
the
actual
employment
areas,
and
that's
really
really
important
because
of
the
flexibility
of
Zoning
permission.
That's
allowed
in
those
employment
areas
that
allows
businesses
to
operate
in
an
unfettered
way
where
they
don't
have
to
worry
about
compatibility.
They
don't
have
to
worry
about
traffic
and
parking.
They
can
go
about
their
business
decision
making
process
without
being
interrupted
by
the
potential
for
our
conflicting
land
use.
As.
Q
Q
M
Q
P
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
No,
there
isn't
anyone
still
at
the
at
the
podium
there,
I'm
gonna
be
asking
a
question:
I
wonder
if
you
can
put
the
map
back
up
of
approvers
as
a
recommended
versus
not
recommended
employment
zones,
but
first
I'll
ask
the
question
about
the
500
meters
changing
to
800
meters,
and
my
questions
are
around
what
you
will
be
presenting
when
you
go
to
the
province,
will
you
be
presenting
in
person
I.
Q
F
R
Q
P
So
you
have
had
some
chances
to
back
and
forth.
Have
we
have
we
looked
at
so
that
we
can
present
to
them
what
the
development
potential
still
is
within
the
500
meters
that
that's
there
I
I
know
that
if
you
go
out
to
to
the
to
line
for
if
you
go
out
to
a
Shepherd
West
and
our
latest
extension,
there's
lots
of
potential
inside
the
five
hundred
meters.
So
we
haven't
overall,
look
at
that.
Well,.
Q
P
Q
We
have
been
busy,
as
you
know,
putting
down
planning
frameworks
across
the
city
that
that
describe
for
people
the
future
vision
for
those
local
areas
working
with
communities
right,
so
whether
it's
an
avenue
whether
it's
a
mall
site
that
happens
to
be
near
a
new
LRT
station
like
the
Golden
Mile,
is
a
good
example
right.
That's
the
exercise
that
we've
been
going
through
to
actually
visualize
the
potential
for
those
areas
and
through
that
process
meet
that
provinces,
minimum
jobs
and
people
targets
in
their
MTS
A's.
So.
P
You
can
make
the
case
that
you
can
make
the
case
that
there's
plenty
of
potential
still
there
and
that
we've
got
a
good
track
record
for
realizing
it
went
when
the
applications
come
forward
is
certainly
the
case
where
I
am.
If
I
look
at
the
map
that
you
presented
employment
areas
that
the
province
is
not
yet
recommended,
be
added
we're
asking
that
they
be.
P
Q
Of
those
through
the
speaker,
all
of
those
were
subject
to
the
last
MC
are
many
of
those
are
office
parks,
for
example,
and
other
areas,
and
as
we
know,
and
as
we
go
about
the
process
of
deciding
the
route
for
the
north
segment
of
the
relief
line.
All
of
those
land-use
patterns
and
the
growth
potential
in
that
area
will
be
taken
into
account.
Exactly.
P
And
I'll
use
my
last
seconds
to
ask
the
selfish
question:
in
my
own
wort
consumers
wrote
we
just
spent
a
considerable
amount
of
money
on
consumers.
Next,
the
MC
are
allowed
residential
around
the
transit
ribbon,
Sheppard
Avenue
and
down
Victoria
Park
much
to
the
consternation
of
the
residents.
If
that
is
not
protected.
If
that
should
not
be
made
a
part
of
this
new
growth
policy,
how
fast
do
we
lose
the
job
growth
we're
experiencing
there
right
now,
American
Express,
coming
in
there's
an
office
condo
informal
conversation
going
on
on
a
major
plot.
Q
A
very
good
through
the
speaker,
a
very
good
example
of
why
we
need
to
look
at
these
land-use
patterns
with
our
communities
at
the
local
level
and
lay
out
land-use
pattern
that
both
provides
for
some
growth
and
protects
jobs.
So
it's
and
we've
done
that
with
consumers.
Next
and
it's
it's
a
great
illustration
of
the
approach
that
we'd
like
to
take
across
the
city.
R
R
Q
Q
Think
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
city
has
started
to
be
successful
with
its
policy
framework
to
to
actually
see
the
job
growth
happen
in
its
employment
areas,
so
that
that's
that
stability
and
that
cadence,
that
we've
established,
gives
the
decision-making
process
a
much
longer
time
to
play
out,
and
it
gives
the
certainty
that
investment
is.
Investors
require
so.
R
It's
about
stability
and
certainty,
and
since
we
discussed
this
at
planning
and
housing,
we're
now
coming
forward
and
I
appreciate
like
the
tight
timeline
that
you
guys
have
been
under
it's
it's
unbelievable.
Turning
around
these
recommendations,
but
we've
now
landed
on
95%
instead
of
a
hundred
percent
or
even
in
fact,
maybe
a
hundred
and
ten
percent
new
ones.
What
why
did
it?
What
was
the
rationale
for
landing
on
95
percent.
Q
Q
The
rule
book
should
be
to
make
sure
that
we're
capturing
accurately
the
areas,
the
employment
areas
of
significance
in
the
City
of
Toronto
context,
so
we
applied
their
criteria,
including
lands
that
are
already
designated
in
our
in
our
Official
Plan
and
other
criteria
that
they
identified,
including
sensitivity
to
other
land,
uses
the
the
the
ability
to
attract
new
investment
and
other
criteria
that
the
problems
put
in
place.
So.
R
Just
as
it
relates
like
to
the
planning
process
and
the
growth
plan,
and
this
sort
of
discussion
as
a
municipality,
are
we
required
to
go
through
the
provincials
that
the
provinces
process
you
mentioned,
like
we
went
through
the
provincial
process,
their
lens?
What
about
going
through
our
own
lens?
Well,.
Q
I
think
we've
we,
we
certainly
bring
our
own
view
to
it
when
we
undertake
our
own
municipal
comprehensive
review.
So
we,
in
this
case
we've
we've
in
this
exercise.
We've
applied
the
provincial
criteria,
which
are
criteria
quite
frankly,
that
we
that
we
support
and
and
we
find
valuable.
We
of
course
would
look
at
other
City
of
Toronto
considerations,
including
our
entire
official
plan.
When
we
undertake
our
next
municipal
comprehensive
review,
including
importantly,
how
much
land
do
we
have
for
housing
because
it's
a
two-sided
coin.
Q
We
need
enough
land
to
maintain
our
job
on
track,
to
award
our
job
target
and
we
need
enough
land
to
be
on
track
to
meet
our
housing
target
and
that's
the
balance
that
we
all
were.
We
are
always
trying
to
strike
and
reviewing
it
consistently.
Every
five
years
puts
us
in
a
better
position
to
achieve
those
targets,
so.
R
Q
Originally
had
not
been
our
recommendation
is
that
it
be
added,
it
could
have
been
a
mapping
oversight
on
their
part,
I,
don't
know,
but
councils
previously
taken
a
position
that
that
be
part
of
that
is
land
that
is
provincially
significant,
all
of
the
purveyors
of
food
that
come
into
the
city,
many
of
them
supporting
our
restaurants
and
other
businesses
go
in
and
come
out
via
the
food
terminal.
Thank.
A
K
L
K
If,
if
a
residential
permission
is
suddenly
put
on
a
land,
the
land
increases
in
value
if
it
was
previously
employment
right.
So
if
we
took
the
whole
33
percent
of
our
current
employment
lands,
I
mean
is
that
you
know
in
the
aggregate.
Is
that
a
an
up
zoning
and
value
of
a
hundred
million
or
billion
billion?
It's.
L
L
Q
Q
K
K
So,
sometime
imminently
within
a
year
two
years,
we're
going
to
be
giving
people
who
owned
these
properties
an
opportunity
to
raise
their
concerns.
We're
gonna
do
a
planning
exercise
anyway,
that's
correct
so
so
effectively.
If
there's
a
good
planning
case
to
be
made
that
we
don't
need
a
given
parcel
as
employment
lands
that
that
process
already
exists.
K
That's
correct,
okay,
given
that
that
process
already
exists,
and
then
a
municipal,
comprehensive
review,
as
you
said
in
answer
to
a
previous
question,
is
not
only
against
the
criteria
the
province
put
out
now,
but
against
all
additionally
ROP
policies
would
there
be?
Would
you
have
any
objection
to
us
retaining
a
hundred
percent
of
the
land
at
this
point
and
considering
any
amendments
when
we
do
our
MCR
well,.
Q
Through
the
chair,
we
we
put
forward
what
we
feel
is
an
appropriate
response
to
the
provincial
proposal,
which
is
to
significantly
limit
the
two-tier
strategy.
The
two-tier
approach
we've
looked
carefully
at
the
provincial
criteria
against
our
employment
areas,
and
our
advice
is
that
we
can
manage
the
5%
that
would
not
be
provincially
significant
through
local
area
planning
studies
through
tools
that
we've
recommended
as
well
to
maintain
jobs.
So
we're
not
throwing
these
areas
out
completely.
K
I
understand
I
was
asking
a
slightly
different
question.
If
we
want
to
go
beyond
what
is
simply
the
criteria
the
province
have
put
in
front
of
us
and
consider
our
employment
lands
with
a
full
municipal,
comprehensive
review
and
taken
to
account
the
planning
policies
at
the
City
of
Toronto
I
mean
we.
We
did
this
just
as
you
said
six
years
ago
would
would
you
have
any
objection
to
us
protecting
a
hundred
percent
of
the
lands
now
and
taking
another
look
at
it
under
the
MCR?
That's.
Q
K
Q
The
need
that
we
are
most
concerned
about
is
to
get
that
l-pad
hearing
done
that's
in
the
fall,
because
not
then
you
know
honestly
many
counselors
come
to
us
and
speak
about
what
what
about
this
piece?
What
about
that
piece?
And
quite
frankly,
there
are
some
pieces
of
land
out
there
that
may
be
appropriate,
so
you
know
I
want
to
get
on
with
the
next
exercise
and
in
that
case
my
priority
ten
seconds.
Sorry.
K
Q
Through
the
speaker
of
that
is
certainly
a
big
work
program
item
and,
as
I
indicated,
many
of
our
MT
essays
likely
meet
the
density
and
job
targets.
However,
that's
something
that
we
were
embarking
on
and
we
want
to
stay
on
that
course.
We
don't
we're
concerned
that
by
enlarging
the
areas
we're
going
to
make
what
is
already
a
complex
work
program
item
a
much
more
complex,
Thank.
I
Yes,
thanks.
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker,
through
you
to
to
staff
I'm
focusing
in
on
I,
guess
it's
item
six
in
the
in
the
staff
report,
what
we
talked
about
job
for
job
or
applications
and
retaining
space
for
employment
uses
in
in
practicality.
How
often
do
we
see
an
intensive
residential
development
to
retain
any
kind
of
historical
job,
employment
or
creation
that
was
on
that
site
through.
Q
The
speaker,
this
is
something
that
we've
increasingly
approached
through
our
policy
changes.
So,
for
example,
OPA
231
has
an
office
replacement
policy
in
it
now
mind
you
it's
being
contested,
however,
we
have
continued
down
that
path
since
2013,
when
we've
done
Teal'c
or
when
we've
done
Yonge
and
Eglinton
when
we're
looking
at
settlements
Celestia,
for
example,
we're
looking
at
office
and
job
replacement
planning
approaches.
So
it's
something
that
we,
you
know
we've
kind
of
changed
course.
Q
Even
recent
recent
settlements
outside
of
our
employment
lands,
we've
very
assertively
tried
to
take
the
approach
that
in
our
mixed
use
areas
we
we
want
to
replace
the
jobs
that
new
development
is
it's
threatening
and
we
think
fundamentally,
a
mixed-use
development
in
in
those
areas
is
a
much
better
planning
approach
in
a
complete
community.
So.
I
In
in
cases
where
an
applicant
wants
to
build
a
residential
tower
or
condo
tower
on
a
site
that
was
once
a
vibrant,
where
houses
now
have
one
security
guard
in
there,
there's
no
economic
activity.
Would
you
would
you
go
to
the
current
existing
employment
numbers,
or
would
you
go
to
historical
numbers?
What
we're
what
we're
in
there
at
one
time
to.
Q
The
speaker
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
it
through
a
number
of
lenses
you're.
Looking
at
the
the
land
area.
You
know,
employment
lands
is
about
land,
banking,
letting
trends
come
over
the
city
where
a
piece
of
land
may
have
been
a
distribution
warehouse
with
20
employees.
You
know
the
next
year
it
could
be
a
distribution,
a
different
kind
of
distribution
warehouse
with
a
hundred
employees.
That's
something
that
city
doesn't
control.
I
On
the
more
specific
side,
your
map
I'm,
trying
to
locate
the
Bombardier
lands,
which
have
recently
changed
hands
I
realize
this
is
more
of
a
case
study.
But
what?
What
would
the
new
owners
of
the
bombard
a
lands
have
to
do
to
be
able
to
convert
that
from
significant
employment
lands
under
what
your
recomendation
recommending
into
into
residential?
So.
Q
The
the
those
lands
and
other
lands
that
are
across
the
city,
frankly,
our
would
be,
would
be
as
councillor
perks
noted
up
for
review
in
the
city's
next
municipal,
comprehensive
review
and
if,
if
something's
happen
in
the
meantime
on
a
large
piece
of
land,
I
will
obviously
be
having
a
conversation
with
those
with
those
owners
about
the
future
of
those
areas.
I
mean.
I
Q
C
Q
I
think
importantly,
we
looked
at
the
provincial
criteria,
so
the
province
embarked
on
this
exercise
of
identifying
municipally
significant
sorry,
provincially,
significant
employment
zones
first
time
actually
in
a
while
that
province
has
got
into
the
mapping
business.
Normally
they
leave
that
to
the
musicality.
So
it's
quite
a
change,
be
careful
what
you
wish
for,
in
any
event,
the
the
the
the
the
criteria
that
the
province
established.
Q
We
said,
okay,
if
that's
the
approach
you
want
to
take,
we
will
apply
that
to
the
33
percent
that
you
didn't
consider
and
see
if
reasonably
speaking,
some
of
it
should
be
should
also
be
included
as
pizzettes,
and
we
came
up
with.
Actually
we
should
we
should
go
farther.
We
should
protect
95
percent,
so.
Q
C
Now
so
it
would
be
important
that
nobody
tinker's
with
that
argument
as
well
right,
then
we
don't
start
talking
about
sites
or
anything
like
that.
It
is
important
that
we
leaves
that
argument.
You
have
a
strong
argument,
so
it's
really
important
that
we
take
that
argument
to
the
province.
Correct,
I,.
Q
C
You
know,
part
of
your
recommendations
is
have
the
95
but
you're
not
automatically
saying
that
the
other,
4
or
5%
should
go
you're,
actually
asking
to
have
a
study
done
by
us
by
the
city
on
these
lands
as
well,
because
we
haven't
had
really
time
to
even
evaluate
this.
You
know
in
a
prudent
and
responsible
way
correct.
That's.
Q
Correct
the
problem:
the
province
has
suggested
that
in
their
two-tier
approach
that
there
be
a
municipality
initiated
review
of
the
areas
that
are
not
provincially
significant,
so
our
advice
was
alright.
If
you
want
to
go
that
way,
we'll
look
at
these
five
5%
of
these
areas.
We
will,
though,
want
to
be
able
to
have
tools
that
maintain
the
jobs
in
those
areas,
because
there
are
about
20,000
jobs
in
those
areas,
and
we
will
want
to
look
in
these
areas
from
a
local
area
lens,
involve
local
communities
and
come
up
with
our
best
advice.
Q
Q
C
F
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker
Greg.
On
page
we
were
here
7.
The
report
I
think
my
friend
kelcher
Patrick
brought
up
on
number
6
a
lot.
My
spell
is
to
acquire
the
applicant
to
retain
space
for
employment
users,
where
employment
easily
existed
or
part
of
the
development
application,
where
the
Mizpah
has,
in
effect,
official
plan
policies
indicating
that
they
are
under
that
redevelopment
criteria,
location
size
use,
phasing
development
such
as
employment
replacement
policy
would
apply
and
then
goes
on,
say,
be
allowed.
My
suits
also
set
minimum
employment
space
thresholds
for
new.
So
that's
for
new.
O
F
About
existing
properties
that
we
have
in
our
control
and
that
that's
the
difference,
I
know
on
the
christy
lands,
for
instance,
I
had
a
chance
to
meet
with
Mike
Williams,
whose
job
should
bring
jobs
to
the
area
and
an
applicant
was
looking
to.
They
were
looking
to
maybe
do
a
mixed
use
and
I
know.
Mike
was
very
firm
when
we
met
with
a
number
out
within
saying:
oh,
we
want
triple
the
amount
of
jobs
that
were
there.
I
think
was
six
hundred
and
change
were
there
when
the
bakery
was
in
full
exist.
F
So
Mike's
saying
look
we
want
triple.
We
want
a
different
type
of
use,
probably
platinum
office,
but
what
about
lands
it
under
control?
Okay,
and
now
that
would
be
under
our
control
where
an
applicant
wants
to
maybe
have
a
look
at
something,
but
what
about
create
two
créteil?
They
have
properties
that
we've
put
out
here.
We
have
some
major
battles
on
this
floor
about
protecting
these.
Is
there
any
threshold
for
the
type
of
job
so
you're
talking
about
job
growth?
Do
we
want
just
a
a
warehouse
to
come
in
and
two
hundred
jobs?
F
Q
F
Q
That
I
think
it's
it's
variable
as
to
what
council
is
decided.
It
wants
to
do
with
its
own
lands.
But
let
me
ask
you:
let
me
answer
the
question
through
a
planning
lens,
what
we've
done
with
OPA
231
and
again
this
off
it's
the
office
replacement
policy
of
231,
which
is
under
appeal,
but
what
we've
tried
to
do
on
application
since
then,
and
been
quite
successful,
is
for
anybody
who
has
an
office
building
that's
greater
than
a
thousand
square
meters
on
the
lands.
Today
we
seek
its
its
replacement.
Q
Q
Q
F
I
know
I
know,
councillor
Thompson
took
the
lead
on
this
and
he
travelled
the
world
and
trying
to
create
you
know
new
investment
and
continues
and
I've
traveled
with
them,
but
to
attract
new
investment.
What
do
we
look
at?
We
looking
for
hi-tech,
oh
he's,
just
looking
for
that
trucking
where
else
we're
looking
for
a
marijuana,
grow
up
or
has
maybe
a
security
guard.
I
can't
surpass
next
said.
Are
we
looking
to
maybe
this
question?
Mike
Williams
I'm,
not
too
sure
are
we
looking
for?
What
are
we
looking
for
we're
just
looking?
F
L
Think
it's
a
trade
there's.
Obviously
it's
a
complex
question
and
you're
talking
about
a
specific
situation
if
I
could
generalize
it
away
from
this
specific
situation
in
your
wort.
Ideally,
we
want
jobs
that
create
exports
to
the
rest
of
the
world,
because
that's
how
to
bring
in
new
new
jobs
and
a
new
new
wealth
to
the
community.
There
are,
but
we
also
always
need
support
jobs,
and
so
we
need
cement
jobs.
We
need
logistics,
jobs,
we
need
all
those,
but
at
the
top
of
the
pyramid
of
what
we
ideally
want.
F
Again,
I
know
in
lands.
We
also
control
is
where
a
developer
may
want
to
come
in
and
want
to
change
the
use.
We
have
great
control
in
that,
and
we've
had
many
contacts.
Conversations
with
you
know,
people
who
come
in
to
look
to
kick
the
tires
in
that
and
you've
been
very
firm
on.
We
want
triple
the
amount
of
jobs
that
existed
on
this
piece
of
property.
Why
are
we
not
doing
that
with
the
land
that
the
city
owns?
Why
are
we
not?
F
L
Things
are
always
situational,
it
depends
upon
what
the
market
is
at.
The
time
depends
upon
the
valuation.
It
depends
upon
a
lot
of
factors
and
so
I'm
talking
about
the
ideal
situation,
and
we
should
coordinate.
That's
not
part
of
this
report
by
the
way
it'd
be
part
of
something
else
that
we
need
to
talk
and
take
back
and
Josie's,
not
here
right
now,
so
it's
under
her
world
those
kind
of
directions,
so
I'd
be
more
comfortable,
her
being
anything
having
an
opportunity
to
address
that
in
this
kind
of
form.
Thank.
N
Q
Through
the
speaker,
they're
they're,
not
a
designation.
All
we're
saying
is
that
the
our
advice
back
to
the
province
is
to
if
you
are
going
to
take
this
two-tier
approach
limit.
The
amount
of
land
that
is
subject
to
review
prior
to
the
next
MC
are
to
only
5%
of
our
land,
and
we
applied
the
the
provincial
criteria
that
they
used
to
ratchet
up
to
the
amount
that
would
be
protected
until
the
the
next
MCR
and
limit.
The
this
interim
review
to
this
5%
of
land.
Q
I
should
emphasize,
though,
that
there's
still
employment
lands,
there's
still
employment
lands
and
we're
seeing
we
would
be
in
the
report
and
as
I
understand
it
with
the
growth
plan,
amendment
we're
seeking
tools
that
ensure
that,
as
those
lands
get
redeveloped,
potentially
that
we
maintain
a
job
component
on
those
lands.
So
as.
Q
That's
correct
through
the
speaker,
our
official
plan
does
up
to
conform
and
we
would,
under
after
they
adopt
the
growth
plan
amendment.
Let's
say
they
adopt
it
by
June.
The
first
will
embark
on
a
conformity
exercise
with
the
new
growth
plan
and
you
will
begin
to
see
reports
on
that
likely
all
the
way
to
zoning
completed
by
2022.
So
if
so,.
N
The
green
these
green
areas
would
not
be
part
of
designation
in
the
provinces
growth
plan.
If
I
got
that
correct.
Yes,
so
how
would
we
defend
if
there's
a
dispute
which
I
assume
there
would
be
because
we
know
the
land
is
worth
a
lot
more
for
for
residential?
So
how
would
we
defend
if
we
go
along
with
this
with
the
green
areas?
How
are
we
going
to
defend
our
current
Official
Plan
policies
when
the
growth
statement
treats
these
properties
differently?
N
Q
Through
the
speaker,
I
would
I
would
I
would
say
that
the
new
growth
plan
amendment
will
set
down
the
rulebook
for
how
these
non
peazy
areas
will
be
reviewed
and,
as
we
understand
it
and
again
this
is
a
draft.
But
as
we
understand
it,
they
there
are
a
few
tests
that
will
need
to
be
met.
One
will
be
a
municipally
initiated
review.
Q
N
Q
N
Q
B
Yes,
thank
you
very
much,
madam
Speaker
and
three
with
respect
to
the
lease
the
the
language
around
requiring
office
replacement.
I
raised
the
question
at
the
Planning
and
Housing
Committee
about
perhaps
making
a
technical
amendment
to
include
a
hotel
replacement,
knowing
that
hotels
are
also
a
very
significant
place
of
employment.
They're
multiplying
effects
that
are
economically
felt,
whether
it's
attracting
large
meetings,
conventions
or
just
bolstering
the
tourism
industry.
Would
you
consider
it
a
friendly
amendment
to
make
sure
that
some
language
isn't
there
to
include
hotels?
Yes,.
Q
B
Thank
you
very
much
and
with
risk
with
respect
to
the
provincial,
the
provincial
initiative
here.
What
are
the
implications
to
those
eighty-four
appeals
if
this
goes
ahead?
What
what
message
do
we
send
to
l-pad,
or
does
that
make
those
84
appeals
just
rendered
dead
in
the
water
or
I'm?
Sorry,
you
know
xxx
automatically
successful
through.
Q
The
speaker,
we
specific
recommendations
that
we've
also
spoken
to
the
province
about
to
make
sure
that
any
of
those
appeals
are
dealt
with
as
transition
matters.
In
other
words,
those
appeals
should
be
dealt
with
under
the
rules
that
exist
now,
not
the
new
rules.
So
we
want
to
inoculate
those
those
appeals
from
the
implications
of
any
new
policy
directions
and.
C
B
R
B
Q
Through
speaker,
my
my
only
comment
on
that
would
be
that
it's
certainly
the
prerogative
of
the
province
of
Ontario
to
to
change
the
planning
rulebook.
The
Planning
Act,
the
provincial
policy
statement,
the
growth
plan.
They
have
done
that
over
the
last
10
or
15
years
and
I
would
assume
that
they
will
continue
to
do
that
to
reflect
the
goals
of
the
government.
That's
a
but.
B
B
Q
A
new
a
new
approach,
especially
concerning
introducing
mapping,
is
something
that
we
know
that
our
level
is
a
very
difficult
thing
to
manage
and
usually
expressed
and
manifest
through
official
plan
document.
Land
use
designations
carefully
very
carefully.
So
it
is
that
that
part
of
this
change
is
is
a
new
innovation,
I'd
say
so.
B
So
the
the
cherry,
picking
and
granular
interference
with
our
own
process
and
with
respect
to
the
employment
zones.
What
would
be
the
motivation
for
provincial
government
to
go
into
a
city?
Go
drilling
right
down
into
the
various
neighborhoods
and
say
I'm
gonna
change
the
zoning
of
that,
or
at
least
open
the
door
to
permit
somebody,
a
property
owner
to
change
that
zoning.
What
would
motivate
a
provincial
government
to
do
that.
Q
Through
speaker,
I
can't
speculate
on
on
any
and
I
won't
on
any
political
motivation.
I
do
know,
though,
that
their
stated
goals
on
the
proposed
amendments
are
to
support
a
more
streamlined
planning
process
to
address
barriers,
to
increase
housing,
also
to
promote
jobs
and
housing
near
transit
and
provide
municipalities
with
increased
autonomy
and
flexibility
to
determine
context
appropriate
growth
strategy.
Q
So
those
are
their
stated
goals
and
I
think
what
they're
trying
to
do
is
in
fit
by
introducing
this
two-tier
approach,
a
batch
of
land,
you
know
protected
under
the
longer-term
planning
process
and
some
lands
possibly
available
for
conversion
earlier
they
I
assume
they're
they're
wanting
to
stimulate
housing
and
development
earlier
through
that
through
that
approach.
Thank.
C
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
start
by
thanking
staff.
This
was
an
incredible
amount
of
work
both
to
produce
the
report.
A
demotion,
yes
I
do
sorry.
I
would
like
to
move
staff
recommendations
and
the
supplementary
report,
and
so
I
would
like
to
like
I
was
saying
to
thank
staff.
There
was
an
incredible
amount
of
work
to
produce
a
report
so
that
at
the
committee
we
had
an
opportunity
to
have
a
discussion
around
this
issue
and,
and
there
was
an
important
discussion
and
again
we
have
a
supplementary
report.
C
Things
are
moving
really
quickly
and
once
again,
the
City
of
Toronto
is
as
very
short
period
of
time
grappling
with
the
information
that
is
coming
little
by
little
trying
to
understand
what
is
dropped
on
your
laps
at
the
eleventh
hour,
and
so
thank
you
staff
for
an
incredible
amount
of
work.
We
in
the
City
of
Toronto
have
a
policy
to
protect
employment,
lands
and
there's
a
reason
for
that.
C
We've
actually
been
growing
employment
numbers
in
the
city
of
Toronto
and
obviously
it
has
been
a
set
of
policies
and
conditions
and
the
great
city
that
we
have
that
contributed
to
that.
But
it
is
important
that
we
don't
erode
our
employment
lands
and
what
we
have
here
is
a
strong
response.
We
understand
that
the
Planning
Act
is
an
act
of
the
province.
We
understand
that,
but
we
also
understand
what
the
city
needs
and
the
policies
that
have
been
working
and
the
work
that
has
been
done
ears
over
ears
with
a
Planning
Department.
C
So
what
we're
asking
the
province
is
for
them
to
take
a
step
back
and
using
their
own
criteria.
You
know
the
criteria
that
they've
established
to
get
67%
of
those
lands
and
without
anything
else,
we're
just
using
the
arguments
that
they're
using.
We
have
proven
that.
Actually
it
applies
to
about
95
percent
of
those
lands.
The
other
thing
we're
asking
is
the
other
five
percent.
Let's
do
a
comprehensive
look
at
these
lands
again,
like
the
chief
planner
said,
and
we've
done
it
here,
the
last
municipal
comprehensive
review.
C
Sometimes
you
know
that
the
city
is
a
dynamic
place.
Sometimes
it
changes
and
it
needs
to
be
adapted
and
we
go
through
that
exercise,
but
we'd
go
through
that
exercise
with
planing
planning
data,
with
good
information
with
numbers,
with
the
background
that
our
staff
is
able
to
give
us,
and
so
that's
what
they're
requesting
the
province
as
well
as
the
opportunity
to
work
with
with
the
city
on
that
those
5%
and
obviously,
as
the
the
chief
planner
has
said,
to
to
shortened
the
MTS
stations
to
500
meters.
C
Madam
chair
I
ask
that
we
support
staff
recommendations.
They
have
a
rationale
and
we
shouldn't
be
tinkering
with
that
rationale.
We
have.
They
have
used
the
criteria
of
the
province
to
show
what
should
be
included
in
those
Maps,
and
we
should
support
our
staffs
arguments,
so
they
have
the
strongest
argument
possible
to
have
the
conversations
with
the
province.
That's
what
I'm
asking
I
know
that
councillor
wong-tam
will
be
putting
a
friendly
amendment.
This
is
in
light
of
the
discussions
that
we
had
at
committee
to
be
more
protective
and
of
hotel
replacement
and
and
culture
facilities.
C
This
was
some
is.
This
is
something
that
we're
seeing
eroding
in
our
city
as
well
and
and
I
think
it
is
important.
I
think
that
we
should
we
should
support
it
as
well,
so
I
ask
Council
to
support
staff
recommendations
to
give
them
the
tools
to
go
up
the
street
and
to
continue
this
conversation
about
land
planning
and
have
strong
arguments
to
the
fans.
You
know
good
planning
for
the
City
of
Toronto
and
protect
jobs
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
Thank.
H
You
very
much,
madam
speaker,
I'll,
be
very
brief.
I
actually
just
want
to
rise
to
thank
our
amazing
planning
staff,
particularly
our
chief
planner
Greg
Lantern,
as
well
as
Carrie
boom.
Vacas
I
know
that
they
worked
so
hard
pulling
this
together.
An
incredibly
tight
timeline
that
the
province
set
out
and
we've
got
some
excellent
staff
recommendations
before
us.
H
I
think
it
was
a
painstaking
process
that
they
went
through
in
the
last
month
doing
an
analysis
of
the
citywide
Toronto's
employment
lens,
so
I'm
very
happy
to
see
staffs
recommendations,
I
fully
support
them
and
we
have
to.
We
have
to
really
commit
to
protecting
our
employment,
lens,
I,
know
and
I.
Think
youyou
appreciate
as
well
that
these
business
parks
play
such
an
important
role
in
our
city
and,
quite
frankly,
are
one
of
the
keys
to
our
success
and
the
provinces.
H
Amendment
includes
a
one-time
window
to
allow
municipalities
to
undertake
some
conversions
between
the
effective
date
of
the
amendments
and
the
next
em
CR.
So
I'm
hearing
from
businesses
and
they're
saying
to
me
you
know:
do
we
need
to
start
looking
at
relocating
we're
losing
confidence
in
the
municipality
and
the
province
and
those
two
levels
of
government?
Are
we
going
to
be
protected
from
I
call
it
creep?
Other
people
call
it
different
things,
but
they're
very
concerned
and
I'm
gonna,
just
narrow
it
down
to
the
Leeside
Business
Park
right
now.
H
This
is
a
major
industrial
park
in
the
heart
of
Toronto.
It
has
access
to
the
Don
Valley
Parkway
and
it's
been
around
for
50
years,
incorporated
in
the
early
80s.
So
these
huge
manufacturers
employ
thousands
of
Ontarians
and
they
are
literally
concerned
about
whether
they
need
to
start
relocating
outside
of
Toronto
because
of
the
things
I've
just
cited.
The
lack
of
confidence
in
the
municipal
and
provincial
government
to
protect
them
against
the
creep,
so
I
hope
that
we
can
think
very
deeply
today
about
use
compatibility.
H
It's
a
mounting
growing
problem
in
the
city
and
I.
Think
city
staff
have
taken
the
right
approach
here.
They've
been
very
selective
about
the
areas
they're
recommending
recommending
for
protection
and
it's
a
great
opportunity
to
look
comprehensively
at
employment
lands
in
our
city.
So
again,
my
thanks
to
staff
I
think
this
was
a
monumental
task
and
they've
done
an
excellent
job.
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
Thank.
K
K
There
is
more
than
simply
whether
or
not
there
are
jobs
in
the
City
of
Toronto
as
I'm
sure
councillor
Bradford
will
tell
you,
or
anyone
in
our
planning
department
will
tell
you
the
critical
thing
when
designing
a
city
is
to
have
a
mix
of
uses
in
relative
proximity
to
each
other.
We
do
not
want
a
future
where
people
live
in
the
City
of
Toronto
and
work
in
the
905
and
where
that's
the
only
option.
Retaining
jobs
here
benefits
the
vibrancy
of
the
city.
It
benefits
the
environment
in
that
it
means
less
travel
time.
K
It
benefits
our
transit
network
and
I.
Think
that's
what
probably
part
of
why
councillor
Robinson
spoke
out,
but
I
want
to
talk
about.
Why
I
think
it's
important
to
pursue
a
hundred
percent
and
not
95
percent.
Some
of
those
who've
argued
that
we
should
do
this
because
we
want
to
go
along
with
the
provincial
intent.
I
think
you
know,
I'm,
never
one
to
try
to
understand
what
goes
on
inside
the
mind
of
the
premiere
I
find
that
a
dangerous
territory
and
I
would
get
lost.
K
But
let's
take
a
look
at
what
we
actually
got
put
in
front
of
us.
The
province
gave
us
a
map
which
said
why
not
hive
off
33%
of
your
lands
that
are
currently
protected
as
employment
I,
don't
need
any
bigger
signal
for
what
the
provinces
intent
really
was
than
that
I
put
the
words
aside,
because
the
province
obviously
put
the
words
aside
when
they
design
that
map.
K
The
urgency
is
just
exactly
the
same
thing.
We
saw
on
the
provincial
effort
to
try
to
take
away
some
of
the
protected
areas
in
the
Greenbelt
its
to
enrich
private
landowners.
Tell
them
no
tell
them.
No.
Thank
you
very
much.
Our
position
is
a
Toronto
City
Council
is
that
the
land-use
functions
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
the
environment
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
the
relationship
between
employment
and
residential
in
the
City
of
Toronto
and
jobs
in
the
City
of
Toronto
are
more
important
to
us
than
the
wealth
of
private
land.
J
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
We
shape
the
fact
of
the
work
that
we're
doing
and
as
we're
moving
forward
that
we
have
to
make
sure
that
not
only
do
we
make
sure
that
the
employment
lands
stay
employment,
but
we
will
allow
uses
on
those
employment
lands
that
create
employment
and
I'll.
Give
you
an
example:
there's
an
area
in
my
part
of
the
world
that
a
daycare
wants
to
go
to
in
a
senior's
home,
the
seniors
home,
isn't
an
industrial
land
and
has
been
grandfathered.
J
However,
the
daycare
that
we
need
and-
and
it's
a
it's
a
subsidized
daycare
from
the
city
cannot
go
into
the
same
building
and
have
a
daycare
and
I
know
that
the
planning
staff
is
opposing
to
it.
But
we
need
to
take
a
look
into
that
situation.
We
allow
other
usages
we're
allowed
way
in
the
same
in
the
same
building.
If
we
want
to
the
city
has
approached
the
the
landlord
and
says:
can
we
have
it
as
a
can
we
bring
homeless
individuals
for
them
to
stay
in
the
building
and
we're
looking
at
that.
J
However,
when
it
comes
to
the
daycare
situation,
which
is
the
subsidized
daycare
which
is
needed
in
my
ward,
were
where
we're
moving
negative
on
that
one.
So
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that,
although
we
preserve
the
the
employment
lands
that
we
make,
some
adjustments
to
the
to
the
other
venues
that
will
also
create
jobs
and
a
daycare
center
does
create.
That
I
want
to
thank
the
chief
planner
mr.
J
R
Thanks
very
much
through
the
chair,
I
think
that
the
changes
that
are
being
proposed
for
the
growth
plan,
they're
very
wide-ranging
and,
frankly,
quite
concerning
in
the
context
of
bills
66
as
well,
so
we're
seeing
the
government.
You
know
in
many
respects,
sort
of
eroding
the
legislation.
That's
actually
meant
to
protect
our
physical
and
natural
environments,
so
changes
here
are
being
done
in
the
means
of
producing
a
more
efficient
process.
I
think
that
that
can
be
a
positive
thing,
but
we're
doing
that
through
initiatives
and
processes
like
our
end-to-end
review.
R
From
my
perspective,
the
way
to
actually
improve
our
planning
system
is
for
the
provincial
government
to
come
to
the
table
with
investment
and
meaningful
regional
planning.
The
item
that
stands
out
in
all
of
this,
the
most,
of
course,
is
the
proposed
changes
that
would
be
converting
those
employment
lands
and
make
staffs
work
more
difficult
to
complete
the
the
MCR
here.
So
if
the
province
is
going
ahead
with
these
changes,
you
know
we
will
be
losing
a
third
of
our
employment
lands
and
they
would
be
open
to
conversion
before
the
next
municipal
comprehensive
review.
R
That
is
the
republic
tree
report
asks
us
to
request
the
province
to
make
95%
of
the
employment
lands
provincially
some
significant
employment
lands.
That's
an
important
step
now.
I
ask
the
questions
about
95
or
100
or
110
percent,
because
I
wanted
to
understand
how
we
got
there
and,
as
we
heard,
we
arrived
at
that
number
through
the
provincial
criteria,
to
ratchet
up
the
numbers
that
we
can
actually
protect
before
the
next
MTR
I.
R
Think
after
they
adopt
the
growth
plan
amendment
we
will
be
embarking
on
that
opie
conformity
exercise
and
we'll
have
another
opportunity
to
protect
jobs
on
those
5%.
So
based
on
lift
listening
to
the
comments
from
the
staff
here
and
the
staff
recommendations,
that's
what
I
will
be
supporting.
We've
fought
hard
to
protect
employment
lands
in
Toronto.
We
need
to
continue
to
do
that.
The
staff
recommendations
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
are
what
we
should
be
supporting
here
today.
Thank
you,
Thank.
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Ma'am
Speaker
I
do
have
a
motion.
I
would
ask
the
clerk
to
put
on
the
screen
for
me,
please,
and
that
is
simply
to
amend
recommendation
number
6a
by
adding
the
words,
including
hotels,
afterwards,
employment
uses-
and
you
can
now
see
that
on
the
screen.
Madam
Speaker,
this
is
a
I
mean
I
I
mean
we
can
also,
by
its
also
acknowledging
the
hard
work
of
staff,
Cary
and
Jeffrey,
as
well
as
Greg
I
know.
You
all
worked
really
hard.
I
know
this.
B
This
particular
item
that
that
was
dropped
on
your
desk
caused
a
lot
of
stress
as
you
try
to
respond
as
intelligently
as
you
could
and
strategically,
as
you
could
to
what
was
unannounced
no
consultation
with
the
city.
This
was
another
one
of
those
fast
balls,
I
was
thrown
and
if
you
were
not
over
the
plate,
it
would
have
would
have
resulted
in
something
different.
So
thank
you.
B
B
Provincially,
sensitive
employment
zones
and-
and
the
answer
was
no-
has
there
ever
been
any
type
of
interference
and
in
such
a
way
in
in
municipal
matters,
where
you
actually
have
a
provincial
government
putting
together
a
map
drilling
all
the
way
down
to
the
granular
neighborhood
level
and
saying
that
area
that
area
in
that
area?
We're
gonna
we're
gonna,
give
the
opportunity
for
the
property
owner
to
to
rezone
and
and
override
what
the
city's
intentions
are,
or
even
the
city's
planning
process.
B
That
is
just
behavior
that
that
is
motivated
by
by
external
forces,
and-
and
this
is
why
counselor
perks
is
motion-
is
so
critical.
We
already
have
a
process
at
the
City
of
Toronto.
Our
planning
staff
are
professionals
that
win
awards
around
the
country.
We
do
extraordinary
visionary
document
planning
at
the
city,
and
we
do
this
with
broad
consultation,
open
and
transparent
for
all,
to
see.
B
That's
how
we
plan
and
build
a
city
and-
and
we
have
not
necessarily
needed
the
provincial
government
to
come
in
and
tell
us
I-
want
you
to
change
everything
now:
the
enriching
of
property
owners,
sure,
yes,
that
may
happen
through
through
rezoning,
but
what
I
really
don't
like
about?
What
is
transpiring
here
is
how
it's
happening
exclusively
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
a
provincial
government
drilling
down
mapping
cherry-picking
the
sites
that
they
want
to
change.
That
is
odd,
odd
behavior.
B
The
the
95
100
question
is,
is
also
at
the
core
of
who
we
are
and
how
we
respond
to
this,
since
we
already
have
a
planning
process
that
is
open
and
transparent,
and
there
are
already
appeal
processes
that
are
available
to
landowners.
Let
that
run
its
course.
We
don't
necessarily
need
to
even
cherry-pick
out
the
five
percent
so
that
we
can
actually
take
another
look
at
it
when
we
have
the
municipal
comprehensive
review
that
will
be
open
and
underway
again
very
shortly.
B
Hall
I,
really
encourage
you
to
think
about
the
kind
of
city
that
you
are
building
and
recognize
that
you're
new
in
in
this
chamber
and
and
people
are
watching
what
you're
what
you
are
doing
and
what
you're
saying
and
you
don't
have
to
be
somebody
else's
person.
You
can
be
your
own
person
and
vote
with
your
values
and
especially
if
you
have
been
paying
close
attention
to
land-use
planning
matters
in
Toronto
and
recognize
the
incredible
lobbyists
and
corporation
forces
that
exist
behind
the
chambers,
Thank
You.
P
P
Yeah
thanks.
It's
my
intention
to
support
the
hundred
percent.
If
it's
voted
on
first
but
I
appreciate
staffs
recommendations,
I
have
full
confidence
in
our
ability
to
conduct
an
MCR,
because
the
last
time
we
did
one
we
did
a
good
job
protecting
our
lands.
We've
demonstrated
our
ability
to
look
rationally
and
I'm
coming
across
our
map
and
we've
we've
caused
employment
growth
or,
as
a
result,
my
questions
were
about.
What
are
we
taking
with
us
in
our
presentation?
P
Are
we
taking
with
us
the
the
map
that
shows
how
much
potential
there
still
is
within
500
meters
of
every
transit
station?
500
meters
is
what
we've
been
functioning
with
and
we
still
have
a
long
way
to
go.
We've
only
realized
50
percent
of
the
potential
within
those
zones,
and
even
that
is
somewhat
hard
for
the
surrounding
communities
to
bear
and
we're
proceeding
a
pace,
but
with
due
consideration
to
its
impact
on
those
neighborhoods
I
think
the
reason
the
deadline
is
what
it
is.
P
The
reason
we
are
being
asked
within
little
more
than
a
month
to
have
our
final
proposal
for
changes
in
is
so
that
there
wasn't
time
for
us
to
get
out
to
our
communities
and
show
them
a
map
of
what
it
would
mean
to
expand
500
meters
to
800
meters.
What
the
neighborhoods
are
that
would
be
affected,
how
it
radically
changes
our
own
Official,
Plan
policies
and
our
abilities
to
be
sensitive
when
enacting
them
and
and
realizing
our
own
vision.
P
They
don't
want
us
to
show
the
impact
and
the
map
and
the
areas
that
will
be
affected
by
800
meters.
People
barely
know
about
it.
It's
my
intention
to
make
sure
that
I
have
the
maps
that
staff
have
created
and
that
at
every
Community,
Development
meeting
that
I'm
involved
in
I
show
those
maps
to
say
to
residents.
Do
you
realize
that
this
is
the
proposal
of
your
local
MPP
that
he
wants
to
destroy
every
neighborhood
along
every
subway
station
in
don
valley
north?
P
That's
what
I'll
be
doing
going
forward
every
station
saved
one
on
the
sheppard
line
has
a
proposal
that
destroys
every
neighborhood
around
every
station
and
no
one
knows
about
it.
That's
what
this
deadline
is
about.
So
we
should
applaud
our
staff
that
they
have
been
able
to
act
this
quickly
to
prepare
the
response
that
they
have
that
they
present
it
today.
M
You
very
much
speaker,
I'm,
very
glad
that
we
had
the
chance
to
review
this
between
the
committee
and
council
and
that
staff
have
come
back,
indicating
that
there
are
so
many
more
parts
of
our
employment
lands
that
can
receive
protection
based
on
the
criteria
that
was
set
by
the
province.
I
just
want
to
echo
the
remarks
of
a
number
of
people.
I'm
actually
happy
that
councillor
a
long
time
put
the
hotels
in
there,
because
we've
had
such
a
difficult
time
with
them
being
converted
and
they're
economically.
Very
important.
M
So
I
want
to
thank
the
planning
staff
for
their
work,
but
I
also
have
to
thank
the
economic
development
staff
for
their
vigilance.
Their
constant
reminder
of
how
important
these
lands
are
for
jobs
that
they
drive
jobs
in
the
City
of
Toronto
and
through
our
many
discussions,
and
even
going
to
the
OMB
to
protect
the
employment
district
that
the
city
set
aside
in
sa'
in
the
Eastern
Avenue
area.
The
notion
that
there
are
only
a
certain
number
of
lands,
and
now
we
learn
it's
only
16
percent
of
the
entire
land
mass
in
the
city.
M
That's
set
aside
to
guarantee
jobs
for
Torontonians
and
in
employment
areas.
I
think
we
all
know
that
the
job
that
are
there,
they
aren't
convenience,
store
jobs,
they're,
not
a
dry-cleaning
job
they're,
not
a
greeter
job.
They
are
value-added
jobs.
Our
employment
lands
are
there
to
have
businesses,
locate
there
that
add
value
to
the
economy
through
the
good
jobs
nature
of
these
employment
lands.
So
we
have
lands
that
are
zoned
specifically
for
that
we
have
to
be
careful.
M
We
added
office
into
our
employment
lands
in
certain
areas,
and
that
was
a
discussion
with
planning
and
economic
development
that
that
is
in
the
new
century,
where
so
many
jobs
are
going,
and
it
was
a
wise
thing
to
do
so
at
the
Unilever
site,
which
is
a
40
acre
site
owned
by
first
Gulf.
There
will
be
sole
factory
opening
up,
hopefully
in
a
two
years,
with
4,000
jobs
on
that
site,
4,000,
good
jobs,
4,000,
and
that's
because
we
made
that
area
at
the
OMB.
M
When
we
fought
that
that
said,
we
are
not
going
to
have
incursions
from
big-box
retail
residential.
This
is
for
jobs
and
with
the
adding
of
office
on
to
that.
It's
made
it
very
important.
Now.
I,
don't
think
that
downtown
Toronto
is
technically
an
employment
zone,
core
employment,
but
it
is
zoned
in
a
way
that
all
of
the
jobs
zone
in
which
we're
sitting
my
friends
right
now,
the
massive
number
of
jobs
on
Bay
Street
on
King
Street
on
Queen
Street,
that
that
needs
to
be
protected
as
well.
M
So
I
do
just
want
to
say
one
of
the
most
difficult
things
for
the
public
to
understand,
even
in
a
development
application
is
why,
on
this
piece
of
land,
can't
we
just
add
some
residential.
Wouldn't
that
be
nice.
We
want
mixed
juice.
We
don't
want
just
these
4,000
jobs
at
the
sole
factory,
which
will
also
have
a
smart
track
station
and
eventually
a
relief
line
station.
M
It
undermines
the
integrity
of
being
able
to
maintain
that
as
a
job
zone,
because
the
second
that
land
sells
for
residential
price,
everybody
else
is
going
to
want
that
exact
same
price
jobs
gone
housing,
their
certain
number
of
jobs
to
build
it,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
that's
not
sustainable.
You
all
know
that
we
subsidize
all
the
residential
building
in
the
city
with
the
cost
to
maintain
those
and
the
income
that
we
get
where
as
employment
lands,
they
give
us
a
tax
base
that
punches
way
way
way
above
their
weight.
M
O
You
very
much
madam
Speaker,
madam
Speaker
I
rise
to
thank
the
amazing
team
and
the
planning
team,
the
economic
development
team
in
responding
to
this
issue.
I,
don't
know
what
the
motivations
are
in
terms
of
the
decision
from
the
province
one
can
surmise.
However,
I
do
think
that
we
actually
have
a
system,
that's
actually
working
now
and
we
are
looking
at
fixing
it.
It
doesn't
seem
to
me
that
we
need
to
fix
it
quite
frankly.
O
What
we
need
to
do
is
to
support
it
and
ensure
that
its
enhance
we
have
for
a
very
long
period
of
time,
seeing
the
pressures
and
the
impact
with
respect
to
the
employment
lands
in
this
city.
I
think
all
of
us
can
actually
speak
to
specific
issues
in
their
own
risk,
Ward's,
where
these
pressures
are
having
these
impact,
and
so
on.
Council,
fetcher
and
others
who
talk
about,
makes
use,
and
those
are
ideally
some
of
the
things
that
we
want
to
encourage
and
so
on.
O
We
actually
don't
want
the
City
of
Toronto
B
to
become
the
bedroom
community
for
this
region.
Quite
frankly,
we
want
to
have
the
jobs
here.
We
want
to
have
the
opportunities
here.
We
want
to
ensure
that
people
can
come
work
and
play
in
my
own
area.
Specifically,
we've
been
dealing
with
the
pressures
at
Birch,
mountain
and
Eglinton,
along
Birch
Mountain
Road.
Yesterday
I
had
discussions
with
a
building
owner
who
finally
said
council
Thompson,
you
know
you're
right,
you
were
trying
to
ensure
that
we
didn't
force
this
issue.
O
He
now
has
a
20-year
lease
on
this
particular
property
to
create
major
opportunities
and
jobs
in
the
community
but
number
of
years
ago.
He
wanted
simply
to
you,
know,
rezone
and
to
put
residential,
and
so
we
had
this
discussion
yesterday
and
we
said
to
him
see
this
is
what
we
were
trying
to
do.
We
want
to
save
the
employment
lands
and
so
on,
and
there
many
more
along
transit
corridor
and
so
on.
We
want
to
create
this
balance
of
interest
to
ensure
that
we
can
protect
the
opportunities
for
residents.
O
We
have
time
and
time
again
in
this
chamber
indicate
our
interest
in
protecting
the
employment
lens,
for
the
very
reasons
that
many
have
spoken
about
already
and
that
I
will
just
continue
to
add
my
voice
to
it
creates
prosperity
it
creates
opportunity,
it
minimize
disruptions
to
our
community
and
so
on.
It
also
D
emphasizes
the
need
for
our
municipality
to
actually
be
supporting
residents,
we're
not
working
because
they're
on
social
assistance
and
so
on,
because
when
you
remove
those
jobs,
when
you
you
you
create
what
I
believe
is
is
extremely
an
important
piece.
O
You
send
a
wrong
message:
you
create
this
great
concern
to
those
who
are
investing
in
this
community
that
you
don't
really
care.
You
don't
support
into
their
particular
interest
this
one.
We
need
to
stand
up
and
support
the
business
owners
who
are
complaining
about
the
creep,
that's
taking
place,
and
it
has
been
for
a
long
period
of
time.
We
finally
have
a
system
that
works.
We
have
the
five-year
review,
we're
through
the
process.
O
Naturally,
you'd
come
you'd
bring
your
application
you'd
bring
your
concerns
as
part
of
that
process,
and
it's
it's
it's
put
into
the
hopper.
It's
considered
I'm,
not
sure
why
we
want
to
change
a
system,
but
we
have
to
support
the
recommendations
that
are
here
from
our
diligent
staff
members
and
one
again
thank
them
for
the
great
work
that
they've
done.
Both
the
planning
economic
development
staff
and
all
involved
Thank
You,
speaker
Thank,.
N
Thank
you.
First
of
all,
I
don't
also
want
to
thank
the
staff
of
both
departments
for
a
really
intelligent
and
and
quick
response
like
councillor
perks.
I
would
prefer
if
we
were
supporting
a
hundred
percent,
but
we'll
go
along
with
the
staff
recommendations
as
a
practical
matter
and,
like
others
have
said,
we're
really
talking
about
the
future
of
our
city
here
and
and
who
controls
it.
N
Employment,
not
only
has
a
huge
impact
on
the
economic
vitality
of
the
city
being
able
to
preserve
those
jobs
within
the
city.
But
how
are
we
ever
going
to
solve
our
transportation
problems
if
we
are
if
the
jobs
are
happening
outside
the
city
and
we're
not
doing
everything
we
can
to
have
jobs
inside
the
city
that
in
some
instances,
people
would
be
able
to
walk
or
bike
to,
and
certainly
take
public
transit
too?
N
And
you
know
we're
just
going
to
continue
with
this
reliance
on
car
traffic
if
we
cannot
keep
the
jobs
and
create
the
jobs
in
the
city
and
on
the
800
meters
versus
the
500
meters
in
the
area
that
I
represent,
we
have
three
subway
stations.
Several
years
ago
we
exceeded
the
provincially
required,
or
the
provincial
ii
set
population
targets
for
2041.
N
So
we
are
more
than
25
years
ahead
of
the
provincial
population
growth
target
for
the
area,
that's
with
the
the
500
meters
and
with
more
developments
coming
all
the
time-
and
you
know
they're
talking
about
extending
that
to
800
meters.
It
just
becomes
you
know
it
really
impossible
to
manage,
and
we
know
the
results
of
of
that
over
development.
We
have.
We
have
children
who
literally
look
out
the
windows
of
their
condos
at
schools
that
they
cannot
attend
because
there
is
no
room
for
them
and
they're
getting
on
buses,
and
currently
those
buses
are
traveling.
N
A
couple
of
kilometers
outside
of
the
neighborhood,
where,
where
all
the
other
kids
who
live
in
the
neighborhood
go
to
school
and
those
schools
are
getting
filled
up
and
soon
we're
going
to
be
busing.
Kids,
like
completely
outside
of
their
geographic
area,
we're
going
to
be
busing,
kids,
three
four
five
kilometres
to
find
space.
If
we
continue
this
and
the
provincial
government,
meanwhile,
and
and
the
previous
government
as
well
as
much
as
this
one,
although
the
current
one
seems
to
be
intent
on
causing
us
more
harm.
N
But
you
know
we
have
provincially
appointed
appeal
bodies
that
keep
approving
development
that
nobody
wants
other
than
the
land
speculator
who
owns
the
property.
We
have
school,
a
school
system
that
the
province
needs
to
fund
new
classroom
spaces
and
doesn't
even
though
they're
creating
the
situation
for
that's
Google
overcrowding,
and
we
have
situations
like
the
young
401
bottleneck
that
they're
not
doing
anything
to
solve.
N
Despite
you
know,
pushing
all
the
population
on
us
on
the
area,
so
this
just
makes
a
bad
situation
worse,
but
most
of
all
takes
away
our
control
of
our
future
and
takes
away
our
ability
to
plan
for
the
future
and
protect
neighborhoods
in
a
way
that
the
people
who
live
in
the
neighborhoods
aren't
even
fully
aware
of.
Thank
you.
Thank.
F
You,
madam
Speaker
I'll,
begin
by
saying
I'll
be
sort
supporting
the
staff
recommendations
and
we
heard
the
word
creep
in
our
debate
this
morning.
Questions
of
staff
creep
has
happened,
and
you
know
why
is
creep
happened
and
over
the
15
years
I've
been
here,
there's
been
some
classic
battles
on
here
on
this
council
floor
about
protecting
employment,
lands
and
I
spoke
to
our
speaker,
but
you
don't
you
a
tire
company
in
here
Ward,
that's
spewing,
you
know
fumes
out
to
where
residents
are
there.
F
We
don't
think
that
way
anymore
and
as
a
local
councillor,
you
know
I
think
it
counts.
Raja
Mary
too,
had
the
Sun
rifle
pain.
When
things
like
that
happening
of
these
obnoxious
uses
your
residents
come
to
you
and
say:
listen
I
want
that
out
of
here,
and
the
way
that's
happened
is
let
the
residential
come
in.
So
was
that
right
or
wrong?
But
you
as
the
local
representative,
you
get
the
freshman
community,
that's
how
the
creep
has
happened,
but
my
line
of
questioning
to
staff
were
the
lands
that
we
are
controlled.
F
You
and
councillor
Fletcher's
got
a
soap
company
in
four
thousand
jobs,
but
we
have
now
create
tio,
but
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
plan
to
attract
the
right
type
of
jobs
like
lost
employment.
Whatever
comes
in
there,
you
know
there's
size
of
right
zoning,
but
the
lands
that
we
control
I.
Think
they're
gonna
be
a
better
job
done
of
going
out
there
as
councillor
Thompson
is
taking
his
team
throughout
the
world
that
we,
you
know,
we
can
tell
some
of
these
companies
Google
Amazon.
F
We
have
20
acres
of
land
within
10,
kilometers,
20
kilometers
of
the
downtown
core,
and
let
them
know
that
this
land
is
available.
But
you
know
the
way
we
do
it
now.
I
know
it
works.
It
goes
to
to
the
big
real
estate
agents
they
put
it
up
goes
out
there.
The
fax
comes
your
tear
factories.
You
know
that's
available,
that's
what
kind
of
works
now.
F
Well,
we
don't
seem
to
be
on
the
proactive
going
out
trying
to
get
the
right
type
of
jobs
and
I
know
ours,
because
when
I
company
was
buying
a
building,
you
know
they're
they're,
not
there.
They
come
over
by
fax,
but
I
think
that
our
economic
develop
the
traveling
throughout
the
world,
letting
people
know
we
are
on
fire
here.
Let's
not
take
the
best
thing
that
when
it's
in
our
control,
let's
go
out
and
maximize
those
jobs
like
we're
doing
with
the
mr.
Christie
craft
lands
that
are
now
taken
over
by
first
capital
and
mr.
F
Lloyd's
been
very
clear.
We
want
triple
the
amount
of
jobs.
You
want
a
different
type
of
use
here
and
I.
Think
that's
what
the
local
councilors
want
to
see.
I
know:
counts.
Annunziata,
you've
been
fighting
for
revitalization
up
there,
so
this
is
why
the
creep
is
happening,
because
there's
obnoxious,
users
that
would
never
allow
counts,
relate
and
had
the
the
pig
slaughter
right
down
Toronto
in
his.
So
that's
the
reason
that's
creep.
This
happened.
F
We
get
it
for
supporting
staff,
but
that's
why
it's
happened
and
I
think
we
get
up
a
better
communication
out
there
of
these
lands
that
are
available
and
really
put
the
emphasis
on
getting
good
jobs
and
number
of
jobs
like
councillor.
Fletcher
has
4,000
jobs.
That's
that's
a
great
number,
that's
what
we're
looking
for!
Doesn't
my
comment
Thank.
A
G
G
G
It's
a
small
business
startup
hub
the
high-tech
hub
employs
hundreds
of
people,
because
that
building
was
restored
and
converted
from
a
carpet
factory
into
a
small
office
space,
and
the
challenge
we
have
now
is
that
talking
a
couple
of
the
proprietors
their
long
term
proprietors
is
that
the
rents
are
going
up
so
high
and
the
cost
of
everything
around
there
in
Liberty
Village
is
so
prohibitive.
So
the
cost
of
a
hamburger
now
used
to
be
five
bucks.
G
Now
it's
about
20
bucks
for
hamburger,
so
a
lot
of
the
small
startups
are
thinking
of
leaving
that
area
going
somewhere
else.
So
somehow
economic
development
we've
got
to
get
a
plan
together
to
try
and
keep
and
retain
these
small
startups.
That's
are
down
in
Liberty
Village
and
maybe
try
to
encourage
them.
If
they're
going
to
move,
maybe
move
into
councillor,
Frances
Nunn
Giada's
area,
where
there's
some
great
things
happening
around
the
Symes
refurbishment
of
the
old
incinerator,
there
it's
an
incredible
achievement.
G
She
did
there
with
that
refurbish
owners,
so
we've
got
to
try
and
keep
some
of
the
jobs
that
are
here
because
they're
gonna
leave
they're
gonna
go
to
Hamilton
or
wherever,
because
the
cost
of
doing
business
is
much
less
there.
So
that's
one
challenge
just
in
terms
of
the
500
to
800
meters.
I
just
want
to
say
this
is
a
premeditated
plan
as
part
of
the
takeover
of
the
TDC.
They
want
to
basically
take
over
all.
They
don't
want.
They
don't
care
about
the
subways
or
the
the
transit
system.
G
They
want
to
control
the
land
and
offer
the
land
to
developers.
So
they
said
the
developers
will
build
the
subways
for
free
and
how
are
they
gonna?
Do
it?
Well,
here's
another
part
of
the
plan,
the
800
meters.
So
there
you
can
expand
this
zone
where
you
could
increase
densities
into
neighborhoods.
As
councillor
Carroll
said,
it's
attack
on
neighborhoods
try
to
protect
neighborhoods,
but
it's
all
of
a
sudden,
500
meters
and
sometimes
challenging
around
certain
stations,
but
now
to
go
to
800
meters.
G
You
know
when
they
take
over
the
subway
they're
gonna
take
over
planning
rights,
total
planning
control,
just
like
a
minister
or
Lord
or
over
all
the
subway
stations,
so
that
they'll
be
incredible
density
to
basically
fulfill
their
promise
of
saying
we're
gonna
build
those
Subway's
to
Pickering
for
free
for
you.
So
that's
what
this
is
really
part
of,
and
that's
why
I'm
glad
the
staff
has
intervened
with
some
reality
here
and
their
short
timeframe
here
to
expose
this.
G
This
is
part
of
the
plan
to
basically
take
away
the
subway
take
away
the
transit
system
take
away
the
land.
Imagine
one
thing:
I
was
talking
to
a
counselor
about
Rosedale
station.
You
can
imagine
what
they
would
build.
I
had
Rosedale
on
Yonge
Street.
The
dead
people
in
Rosedale
I,
remember
years
ago
stopped
a
eight
story,
building
six
storey
building.
Instead,
it
was
too
much
when
the
takeover
of
those
lands
takes.
G
The
promise
takes
imagine
what
they're
gonna
put
but
the
Rosedale
station
for
one
example
or
Chester
station
wherever
you
want
to
go
so
anyways
that
I
totally
support
the
staff
recommendation
of
essentially
same
we've
got
to
protect
what
we
have,
but
let's
also
why
we're
protecting
what
we
have
and
in
my
area,
I've
got
some
ink
lands
that
are
part
of
this
I've
got
Canada
goose.
You
know,
I've
got
roots,
it's
right
in
this
area
that
they
excluded
said.
G
G
There's
600
PS
right,
there's
also
another
operation,
the
subsidiaries
up
in
Scarborough
there,
but
the
main
office
is
right
there
in
England's
and
Lawrence
in
the
middle
of
the
city.
Ward
8.
Ok,
so
that's
where
it
started.
Canada,
goose
and
we'll
give
you
a
little
bit
of
the
action
there
in
Scarborough
anyways.
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
speaker.