►
Description
City Council, meeting 31, July 4, 2017 - Part 3 of 3 - Evening Session
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=11862
Part 1 of 3 - Morning Session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBZoNXHgvQ#t=13m11s
Part 2 of 3 - Afternoon Session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8gXcTxGq88#t=15m51s
Meeting Navigation:
0:09:12 - Meeting resumes
A
B
I,
don't
have
a
release
that
I
have
a
petition
Kasim
at
that
uh-huh
I
have
three
separate
petition
three
separate
but
of
the
same
position
of
145
signatures:
62
signatures
and
46
signatures
requesting
the
refusal
of
the
Official
Plan
and
zoning
bylaws
to
permit
a
24th
storey
tower
at
90,
Eglinton,
Avenue,
West
and
17
and
19
having
Hennig
Avenue,
which
we
may
be
dealing
with
tonight.
Thank.
C
C
You
speaker,
the
second:
this
is
the
combined
item,
which
is
on
page
8,
CC
21
point
16,
review
of
current
winter
wedding
readiness
as
well.
It's
the
joined
item
is
page
19,
CC
31
point
to
the
Ombudsman's
inquiry
report.
I've
spoken
with
councillor
Holliday,
who
had
his
questions,
answered
and
I
understand,
he's
now
comfortable
for
me
to
do
it
as
a
quick
release.
Okay,.
D
A
C
A
C
C
E
A
F
G
A
I
Thank
you
very
much
speaker
Speaker
I
rise
in
support
of
the
report.
I
rise
to
thank
the
staff
for
an
excellent
report,
I'm
very
happy
that
we're
actually
not
denying
global
warming
and
that
denying
that
there
are
problems
with
the
environment
and
GHG.
In
fact,
I
was,
at
the
break
speaker
had
a
chance
to
watch
the
TV.
I
I'm
happy
for
that.
What
it
seems
to
me
that
we're
talking
about
is
the
issue
around
funding
and
whether
or
not
we
can
afford
to
do
what
the
report
requires
us
to
do,
but
I
think
the
opportunity
cost
of
us
actually
not
doing
it
will
be
far
greater
than
the
amount
of
monies
that
we
are
required
to
pay.
It
seems
to
me
if
we
don't
actually
want
to
do
it
for
ourselves,
that's
okay,
but
we
actually
have
to
do
it
for
our
children.
I
We
have
to
do
it
for
their
future
and
so
I
think
that
we
are
tasked
with
the
responsibility
of
protecting
their
interests.
This
is
what
we
do
for
them
today
and
I
think
that
it's
really
important
for
us
to
do
the
right
thing.
There
are
many
Accords
and
many
agreements
that
have
been
signed
globally
and
so
on,
and
there
are
always
it
appears
that
there
is
some
excuse
as
to
why
we
can't
act,
why
we
can't
make
decisions
in
order
to
save
and
protect
the
environment.
I
We've
heard
from
councillor
perks
and
many
others
and
I've
been
listening
to
counsel
perks
now
for
a
number
of
years
about
how
serious
he
is
about
the
environment,
and
thank
you
because
you
have
helped
to
educate
me
personally
on
the
need
for
us
to
take
action
so
I.
Thank
you
and
many
other
members
of
council
as
well.
This
is
a
very
serious
issue.
I
Let
me,
then
also
turn
to
the
notion
and
the
idea
that,
because
we
invest
in
the
environment,
it's
going
to
have
an
adverse
impact,
negative
impact
on
economic
viability
and
economic
opportunities.
At
one
point,
that
was
the
conventional
thought:
I
think
that
that
has
been
dispelled
greatly
by
many
and
I
think
that
this
particular
opportunity
in
terms
of
this
report,
to
help
us
to
advance
the
reduction
in
ghd's.
I
Is
it
extremely
important
for
us
to
heed
the
the
information
that,
as
well
as
a
warning
that
comes
because
we
have
gone
through
the
ice
storms
we
have
had
in
in
August
of
2005?
In
my
own
ward,
many
of
my
neighbors
had
lost
their
backyard
because
the
Greeks
they
and
the
flooding
that
took
place
there
within
the
context
of
my
own
community,
not
in
China,
not
in
some
distant
land,
quite
frankly,
local.
I
It's
really
important
in
terms
of
what
we
do
so
I'm
gonna
support
this
and
I'm
gonna
support,
Kepler
late
Layton's
motion,
because
I
think
if
we
are
serious
about
the
environment,
if
we're
serious
about
wanting
to
ensure
that
we,
who
are
the
steward
of
this
city's
environmental
interests.
Because
of
our
elected
position,
we
too
must
put
forward
the
resources
that
are
needed
to
invest
in
protecting
our
environment.
If
there
are
monetary
resources,
we
need
to
step
up
and
find
it
to
put
it
in
place.
There
are
human
resources
that
are
required.
I
We
need
to
actually
implement
and
put
that
in
place,
because
if
we
don't
protect
the
environment,
then
of
course
our
lives
and
our
interests
are
in
peril
and
in
fact
our
is
that
stake
so
I.
Don't
think
that
we
ought
to
be.
You
know,
I,
guess,
pound
wise
and
penny
foolish
I
think
that's
the
state
the
saying
go.
So
we
need
to
invest
in
our
own
interests
speakers.
So,
for
those
reasons,
I'm
going
to
support
the
report,
that's
in
front
of
us.
Thank
you.
Thank.
E
You,
madam
Speaker,
this
is
I,
recognize
that
this
is
a
priority
for
Council.
It's
a
priority
for
all
of
us.
It's
also
the
transform
to
transform
tío
recommendations
are
a
priority
for
me.
I
did
support
them
at
executive.
I
will
support
them
here
and
I'll
continue
to
support
them
through
the
budget
process.
But
again
my
remarks
focus
more
around
process
and
the
importance
of
process
to
the
budget
process.
E
So
when
I
look
at
I'll,
be
supporting
council
McMahons
motion
as
opposed
to
councillor
Layton's
and
and
the
two
critical
components
are,
the
differences
between
the
two
with
council.
Mcmahon
is
submit
through
the
2018
budget
process.
Councillor
Layton
include
in
the
2018
operating
capital
budget
process.
I
think
it's
incredibly
important
that
well.
First
of
all,
we
have
many
priorities
across
the
city.
I
recognize
that
this
is
an
incredibly
important
process.
Don't
get
me
wrong
at
that,
but
there
are
many
other
priorities
we
have
in
Council
and
across
the
city.
E
Not
all
of
them
are
going
to
be
coming
to
this
floor
for
a
debate,
and
we
have
to
recognize
that
they
have
just
as
much
importance
again,
not
recognizing
that
this
is
also
important,
but
it
has
to
go
through
the
budget
process
really
what
this
is
and
if
we
support
councillor
Layton's
motion
it
takes
away
from
the
integrity
of
the
budget
process.
We
have
a
process
as
complicated
and
challenging
and
difficult
as
it
is.
It
is
a
process
we
have
to
follow.
E
We
have
can't
make
individual
decisions
on
this
floor
and
we
do
that
on
occasion,
we
shouldn't
be
doing
that.
There
are
a
couple
of
motions
here
in
front
of
us
tonight
that
I'll
be
putting
off
to
the
budget
process
and
I've
done
this.
It
seems
to
be
every
July.
These
kind
of
motions
come
up
where
we
want
to
make
a
decision
right
now,
because
it's
an
important
decision,
but
we're
overlooking
one
of
the
most
important
processes
that
this
city
has,
which
is
the
budget
process.
So
it
needs
to
go
through
the
budget
process.
E
E
K
First
of
all,
IX
comments
of
the
budget
chief
in
that
too,
and
I
support,
counselor,
McMahon's
motions
to
not
support
her
motions
and
effectively
effectively
prejudices
the
budgeting
process
and
really
makes
us
wonder
why
we
have
a
budgeting
process,
so
I
firmly
believe
and
I,
don't
think
supporting
her.
Emotions
necessarily
creates
a
poison
pill
for
counselor
Layton's
motion.
K
Invite
you
to
make
those
tough
decisions
when
it
comes
to
the
budgeting
process
and
take
a
look
at
a
city
building
initiative
like
more
affordable
housing
and
and
then
look
at
what's
happening
in
your
ward,
that
you
might
want
to
defer
or
delay
or
say
you
know
what
that's
not
quite
as
important.
So,
let's
not
spend
money
on
local
projects,
but
rather
focus
on
city
building
projects.
K
My
fear,
of
course,
is
that
in
the
budgeting
process,
whatever
monies
have
been
allocated
and
I
say
something
about
8.5
million
been
allocated
in
my
area
to
deal
with
a
problem.
That's
been
launched
any
problem
that
8.5
million
might
be
shunted
aside
again
and
delayed
even
further
and
pushed
further
down
the
line,
and
in
return
we
end
up
funding
something
that
is
in
the
neighborhood
of
6.7
million.
So
those
are
issues
that
need
to
be
dealt
with
through
the
budgeting
process.
K
We
need
to
make
our
arguments
through
the
budgeting
process
to
arrive
at
what
is
the
most
appropriate
way
of
dealing
with
this
global
warming
problem,
and
there
are
many
options
available
to
us.
We
just
have
to
say
to
ourselves:
we
can't
kick-start
all
of
those
options
and
fund
all
of
those
options
and
still
think
that
we're
being
honest
not
only
with
ourselves
but
with
the
electorate
and
next
year
in
particular,
some
of
you
might
want
to
make
those
tough
decisions
and
go
out
to
the
to
the
electorate
with
your
platform.
Thank
you.
G
J
You,
madam
Speaker
I'm,
going
to
be
supporting.
Obviously
the
transform
tío
initiative
and
I'll
also
be
supporting
councillor
McMahon's
motion.
You
know,
I
find
it
incredible
that
the
same
I
don't
know
games
if
you
want
to
call
her
a
plate
over
and
over
in
this
chamber,
and
somehow
an
initiative
as
good
as
transform
to
yo
has
to
has
to
be
divided.
We
have
to
we
have
to.
J
We
can't
come
together
because
a
simple
motion,
that's
going
to
strengthen
the
business
case,
gets
turned
into
whether
you're
a
climate
change
supporter
or
you're
a
climate
change
denier
right
the
minute
something
comes
up
that
says
we
should
look
at
how
we
spend
every
dollar
in
this
city
right.
Let's
go
to
the
budget
process
with
everything
we
do
know
here.
The
pictures
come
out
of
the
floods
and
the
trees
and
all
this
kind
of
stuff,
and
then
it's
pitting
one
side
against
the
other.
Everybody
in
here
cares
about
their
children's
future.
J
It's
not
just
those
that
are
saying
we
shouldn't
be
creating
a
better
business
case.
I
just
find
that
it's
very,
very
unfortunate
how
the
same
games
are
played.
Where
there's
this.
This
narrative
and
this
skepticism
that
has
to
be
built
up
from
one
side
of
this
chamber,
so
the
media
has
something
to
print
the
next
morning.
When
everybody
here
is
on
the
same
page,
we
can
eat
to
start
spending
smartly
in
this
city.
Imagine
a
business
case
that
comes
to
us
and
says
you
know
what
maybe
there's
going
to
be.
J
When
we
ask
for
this
information,
more
information
that
comes
forward,
that
I
don't
know,
maybe
the
private
sector
somehow
is
going
to
save
us
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
by
bringing
an
initiative
forward.
How
much
does
that
hundred
thousand
gonna?
You
know
gonna
do
for
us
if
we
want
student
programs
next
year
and
what
not?
The
reason
why
we
can't
get
anything
built
or
done
in
this
city
is
because
we
don't
prioritize
anything.
We
don't
look
at
anything
from
an
economic
lens.
J
Everything
that
by
default
should
be
look
no
matter
how
important
should
be
looked
at
through
the
budget
lens,
and
it's
no
wonder
that
we
can't
get
anything
built
around
here.
You
still
got
counselors
looking
up
the
definition
of
prioritizing.
That's
the
problem
around
here.
Okay,
everybody's
perfectly
on
site
would
transform
teal.
All
people
in
here
want
is
more
information
to
make
the
case.
That's
all
we
want,
and
if
more
information
is
such
a
bad
thing,
don't
come
to
the
Budget,
Committee
and
and
debate.
Let
us
do
our
thing.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
L
Yeah,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
speaker
speaker,
I
kind
of
I've
been
messing
around
on
this.
You
know
deciding
whether
or
not
to
to
contribute
to
this
and
and
and
most
most
of
the
day,
I've
been
thinking
to
myself.
What
do
you
contribute
to
to
something
that's
been
like?
You
know
talked
about
now
for
for
for
a
long
time
and
as
you
look
around
you
know
very
little
happens,
or
very
little
changes,
and
and
and
to
try
to
make
a
contribution
to
that.
L
As
a
is
a
real,
tough
one
I,
you
know,
I
often
talk
to
people
and
people
say
to
me
Anthony.
You
know
what
it's
not
a
whole
heck
of
a
lot
that
you
can
do
here
locally
right,
most
of
our
air
and
and
and
water
quality,
and
all
those
other
things
are
are
determined
more
in
New,
York
and
Michigan
and
Ohio
than
they
ever
would
be
here
in
in
Toronto
or
in
the
Greater,
Toronto,
Area
and
and
I've.
L
L
You
might
all
recognize
Casablanca
Humphrey
Bogart
that
the
one
of
the
sort
of
the
the
the
the
last
scenes
I
believe
in
in
the
movie,
looks
down
at
Elsa
and
he
says
to
Elsa
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
good,
at
being
noble,
but
it
doesn't
take
much
to
see
that
the
problems
of
three
little
people
don't
amount
to
a
whole
hill
of
beans
in
this
crazy
world
and
I
couldn't
help
but
be
reminded
of
that
as
I.
Think
about
the
comments
that
have
been
communicated
to
me
over
the
years
on
this
in
this
one
subject.
L
Now
we
can
sit
here
and
dilly-dally
and
just
continue
to
talk
and
that's
fine
and
then
maybe
a
Stephen
Hawking
can
have
his
addictions
come
to
fruition,
while
his
predictions
might
be
a
little
more
complicated,
it'll,
more
comprehensive
than
just
about
climate
change
and
and
or
you
know,
overpopulation
and
all
those
other
things
he
talks
about,
or
we
can
actually
do
something.
So
we
can
get
hung
up
on
words
like
prioritize,
let's
figure
out
how
to
sit
down
talk
about
it
one
more
time
or
we
can
do
something.
L
Well,
here's
one
thing:
I'm
very
hopeful
about
this
particular
report
went
from
nowhere
in
the
last
council
meeting
to
being
football
Dover
to
this
meeting,
because
it
wasn't
a
priority.
All
of
a
sudden,
it
became
the
mayor's
key
item.
That's
helpful
because
now
it
becomes
the
mayor's
key
item
when
we
get
to
actually
discussing
and
get
to
decide
whether
or
not
we're
just
gonna
talk
some
more
figure
out.
L
L
Think
we'd
all
be
pretty
naive
to
look
around
and
say
yeah,
that's
going
to
do
it
that's
going
to
make
the
difference!
That's
going
to
make
the
Hocking
prediction
go
from
a
hundred
years
to
a
thousand
years,
all
over
again
we'd
all
be
silly
to
think
or
say
or
do
that,
but
we
need
to
do
something
because
every
time
you
do
something
it
changes,
someone's
habits
does
I
mean
everybody's
going
to
strike
to
stop
drinking
bottled
water.
Tomorrow
am
I
going
to
stop
drinking
bottled
water
tomorrow.
L
L
But
but
when
you
go
off
and
you
do
something
it
reaches
out
to
someone
somewhere
each
and
every
time
and
it's
important
for
us
to
do
that
and
to
continually
repeat
it
so
that
tomorrow
I
give
up
my
bottled
water
so
that
I'd
become
better
at
at.
You
know
screaming
my
garbage
so
that
I
lower
my
foot,
but
now
I'm
out
on
my
bike,
bore
and
leave
my
car
home
more
and
more.
L
M
N
N
It
got
a
little
bit
polarized
this
afternoon,
I
think,
frankly,
if
it
had
been
in
a
partisan
legislature,
the
same
thing
might
happen,
because
that's
the
nature
of
what
often
happens-
and
somebody
was
commenting
on
that
a
couple
of
minutes
ago,
but
I
think
that
we've
had
a
debate
on
this.
And
one
thing
that's
interesting
is
that
even
those
who've
got
up
and
made
suggestions,
some
of
which
I'm
going
to
support
about
analyzing.
N
Some
of
the
things
that
are
proposed
to
be
done
in
this
report,
which
we're
going
to
approve
in
which
I'm
going
to
vote
for
with
enthusiasm
that
that
it
led
to
that
kind
of
debate
and
the
only
part
that
I
regret
is
some
totally
lacking
in
subtlety
name-calling.
That
was
that
was
engaged
in
here,
largely
at
my
expense,
which
I
think
is
completely
unnecessary
and
I
want
to
acknowledge
the
work
done
by
people.
N
I
want
to
acknowledge
the
work
done
by
councillor
McMahon
as
the
chair
of
the
committee,
but
other
people
in
who
are
in
this
chamber.
Who've
spent
a
good
part
of
their
lives
beyond
even
their
service
on
council
dedicated
to
some
of
these
issues.
I
think
of
deputy
Mary,
DeBary
maker,
I,
think
of
councilor
perks
and
others
and
I
respect
that
it's
something
that
I
didn't
have
as
much
interest
in
in
you
know
10
15
years
ago,
as
a
Mike,
but
I
have
the
interest
now.
Why?
N
Lots
I
mean
the
notion
that
people
would
come
in
this
room
and
kind
of
suggest
anybody
and
say
well.
This
report
is
absolutely
the
be-all
end-all.
Every
question
is
answered.
Not
a
jot
or
tittle
or
a
comma
or
an
exclamation
mark
can
be
moved.
I
think
is,
is
if
I
came
in
here
and
proposed
that
you'd
say
I
was
trying
to
run
some
sort
of
dictatorship
that
it
goes
against
the
spirit
of
what
goes
on
in
this
room.
N
N
He
said
we
tailored
this
thing
to
make
sure
it
fit
the
government
programs
well
I'm
sure
that
was
the
effort
that
was
made,
but
when
I
asked
senior
officials
of
our
own
government
after
I
read
the
report
is
this
tailored
so
that
we
can
maximize
the
amount
of
money
we
get
from
federal,
provincial
programs.
The
answer
that
I
got
was
number
one,
that
people
weren't
entirely
sure
and
the
main
reason
they
said
for
that
which
I
believe
to
be
true
is
the
reason
they
don't
know.
N
Is
those
government
programs
in
many
cases
haven't
even
yet
been
set
up,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that
one
of
councillor
McMahon's
motions
seeks
to
do
is
to
kind
of
seek
greater
clarification
that,
because,
obviously
we
would
like
to
maximize
the
impact
that
our
efforts
have
based
on
our
ability
to
attract
this
money.
The
second
thing
relates
to
the
and
we've
got
all
bogged
down
in
the
use
of
the
word.
N
Prioritize
I
mean
frankly,
it
could
have
used
ten
other
words
there,
but
I
just
believe
that
it
that
so
strongly
about
everything
you
do
out
here
is
you
do
the
right
thing
and
you
do
the
right
thing
in
the
right
way
and
that
I
think
the
information
that's
being
requested
here
and
I
acknowledge
I've
read
the
business
cases
there.
I've
got
them
right
here.
N
N
Let's
say:
that's
the
right
number
I
think
that
Kurt
could
turn
out
to
be
the
best
investment
we've
ever
made
in
terms
of
both
helping
to
fix
the
environment
and
doing
our
share
in
our
own
city
and
and
at
the
same
time
leading
to
savings
for
us.
If
I
can
just
take
that
extra
minute,
you
sometimes
will
grant
me
that
I'm
speaker
I
will,
if
I
can
and
and
by
the
way,
other
mayor's
said
the
same
thing
in
light
of
mr.
N
Trump's
declaration,
that
we
as
mayor's
collectively
and
that's
why
I
went
to
some
of
these
meetings.
So
I
could
affirm
tirado's
position
that
it
was
going
to
move
forward,
regardless
of
what
mr.
Trump
said,
because
it
was
the
right
thing
to
do.
But
I
don't
take
away
from
the
fact
that
you
do
the
right
thing.
The
right
way
and
I'll
finish.
My
last
comment
to
be
on
the
budget
process.
N
I
am
going
to
support
councillor
McMahon's
motion
motions
I
am
going
not
going
to
support
deputy
mayor
men
and
Wong's
motions
and
I'm
not
going
to
support
councillor
Layton's
motion.
Why
not
because
he
moved
it
not
because
it
anything
to
do
with
what
amount
will
ultimately
be
approved
for
this,
but
because
it
is
the
wrong
way,
as
council
D
channel
said,
to
do
budgeting
I
have
and
if
you
check
the
record
I've
been
criticized
for
the
fact
that
random
motions
brought
forward
like
that.
N
Finding
budgetary
monies
on
a
one-off
basis,
I
vote
against
all
of
them,
because
you
have
a
budget
process
in
which
you
do
this
and
that's
where
you
look
at
everything
and
make
decisions
about
this
kind
of
thing
and
the
notion
we're
going
to
go
piecemeal
through
the
budget
and
have
one
week
every
week
a
new
motion
I
think
it's
the
wrong
way
to
do
business.
That
is
not
doing
the
right
thing.
The
right
way.
That
is
doing
the
right
thing,
the
wrong
way,
so
I
will
support
this
with
enthusiasm.
N
A
O
Sorry,
I
don't
believe
the
motion
refers
it
to
the
budget
process.
I
can't
find
it
in
front
of
me,
but
I
believe
it
asks
for
something
within
the
budget
process,
not
in
fact
it
directs
staff
to
report
back
as
part
of
the
budget
process,
but
nothing
with
respect
to
the
funding
of
it.
So
I'm
just
curious
as
to
the
rationale,
partly
because
I
took
great
care
and
working
with
that
with
the
with
the
chief
financial
officer
to
ensure
that
this
motion
would
in
fact
give
very
specific
direction
to
staff
for
inclusion.
A
O
O
A
G
A
F
Q
Q
G
J
G
A
D
A
P
G
G
G
C
A
F
F
A
F
F
F
I've
got
two
motions.
The
first
is
that
we
received
the
supplementary
report
for
information,
which
is
what
the
supplementary
report
recommended.
So
that's
just
doing
something
that
the
staff
have
asked
us
to
do.
The
second
is
asking
at
City
Council
direct,
the
city
solicitor,
the
city
clerk
and
the
executive
director
municipal
licensing
and
standards
to
report
to
the
October,
2nd
3rd
and
4th
2017
meeting
of
City
Council
on
any
additional
enforcement.
F
As
part
of
the
forthcoming
report
on
third
party
election
advertising,
I'll
just
take
a
minute
to
explain
that
you'll
recall
when
this
item
first
came
to
our
attention.
We
were
told
there
are
new
rules
that
the
province
is
considering.
That
will
allow
a
third
party
to
register
and
to
fundraise
and
put
up
signs
and
the
signs
might
say
picking
something
out
of
the
air
fund,
the
climate
plan,
or,
they
might
say,
don't
vote
for
councilor
perks.
F
They
can
say
whatever
I
know,
which
one
I
would
prefer
that
you
all
funded
in
the
event
that
that
happened.
There
you
go,
and
a
number
of
us
raised
concerns
that
this
would
allow
dark
money
to
come
into
our
election
process.
In
the
report
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
staff
tell
us
that
we
don't
yet
have
the
full
regulatory
package
from
the
province
so
that
we
can
understand
how
that's
going
to
work
and
that
they
intend
to
report
in
October
on
what's
happening
with
that
regulatory
package
from
the
province.
F
What
this
motion
that
I'm
proposing
does
is
say:
okay,
tell
us
how
all
those
rules
change,
but
also
tell
us
if
there
are
all
these
other
people
putting
up
signs.
What
is
the
enforcement
cost
to
the
City
of
Toronto
and
the
necessary
enforcement
resource
going
to
be
so
that
we
don't
have
you
know
you
and
I
operating
or
other
candidates
operating
with
one
set
of
rules
around
the
saw
where
the
signs
go
and
an
enforcement
regime?
F
And
then
these
third
party
people
putting
up
signs
without
any
accountability
and
without
any
resources
to
manage
to
make
sure
those
signs
aren't
going
up
in
illegal
locations.
That's
all
it's
intended
to
achieve.
I
developed
it
in
consultation
with
city
staff,
both
from
licensing
and
standards,
the
clerk's
and
the
city,
solicitors
departments.
So
with
that,
I
hope,
you'll
support
those
two
motions
and
support
the
motions
from
councillor
Palazzo
and
then
the
amended
report
Thank.
R
Thank
you,
ma'am
chair.
This
item
was
before
the
last
City
Council
and
I.
Ask
as
chair
of
the
committee
I
ask
for
a
deferral,
because
there
were
some
concerns
at
that
point
from
a
number
of
members
of
council
Cancer
Council
Campbell
does
her
perks,
lateral
and
Fletcher,
and
so
on.
So
there
were
a
few
concerns
and
on
that
I
believe
that
city
staff,
they
have
done
a
phenomenal
amount
of
work
in
terms
of
addressing
those
concerns
and
I
want
to
thank
city
staff
from
municipal
licensing,
as
well
as
from
Leah
for
addressing
those
concerns.
R
So
the
motion
that
is
before
you
is
a
very
lengthy
one.
That's
going
to
take
me
five
minutes
to
read,
but
in
essence
what
it
does
is
addresses
those
concerns,
as
counsel
purchase
also
indicated.
Those
have
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised
are
the
municipal,
Isaacson
standards
and
are
part
of
this
big
motion,
so
I
hope
that
James
castle
will
support
what
we
call
you.
Thank
you.
A
A
P
A
Okay.
Our
next
item
is
on
page
three
and
y22
point
four,
which
is
the
official
plan
and
zoning
amendment
490
a
gruntin
Avenue
West,
seventeen
and
nineteen
Henning
Avenue
counts
to
grab
you
held
the
item
down.
Do
you
have
questions
to
stop?
No
I.
Do
not
we
have
any
questions
to
staff.
Take
counselor
grab.
You
held
the
item
down
to
speak.
Yes,
I
have
a
motion:
okay,.
B
That
City
Council
delete
the
North
hair
community
council
recommendations
and
adopt
instead,
the
following
recommendation:
City
Council
refused
the
application
to
amend
the
Official
Plan
and
zoning
bylaws
for
98
99,
West
and
17
and
19
heading
Avenue
for
the
following
reasons.
Proposal
represents
an
over
intensification
of
the
site
and
any
other
valid
planning
reasons.
This
has
this
development
has
been
going
on
since
before
I
was
elected,
it
has
some
great
stuff
in
the
report
million
dollars
for
section
37
extra
parkland
tenants
of
Eglinton
connects,
but
it's
a
24
story.
B
Building
at
the
end
of
a
residential
street
residents
have
have
been
up
in
arms
since,
since
the
application
was
put
in
and
and
I
have
been
supporting
residents
with
their
fight
to
to
allow
this,
which
is
outside
of
the
young
and
young
Eglinton
growth
center.
So
I
am
moving
refusal
on
this
because
it
just
will
not
work
in
this
location.
S
S
So
the
official
plans
strategy
by
law-
that's
okie,
231
passed
by
council
in
2013
mandates,
100%
office
replacement.
Yes,
that
is
being
contested
by
many
in
the
development
industry.
But
it's
councils
position
and
not
only
is
a
council
position,
but
the
city
has
spent
years
of
staff
resources
fighting
to
defend
and
protect
that
position.
In
fact,
there
have
been
countless
refusal
reports
by
staff
when
this
has
been
challenged.
Again.
S
So,
in
other
words,
if
we
support
staffs
recommendations
with
all
due
respect
and
I
know
that
staff
are
often
in
a
position
where
they
have
to
kind
of
find
that
that
place
that
they
believe
may
win
that
the
board
may
not
have
win
at
the
board.
What
is
possible,
etc.
I
respect
that
I
acknowledge
that
it
happens
often,
but
if
we
as
council
go
in
that
direction
rather
than
what
my
motion
asks
us
to
do,
we
will
then
undermine
our
own
policy.
S
The
city
is
not
serious
about
office
replacement,
they're
gonna,
be
you
know,
picking
and
choosing
when
they
want
to
have
50%,
maybe
20%,
maybe
70%
they're,
going
to
be
picking
and
choosing
now
should
we
have
a
conversation
in
the
future
about
when
it's
possible,
to
have
a
reasonable
conversation
about
flexibility
with
respect
to,
should
it
be
a
hundred
percent
or
not?
Maybe
that
conversation
should
happen.
S
I
acknowledge
that,
but
we
don't
live
in
a
world
that
we
have
the
luxury
to
undermine
our
own
policy
now,
because
the
precedent
will
be
used
against
us
over
and
over
and
over
and
over
again.
Now,
you
may
wonder:
why
am
I?
Why
am
I
addressing
this
directly
so
for
two
reasons
one
is:
my
ward
is
directly
across
the
street
from
councillor
O'meara
Carmichael
grebs,
so
this
directly
locally
will
impact
the
future
of
Eglinton
and
any
other
Eglinton
councillor
frankly
and
others
who
represent
avenues
in
the
city
with
respect
to
office
replacement.
S
This
will
change
the
character
of
Eddington
Avenue
West
for
the
future,
we're
right
at
the
beginning
of
the
redevelopment
of
Eglinton
because
of
the
new
crosstown.
This
will
set
where
we're
gonna
go
number
two.
We
do
not
want
Eglinton,
Yonge
and
Eglinton.
Other
growth
notes
other
avenues
to
be
simply
bedroom
communities
in
the
sky.
We
want
a
balance
between
office
and
areas
to
play,
recreation
and
where
people
live,
you
want
a
whole
community.
S
You
do
not
want
just
condo
after
condo
after
condo
after
condo
after
condo
after
condo
after
condo,
if
I
said
condo
about
200
more
times,
I'd
be
describing
much
of
Eglinton
near
Yonge.
Right
now
we
need
more
office,
we
need
more
office,
but
at
the
very
least,
we
need
to
protect
the
office
that
we
have
so
I
plead
with
you
for
the
city's
position
for
your
community's
position,
so
that
we
don't
undermine
our
own
policy
objectives,
support
my
motion
to
defend
our
position.
S
Yes,
it
may
be
used
against
us
by
the
applicant
in
a
future
hearing
that
our
staff
have
already
recommended
50
percent,
but
at
least
counsels
position.
The
city's
position
must
stand
behind
our
policy
and
that
we
can
defend.
We
can
defend
it,
the
board
we
can
defend
at
the
courts.
We
can
defend
that.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
M
S
It's
not
important,
my
with
all
due
respect,
counselor
Campbell.
My
motion
is
not
addressing
how
many
offices
they
have
in
the
specific
building
that
will
be
torn
down.
Okay,
oh
but
I'm
at
it.
Okay.
Well,
then,
read
the
report.
What
what
my
motion?
What
my
motion
specifically
focuses
on
is
defend
as
a
defending
opie
231.
S
There
there
are
offices
there
now
what
what
steps
just
to
be
clear?
What
staff
are
saying
is
that
they
would
be
fine
in
this
context
for
roughly
50%
office
replacement,
rather
than
councils
position,
which
is
that
there
should
be
100%
office
replacement,
and
what
I
was
just
saying
earlier
is
that
my
concern
is
that,
at
that
there
will
be
a
precedent,
does
does.
M
M
I'm
so
with
you,
so
I
know
that,
but
the
policy,
the
policy
is
that
and
I
cuz
I've
looked
into
this
in
my
own
area.
The
policy
is
that,
where
there's
a
higher
order
of
transit,
in
other
words
where
there
are
subways
it's
supposed
to
be
100
percent,
is
that
not
the
policy
hi?
This
is
why
it's
unfortunate.
We
can't
ask
staff
at
this
point
so.
S
A
D
Just
a
question
for
the
mover
I
mean
I'm
I'm
on
page
page,
says
I'm
on
the
report
on
the
sections
you
have
referred
to,
and
staff
seem
fully
fine
with
the
arrangement
they
the
applicant
has
lowered
the
density
and
they
even
argue
staff
and
I
quote.
Full
replacement
at
the
base
of
the
building
would
be
a
challenge
from
amassing
neighborhood
impact
perspective.
So
in
other
words,
you
could
be
creating
a
situation
in
which
it's
both
dangerous
and
irresponsible.
To
try
and
go
to
100
100
percent.
S
First
of
all,
it'd
be
completely
specious
to
suggest
that
anything
would
be
dangerous
in
this
context,
the
real
question
is:
is
this
the
right
development
proposal
from
a
good
urban
planning
perspective?
I
would
respectfully
respectfully
submit
it's
not
based
on
the
fact
that
that
this
this
building,
both
in
built
form
and
in
proposed
usage,
does
not
adhere
to
the
city's
own
policies,
so
it
can
actually
conflicts
with
contradicts
with
our
own
policies,
which
we
are
actually
right
now
in
the
midst
of
defending
at
the
board.
So
it
undermines
our
position.
S
Droning
on
cancer
pasture,
madam
Speaker,
rather
I
just
like
to
finish
my
sentence
by
just
mentioning
an
important
part
of
my
answer,
which
is
that
that
it's
up
to
an
applicant
it's
their
responsibility
to
provide
an
application
that
actually
fits
with
the
site.
I
didn't
ask
this.
Madam
speak.
It's
it's
not
up
to
us
to
decide!
Well,
Oh
too
bad.
You
can't
fit
enough.
A
D
S
D
Don't
we
work
with
applicants
to
to
find
a
compromise?
Isn't
there
wiggle
room
in
our
in
our
plan
to
make
sure
that
building
can
take
place,
but
there's
respect
for
and
protection
of,
neighborhoods?
Isn't
this
normal
when
it
comes
to
a
negotiated
settlement
to
build,
but
still
represent,
to
respect
the
nature
of
the
of
the
community?
No.
S
S
Last
place
I
know,
I
can
see
you,
madam
Speaker.
This
situation
is
far
from
normal.
This
situation
is
incredibly
distressing
and
concerning
it
should
be
for
all
of
us,
because
this
situation
is
about
the
fact
that
we
are
being
challenged
at
the
border
about
our
own
official
plan
amendment
that
we
stand
behind
our
policy,
rather
that
we
stand
behind.
Thank
you
count
and,
and
that,
if
we,
if
we
move
forward
with
anything
other
than
my
monster,.
A
G
K
S
Well,
if
we
were
going
to
follow
that
line
of
logic,
then
we
would
essentially
say
that
every
time
that
we
go
out
for
consultation
for
any
official
plan
amendment
that
we
want
to
sort
of
just
give
a
heads
up
to
every
developer
to
just
shoot
their
applications
in
at
the
eleventh
hour
as
quickly
as
possible,
to
be
able
to
somehow
be
grandfathered.
That's
not
actually
how
it
works.
We
have
a
policy
that
we
have
to
stand
behind
well,.
K
K
A
A
K
E
Thank
you,
I
agree
with
I'll,
be
supporting
councillor
Carmichael
Greb,
because
I
think
that
this
is
arguably
an
over
development
of
the
site.
The
staff
have
recommended
something
different
and
they
could
argue
that
way,
but
I
think
you
could
very
legitimately
argue
either
way.
I
choose
to
argue,
that's
an
over
development
and
I
especially
want
to
say
it
is
really
important
that
we
support
councillor
Matt
Lowe's
motion
and
for
all
the
reasons
he
said,
I
can't
really
say
them
any
better,
but
it
is
you
know.
E
All
of
us
are
trying
to
get
more
employment
in
our
areas
and
we
are.
We
are
seeing
an
erosion
of
office
bays
because
everybody
wants
to
build
condos,
you
know.
That's
all
we
get
in
the
north
yard.
Center
is
condos
because
that's
what
people
want
to
build
because
that's
what
they
make
money
building,
they
don't
want
to
build
office
buildings.
Here
we
had
an
office
building.
E
We
have
an
applicant
that
we've
piled
the
Lego
blocks
onto
their
site
and
said
here
you
know,
will
give
you
more
density
than
I
think
they
should
have
gotten
at
the
very
least.
We
should
have
required
them
to
replace
the
office
building
and
I
know,
there's
some
some
technical
issues,
but
if
you
just
state
that
at
the
beginning
we're
not
supporting
this,
if
you
don't
completely
provide
hundred
percent
office
replacement,
as
is
our
policy,
you
know,
we've
we've
got
a
serious
problem
and,
and
it
so
I'm,
just
gonna
reiterate
what
councilor
madla
said.
E
He's
already
said
it,
but
this
will
bite
all
of
us.
If
council
doesn't
stand
up
for
its
own
principles,
then
what
chance
do
we
have
of
upholding
that
principle
at
the
OMB?
So
if
you
believe
that
we
need
a
proper
mix
of
office
and
condo
in
the
city
and
not
just
allow
everybody
to
maximize
the
value
of
their
property
by
building
condos,
even
where
they
had
an
existing
office
building,
you
know
if
you
believe
that
we
need
to
do
that.
Then
support
councillor,
Matt,
Lowe's
motion.
Q
Q
We
were
faced
in
North,
York,
Community
Council,
with
the
pain
that
we've
all
felt
that
that
there
was
a
community
contingent
there
who
are
upset
residents
who
live
on
Hennig,
but
it's
important
to
really
take
a
long,
hard
look
at
our
policy
and
at
this
site.
This
is
one
of
those
moments
when
I
wish
that
we
had
the
technology
in
the
budget
that
a
planning
report
comes
with
a
real
satellite
photo.
Instead,
we
have
a
little
line.
Drawing
and
well.
It
looks
like
it's
eating
up
a
residential
street.
Q
What
you
don't
see
a
little
space
beside
it,
this
long
been
a
commercial.
In
fact
one
could
even
call
it
an
industrial
site.
It's
a
it's!
A
hydro
exchange
building,
that's
been
there!
So
long,
it's
actually
a
Heritage
listed
property.
So
it's
in
the
vicinity
of
commercial.
Their
offices
there
now
but
right
across
from
it
what's
also
not
visible
because
of
the
the
line-drawing
as
opposed
to
a
satellite
photo,
is
that
this
sits
right
across
the
street
from
what
will
be
one
of
the
most
important
transportation
hubs
in
this
city,
and
indeed,
indeed
Canada.
Q
This
is
Yonge
and
Eglinton,
and
it's
and
the
site
we're
talking
about
is
simply
diagonal
to
the
bus
base.
The
bus
bays
that
have
long
been
empty.
The
young
Eglinton
Center,
a
subway,
will
meet
up
with
the
Eglinton
crosstown,
which
will
be
the
longest
LRT,
both
above
and
below
ground
line
in
the
country.
It's
currently
the
largest
infrastructure
project
in
Canada,
and
it's
running
right
through
our
town,
and
this
is
the
center
of
it.
Q
Yonge
and
Eglinton
when
I
was
a
little
girl,
was
a
place
gradually
intensifying
2300
young
first
offices
of
that
the
the
first
offices
of
McDonald's
restaurants
Canada
when
they
first
arrived
here,
commercial
and
industrial
and
office
are
all
a
part
of
this
community
and
that
you
want
to
maintain,
along
with
the
residential
intensification
else
else.
Why
else
would
we
be
going
out
and
asking
other
governments
to
invest
in
transit
here?
This
is
our
official
plan
providing
both
employment
and
residents.
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
Q
A
A
D
Okay,
I
be
happy
to
speak
I'm
speaking
in
favor
of
the
application.
I
have
heard
hundreds
of
times
over
the
seven
years
that
I've
been
here.
We
have
to
listen
to
staff,
we
have
to
follow
staff,
it's
in
the
staff
report,
staffer,
arguing
this
and
all
of
a
sudden.
Now,
when
it's
convenient
or
contradicting
staff,
this
this
this.
This.
D
Okay,
this
this
is
such
a
divisive
issue
in
this
local
community,
a
whopping
35
people
came
out
to
the
first
to
the
first
consultation
to
fight
this
application.
Now
it's
true
80
80
people
did
come
out
the
second
time
OPA
231
is
currently
under
appeal.
Unfortunately,
we
didn't
go
to
questions
to
staff,
to
get
clarity
on
that.
D
This
application
also
gives
a
million
dollars
to
the
Eglinton
Park,
and
it
also
allows
for
the
purchase
of
sixty-one
Montgomery
for
a
park.
Nearby
I
I
mean
I,
don't
usually
read,
applications
that
are
that
are
not
not
in
my
area,
but
you
know
what
I've
got
to
tell
you:
we're
building
a
six
billion
dollar
transit
line
right
there
and
and
you've
also
got
the
north-south
young
line.
If
we
fight
density
on
our
major
high-end
transit
projects,
and
how
are
we
gonna
pay
for
the
Civic
improvements
with
the
wind
which
come
with
these
bills?
D
How
are
we
going
to
fund
future
transit
if
we
sit
if
we
set?
If
we
set
a
precedent
that
we
will
defeat
high
density
development
along
major
transit
roads,
how
will
we
ever
fix
the
transit
mess
in
the
city?
How
we'll
be
able
to
fund
environmental
assessments
and
future
projects?
Look
anyone
who
moves
into
the
Yonge
and
Eglinton
area
will
know
that
it's
a
high
density
area
that
transit
attracts
builders
in
building
and
that
we
have
what
what's
before
us
is
a
positive
staff
report.
D
Supporting
this
sure,
it's
not
perfect,
but
I
can
also
tell
you
that
when
it
comes
to
development
applications,
there's
a
lot
of
haggling
along
the
way.
There's
a
lot
of
give-and-take
and
art
and
our
our
various
bylaws
and
plans
and
and
provincial
statute
is
written
that
way,
so
that
there
can
be
a
little
give-and-take,
and
in
this
case
they
have
lowered
the
building.
In
this
case
they
have
given
more
in
section
37.
They
have
given
a
local
park,
and-
and
you
know
when
you
look
at
this-
the
street-
also
it's
a
very
small
street.
D
It's
a
dead-end
street.
The
the
residents
of
this
building
will
not
be
driving
up.
The
dead-end
street
they'll
be
coming
right
back
onto
Eglinton,
and
we
did
hear
from
any
of
these
residents
at
North,
York,
Community,
Council
and
they're
worried
about
traffic
and
they're
worried
about
shadowing.
But
you
know
what
the
shadow
studies
argue
that
they
won't
be
majorly
impacted
by
it
and
if
at
all,
by
this
building.
At
the
same
time,
people
will
be
coming
out
of
this
building
almost
immediately
onto
Eglinton
Avenue
and
will
then
not
be
driving
up
this
residential
street.
D
A
A
Councillor
DT
no
thank.