►
Description
Economic and Community Development Committee, meeting 3, April 3, 2019 - Part 2 of 2
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=15381
Part 1 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aWLxpthRu4#t=8m
Meeting Navigation:
0:03:24 - Meeting resume
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
We
have
been
working
with
both
the
settlement
sector
but,
more
importantly,
the
deputies
you
heard
from
this
morning
were
from
the
refugee
house
yeah
a
group
of
agencies,
a
group
that
we,
the
city,
doesn't
traditionally
work
with
and
in
the
same
way
that
we
would
the
settlement
sector.
The
report
before
you
was
developed
in
partnership
with
that
sector.
C
They
were
very
much
at
the
table
and
I
think
the
deputations
reflected
that
the
reception
center
is
funded,
so
council
approved
funding
for
that
activity
in
2018
and
we
are
delivering
in
partnership
with
those
groups
led
by
the
Red
Cross,
who
operated
something
called
the
first
contact
center.
So
the
additional
city
funding
has
allowed
that
Community
Partnership
to
enhance
the
services
available
and
we
are
continuing
to
work
with
them
to
look
at
how
we
can
further
enhance
those
services,
but
it
is
not
delivered
by
the
city.
It
is
delivered
by
first
contact.
C
The
other
issue
that
I
would
share
with
committee
is
that
we
really
need
provincial
federal
cooperation
and
investment
to
make
the
kind
of
vision
that
Ann
was
talking
about
right
become
a
reality.
It
is
not
the
city's
mandate
and
the
city
does
not
have
the
resources
to
rain
liver
on
that
without
federal,
provincial
cooperation
and
investment.
So.
B
Even
if
we,
even
if
we
knew
the
agencies
that
could
form
that
could
start
that
picture
that
she
painted
and
then
and
then
grow
it
from
there
as
the
way
she
described
it.
You
can't
do
that
with
property
tax
dollars.
You
need
that.
You
need
the
other
governments
to
begin
to
to
grant
the
funds
that
make
those
agencies
able
to
build
it.
That.
B
So
our
plan
is
to
our
plan,
really
is
about
knowing
who's
coming
doing
the
first
parts
and
and
connecting
them
out
in
the
neighborhoods,
where
they
suddenly
are
there
in
a
hotel
or
whatever,
when
they
are
working
with
local
agencies.
I
understand
the
confidentiality
piece,
but
to
know
if
there's
extra
burden
on
agencies
that
I
mean,
while
also
sending
people
who
are
just
you,
know,
people
in
in
difficult
circumstances
in
the
neighborhood.
C
Absolutely
so
any
counselor
who
would
be
interesting
and
an
interested
in
understanding
how
that
service
delivery
is
occurring,
we're
happy
to
meet
with
them
and
brief
them,
and
I
know
that
the
refugee
houses
would
also
be
very
interested
in
in
meeting
with
councillors
and
sharing
their
services
with
them.
Right.
B
C
The
one
the
the
message
behind
this
plan
in
a
sense
council
has
been
understandably
occupied
with
the
shelter
issue,
because
that
is
a
property
tax
expense.
There
are
many
other
elements
to
successful
support
for
refugee
claimants
and,
ultimately
successful
integration
in
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
Our
access
to
city
services
for
undocumented
Torontonians
would
come
into
play.
Anyone,
including
a
refugee
applicant,
has
the
right
to
access
any
city
service
that
isn't
otherwise
governed
by
the
provincial
or
federal
government,
so
that
policy
would
come
into
play.
C
A
D
You
I,
just
as
we
look
at
the
continuum
of
housing.
Karen
needs
around
refugees.
Just
so
I
understand
the
the
refugee
class
this
is
intended
to
serve.
Is
it
can
you
just?
Is
it
GSRs
government
sponsored
refugees,
privately
sponsored
refugees
or
undocumented
individuals?
Could
you
who
are
who
is
this
intended
to
serve
as
a
continuum
of
care?
The.
C
E
E
C
E
C
F
E
Okay,
I'm
clear
now
the
other
question
I
have
is
that
you've
mentioned
about
that.
We
need
provincial
funding
and
federal
funding
to
be
on
site
before
we
can
do
more
and
I
think
the
province
has
indicated
that
there's
none
of
their
business
and
the
federal
government.
That
is
probably
our
only
resource
now
we
can
actually
go
and
get
some
funding
help.
E
E
C
The
chair,
it's
not
my
place
to
speak
to
political
level,
conversations
with
respect
to
bureaucratic
level
conversations.
There
is
regular
communication
with
officials
from
immigration,
refugee
citizenship,
Canada,
and
there
is
a
very
good
relationship,
working
relationship
with
our
federal
colleagues.
In
addition,
Toronto
has
a
signed
memorandum
of
understanding
with
the
governments
of
Canada
and
Ontario
on
settlement,
that
is
a
formal
intergovernmental
table
and
it
meets
quarterly
no
less
than
twice
a
year.
So
those
dialogues
are
happening
at
the
staff
level
through.
C
Correct
in
that,
the
MOU
does
not
specifically
address
the
needs
of
asylum
seekers,
but
there
certainly
I
think
all
parties
are
understanding
that
there
is
a
broad
continuum
of
newcomers
and
where
we're
focused
on
one
part.
We
end
up
understanding
the
issues
related
to
other
parts
of
the
continuum,
but
it
is
not
a
specific
focus
of
the
MOU.
A
You
know,
I
could
just
add.
Counsel
live
at
the
mayor
has
been
very
clear
with
respect
to
his
ask
and
through
the
relationship
and
you
cover,
learn
intergovernmental
relationship
to
the
mayor's
office
and
the
other
levels
of
government,
particularly
government
Canada,
and
certainly
to
the
province
of
Ontario.
The
mayor
is
seeking
resources
through
that
lens
that
he
has
as
part
of
his
purview.
So
I
just
want
to
add
to
that.
Just
one
question
for
me:
mr.
Berle
injur,
this
plan
is
not
talking
about
numbers
that
correct,
that's
correct.
A
It's
simply
talking
about
a
framework,
a
structure
to
be
in
place
and
the
reason
why
I
asked
you
that
question,
because
I
know
that
there
is
some
media
interests.
Who
would
ask
me
well,
what's
the
number
of
asylum
seekers
that
we
are
planning
for
and
obviously
I
didn't
respond?
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
respond
back
to
them,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sort
of
unclear,
because
my
response
would
have
been
we're
not
planning
for
numbers.
C
A
B
That
way,
you
will,
you
will
see
it
happening
there,
social
gatherings
where
I
can
go
and
and
and
hear
success
stories,
but
I
also
know
that
what
mr.
chase
says
is
right:
the
influx
is
just
going
to
keep
coming
the
it's.
The
political
landscape
globally
is
such
that
we
know
that
humanitarian
crises
are
not
going
to
suddenly
abate
anytime
soon
and
so
I'm
really
happy
to
see
the
plan.
But
I
wanted
to
highlight
that
I
think
you
know
Machaerus
the
counselor.
B
It's
just
that
the
work
they
were
doing
before
with
other
members
of
my
community
may
be
really
challenged,
and
that
means
I've
got
to
be
putting
the
word
out.
They
need
more
volunteers,
doing
great
work
over
there.
I
know
you
show
up
at
the
food
bank
every
Tuesday.
What
are
you
doing
on
Thursday?
Those
are
the
types
of
conversations
that
we
can
have
with
the
with
the
superstar
volunteers
in
our
neighborhood
and
try
and
build
the
bodies
that
need
to
help
out
with
this.
B
On
a
non-governmental
agency
basis,
the
the
federal
ask
I
have
competence
in
the
mayor's
office
because
he's
also
backed
up
by
the
whole
big-city
mayor's
caucus
across
Canada,
because,
ultimately,
these
people
may
settle
anywhere
in
Canada
when
we've
allowed
them
to
make
their
home,
and
so
everyone
wants
us
to
do
the
best
job
possible,
so
merit
or
egos
with
the
whole
big-city
mayor's
caucus
behind
him.
An
FCM
when
he's
asking
to
have
supports
for
this,
but
that
interface
with
councillors,
however
diplomatically
and
confidentially,
it
needs
to
happen.
B
I
think
is
really
important
in
making
sure
that
we've
got
our
ear
to
the
ground
to
help
get
any
additional
volunteer
supports
and
community
supports
that
can
help
them
do
the
work,
but
I
will
take
mr.
villagers
offer
up
if
you
want
a
briefing
just
ask
for
it
for
crying
out
loud
councillor.
I
hear
that
loud
and
clear.
Thank.
A
D
Thank
you,
chair,
I
I
will
move
the
recommendations
from
staff
in
the
report
and
in
yes
preface
it
by
saying
that
our
city
is
in
so
many
ways
a
city
of
newcomers
welcoming
newcomers.
That
is
our
history,
and
that
is
that
is
how
we
came
to
be
who
we
are,
and
we
are
as
a
city
better
for
it
and
every
year
we
welcome.
D
We
continue
to
welcome
around
50,000
permanent
residents
on
an
annual
basis,
but
we've
seen
in
recent
years
and
increase
in
the
number
of
refugees
and
asylum-seekers,
people
who
often
have
more
complex
needs
and
with
with
the
rise
of
global
instability,
I
think
we
should
expect
that
we
will
continue
to
see
that
trend
upwards
and
numbers,
and
so
we
have,
as
a
city,
I'm,
proud
to
say,
done
a
fair
amount.
We
have
the
newcomer
settlement
office
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
Not
many
cities
have
that
in
2015
we
developed
a
refugee
resettlement
program.
D
We
did
so
in
the
wake
of
the
the
Syrian
refugee
crisis,
but
we
we
met,
we
developed
it
in
the
context
of
supporting
all
refugees,
but
I
think
what
this
report
speaks
to.
So
importantly,
is
now
on
an
intergovernmental
basis.
This
is
not
on
the
city
alone.
The
focus
has
to
be
not
just
on
sheltering
refugees,
but
housing,
refugees
and
the
continuum
of
care
that
is
required
to
make
that
happen
from
a
welcoming
and
referral
center
to
creating
flexibility
within
the
shelter
system
but
tailored
to
the
community.
D
It
needs
to
serve,
and
ultimately,
of
course,
the
transitional
housing
and
so
I
just
want
to
thank
staff
for
the
work.
I
know
it
is
not
easy,
anytime,
an
intergal
the
issue
comes
about,
but
to
the
newcomer
settlement
office
and
to
SDF
a
as
a
whole
I
think
ans
sha.
We
are
heading
down
the
right
approach
here
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
this
program
developed.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
councillor
cressie,
all
those
in
paper.
The
item
pose
that's
carried.
Thank
you.
Okay,
moving
right
along
we're
now
at
EC,
3.6
noise,
bylaw
review
proposed
amendment
to
chapter
5,
1,
9,
noise
members
I'd
like
to
ask
staff
to
come
forward
and
to
provide
a
presentation
to
allow
us
to
frame
the
matter
to
help
members
and
perhaps
members
of
the
public
to
realize
where
we
are
as
it
relates
to
this
proposed
noise.
Bylaw.
H
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
good
afternoon,
deputy
mayor
members
of
council
and
members
of
the
public.
My
name
is
Carlton
grant
and
I'm
the
director
of
policy
and
strategic
support
with
the
city's
municipal
licensing
and
standards,
division,
I'm
joined
by
my
colleague,
Mark
Fraga,
director
of
investigation
services
and
my
colleague,
neguin
shem,
sheri
who's,
the
manager
of
policy
and
planning
again
we'll
try
to
give
you
some
context
on
a
very
complex
piece
of
work
and
getting
and
Mark
we'll
get
into
some
of
the
details.
H
As
the
as
the
presentation
moves
on
today,
what
we're
proposing
is
an
updated
bylaw
that
reflects
our
growing
and
vibrant
city.
Our
aim,
throughout
this
very
thorough
process,
has
been
to
provide
clearer,
more
consistent
language
that
makes
it
easier
to
understand,
apply
and
enforce
consistent
noise
standards
across
the
city.
H
This
is
a
very
challenging
file
started
in
2015.
We've
hosted
over
20
consultations
with
the
public
and
industry
stakeholders
and,
most
recently,
five
just
in
the
last
couple
months
again,
as
directed
by
committee
and
council,
we
engaged
a
third
party
facilitator
again
to
try
to
flush
out
a
number
of
these
issues
and
they
were
very
progressive
and
positive
discussions.
H
So
I
also
want
to
let
people
know
the
additional
research
and
consultations
we've
done
over
and
above
the
public
consultation,
we've
done
a
technical
review
of
the
current
and
2016
noise
viola
we
had
originally
brought
forward.
We
used
an
independent,
acoustical
engineer
firm
and
then
we
had
them
peer
reviewed
by
another
independent
engineering
firm.
So
again,
it's
been
looked
at
from
a
technical
perspective.
H
We
also
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it
was
we
wanted
to
hear
from
the
public,
not
just
the
people
we
had
consulted
with,
but
we
wanted
to
hear
from
the
people
of
the
City
of
Toronto
and
we
did
a
public.
We
did
a
survey
with
its
us
read
to
understand
public
opinion
on
the
issue
of
noise.
We
did
additional
research
on
looking
at
what
other
jurisdictions
are
doing
in
this
space
and
again
extensive
consultations.
H
Again,
all
for
the
purposes
of
making
the
bylaw
more
quantifiable
and
objective
versus
its
current
subjective
form
in
2019
just
to
highlight
again,
we
had
five
public
consultations
built
on
these
five
areas:
power
equipment,
motor
vehicles
amplified
sound
construction,
noise,
general
noise
and
exemption
permits,
and
we
engaged
over
220
people
in
those
consultations.
An
additional
300
people
provided
emails
to
us
directly
and
then
the
server
that
I
spoke
of
in
the
previous
slide
received
a
thousand
and
one
online
interviews
which
is
statistically
significant.
H
What
we
heard
through
these
consultations
was
overall
support
to
update
the
current
noise
by
law,
to
give
it
greater
clarity
and
objective
measures
related
to
noise
and
strengthening
enforcement,
so
that
it's
effective.
We
also
heard
from
participants
about
the
importance
of
auth
of
prioritizing
the
protection
of
public
health
staff
from
public
health
care
here
today
as
well,
and
we're
very
supportive
in
this
work
and
we're
at
all
of
the
consultation
meetings
with
us
on
the
right-hand
side.
H
You'll
see
what
we
learned
from
the
public
opinion
research
and
when
citizens
of
the
City
of
Toronto
were
act,
asked
what
the
five
biggest
issues
they
were
having.
They
were
trafficking,
congestion,
Public,
Safety
overcrowding
on
public
transit,
housing,
affordability,
the
environment,
noise
was
one
as
well
and
it
came
in
in
seventh,
but
it
is
significant
and
does
impact
a
number
of
people
overall
64%
of
the
residents
believe
that
it's
reasonable
amount
of
noise
in
our
city,
but
that
also
means
that
36
percent
believe
it
isn't
reasonable.
H
I
You
and
good
afternoon,
deputy
mayor
and
councillors,
the
bylaw
we're
proposing,
there's
several
improvements.
We
believe
that,
if
adopted,
will
bring
forward
for
us,
one
they'll
have
added
greater
objectivity
and
how
we
deal
with
noise,
in
particular,
we're
proposing
established
decibel
limits
for
amplified
sound
and
motorcycles,
and
these
limits
that
we're
proposing
have
been
set
based
upon
recommendations
from
technical
reviews
by
our
consultants,
looking
at
provincial
guidelines
and
other
industry
standards.
I
We're
also
providing
some
very
clarity
and
objectivity
around
just
general
noise
disturbances
and
we're
proposing
that
any
unreasonable
or
persistent
noise
would
be
a
violation
of
our
bylaw.
So
having
that
clarity
about
it
and
objectivity
of
how
we
deal
with
noise
will
help
us
from
an
enforcement
perspective
being
able
to
have
better
successes
on
enforcement,
we're
providing
improved
clarity
in
the
language,
there's
confusion
in
the
current
bylaw,
so
we
are
proposing
clarity
that
power
devices
is
not
the
same
as
construction
devices
again.
I
We
strive
to
reach
common
ground
between
stakeholders,
as
carlton
mentioned.
This
is
a
very
complex
file
because
there's
a
bunch
a
variety
of
different
competing
interests
and
viewpoints
on
this,
so
we
want
to
provide
strike,
try
and
strive
where
we
could
common
ground
one
of
those
issues.
That's
a
perhaps
one
of
the
more
contentious
issues
for
some
people
is
the
blanket
exemption
they
exist
for
continuous,
concrete
porous
and
in
resin
in
construction
and
large
crane
work.
Currently,
the
bylaw
allows
a
blanket
exemption.
The
noise
by
law
does
not
apply
to
that
type
of
work.
I
We're
also
looking
to
have
greater
compliance
tools,
so
we're
looking
to
make
sure
that,
where
annoys
exemption
permit
is
applied
for
that
there's
a
requirement,
perhaps,
if
necessary,
that
there's
a
noise
mitigation
plan,
including
active
monitoring
by
our
officers.
Again,
it's
about
managing
and
mitigating
the
impacts
of
the
noise
on
people
versus
just
saying
you
can
make
noise
at
2:00
in
the
morning
we're
looking
to
make
sure
that
everything's
done
to
mitigate
the
impacts,
as
well
as
we're
putting
in
place
and
proposing
higher
fines.
I
Our
fine
structure
currently
is
under
the
Provincial
Offences
Act,
which
is
a
maximum
penalty
of
$5,000
for
a
violation,
so
we're
proposing
a
higher
fine
under
the
City
of
Toronto
Act,
which
would
be
a
maximum
fine
of
$100,000
I.
Just
want
point
out.
That
would
be
an
extreme
situation
that
if
a
court
was
ever
to
award
such
a
fine,
but
we
find
that
the
$5,000,
fine
and
gain
is
not
in
instances
where
we
have
blatant
violations
of
the
bylaw.
I
That,
in
and
of
itself,
would
not
be
a
deterrent
for
people,
so
the
higher
fine-structure,
we
believe
would
do
that.
We're
aware
of
the
impacts
of
noise
and
from
a
public
health
issue.
That's
been
raised
and
spoken
about
numerous
times.
Trommel
public
health
is
currently
dealing
with
them.
Working
on
that
issue.
They
are
currently
working
on
a
noise
mitigation
strategy
to
deal
with
environmental
noises
throughout
the
city,
so
that
is
in
their
realm
and
we
recognize
that
and
we're
working
collaboratively
with
them
and
participate
with
them,
but
they
are
the
lead
on
that.
I
We've
heard
and
I
know.
It's
been
spoken
about
before
leaf
blowers.
Again,
there's
there's
views
that
leaf
blowers
should
have
a
an
outright
ban
or
restriction
on
them
in
the
city
we've
looked
at
that
issue.
We've
looked
at
what
other
miss
penalties
have
done.
We
are
proposing
to
restrict
the
hours
of
use
from
7:00
a.m.
to
7:00
p.m.
so
reducing
those
hours,
but
to
prime
put
a
ban
on
place
is
very
challenging
for
us.
I
There's
federal
requirements
on
mandatory
labeling
on
equipment,
as
well
as
that
would
have
an
impact
on
current
property
owners
who
have
their
own
leaf
blowers
industry
companies.
So
we
do
at
this
time
we're
not
recommending
such
a
ban.
There
has
been
questions
raised
about.
Does
the
noise
bylaw
apply
to
interior
commercial
construction?
It
does
the
noise
by
law
applies
to
all
noise.
However,
if
there's
interior
construction
occurring
within
a
commercial
tended
property,
we
would
not
get
engaged
or
take
any
enforcement
action
from
a
Milazzo
on
that
issue.
I
That
would
be
a
tenant
to
tenant
issue
and
that
we
would
direct
those
tenants
to
work
that,
through
with
their
lease
arrangements
and
their
property
owner
and
or
property
manager.
But
if
it's
a
mixed-use
building
and
there's
noise
who
have
generated
from
an
interior
renovation
of
a
non
residential
nature,
we
want
to
still
have
the
rules
in
place,
so
we
can
address
those
issues
and
impacts
more
cycle
noise.
This
is
something
brand-new
for
us.
It's
been
an
issue.
I
That's
been
raised
numerous
times,
so
we're
proposing
a
restrict
requirement
of
92
decibels
for
more
cycles
at
idle.
It
would
be
measured
at
the
point
of
exhaust
from
the
water
cycle.
This
is
based
upon
the
Society
of
Automotive
Engineers
recommendations.
It's
also
the
same
standard
been
used
in
Caledon
and
Oakville,
who
are
the
only
two
miss
penalties
in
Ontario
that
we're
aware
of
that
have
such
a
restriction.
It
has
to
be
done
in
partnership
with
trauma
Police
Service,
because
we
do
not
have
the
authority
to
pull
over
moving
vehicles
in
the
roadway.
I
So
it
would
be
something
that
we
would
undertake
in
conjunction
with
them
and
then
finally
decibel
readings.
A
source
versus
point
of
reception.
There's
been
a
variety
of
discussions
and
points
raised
around
that
we
are
proposing
that
we
would
measure
noise
and
the
best
way
to
measure
noise
and
gain
identify.
The
impact
on
the
resident
is
to
measure
at
the
point
of
reception.
It
would
be
measured
at
the
point
of
reception
would
be
at
the
exterior
of
the
building.
I
However,
there'll
be
instances
where
we
would
have
to
measure
it
within
somebody's
living
space
or
their
balcony.
So,
for
example,
if
you're
in
a
condominium
tower
and
you're
complaining
about
noise
coming
from
a
rooftop
patio
ausma
measuring
noise,
that
the
facade
of
your
condominium
building
will
not
achieve
or
measure
what's
the
impact
of
the
actual
noise
where
you
are
residing,
so
we
would
have
to
go
and
do
the
measurement
there.
That's
what
we
do
now
currently
for
air-conditioning
noise.
I
So
this
is
extending
that
to
amplified
sound
as
well,
we
did
consult
with
New
York
City,
who
have
both
types
of
noise
measurements,
and
the
recommendation
was
again
to
from
their
own
experience.
That
may,
during
a
point
of
reception,
is
the
most
effective
measurement
tool
for
enforcement
purposes.
When
we
get
into
a
courtroom.
I
I
Vibration
from
construction
activity
is
regulated
through
the
building
by
law
chapters,
3
6
3,
which
tall
building
deals
administers,
but
noise
and
vibration
from
bass
sound
what
we
call
DBC.
That
is,
in
fact
a
noise
type.
It's
just
that
you
feel
it
more
than
you
hear
it.
We
are
proposing
regulations
around
that
which
currently
are
by
law,
does
not
have
so
we're
not
losing
the
ability
to
regulate
noise
borne
vibrations,
but
we're
providing
that
clarity.
I
I
We're
also
proposing
changes
to
how
we
do
enforcement
of
noise
we've
heard,
and
we
know
that
you
know
it's
one
thing:
to
have
a
bylaw
and
have
rules
in
place,
but
if
you
don't
have
a
effective
enforcement
is
of
no
value,
so
we
are
currently
looking
at
how
we
respond
to
noise
complaints,
we're
looking
at
developing
a
priority
response
model.
So,
for
instance,
we
get
a
lot
of
noise
complaints
that
it's
a
one-time
event.
I
I
H
We're
recommending
in
October
1st,
to
2019
implementation
date
that
gives
us
six
months
to
do
the
necessary
training
education
to
the
various
industries
in
this
space.
It
also
allows
us
to
do
some
implementation
planning
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
goes
into
finalizing
our
priority
response
model,
updating
our
operating
procedures,
creating
a
noise
technical
manual
which
allows
our
officers
to
to
go
through
a
thorough
process
and
enhancing
our
back-end
technology
systems
again.
H
This
is
this
is
work
that
needs
to
be
case
managed,
and
we
need
to
make
the
system
changes
in
order
to
to
do
that.
Finally,
if
the
proposed
bylaw
changes,
our
adopted
MLS
will
proceed
to
identifying
and
procuring
sound
level
meters.
We
feel
it's
important
that
we
have
the
right
technology
to
do
the
readings
and
we'll
also
secure
a
third-party
firm
to
provide
us
additional
text,
technical
training,
to
support
our
officers
in
doing
this
enforcement.
Thank
you
thank.
A
You
very
much
I
appreciate
that
what
I'd
like
to
suggest
members
is
that
lots
of
staff
to
just
step
down
and
then
to
allow
the
public
to
to
speak
on
this
issue.
I
see
most
people
have
been
here
all
morning,
so
I'd
like
to
maybe
just
bring
them
forward
the
first
speaker
or
the
evident
is
Harold
Smith.
A
J
Since
2015
we
emailed
the
puted
and
attended
noise
working
group
sessions
and
public
consultations
to
improve
this
bylaw.
Despite
some
tinkering,
the
recommendations
are
still
inadequate,
for
example,
exempting
types
of
noise
covered
as
unreasonable
and
and
persistent
shrinks.
The
beat
the
bylaws
effectiveness,
the
by
law
reviews.
Words
quote:
there
is
growing
awareness
of
the
health
impacts
of
environmental
and
impact
ambient
background
noise
quote
is
weak.
Considering
the
significant
research
conclude,
concluding
noise
harms
health
and
well-being.
J
It
questions
Toronto's,
noise
reduction
commitment,
the
reviews
phrase
quote:
potential
negative
health
consequences
quote
down
place:
how
noise
impairs
mental
and
physical
health
as
a
contrast,
Public
Health's
report?
How
loud
is
too
loud
is
unequivocal.
Health
impacts
associated
with
environmental
noise
are
both
acute
and
chronic
in
nature.
Approaches
to
reducing
noise
exposure
include
prescribing
limits
and
noise
mitigation
measures
in
the
bylaw.
J
J
Gas
blowers
contribute
to
environmental
and
noise
pollution,
which
increase
public
health
problems
such
as
hearing
loss,
chronic
respiratory
conditions,
seasonal
allergies,
stress
hormone
release,
etc,
and
also
dementia,
because
there's
a
lack
of
stimulation
from
hearing
construction,
generous
committee
of
adjustment
and
key
lab
concessions
have
increased
infill
construction
sites
and
noise
in
in
many
neighborhoods
Toronto
must
mitigate
these
deafening
levels
to
predict
adjacent
residents.
In
the
construction
facilitation
session,
the
few
industry
reps
all
living
beyond
Toronto
wanted
no
noise
reduction
measures,
while
most
others
are
all
Torontonians
did.
J
Mls
recommends
no
construction
mitigation
noise
mitigation
except
for
exemptions.
It's
scandalous
industry
reps,
who
don't
live,
pay
taxes
or
vote
here
prevailed,
while
tÃo
residents
will
continue
suffering
ditto
for
leaf
blowers.
New
York,
City's,
exemplary
by
law
requires
construction
noise
mitigation
plans
as
conditional
for
all
permits.
Industrial-Strength
consults
construction
noise
must
not
Colette
playing
neighbors,
so
contractors
can
cut
corners
ban
loud
dirty
standby
gas
generators
when
hydros
available
require
noise,
baffles
around
loud
operations,
mandate,
acoustic
abatement,
measures
for
loud
AC
units,
etc.
Strong
noise
abatement
regulations
won't
install
development
in
North
America's
hottest
market.
J
Nor
will
it
stop.
The
red
herring
of
affordable
housing
mitigation
is
cheap,
the
real
cost
is
GTA
traffic
and
everybody
knows
that
enforcement
bylaws
are
worthless
without
strong
enforcement.
How
can
increased
fines
be
collected
without
more
staff
and
facilitation
sessions?
Residents
complained
about
Toronto's,
weak
enforcement
system.
Mls
doesn't
recommend
improving
enforcement,
but
other
jurisdictions
manage
responsive
systems
with
proper
staff
levels.
New.
J
J
A
J
A
Thank
you
much.
Thank
you,
sir.
Are
there
any
questions
for
mr.
Smith
me
visiting
councillor
council
Wong
Sam?
No,
there
are
no
questions
of
you,
sir.
Thank
you
very
much.
Your
presentation,
our
necks
decadent
is
coal
grass,
your
key
Neighborhood
Association
good
afternoon
and
welcome
you've
been
here
all
morning
and
I
appreciate
you
being
here.
Thank
you.
E
E
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
your
key
Neighborhood
Association
and
the
center
of
waterfront,
and
as
you
know,
it's
a
favorite
recreational
area
for
the
GTA
attracting
millions
of
visitors.
Every
year
around
the
bay
we
have
a
dozen
permanent
or
temporary
outdoor
performance
venues
with
over
a
hundred
concerts
each
summer
and
that's
a
lot
of
amplified
sound
in
a
densely
populated
area.
So
I'm
going
to
concentrate
on
that.
E
The
proposed
noise
bylaw
could
put
an
end
to
the
general
prohibition
of
noise
entering
buildings
from
outside
sources.
At
any
time,
we
could
now
get
intrusive
noise
in
our
homes
all
day
from
7
a.m.
to
11
p.m.
with
less
noise
allowed
during
the
night
when
people
sleep,
but
this
is
a
big
city
with
plenty
of
night
workers
and
people
working
at
home
all
needing
acquired
home
during
the
day.
So
we
request
that
the
general
prohibition
stays
require.
Around-The-Clock
sound
and
vibration
from
concerts
should
be
measured
and
controlled.
E
E
Mls
cannot
use
complaints
from
the
public
as
a
gauge
to
identify
noise
problems,
problem
areas
and
the
waterfront
plenty
of
residents
in
condo
buildings
complained
about
unwanted
noise
in
their
homes,
which
in
many
cases
are
right
across
the
street.
From
an
open
concert
venue
to
process
a
complaint,
MLS
hands
them
a
form
to
keep
meticulous
noise
logs
over
several
weeks.
They
must
agree
to
appear
in
court
with
the
noise
makers,
whoever
they
are
and
be
liable
for
court
costs
if
they
lose
the
case.
I
guess
how
many
people
volunteered
for
that?
E
Instead
many
sold
their
homes
and
the
rest
no
longer
complained.
So
this
current
system
is
not
working
on
the
waterfront,
still
there's
no
mention
of
changes
or
improvements
in
the
draft
noise
bylaw.
We
request
that
the
owners
for
excessive
noise
west
under
noise
makers
and
not
the
hapless
residents
notices
about
loud
events,
must
be
given
in
much
wider
area
than
a
hundred
meters
from
the
venue
in
high-rise
environments
like
ours,
sound
travels
upwards
into
condo
towers
for
several
blocks.
E
We
propose
that
the
local
City
Council
is
given
notice
at
these
two
weeks
in
advance
and
that
information
is
listed
on
an
MLS
website.
Exemptions
should
be
given
one
at
a
time,
not
as
packages
covering
several
months.
All
the
exemptions
should
be
approved
first
by
city
councilor,
who
has
the
final
word
and
not
the
word
of
the
executive
director
MLS
claims
that
only
their
inspectors
can
measure
noise
and
vibration
with
the
sound
meters,
and
we
would
like
to
know
where
to
purchase
such
a
sound
meter.
E
Since
we
have
a
number
of
high
tech
experts
in
why
QA
who
could
learn
how
to
use
it.
I
may
not
fully
understand.
Why
does
that
sound
Mesa
means,
but
if
it
means
the
average
sound
measured
over
10
minutes,
it
doesn't
work
for
music.
It
works
for
a
generator
or
other
consistent,
sound,
but
music
fluctuates
from
high
to
low
DBA
levels,
and
only
the
high
and
thumping
sounds
travel
inside
buildings,
so
electors
not
work
for
them
for
measuring
music.
Instead
DB
said
decibel,
measures
should
be
used.
E
It
may
be
new
to
some
of
you,
but
new
noise
may
make
us.
Meters
have
DB
said
capacity
that
covers
a
full
spectrum
of
sound
and
does
not
allow
for
statistical
manipulation
after
two
years
of
participating
in
shaping
a
new
noise
of
bylaw.
Most
of
why
kione's
requests
and
concerns
have
been
ignored.
The
process
seemed
driven
by
commercial
interests
rather
than
the
health
and
well-being
of
people
living
in
this
great
city.
So
more
work
needs
to
be
done
and
we
asked
for
the
fall.
Okay.
A
A
E
E
You
good
afternoon,
everyone,
yes
I'm
from
Y
Q&A
as
well
I
want
to
address
a
different
issue.
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
thank
the
MLS
staff
for
undertaking
this
extensive
review.
We
appreciated
the
opportunity
to
provide
input,
but
if
the
goal
was
just
to
simplify
the
chapter,
then
that
goal
has
been
acheived.
E
If
the
goal
was
to
protect
the
inhabitants
of
Toronto
from
excessive
noise,
then
I
have
my
doubts:
how
the
deputies
have
been
focusing
on
other
issues,
sound
levels
and
noise
sources,
but
I'm
especially
concerned
about
the
exemption
process,
which
has
by
far
the
largest
section
in
this
draft
bylaw.
Let's
compare
the
proposals
with
the
process
under
other
statutes.
The
Planning
Act,
with
which
I'm
very
familiar
and
even
the
sign
by
law,
requires
public
notice
and
a
consultation
process
long
before
any
approval
is
given
for
an
application
to
amend
the
relevant
regulation.
E
The
draft
before
us
suggests
that
the
ward
councillor
only
needs
14
days
to
consider
an
exemption
application
and
that
the
public
only
needs
and
deserves
a
seven-day
warning
that
approval
has
already
been
given
for
an
event.
What
is
the
public
supposed
to
do
with
this
information?
The
only
recourse
this
late
in
the
day
is
to
purchase
earplugs
or
leave
town
I'm,
not
comfortable,
either
with
the
default
being
staff
approval.
If
nothing
is
heard
from
the
councillor
after
two
weeks,
the
noise
bi-lo
exists
to
control
unreasonable,
sound
levels.
E
E
This
was
one
of
the
options
shown
to
the
public
during
the
most
recent
round
of
consultations
and
I'm
wondering
what
happened
to
that
on
page
25
of
the
staff,
it
is
suggested
that
councilor
may
request
conditions.
I
think
this
provision
should
also
be
reflected
in
the
actual
bylaw
I.
Do
not
agree
with
the
approval
of
one
permit
for
multiple
events
during
three
months.
E
I
assume
this
would
apply
to
something
like
a
concert
series,
but
the
type
of
music
and
the
sound
equipment
used
could
be
widely
different
between
events
and
one
size
may
not
fit
all
for
construction.
It
may
be
appropriate
if
the
activities
are
more
predictable,
such
as
concrete
pouring
or
pile
driving.
E
Where
a
city
agency
is
the
applicant,
it
certainly
makes
sense
to
waive
the
fee,
but
I
think
the
rest
of
the
usual
conditions
should
apply,
including
the
need
for
a
contact
person
to
be
on-site
during
the
event
on
pages
28
to
29.
The
staff
report
discusses
this
issue,
mentioning
that
economic
development
applies
from
noise
exemption
permits
for
certain
festivals.
It
also
states
that
written
notice
to
affected
residents
is
encouraged.
E
E
A
K
A
K
A
K
A
K
You
very
much
so
good
afternoon
counselors
and
thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
address
you
today.
My
name
is
Nadia
lava
and
I'm.
The
director
of
government
relations
for
the
residential
construction,
Council
of
Ontario
or
reskin.
We
represent
more
than
200
high-rise,
low-rise
and
mid-rise
builders
in
Ontario,
and
today,
I'm
joined
by
my
colleague
Karina
to
pay
from
build.
K
E
K
This
is
not
a
labor-management
divisive
issue,
so
there's
a
lot
of
agreement
on
this
we're
also
representing
the
point
of
the
Ontario
formwork
Association
and,
as
that
has
already
been
stated,
we
have
some
executives
from
high-rise
development
here
today
to
highlight
the
importance
of
this
issue
to
our
to
our
industry.
So
the
bylaw,
as
has
been
noted
earlier,
allows
construction
work
between
7
a.m.
and
7
p.m.
on
weekdays
and
9:00
a.m.
to
7:00
p.m.
on
Saturdays
under
the
current
bylaw.
K
The
time
constraints
do
not
apply
to
the
continuous
pouring
of
concrete,
large
crane
work
and
necessary
municipal
work
that
can
extend
beyond
regular
construction
hours.
The
proposed
amendment
that
is
before
you
today
maintains
the
time
constraint,
but
removes
the
exemption
for
continuous,
concrete
pouring
a
large
crane
work.
Any
construction
work
that
may
need
to
be
completed
outside
of
the
permitted
hours,
including
continuous,
concrete,
pouring
and
large
crane
work,
would
require
a
noise
exemption
permit,
including
a
new
measure
such
as
a
qualified
rationale
for
granting
the
exemption
prepared
by
a
professional
engineer.
K
These
proposed
amendments
to
the
noise
bylaw
will
have
significant
negative
impact
on
construction
project
timelines,
labor
productivity
and
project
cost
in
the
city
of
Toronto,
thus
making
housing
even
more
out
of
reach
for
most
Torontonians.
We
want
to
make
it
clear
that
these
proposed
changes
will
not
only
slow,
slow
down
construction
of
high-rise
condominiums
in
Toronto,
but
they
will
also
hurt
the
efficient
delivery
of
all
other
housing
types,
including
purpose-built
rental
and
affordable
housing
crimina
without.
E
The
exemption
for
continuous,
concrete,
pouring
and
finishing
this
work
will
be
restricted
to
take
place
within
permitted
work
hours,
significantly
delaying
the
overall
completion
schedule
of
building
projects.
This
will
prolong
the
Associated
noise
and
congestion
congestion
or
surrounding
projects
instead
of
allowing
the
builders
to
finish
the
project
earlier,
the
inherent
properties
of
concrete
required
to
be
poured
and
began
curing
before
the
surface
finishes
can
take
place
also
concrete
needs
time
to
set
which
is
highly
dependent
on
weather
conditions.
E
Therefore,
the
rigid
restrictions
are
incompatible
with
the
multistage
and
particular
finishing
of
concrete.
The
concrete
floor
slab
pour
is
typically
completed
well
within
the
permitted
hours
of
construction.
However,
the
current
as
a
right
exemption
for
continues
concrete
pouring
enables
concrete
finishing
to
take
place
outside
of
the
set
hours
once
the
concrete
has
began
to
say
and
is
able
to
be
finished.
Therefore,
it
is
only
the
concrete
furnished
surface
finishing
on
each
floor
level
that
necessitates
this
exemption.
As
such,
the
title
of
the
exemption
continues.
E
Concrete
pouring
is
a
misnomer,
as
concrete
finishing
is
typically
what
takes
place
after
hours
and
is
completed
by
a
small,
two
or
three
person
crew,
and
that
brings
us
to
the
public
opinion
research
findings
that
was
cited
by
the
municipal
licensing
and
standards
report.
It
was
found
that
the
residence
were
generally
more
understanding
of
construction
activities
that
cannot
stop
once
they
have
started.
E
For
example,
the
concrete
pouring
industry
stakeholders
were
surprised
to
learn
about
the
continuous,
concrete
resumption
of
recommendation,
as
it
was
not
identified
as
a
typical
item
of
concern
from
the
public
during
the
community
meetings
there
were,
they
were
conducted
as
part
of
the
review
city
staff
reported
that
two-thirds
of
residents
do
have
noise
concerns
and
believe
that
noise
levels
in
Toronto
are
reasonable
and
reflect
life
in
the
big
city
and
only
8
percent.
8
percent
identified
construction
noise
as
a
specific
concern.
These
statistics
come
from
the
findings
of
the
public
opinion
research,
great.
K
Thank
You
crimina,
so
I
just
want
to
consider
this
example
for
the
committee.
A
typical
two-year
condominium
timeline
to
build
the
concrete
superstructure
could
be
extended
to
3
years
or
more.
If
the
continuous,
concrete
pouring
exemption
is
removed
and
recurrent
exemption
permits
are
not
expeditiously
granted.
This
would
result
in
continuing
and
extended
construction
duration
and
associated
noise.
It
would
cause
existing
affordability
to
worsen
and
it
will
also
cause
housing
supply
to
get
smaller,
simply
put
the
construction.
K
Bylaw
amendments
need
more
time
and
thought
the
proposed
changes
to
the
noise
bylaw
are
slated
to
come
into
effect
on
October
1st
of
this
year.
This
will
impact
the
dozens
of
high-rise
projects
that
are
either
under
construction
or
will
begin
construction
soon
proposed
changes
to
the
noise
bylaw.
Will
the
industry's
ability
to
deliver
these
buildings
as
extended
project
durations
will
not
have
been
forecasted
in
the
construction
schedule?
This
will
affect
the
lives
of
many
homebuyers,
as
the
anticipated
completion
and
occupancy
timelines
for
these
buildings
will
be
at
risk
of
significant
delays.
K
Further
will
be
believed
that
the
public
will
be
confused
by
the
current
proposed
changes
as
based
on
the
report.
It
is
clear
that
quote
unquote
necessary
municipal
work
will
continue
to
be
exempt
by
than
by
from
the
noise
by
log.
Excuse
me,
the
scope
of
necessary
municipal
work
has
also
been
expanded
to
include
any
government
work
which
includes
construction,
rehabilitation
or
maintenance,
work
conducted
by
the
city
of
Toronto,
the
province
of
Ontario
and
the
Government
of
Canada
and
any
of
its
agents
in
abeyance
agents.
K
Based
on
this
proposal,
it
is
evident
that
the
city
does
not
intend
to
hold
itself
to
the
same
accountability
of
addressing
public
noise
concerns
that
the
private
sector
is
expected
to
perform.
If
the
amendments
to
the
bylaw
are
accepted,
this
will
create
a
diametrically
opposed
two-tiered
system.
It
would
be
a
system
where
the
private
sector
would
be
stifled
by
the
noise
bylaw,
but
government
work
can
operate
uninhibited.
Ultimately,
this
will
not
address
the
few
noise
concerns
expressed
by
the
public.
K
In
fact,
3-1-1
data
does
not
consider
complaints
related
to
public
versus
private
projects
or
permitted
hours
versus
non
permitted.
Projects
of
construction
is
just
one
big
data
dump
we'd
also
like
to
address
the
process
of
obtaining
exemption
permits
that
is
proposed
in
front
of
you.
It
is
impractical
as
an
as
the
involved
parties
are
typically
at
odds.
Development
decisions
have
become
increasingly
politicized
if
councillors
grant
exemption
permits.
There
is
a
perception
that
they
are
prioritizing
the
needs
of
a
developer
over
the
public
and,
if
a
councillor
deny
exemptions,
they're
sticking
up
for
the
local
constituents.
K
We
also
want
to
avoid
situations
where
councilors,
who
oppose
a
new
development
during
the
approvals
process,
now
have
the
authority
to
make
further
negative
impact.
Granting
exemption
permits
has
the
potential
to
become
to
become
highly
contentious,
which
is
why
MLS
should
act
as
the
impartial
authority
to
oversee
applications,
not
councillors.
In
addition,
the
fact
that
the
exemption
permits
are
only
proposed
to
cover
a
3-month
period
is
impaired.
K
Nicoll,
as
project
timelines
are
measured
in
ears,
necessitating
necessitating
anywhere
from
eight
to
twelve
permits
on
a
typical
project,
adding
more
redundant
work
for
councilors
and
MLS
who
already
face
resource
challenges.
The
exemption
permits
represent
a
double-edged
sword
if
it
is
the
intent
of
councilors
and
MLS
to
approve
exemption
permits
relating
to
continuous
concrete-pouring
on
a
consistent
and
regular
basis,
then
that
negates
the
purpose
of
removing
the
exemption
in
the
first
place.
K
K
In
summary,
any
restrictions
are
at
a
process.
Delays
to
the
current
bylaw
exemptions
would
the
productivity
of
high-rise,
building
construction,
impacting
project
duration
and
cost.
We
would
all
like
to
avoid
further
and
intended
consequences
and
prevent
policy
remorse
that
would
directly
hinder
housing,
supply
and
affordability,
contrary
to
city
objectives,
understanding
that
this
is
a
critical
issue
that
has
far-reaching
impacts
for
both
public
and
industry.
K
We
would
be
happy
to
have
the
current
exemption
remain
in
place
for
the
time
being,
while
an
industry
working
group
is
convened
to
better
examine
in
detail
in
the
qualitative
and
quantitative
impacts
surrounding
the
noise
bylaw
as
they
pertain
to
construction,
we
don't
want
to
hold
back
the
whole
noise
by
law
and
the
and
prevent
the
good
work.
That's
been
done,
but
we'd
like
to
further
consideration
on
the
construction
issue.
Industry
has
also
proposed
to
develop
a
noise
mitigation
plan
for
high-rise
projects
to
improve
communication
and
understanding
from
affected
residents.
K
Rather
than
having
staff
review
every
exemption
permit
and
come
up
with
so-called
additional
requirements.
We
would
propose
to
keep
the
current
as
a
right
exemption
for
concrete-pouring,
but
still
have
he'll
still
have.
Staff
asked
for
noise
mitigation
plan
that
outlines
how
a
project
mitigates
the
disturbances
to
residents.
Industry
would
be
happy
to
seconds
be
happy
to
work
with
staff
on
the
development
of
the
guidance
criteria
for
this
plan
and
our
member
Tridel
already
does
this
work
on
most
of
its
projects,
and
they
can
talk
more
about
that.
K
M
E
Thanks
again,
my
name
is
Steve
Daniels
I'm
with
Tridel,
so
just
to
put
it
into
context.
In
the
last
since
nine
years,
we've
built
over
12,000
units
just
at
Riedel,
and
then
our
del
Terra
branch
we've
got
another
6,000
units.
So
we're
we're
well
well
well
into
this
and
understand
what
what
needs
to
be
done,
and
we've
been
working
with
staff,
Carlton
and
and
mark,
particularly
when
Mark
was
over
in
Etobicoke,
and
we
know
what
it
takes
to
get
things
done.
E
When
issues
are
coming
up,
it's
how
you
respond
to
them
and
deal
with
them
right
away.
We
like
to
get
into
the
front
of
the
counselor's
office
deal
with
the
condo
corporation.
If
it
is
that
or
the
residents
and
figure
out
what
the
issue
is
we're
the
source
source
of
the
noise
is
coming
from
to
address
that
we've
had
personal
experience
on
this,
and
that
can
be
a
number
of
things.
E
That's
providing
schedules
on
what
we're
doing,
having
regular
ongoing
communication
with
the
residents
in
the
area
notify
the
residents
when
we're
going
to
have
a
constant
pour
so
that
they're
aware
that
there
are,
there
is
going
to
be
a
disruption
with
trucks
in
the
area
where
those
trucks
are
coming
from.
So
it's
really
a
communication
plan.
At
the
end
of
the
day
that
works
with
our
construction
management
plan
with
staff
and
dealing
with
this
and
I
can
tell
you
the
amount
of
complaints
that
we've
had
are
pretty
much
next
to
none.
E
We've
been
able
to
deal
with
issues
that
are
one-offs
that
I
would
say
that
come
up,
but
we've
got
to
revitalization
projects
where
people
are
working,
they're
living
right
next
to
the
next
to
these
sites
and
again
issues
like
the
noise
that's
coming
emanating
from
from
the
crane
that
would
have
a
beeping
sound.
That
is
a
required
sound,
but
we're
able
to
try
and
deal
with
that.
Recently.
We
just
had
a
a
dewatering
issue
up
on
DuPont,
where
the
residents
were
complaining
that
the
noise
was
imitating
from
that
simple
solution.
E
We
took
the
the
generator
and
put
it
down
into
the
into
the
into
the
hole
you
know
like
it's.
It's
really
a
communication
and
again
we're
here
to
support
the
agents
or
the
the
the
our
group
to
to
basically
say
we're
doing
it
we're
working
with
city
staff.
We
don't
think
that
this
exemption
needs
to
be
removed,
because
if
we
can
do
it,
other
developers
can
do
it
too.
M
E
M
K
M
M
M
You
I
understand
that
part.
What
I'm,
what
I'm
speaking
to
is
the
noise
mitigation
strategy
I
was
asking
if
this
was
tabled
to
MLS
staff.
Was
that
a
were
you
offering
that
such
were
you
suggesting
that
this
be
voluntary
for
the
sector?
Or
is
this
a
mandatory
requirement
that
the
sector
would
take
on
agree
to
that
there
would
be
a
noise
mitigation
strategy?
Last.
E
Think
what
I
would
how
I
would
respond
to?
That
is
what
we're
doing
right
now
is
voluntary,
we're
dealing
with
vibration,
we're
monitoring
that
we're
not
required
to,
but
we're
doing
that
we're
dealing
with
the
noise
that's
coming
from
that
we
have
monitors.
We
have
consultants
that
we
use
that.
Let
us
know
what
the
decimal
points
are,
so
we're
we're
doing
that
as
a
voluntary
basis.
I
would
I
would
suggest
that
we
continue
that
and
we
have
a
best
practices
approach
that
we
can
adopt
across
the
table.
A
E
A
E
O
Lady
welcome
thank
you
very
much
mr.
chair
and
in
just
just
a
couple
of
quick
questions
and
I'll
thank
mr.
Daniells
cuz
I'm,
the
local
councillor,
where
the
issue
was
along
DuPont
or
now
the
local
councillor,
where
the
issue
was
running
along
DuPont
and
and
I.
Thank
you
for
resolving
that
issue
quickly.
I
think
that
was
a
fair
representation
of
of
the
course
of
events
and
reflected
a
good
neighbor
policy.
O
But
we
are
having
some
of
this
problem
now,
none
of
which
your
sites
are
close
to.
So
that's,
that's,
probably
bodes
well.
How
would
you
propose
that
we
strengthen
if
we
were
to
insert
reintroduce?
Would
there
be
a
way
to
strengthen
it,
the
the
bylaw
so
that
or
the
exemption
so
that
we
could
ensure
that,
indeed,
that
these
these
constant
ports
were
starting
at
the
beginning
of
the
workday,
rather
than
at
the
end
I.
E
A
B
The
regular
the
regular
cycle
yeah,
the
regular
cycle
of
work
is
some.
We
can't
start
before
7:00.
We
would
love
to
start
before
Singh,
but
we
can't
so
it's
seven
o'clock
in
the
morning.
Usually
the
Carpenters,
the
steel,
all
the
men
start
to
form
the
for
the
floor.
That's
going
to
take
the
concrete,
so
I'd,
steel
electricians.
Plumbers
are
all
working
all
day
long
to
get
this
ready,
so
they
can
start
pouring
concrete.
B
Now,
as
these
quarters
are
getting
taller
and
more
complicated
traffic
to
get
materials
to
the
site
take
longer,
we
used
to
be
able
to
pour
at
10
o'clock
11
o'clock
in
the
morning
and
finished
by
four
or
five.
Now
we're
pushed
to
2
3
o'clock
in
the
afternoon
before
we
start
pointing
concrete
once
we
start,
we
can't
stop
so
that
2
o'clock,
3
o'clock
start
might
take
2
5
6
7
o'clock
and
then
the
cement
finishers
go
on
to
finish
it.
B
We
have
to
finish
that
process
because
the
next
day
at
7
o'clock
in
the
morning,
all
those
men
and
women
come
back
to
work
and
they
start
working
on
that
floor.
That
was
just
poured
the
night
before,
if
we're
not
able
to
finish
that
pour,
and
we
have
to
stop
at
7
o'clock.
Everyone
that
comes
in
next
morning
has
nowhere
to
go.
They
stay
home.
These
are
hourly
union
workers
they
get
paid
by
the
hour.
They
don't
show
up
to
work,
they
don't
get
paid
so
every
second
day
they
would
have
a
day
off
there.
B
Soon
we're
gonna
lose
all
your
skilled,
labor
they're
gonna
pick
another
industry,
so
we
have
to
once.
We
start
we
have
to
complete
the
poor
and
I
think
the
pouring
of
concrete
doesn't
seem
to
be
an
issue
from
a
sound
or
noise
perspective.
It's
the
machines
that
are
on
top
of
the
concrete
that
make
the
noise
which
we've
tried
to
work
with
the
community
councilor
long
times
too
strict.
B
We
have
a
project
that
we're
currently
working
on
where
every
Friday
we
email
the
the
officers
to
buy
officers,
what
we're
doing
when
we're
pouring
concrete
when
the
trucks
are
coming.
So
it's
clear:
we've
met
with
the
community
once
a
month,
sometimes
more
so
we
found
in
the
past,
as
Steve
said,
if
we
inform
the
community
what
we're
doing
when
we're
gonna
make
noise,
if
we
are
gonna,
make
noise
and
how
we
could
mitigate
it,
that
seems
to
be
the
best
policy
rather
than
just
stopping
this.
You
know
continuous
port
completely,
just
just.
L
To
add
to
that
so
sort
of
two
definitions
of
a
continuous
pour
if
we're
doing
a
large
massive
pour
I
know.
Joe
just
did
one
down
on
the
waterfront,
where
the
trucks
ran
for
20
hours,
that's
a
lot
easier
to
schedule
and
to
notify
the
community.
This
is
gonna
happen.
This
Thursday,
it's
gonna
go
all
night
or
Friday
night.
That's
not
the
issue!
The
issue
is
where
we're
running
into
trouble,
getting
the
concrete
to
the
tower
at
10
11
o'clock.
L
A
L
Thank
You
mr.
speaker
and
committee
members
for
providing
this
opportunity
to
address
the
committee
I
make
these
comments
on
my
own
behalf.
I
understand
this
reviews
goal
is
to
serve
residents
while
enabling
economic
and
social
vibrancy
allowing
to
find
noise
levels
while
imposing
conditions
such
as
monitoring
by
city
staff.
I
am
a
Ward
25
resident
from
2013
through
2018.
My
household
has
endured
hundreds
of
hours
of
extremely
loud,
sound,
extremely
loud
amplified
sound
music
from
a
neighbor's
vehicle
directed
directly
into
the
front
of
our
house
for
his
stated
purpose
of
intentional
harassment.
L
As
a
result,
I
have
become
acquainted
with
the
existing
noise
bylaw.
Its
enforcement
and
I
am
well-placed
to
comment
on
the
nuisance
of
amplified
noise.
The
concern
that
I
bring
to
the
committee
is
regarding
the
proposed
bylaws
article,
two
prohibitions,
591
2.1,
amplified
sound.
This
proposal
indicates
that
the
sole
evidence
permitted
is
that
measured
with
an
improved,
sound
meter
for
city
sanctioned
activities
working
to
mitigate
noise.
This
is
a
reasonable
expectation.
However,
in
the
case
of
personal
audio
devices,
this
is
an
unreasonable
requirement
effectively.
L
Preventing
enforcement
defeating
the
intent
of
the
bylaw
individual
offenders
would
simply
turn
down
the
volume
during
measurement
and
return
it
to
full
volume
upon
completion
of
the
measurement.
This
would
serve
to
perpetuate
the
commonly
held
fallacy
that
creating
unlimited
amplified.
Noise
is
a
legal
right
in
Toronto
from
8
a.m.
until
11
p.m.
I
am
therefore
requesting
that
the
committee
move
to
amend
article
2
591
2.1,
adding
a
statement
that
evidence
supporting
complaints
about
personal
audio
devices
except
witnesses,
subjective
accounts,
descriptions,
audio
and
video
recordings
as
fit
evidence
for
enforcement,
as
in
any
other
offense
investigation.
L
I
further
submit
this
example
of
a
description
be
included
in
the
amendment
amplified
sound
audible
at
a
distance
of
8
meters.
This
is
similar
to
the
local
laws
of
the
city
of
New
York.
This
would
provide
for
witnesses,
subjective
statements
or,
alternatively,
measurements
with
calibrated
instrumentation
by
qualified
people
to
be
used
for
enforcement.
Resolving
stas
reported
enforcement
difficulties,
I
close
by
stating
the
obvious
that
are
noise
by
laws.
Fundamental
consideration
is
to
protect
the
health
and
quality
of
life
for
those
within
the
city.
L
A
G
You,
sir
yeah,
thank
you
very
much
for
this
opportunity,
deputy
mayor,
Thompson
and
councillors.
My
name
is
Tony
D
Giovanni
I'm,
the
executive
director
of
landscape,
Ontario,
horticultural,
trades
Association.
We
represent
2800
companies
focused
on
designing
installing
and
maintaining
plants,
trees,
gardens
and
green
spaces.
We
also
represent
garden,
centers
and
nurseries.
We
are
co-founder
of
Canada
blooms
and
a
partner
in
open
streets
Toronto.
We
are
the
original
green
industry
from
an
economic
impact
perspective.
Our
sectors
were
seven
billion
dollars.
We
employ
70,000
people.
G
Our
members
are
focused
on
installing
and
maintaining
green
spaces
that
make
the
city
livable.
Unfortunately,
we
need
power
to
to
do
the
job.
There
is
no
other
way,
especially
because
our
biggest
issue
by
far
is
finding
employees.
Power
tools
are
essential.
However,
we
support
the
need
for
a
quieter
City.
After
all,
we
are
responsible
for
the
green
spaces
that
offer
refuge
solace,
recreation
and
beauty
while
at
the
same
time
clean
the
air
we
breathe,
cool
the
city
and
trap
carbon
dioxide.
G
Therefore,
we
agree
with
the
time
limits
that
the
noise
bylaw
puts
forth
and
look
forward
to
communicating
bylaw
to
our
members.
In
addition,
we
actively
educate
our
members
on
the
proper
and
courteous
use
of
power
equipment
and
we
will
continue
to
promote
the
use
of
battery-powered
equipment.
We
will
also
make
an
offer.
If
you
receive
complaints
about
our
members,
we
would
be
pleased
to
intervene
to
see
if
we
can
help
through
communication
and
education.
We
have
online
training
resources
for
the
membership.
G
We
predict
that
within
10
years
there
will
be
a
revolution
in
the
power
equipment
field.
It
is
already
starting.
The
equipment
today
is
much
quieter
and
less
polluting
than
it
had
and
it
was
10
years
ago.
This
trend
will
continue.
Battery
power.
Robotic
equipment
is
also
becoming
mainstream.
We
look
to
a
future
where
noise
from
landscape
equipment
will
no
longer
be
an
issue.
We
thank
the
city
for
a
bylaw
that
is
reasonable
and
balanced.
Thank.
A
P
Name
is
Sylvia
crows,
I
am
a
resident
of
Ward
19
I
attended
the
public
consultations
at
Skadden
Court
community
center
on
January
30th
this
year.
Unfortunately,
even
though
in
noise
exemptions
was
on
the
January
30th
agenda,
it
was
not
discussed
with
the
public
who
attended
due
to
time
constraints
and
I
made
the
organizers
aware
of
that
fact.
Noise
exemptions
for
advanced
using
amplified
sound
is
my
primary
concern.
P
My
neighbors
and
I
have
had
personal
experience
being
disturbed
by
annual
an
annual
noise
exemption
permit
for
me
over
the
last
15
years
in
my
house
on
a
residential
street
with
85
decibels
of
sound
two
days
in
a
row.
As
a
result
of
my
experience
in
looking
at
the
MLS
submission
I
see
little
recommended
change
around
noise
exemption
permits.
It
appears
to
be
status
quo.
To
summarize
briefly,
what's
involved
in
in
getting
that
noise
exemption
permit,
anyone
can
apply
for
it.
Now
you
have
this
three-month
period
of
your
events.
P
There's
no
no
restriction
on
location,
no
mechanism
to
consult
residents.
You
fill
out
your
application
contact
person
dates
times.
You
pay
your
hundred
dollars
and
it
goes
to
MLS.
The
counselor
I
understand.
Still
has
the
ultimate
approval
on
points
45
to
48.
We
see
that
there's
more
power
given
to
the
executive
director,
the
language
shows
and
I
will
enforce
this.
The
executive
director
may
request
additional
information,
including,
for
example,
noise
mitigation
plan.
They
may
conditionally
approve
a
permit
or
revoke
one
for
non-compliance.
P
It
remains
85
decibels
of
amplified
sound
measured
at
a
20
meter
from
source
remains.
The
applicant
still
has
an
appeal
process
through
community
councils.
If
they're
pertinent
is
not
a
proof,
if
their
permit
is
not
approve,
residents
in
the
vicinity
will
be
informed
of
that
process.
I
put
it
to
you
again,
be
not
aware
that
the
permit
existed
at
the
in
the
first
place,
they're
appealing,
and
then
then
we
would
be
informed
that
they
were
appealing
the
process,
so
that
would
be
the
first.
We
might
have
hear
of
that
noise
exemption.
P
Where
does
that
leave
residence?
Much
is
less
to
the
discretion
of
the
executive
director.
We
do
not
know
what
their
criteria
will
be
in
making
their
decision
as
it
stands.
There
is
no
change
in
the
final
decision
being
made
by
the
councillor.
So
how
did
the
two
work
together
can
one
will
influence
the
other
and
accounts
are
in
Phoolan
influence?
P
The
executive
director
representing
their
particular
constituents
and
I
could
give
examples,
but
I'm
not
going
to
MLS
in
their
submission,
has
not
considered
permits
allowed
on
residential
streets
and
I
brought
that
to
their
attention
that
use
of
85
decibels
of
sound
for
music
is
unreasonable
in
areas
surrounded
by
buildings.
That
obviously
will
be
amplified
by
that
sound
I
would
submit
submit
that
neither
MLS
nor
the
city
city
has
examined
the
record
of
exemptions
for
music
and
festivals
over
any
period
of
time.
P
If
that
was
done,
if
that
review
was
done,
this
would
have
be
effective
tool
for
the
executive
director
when
noise
exemption
applications
are
brought
to
their
attention
in.
Oh
I've
got
a
couple
of
minutes.
My
final
observation
and
I'm,
not
an
expert
on
surveys
but
I
when
I
looked
at
the
ipsa
reed
survey
highlight
that
mls
puts
out
in
their
report.
The
emphasize
the
64%
of
residents
believe
that
noise
levels
in
Toronto
are
reasonable
and,
while
36%
of
resident
believes
that
more
needs
to
be
done
to
restrict
noise
because
of
potential
negative
health
consequences.
P
I
put
it
to
you.
When
you
look
at
that
report,
the
question
to
people
being
surveyed
was
to
raped
reducing
traffic
and
congestion,
proving
public
safety,
reducing
overcrowding
on
public
transit,
improving
housing,
improving
environment,
for
example,
and
noise
was
only
one
of
those,
so
you
had
to
rate
if
we
asked
you
right
now
to
rate
those
right
now,
you
want
you
likely
would
probably
not
put
noise
as
your
top.
Okay.
A
F
Yes,
so
my
name
is
Kat
McDonald
and
I'm
here
today,
representing
the
Federation
of
North,
Toronto
residents,
Association
on
co-chair
and
we've
been
part
of
the
Toronto
noise
coalition.
Basically,
since
its
beginning
I'm
pleased
this
item
is
that
your
committee
today
that
noise
bylaw
is
certainly
an
economic
and
Community
Development
issue.
We
need
a
livable
city
and
a
good
noise
by
law
will
help
residents
and
businesses
work
well
together.
F
F
The
bylaw
seems
to
focus
on
creating
a
simple
easy
to
enforce,
set
of
regulations,
which
is
certainly
a
good
idea,
but
the
city's
is
really
diverse
and
a
simple
bylaw
may
not
be
the
best
answer.
We
have
different
areas
that
have
different
issues.
The
survey
that
was
undertaken
said
I
think
that
86%
of
residents
didn't
think
noise
was
a
problem,
but
residents
who
have
noise
issues
nearby.
Think
it's
a
hundred
percent
of
problem
and
it's
up
to
the
city
to
help
address
those
issues
for
for
the
launcher
area.
F
I've
just
listed
a
few
need
to
need
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
strong
general
provision
and
that
the
components
of
protecting
people
from
excessive
noise
and
vibration
are
not
lost
in
definitions,
I'm
not
really
sure
how
that's
working
on
protection
from
excessive
amplified.
Sound
is
also
an
important
issue
for
the
font
residents.
People
who
are
living
close
by
and
above.
F
It
can
be
a
big
problem,
so
I've
been
compared
to
say
such
a
facility,
that
is
in
an
industrial
area
where
there's
nobody
around
I
mean
thousands
of
people
can
get
affected
by
the
excessive
noise
of
amplified
sound.
So
what
we
think
that
the
the
bylaw
needs
to
add
provision
to
measure
noise
at
source
and
it's
very
to
do
four
amplified
noise.
A
manager
of
the
Phoenix
club
on
Sherbourne,
gave
a
good
example
of
how
they
do
it
and
make
sure
that
they
don't
exceed
the
noise
levels.
I
mean
they.
F
I
was
interested
in
the
res
cons,
deputation
construction
noise
and
certainly
agree
that
provisions
about
making
construction
noise
quieter
is
really
important
and
that
the
neighbors
need
to
be
notified
when
noisy
activities
are
taking
place,
I'm
I
guess
our
preference
would
be
kind
of
noise
mitigation
plan
for
most
construction
projects.
Small
projects
and
big
projects
may
be
different
legal
frameworks
for
them
to
really
encourage
quieter
use
of
construction
equipment.
It's
certainly
getting
quieter
grab.
F
A
Q
Okay
I'm
here,
because
something
happens
starting
in
September
2018
that
has
shaken
my
faith
in
human
decency
and
my
belief
in
public
servants
actually
having
any
interest
in
serving
the
public
or
even
caring
about
people.
It's
a
sad
reality
to
be
faced
with,
although
this
is
an
oversimplification.
Let
me
summarize
by
saying
the
TTC
caused
constant
loud
high-frequency
screeching
noise.
That
would
go
on
every
couple
of
minutes,
day
and
night
from
just
before,
6:00
a.m.
until
sometime
between
2:30
and
3:00
a.m.
the
next
day,
seven
days
a
week.
Q
It
would
continue
for
one
to
two
weeks
at
a
time,
then
stop
for
three
to
four
weeks
and
then
start
all
over
again
and
I.
Don't
know
if
it's
ended
and
worse,
neither
the
TTC
or
3-1-1
would
do
anything
to
prevent
this
noise
from
reoccurring
or
to
mitigate
it
when
it
occurred.
Until
this
last
time,
when
there
was
some
mitigation,
this
happened
after
media
coverage
that
included
a
statement
from
a
surgeon
at
Sunnybrook,
with
expertise
in
noise
induced
hearing
loss,
that
this
noise
definitely
created.
Q
A
risk
of
noise
induced
hearing
loss
for
those
exposed
on
a
continuing
basis
as
I
and
other
residents
were,
and
many
of
us
complain
to
city
councilors,
to
run
a
public
health
in
the
Ombuds
office
about
the
situation.
I
believe
it
was
this
combination
of
factors
that
finally
got
the
TTC
to
mitigate
the
noise.
The
success
of
noise
violated
the
current
noise
bylaw
3-1-1
said
it
was
up
to
the
TTC
to
do
something,
and
staff
from
municipal
licensing
and
standards
said
that
they
don't
enforce
the
bylaw
on
themselves.
Q
Let
this
go
on
and
on
in
the
proposed
changes
to
the
bylaw
municipal
licensing
and
standards
has
exempted
all
government
work.
They
added
a
definition
of
government
work
to
include
construction,
rehabilitation
or
maintenance,
work
conducted
by
the
city,
etc.
Then,
under
the
new
section
on
safety
and
government
work,
despite
any
other
provision
of
this
chapter,
it
shall
be
lawful
to
omit
lawful
to
omit
or
cause
or
permit
the
omission
of
sound
from
a
bells
or
sirens
required
for
the
purposes
of
public
safety.
Q
That's
understandable
measures
undertaken
for
the
immediate
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
persons
under
emergency
circumstances
that
it's
understandable
and
see
government
work.
It
makes
excessive
and
harmful
noise
by
city
government
lawful
in
the
city,
even
when
there
is
no
emergency
or
public
health
or
safety
situation.
That
needs
to
be
addressed
immediately
and,
in
fact,
I
looked
at
many
noise
bylaws
for
comparable
cities
and
couldn't
find
one
that
provides
this
type
of
blanket
exemption.
Most
provide
exemptions
for
emergencies.
Q
The
only
city
bylaw
that
was
close
to
this
language
was
Calgary's,
but
the
chief
bylaw
enforcement
officer
has
discretion
to
apply
the
bylaw
to
city
work
other
than
related
to
emergencies.
I'm,
not
saying
that
we
should
take
Calgary's
approach.
I
prefer
Ottawa
as
an
example.
Their
exemption
is
that
the
provisions
of
this
biological
not
apply
to
the
city
or
any
local
boards,
etc,
etc.
Q
The
other
problem
with
this
draft
bylaw
is
that
it
doesn't
know
what
it's
purposes,
and
this
is
seen
clearly
in
the
different
standards
for
defining
what
a
violation
of
the
bylaw
would
be.
There's
this
new
definition
for
unreasonable
noise,
which
uses
a
reasonable
person
standard.
Good
luck
enforcing
that,
then
under
amplified
sound.
There
are
decibel
limit
set,
but
no
indication
about
why
these
limits
are
set
and
the
section
on
stationary
sources
and
air
conditioners
has
a
maximum
of
50
decibels
or
the
applicable
sound
level
limit
prescribed
in
provincial
noise
pollution
control
guidelines.
Q
So
provincial
noise
pollution
control
guidelines
set
the
standard
there,
then
the
standard
changes
again
related
to
construction
at
night.
You
can't
have
any
clearly
audible,
sound
from
the
point
of
reception
and
no
sound
at
all
from
loading
or
unloading
is
permitted
at
night.
Motor
Vehicles
have
different
standards
again,
the
language
is
unnecessary,
sound
which
isn't
even
defined
and
I'm,
not
saying
there
aren't
some
good
changes
in
this
draft
bylaw,
but
the
two
key
issues
I
have
are
that
it
doesn't
protect
public
health
from
excessive
noise
and
doesn't
include
comprehensive,
evidence-based
standards
related
to
public
health.
D
Q
M
M
D
R
My
thanks
to
the
committee,
my
name
is
Benjamin
Stein
I
live
on
tour,
brick
road
in
East
Toronto
in
May,
2009
18,
st.
Patrick's,
secondary
school
on
49
Felsted,
Ivanov
unveiled
a
new
outdoor
soccer
field.
It
was
constructed
in
a
deal
between
the
Toronto
Catholic,
District,
School,
Board
and
RAZR
management.
After
school
hours,
the
field
was
rented
to
adult
amateur
soccer
leagues,
a
15-foot
alley.
Roughly
three
sidewalk
squares
in
length
separates
the
field
from
residential
backyards.
Last
year,
four
separate
games
were
regularly
played
across
the
width
of
the
field.
R
At
the
same
time,
residents
were
subjected
to
incessant,
whistle,
blowing
screaming
and
yelling
profanity
and
the
kicking
of
balls
with
maximum
force
into
the
chain-link
fence,
just
north
of
our
homes.
A
late-night
play
was
made
possible
by
stadium
lighting
that
also
shone
into
our
back
windows.
Trespassing
property
damage,
verbal
abuse
and
public
drinking
also
occurred,
but
by
far
the
most
distressing
and
debilitating
experience
for
our
neighbourhood
was
the
noise
pollution.
This
took
place
as
often
as
seven
days
a
week
until
as
late
as
11
p.m.
R
and
on
weekend
mornings,
from
May
to
October
of
last
year,
six
months
without
cease.
We
did
not
get
used
to
it,
we
dreaded
it.
We
closed
our
windows
on
summer
nights
and
stayed
away
from
our
back
porches.
We
moved
our
bedrooms.
My
neighbours
have
children
who
are
diagnosed
as
special-needs.
Their
symptoms
have
been
made
worse
by
lack
of
sleep.
The
senior
citizens
in
the
Unity
Road
apartments
for
the
elderly
to
the
west
of
the
field
have
spoken
publicly
about
their
feelings
of
helplessness
as
they
endure
the
noise
of
the
games
as
the
warmer
weather
approaches.
R
We
look
forward
to
it,
not
with
anticipation
but
with
anger
and
despair.
The
thought
of
enduring
another
six
months
of
being
victimized
by
RAZR
management
and
the
TCD
SB.
The
players
were
out
again
last
night.
These
corporations
would
like
you
to
believe
that
their
chief
goal
is
promoting
community
sports,
but
the
issue
here
is
not
that
of
competing
community
needs.
The
issue
is
the
exploitation
for
corporate
profit
of
public
land
that
lies
close
to
residential
housing.
This
issue
affects
all
Toronto.
Citizens
should
be
part
of
the
noise
by
Law
Review
discussions
currently
taking
place.
R
I
would
like
to
speak
in
support
of
proposed
amendments.
Fourteen
fifteen,
sixteen
seventeen
twenty
to
forty
nine
and
notably
forty
nine,
a
I,
am
concerned
about
section.
Fifty
I
do
not
know
if
these
corporations
secure
an
exemption
for
their
development.
If
they
did,
it
means
we
may
be
subjected
to
multiple
years
like
the
previous
one,
because
the
bylaw
will
not
apply
to
exemptions
granted
prior
to
October.
2018
I
have
two
final
points.
R
First,
as
pertains
to
sections
24
into
27,
I
asked
if
the
committee
consider
that
referees
whistles
are
amplified
instruments,
even
if
the
amplification
is
not
electronic,
as
the
city
increases
in
population
whistle
blowing
for
outdoor
sports
activities
in
your
residential
housing
will
be
in
increasing
points
of
contention.
Second
I
ask
the
clear
guidelines
be
enacted
to
clarify
the
parameters
for
commercial
exploitation
of
public
school
sports
facilities
near
residential
housing
throughout
the
city.
What
the
TCD,
SB
and
razor
management
has
done
may
or
may
not
be
legal.
R
D
N
You
mr.
chair
I
am
representing
today
the
Friends
of
Danforth
East
I,
have
also
this
position
has
been
endorsed
by
the
data
for
the
village
Community
Association.
This
morning,
I
spoke
to
the
president
of
our
local
business
improvement
area.
Don
t
stand
forth
and
he
supports
this
position,
but
because
this
notice
only
came
out
a
week
ago-
and
they
have
not
had
time
to
go-
see
what
they
have
not
been
able
to
develop
it
thoroughly.
I
have
made
a
submission
which
is
in
the
papers
here,
but
I
just
wanted
to.
N
Would
you
I
hope,
you'll
be,
but
I
want
to
address
just
one
issue:
the
issue
of
motorcycle
noise,
which
is
a
really
really
Rock
as
part
of
a
fair-weather
life
in
Toronto.
We
think
it's
great
news
that
you're
trying
to
regulate
motorcycle.
Always
we
praise
you
for
we've
been
waiting
a
long
time
for
this.
We
should
note
these
type
of
loud
motorcycle
exhausts.
Are
legal
motorcycles
are
sold
with
legal
complying
exhaust
to
claim
the
Department
of
Transport
in
Ottawa,
and
many
bike
owners
are
responsible.
Any
social
bikers
are
the
first
NGOs.
N
We
need
solutions
that
will
work
for
Toronto
I
noted
that
in
the
preamble,
the
city
staff
said
they
had
looked
at
Oak,
Hill
and
Caledon
had
adopted
the
standard
of
92
decibels
and
I.
Think
30
centimetres
at
idle
from
hopeful
and
Caledon
I
would
suggest
that
Oakland
Callan
are
not
good
examples
at
all
to
emulate.
They
are
not
dense
urban
cities
like
we
have.
They
do
not
have
miles
of
high-rise
buildings
that
echo
sound
all
the
way
down,
Yonge
Street
or
along
King
Street.
Whatever
this
is
not
a
good
example.
N
I
think
we
can
do
better
than
anything
we
have
to
do
better
than
we
have
a
bigger
population.
We
have
to
have
more
cyclists
and
a
more
more
stress
in
our
lives
from
the
daily
living
that
is
existing
in
a
bucolic
place
like
Caledon,
for
instance,
the
presentation
said
earlier.
The
industry
standard
was
used,
the
industry-standard,
that's
in
the
section
3.6
is
that
the
engine
will
be
idly
and
the
the
decimal
meter
will
be
20
centimeters
from
the
exhaust,
and
it
should
not
make
more
than
92
decimals
well,
I
would
suggest
service.
N
All
92
decimals
is
I
already
very
loud
and
much
too
loud.
This
industry
standard
is
referring
to
as
a
site
of
automotive
engineers.
There
is
an
other
standard,
American
Motorcycle
Association,
which
has
a
lower
standard,
which
is
for
street-legal
motorcycles,
and
it's
been
referred
to
in
one
of
these
submissions,
and
that
is
the
standard
we
should
be
using
and
I've
just
discovered,
I
believe
it's
85
decibels.
N
Our
submission
will
like
it
reduced
to
90
decibel,
but
the
biggest
problem
with
this
standard
is
that
the
engine
is
idling
when
it's
being
measured
and
engine
at
idle
doesn't
make
any
sound.
It's
virtually
quiet
so
for
an
engine
that
registered
90
decibels.
That
idle
would
probably
have
to
be
a
Molson
Indy
race
car
at
idle
normal
motorcycles
only
develop
Moi's.
When
they're
running
you
have
to
use
a
motorcycle,
you
have
to
rev
the
engine
to
make
a
bit
of
power
to
make
a
bit
of
noise.
N
So
we
find
it's
completely
unrealistic
to
suggest
that
the
emission
be
stopped
at
Island,
because
any
motorcycle
could
probably
pass
this
test
at
idle.
We
suggest
that
the
test
be
just
administered
at
2,000,
rpm,
minimum
2,000
rpm.
The
engine
is
operated
already
running,
obviously,
in
order
to
idle
it.
So
the
white
officer
would
ask
the
owner
of
the
motorcycle.
Give
me
2,000
rpm,
it's
a
manual
transmission.
All
motorcycles
are
they
have
tachometers,
your
honour
would
comply
the
white
officer
measured
and
we
know
if
it
complies
they're,
not
with
the
bylaw.
N
This
is
a
safe
procedure.
Engines
in
neutral
the
bike
a
stopped
the
owner
is
there.
He
is
going
to
give
the
engine
some
gas
and
make
the
engine
produce
a
bit
of
revolution
at
least
mm,
and
then
it
can
be
measured.
A
second,
the
standard
of
90
decibels
are
still
that's
very
loud.
I
would
note
that
other
to
other
submissions
in
here,
EC
3.6
12,
is
suggesting
a
standard
of
to
decimals
a
considering
that
80
decibels
is
the
approximate
level
from
standard
equipment
supplied
by
major
motorcycle
companies
and
supported
by
the
American
Motorcycle
Association.
N
Yes,
it
is
17
suggests
the
standard,
be
dropped
to
82
decibels,
so
just
a
little
bit
higher
than
what
actually
exactly
the
same
as
what
3
6
12
is
adjusted.
So
my
comments
are
first
or
do
I
deregulate
motorcycles.
We
don't
think
the
procedure
right
now
will
be
effective
at
all,
because
the
engines
will
be
I,
think
they
will
not
be
revving
and
the
standard
of
sound
is
much
too
loud.
N
So
we
would
like
to
see
paragraph
30
for
a
minute
to
read:
add
provision
prohibiting
sound
from
motorcycle
if
it
emits
any
sound,
exceeding
90
DB
ade,
open
discussion.
It
could
be
80
from
the
exhaust
out
as
measured
at
50
centimeters.
Well,
the
motorcycle
engine
is
a
2,000
rpm,
so
fitness
center
is
about
that.
It's
pretty
close,
but
nonetheless
it
should
be
major
property.
N
M
You
very
much
for
your
deputation
with
respect
to
your
revised
suggestion
for
the
cause
number
34.
Has
this
information
been
made
available
to
staff
yet
and
staff
has
seen
it
in
the
we've
had
some
challenges
with
exactly
what
you're
describing
in
terms
of
when
to
measure
how
to
measure
the
the
at
the
the
market
motorcycle
and
then
the
aftermarket
experience
whence
the
baffle
is
removed?
Who
do
you
believe
should
be
enforcing
that
I?
Definitely.
M
N
Glad
you
mentioned
moving
to
baffles
cows,
some
of
the
easiest
things
motorcycle
owners.
Do
it's
a
simple
bolt
in
the
tailpipe:
they
undo
the
bolt:
they
pull
it.
The
baffles
and
I
got
a
free
flow
exhaust,
and
it's
like
way
too
loud
for
anybody
to
live
with,
and
it's
antisocial
and
it
destroys
cafe
life.
It's
bad
for
health,
especially
residential
neighborhoods,
but
I
do
think
that
administra
licensing
staff
should
be
obviously
Koopa
decibel
meters
as
they
are
in
other
jurisdictions.
N
A
A
S
Thank
you.
Congratulations
for
all
this
effort,
you're
making
to
update
the
noise
policy
is
huge
task,
but
if
somebody
in
one
of
the
public
consultation
said
noise
management
is
for
the
21st
century,
what
cigarette
smoking
policies
were
in
the
you
know,
it's
a
lot
of
discussion.
What's
gonna
take
years
to
get
it
right
and
my
name
is
max
poor
I'm,
an
audio
engineer.
My
overall
impression
of
the
noise
policy
is
it's
going
in
the
right
direction,
but
it
still
needs
some
fine-tuning.
S
I,
wouldn't
rush
into
approving
it,
because
there's
still
quite
a
few
problems
there
too,
specifically
that
I
would
like
to
address
and
they
both
have
to
do
with
noise
measurement.
I've
put
a
graph
on
the
wall.
Do
you
know
about
des
belles?
They?
You
know,
we've
been
talking
about
decibels,
because
this
whole
policy
is
being
implemented
on
the
basis
of
des
Vosges.
Do
you
understand
the
difference
between?
S
There
are
different
types
of
decibels
and
there
are
DBA
Jezebel's,
EB,
C
decibels
and
now
there's
a
new
coming
along
DBZ
decibels
and
I
know
you
guys
are
in
the
middle
of
this
sorting
out,
which
does
abilities
and
believe
me.
It's
I
work
in
the
field
and
and
I
was
confused
for
a
long
time,
but
the
the
bad
news
is
that
you're
still
using
DPA,
Jezebel's
and
DBC
Jezebel's
those
are
so
last
century.
Let's
say
noise
measurement
technologies
a
lot
like
automobile
technology.
You
know
we
drive
our
cars.
Now
we
see
a
screen.
S
The
map
that
talks
to
us
everything
all
those
things
have
come
along
in
the
last
10
years.
It's
the
same
with
noise
measurement
technology.
The
field
is
advancing
rapidly.
The
new
way
of
measuring
noise,
which
is
better
than
DBA
or
DBC,
is
DBZ
I've
written
the
letter.
That's
got
details
about
DBZ.
Why
DBZ
is
the
new
way
of
measuring
noise
and
it's
better
than
DBA
or
DB
C.
You
can
see
on
the
graph
the
left-hand
side
slopes
down.
S
That's
the
base
end
of
the
spectrum,
that's
DB,
the
the
curve
that
goes
down
the
farthest,
that's
DB
a
does
the
bells,
and
basically
DBA
decibels,
do
not
measure
base.
If
you're,
using
a
noise
meter
that
measures
DBA
decibels,
you're,
not
measuring
half
of
the
noise.
That's
why
the
new
policy
should
not
be
based
on
DBA
decibels.
S
Up
until
now,
we've
been
recommending
DB
C,
because
it's
better
than
DBA
decibels,
but
you'll
see
it
also
has
a
laps
cut
back
on
thee
on
the
base
n,
so
DBA
decibels,
DB
C
decibels
are
both
poor
measures
of
measuring
noise.
What
you
want
to
use
is
DBZ
des
belles
which
are
flat
what
they
call
no
adjustment
des
Abele's.
It
measures
the
whole
noise,
it
tells
the
whole
story
and,
quite
frankly,
it's
the
only
measure
of
noise.
That's
honest!
S
If
you're
using
DBA
decibels,
you're
reporting
the
decibels
in
a
dishonest
way
if
you're
do
is
using
DBC,
it's
a
little
better,
but
it's
still
designed
it's
not
the
full
measure
of
noise.
If
you
want
the
full
measure
of
noise
and
accurate
measure
of
noise
and
one
that
makes
sense
for
all
applications,
please
update
the
policy
to
use
DBZ
decibels.
No
I'll
tell
you
why
this
is
a
problem,
because
the
problem
is
I'm,
an
audio
engineer
and
I'm,
the
guy
who
makes
a
sound
to
concerts
and
festivals.
S
So
I'm,
a
noise
maker
I
have
a
pro
industry
noise,
making
industry
bias.
On
the
other
hand,
I
live
very
near
the
Island
Airport,
which
is
a
noise
maker
and
I
suffer
from
the
noise
that
the
airport
makes
so
I
got
very
involved
in.
How
do
we?
How
do
we
prove
that
we're
suffering
with
the
airport
we
measured?
The
noise
getting
into
measuring
the
noise
at
the
airport
is
just
a
quagmire.
We
went
through
DPA
DBC.
How
do
we
measure
at
the
airport
was
using
DPA
reporting,
they're
decibels
very
underreported
noise?
S
Basically
they're
only
reporting,
half
of
the
noise
that
they're
making
if
they're
using
DBA
Jezebel's,
we
have
convinced
them
to
start
using
DBZ
decibels,
so
progress
is
being
made
and
I
would
recommend
that
your
whole
group
look
at
DBZ
des
belles
get
into
it
change
this
whole
policy,
because
it,
if
you
want
people
to
communicate
with
the
same
language
when
measuring
des
Abele's,
you
really
have
to
have
one
measure
which
is
accurate
and
valid
for
all
applications
and
ma'amed
of
changing
the
number.
Oh
I'll
give
you
one
example
page
three:
where
are
your
doing
definitions.
S
A
Out
the
better
des
Abell
there,
it
is
thank
you
very
much.
There
might
be
questions
to
refuse
it
for
a
moment.
Are
there
any
questions?
Okay?
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
presentations
here.
Our
next
speaker
is
Nancy
music,
music,
okay,
Thank
You,
Nancy
Lucy.
Thank
you
very
much
and
good
afternoon.
A
F
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
My
concern
is
regarding
sections
38
to
41
of
the
proposed
amendments
relating
to
residential
air
conditioners.
I
am
concerned
and
disappointed
that
section
38
only
sets
out
decibel
a
sound
limits
for
residential
air
conditioners.
The
proposed
regulations
for
amplified
sounds
in
Section
25
into
section.
26
have
broader
constraints
that
include
a
limit
for
decibel
C
and
lower
acceptable
levels
for
the
sleeping
hours
of
11:00
p.m.
to
7:00
a.m..
Why
does
this
sound
from
residential
air
conditioners?
Have
left's
constraints
and
amplified
noise?
F
Air
conditioners
run
24/7
for
months
during
the
height
of
the
summer.
That
means
no
escape
from
noise
day
and
night.
I
am
requesting
that
a
level
of
decibel
C
and
now,
based
on
this
kind
person
over
here,
maybe
even
decibels
V
be
set
out
for
residential
air
conditioners
that
is
not
to
be
exceeded
and
that
a
lower
maximum
noise
level
be
set
for
sleeping
hours.
F
I'm
also
requesting
that
the
noise
from
residential
air
conditioners
be
measured
relative
to
the
ambient
note
sound
and
that
allowable
noise
not
be
more
than
say,
five
decibel
a
and
decibels
C
louder
than
the
ambient
noise
section.
Twenty
six
lists
a
maximum
maximum
decibel
a
of
forty
five
under
certain
conditions
for
amplified
noise
between
11:00
p.m.
and
7:00
a.m..
Why
would
the
allowable
noise
from
an
air
conditioner
be
allowed
to
be
greater
the
ambient
noise?
In
my
home
at
night
p.m.
on
April?
The
first
was
measured
at
lower
than
40
decibel
8.
F
F
Also
in
the
current
bylaw
591
to
under
a
general
prohibition,
it
states
no
person
person
shall
make
cause
or
permit
noise
or
vibration
at
any
time,
which
is
likely
to
disturb
the
quiet,
peace,
rest,
enjoyment,
comfort
or
convenience
of
the
inhabitants
of
the
city.
The
new
proposed
section
41,
has
removed
the
term
by
the
vibration
as
a
concern
and
has
replaced
the
specific
descriptions
of
quiet
peace,
rest,
enjoyment,
comfort
and
convenience,
with
a
much
less
specific,
unreasonable
noise,
which
I
presume
is
subject
to
interpretation
and
therefore
has
questionable
enforcement.
F
I
am
asking
that
you
leave
old
bylaw
591
to
as
it
is
and
not
replace
it
with
the
weaker
rules
of
section
41.
The
vibration
caused
by
a
working
air
conditioner
mounted
on
the
ground
or
on
metal
braces,
is
real
and
noticeable
and
disturbing.
Please
restore
vibration
as
a
prohibition
and
return
to
the
more
specific,
less
ambiguous
descriptions
of
harm
caused
by
noise.
I've
lived
in
my
home
and
Sonny
Lee
for
twenty-five
years,
and
it's
a
dream
home
for
my
husband
and
me.
F
The
large
commercial
grade
air
conditioner
that
was
recently
installed
facing
three
feet
from
my
wall
has
created
an
existential
dilemma
for
us,
and
we've
lived
with
the
distressing
possibility
that
we
may
have
to
sell
our
home
due
to
the
noise.
I
am
asking
the
City
of
Toronto
to
enact
noise
by
laws
that
protect
residents
from
decibel
a
decibel
C
throwin
decibel
Z
and
vibrations
generated
from
residential
air
conditioners.
I
shouldn't
have
to
sell
my
home
because
laws
protect
one
neighbors
convenience
expensive,
causing
harm
and
disadvantage
to
others.
A
Thank
you
very
much
ma'am.
Are
they
any
questions?
They
seem
none.
Thank
you
very
much.
Your
presentation.
Our
next
speaker
is
grant
Humes
toronto.
Financial
district
B
I
am
mr.
Hume.
Here,
no
stranger
to
this
committee.
Welcome
good
to
see
you
and
good
afternoon
know
just
have
one
name
here,
and
there
are
two
of
you.
So
if
you
could.
R
Provide
an
introduction-
don't
worry
about
youth
great,
thank
you.
So
thank
you,
deputy
mayor
Thompson
councillors
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
I'm
joined
by
my
colleague,
Amy
Harrell
Amy,
worked
on
the
with
our
stakeholders
in
the
city
on
this
file.
She's,
probably
forgotten
more
than
I
ever
knew
on
it.
So
I
just
brought
some
help
in
case
there's
hard
questions.
I've
met
all
of
you.
I
know
you
understand
the
importance
of
our
district
to
the
city
and
also
the
fact
that
it's
got
some
neat
challenges
associated
with
it.
R
I'm
really
here
to
speak
about
that
today.
So
that's
an
organization.
We
focus
on
working
with
our
partners
to
make
things
better
for
all
stakeholders
in
the
financial
district.
That's
properties,
businesses,
employees
and
visitors.
I'm
speaking
you
in
this
issue
today,
because
in
the
process
of
revising
the
noise
bylaw,
there's
been
an
unattended
consequence
for
business
that
we
have
to
address
as
a
bit
of
history.
Our
BIA
is
worked
with
tenants,
properties
and
city
staff
since
inception
to
address
the
problem
of
street
noise
that
interferes
with
the
operation
of
businesses
in
the
area.
R
The
common
examples,
the
person
who
sets
up
drums
at
the
corner
of
fronting
Bay,
the
noise
from
the
drums,
is
amplified
by
the
buildings
and
reverberates
all
throughout
area
offices,
way
above
standard
levels
by
law
enforcement
staff
have
advised
us
in
the
past.
The
current
by
law
only
allows
inhabitants
defined
as
residents
of
Toronto
to
make
noise
complaints
as
interpreted
by
enforcement
staff.
R
They
advised
that
the
noise
bylaw
review
was
an
ideal
time
to
address
this
issue
in
February
2000
19
RBI
a
facilitated,
a
consultation
with
city
staff
and
financial
district
property
managers
to
discuss
this
question
and
other
No
concerns.
It
was
agreed
that
businesses
and
tenants
needed
the
ability
to
issue
complaints.
This
has
been
addressed
in
the
revised
by
lot
by
focusing
on
the
source
of
noise
or
the
point
of
reception.
However,
we
identified
during
the
consultation
and
in
our
follow-up
letter
to
staff
that
there
is
a
significant
unintended
consequence.
R
This
is
related
to
construction
activity,
internal
to
commercial
buildings
in
office
towers.
The
terms
of
the
lease
require
tenant,
builds
and
retrofits
to
occur
overnight
and
on
weekends
to
minimize
interference
with
other
businesses
in
the
buildings.
Under
the
revised
bylaw
tenants
working
after
business
hours
will
now
be
able
to
complain
to
the
city
about
other
tenant,
build
and
retrofits
that
are
being
conducted
according
to
the
terms
of
the
lease.
R
This
concern
has
not
been
addressed
in
the
review
and
is
likely
to
result
in
significant
impact
on
businesses,
commercial
properties
and
city
resources.
As
we
noted
in
our
letter
to
the
committee
exemption
permits
are
challenging
as
it
is
the
nature
of
buildings
to
have
several
projects
going
on
concurrently.
There
are
a
limited
number
of
contractors
authorized
to
work
in
these
buildings,
and
often
scheduling
decisions
are
made
at
the
last
minute.
So,
ideally,
we're
seeking
revision
to
the
bylaw
with
an
exclusion
would
allow
for
interior
work
to
a
strictly
commercial
building
to
occur
between
7:00
p.m.
R
and
7:00
a.m.
and
on
weekends,
as
procured
business
practices
or
an
alternate
solution.
We
can
come
up
with
it
can
be
arrived
at
that
meets
it
the
needs.
While
we
respect
the
statement
made
in
the
staff
presentation
of
enforcement's
intent
to
treat
this
concern
as
a
tenant
to
tenant
issue,
this
is
not
clear
in
the
bylaw.
R
A
R
A
T
Good
afternoon,
sir
good
afternoon,
my
name
is,
as
you
mentioned,
is
Martin
middle
stet
I'm,
a
member
of
the
Toronto
Island
noise
committee
I'm
here
for
our
chair,
who
wasn't
well
enough
to
attend.
We've
been
active
on
the
harbour
for
about
25
years
and
we've
had
a
lot
of
success
having
a
kind
of
a
decent
soundscape
in
the
harbour.
T
T
What
we
face
are
several
hundred
concerts
and
party
boat
trips
every
summer.
The
majority
of
the
operators
on
the
harbour
are
decent
folks
and
and
they
don't
cause
undue
noise,
but
there's
a
significant
minority
who
do
and
the
way
that
these
amendments
are
structured.
It'll
make
it
very
difficult
for
us
to
work
with
MLS
to
stop
the
bad
operators.
Currently,
you
know
party
boats,
don't
have
a
set
routine.
It's
not
like
every
day
at
5
o'clock,
party
boat,
a
will
come
by
and
disturb
you.
They
might
be
there
at
1
o'clock
in
the
morning.
T
T
Now
we
believe
that
the
proposal
should
be
tabled
so
that
we
can
work
with
MLS,
as
many
of
the
other
people
have
suggested,
to
try
to
correct
some
of
these
deficiencies,
but
the
the
main
error
or
problem
that
we
see
is
that
in
591
to
point
B,
it
gives
amplified
sound
an
exemption
from
the
general
provision
of
the
of
the
bylaws
and
the
general
provision
is
the
part
of
the
by
law.
That
says
that
neighbors
should
be
protected
from
noise.
24/7
currently
amplified
sound
will
be
exempted
and
it
gets.
T
You
know
not
only
affects
people
like
us
with
our
party
boats
and
that
sort
of
thing
it's
the
neighbor
on
neighbor
issues
as
well.
That
now
will
seem
to
have
an
exemption
as
well.
We
think
that
that's
wrong
the
way
that
the
wording
or
the
bylaw
is
proposed.
It's
going
to
require
bylaw
officers
with
devices
measuring
the
various
types
of
decibels
to
get
an
enforcement
action.
T
Currently
we
have
the
ability
or
neighbor
residents
have
the
ability
to
make
noise
logs
and
those
are
records
of
the
people
who
are
disturbing
us
and
have
those
uses
evidence
against
the
the
bad
actors.
If
everything
is
placed
on
the
noise
by
law
officers
with
their
measuring
devices,
that
will
exclude
the
ability
of
residents
to
to
take
action
on
their
own.
That
helps
build
a
case
against
the
the
people
who
are
causing
noise
on
the
waterfront.
Thank.
A
G
T
Are
generally
good
actors
and
bad
actors
and
the
some
of
the
boats
that
caused
a
lot
of
trouble
some
days
they
don't
what
some
days
they're
fairly
quiet,
but
generally
there's
a
pattern.
The
problem
is,
is
it's
you
know,
we
don't
know
if
they'll
be
sailing
tonight
at
7:00
or
at
9:00.
You
know
how
do
you
line
up
a
bylaw
officer
with
the
decibel
meter?
If
you
don't
know
when
they're
going
to
be
there
and
they
might
be
there
for
an
hour
or
two
at
night
and
then
they
go
right.
G
T
G
E
I'll,
keep
it
quick,
I
know
it's
a
long
day:
I'm
Spencer,
Sutherland
I'm,
a
resident
and
a
father
of
two
kids,
but
per
house
better
known
as
the
most
recent
co-chair
of
the
Toronto
music
advisory
council
and
also
a
director
of
Tavia
for
the
past
eight
years.
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
noise
is
a
very
challenging
issue,
especially
for
a
city
as
big
and
fast
growing,
as
Toronto
I.
Don't
think
there
is
such
a
thing
as
a
perfect
set
of
bylaws.
E
Certainly
no
City
has
yet
seemed
to
find
them,
but
I
am
impressed
with
the
work
done
by
staff.
I
think
that
we
have
before
us
a
pretty
workable
set
of
set
of
laws
that
that
balance
the
needs
of
residents
and
industry
and
could
provide
a
good
basis
for
us
work
moving
forward.
So
I
hope
that
it's
been
long
and
arduous
process
and
I
hope
you
don't
have
to
go
back
to
the
to
the
table
again.
E
I
think
that
what
we
do
have
is
a
good
basis,
then
might
it
might
need
some
tweaking
but
I,
but
overall
I
think
it's
very
good.
The
only
the
only
one
omission
that
I
would
draw
some
attention
to
is
around
ham,
bein
noise,
the
the
I
thought
there
was
a
discussion
that
there
was
going
to
be
a
decibel
over
the
ambient
noise
to
be
part
of
the
recommendation,
and
I
didn't
see
that
here.
A
M
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
My
questions
are
gonna.
Try
to
squeeze
them
in
are
gonna,
be
focused
around
amplified
sound
construction
and
motor
vehicles
with
respect
to
the
section
and
amendments
changes
for
proposed
for
amplified
sound.
There
is
some
language
about
measuring,
met
story
measuring
from
from
a
point
of
reception,
and
perhaps
when
it's
not
reasonable
to
do
so,
can
you
please
clarify
of
what
what
would
constitute
reasonable
and
and
who
would
determine
that
and
is
there
appeal
process
if
someone
determines
that
it
wasn't
a
reasonable
decision
through.
I
However,
if
they
live
in
a
multi-story
condominium
tower
and
they're
complaining
about
noise
from
our
rooftop
patio,
us
measuring
at
the
street
level
of
the
facade
is
not
going
to
be
an
accurate
reflection
of
what
noise
is
impacting
them
and
noise.
The
way
it
works
is
very
complex.
It
can
reflect
off
of
other
surfaces.
So
that's
what
we're
saying
if
need
be,
then
we
would
go
and
measure
at
the
point
of
reception,
whether
it's
there.
I
M
And
when,
with
the
bylaw,
the
provincial
offense
officer
have
that
be
able
to
respond
to
that
complaint
because
oftentimes
the
the
noise
may
be
emanating
late
at
night,
most
people
are
not
complaining
during
the
days
when
they
want
to
go
to
sleep.
What
time
of
what
type
of
response
can
we
expect
if
a
complaint
is
come
in.
I
I
If
it's
a
one
time
event-
and
they
complain
just
on
a
one
time
event
and
all
honestly
we're
not
going
to
get
there-
we're
not
immediate
first
responders,
but
if
it's
an
ongoing
reoccurring
problem,
then
we
will
have
our
officers
there
at
the
time
the
noise
is
occurring
and
we
will
do
our
investigations
then.
So
if
they
say
the
noise
is
occurring
at
11
o'clock
at
night,
our
officers
will
be
there
11
o'clock
at
night
to
do
that
of
measurement.
I
M
I
This
is
the
first
time
we're
hearing
of
that
decibel.
We've
can
we've
engaged
with
our
consultants
on
this
numerous
times,
we've
been
dealing
with
this
matter
for
numerous
years
or
beyond.
That's
the
first
time,
I've
heard
a
reference
to
it.
I
understand
I'm,
not
a
noise
expert,
but
from
what
I've
learned
the
a
decibel
is
what
you
it's
adjusted
for
human
hearing.
It's
measuring
what
the
human
ear
would
here
see
is
the
what
I
described
as
the
base
or
structure-borne
sound.
So
that's
what
you're
feeling
Zed
I
have
no
idea
what
that
is.
M
M
H
Sure
we'll
take
a
look
at
it
closely.
I
spoke
with
max
after
his
deputation
I.
Just
want
to
reiterate.
Mark
said
that
there
were
five
different
acoustical
engineers
involved
in
this,
so
we'll
we'll
check
with
our
experts
on
that
and
how
Zed
could
be
incorporated
if
it
can
and
I
just
want
to
go
back
a
little
bit
to
the
response
times
again.
H
M
I
M
The
first
I've
heard
of
that
that's
good
to
know
yes,
Motor
Vehicles,
with
respect
to
the
baffles
being
removed
from
motorcycles,
and
you
have
the
aftermarket
performance
and
how
it
impacts
the
local
community.
Would
it
not
be
easier
for
us
to
simply
request
who,
which
order
order?
Government
is
responsible
to
not
allow
from
aftermarket
modifications
which
includes
the
removal
of
baffle,
which
is
generated
which,
whose
sole
purpose
is
to
generate
as
much
noise
as
possible,
rather
than
trying
to
figure
out
when
to
measure.
M
H
T
T
D
O
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
The
first
question:
I'm
gonna
get
to
enforcement
eventually,
but
but
I
found
it
and
we
were
getting
a
lot
of
questions
from
residents,
because
the
way
that
the
recommendations
are
laid
out
is
is
just
a
bit
confusing.
If
it's
not,
if
you
just
read
the
bylaw,
if
you
just
read
the
the
articles
of
the
bylaw
gets
a
little,
it
sheds
a
little
bit
of
light
here,
one
though
that
I
was
still
I'm
kind
of
confused
about.
Is
this
the
definition
of
unreasonable
noise?
O
So
this
this
the
second,
the
second
part
of
the
definition
is
that
it
does
not
include
commonplace.
Housework
or
workplace
sounds
such
as
furniture
being
moved,
children
playing
or
people
engaging
in
conversation.
Now,
how
do
we
distinguish
that
from
from
from
unreasonable
noise
as
a
result
of
a
licensed
establishment
that
doesn't
that
it's
not
amplified
noise,
that
the
problem
could
be
it's
at
the
interaction
of
patrons
and
staff,
interaction
between
patrons
in
an
outdoor
space
that
gets
you
know,
alcohol
kinda
turns
up
the
decibel
point-by-point
by
by
four.
O
O
Through
the
chair,
I'll
take
a
stab
at
it.
It's
it's
an
interesting
point:
I
mean
the
concept
around
changing
the
that
what
we've
talked
about
is
the
general
provision
is
to
add
some
some
better
ability
to
enforce
it.
It
takes
a
little
bit
of
the
subjectivity
away
from
it
and
bring
into
an
unreasonable
and
continuous
noise
that
would
that
would
be
bothersome.
It
would
require
an
investigation
and-
and
not
all
cases
are
the
same.
O
Your
example
of
loud
groups
in
the
street,
for
example
after
they've,
been
drinking
again,
that's
a
noise
that
is
bothersome
to
people.
We
totally
understand
that
again
from
an
investigation
standpoint
for
a
noise
by
lied,
impossible
to
investment
possible
to
investigate
and
impossible
to
hold
a
group
of
60
people
responsible.
O
What
we
would
do
is
work
with
our
partners
with
AGCO
alcohol
and
Gaming
Commission
of
Ontario,
who
have
jurisdiction
over
licensed
premises,
have
conditions
that
relate
to
their
patrons
of
a
licensed
establishment,
working
with
them
on
conditions
on
the
licence
and
in
actions
that
they
could
take,
and
and
also
with
the
with
the
Toronto
Police
Service.
So
you'll
have
to
excuse
me:
I
have
absolutely
zero
faith.
O
The
AGCO
will
will
do
anything
to
support
our
efforts,
a
training
and
licenses
that
illusions,
after
years
of
trying
to
work
with
them
around
conditions
on
licensing,
and
they
continue
to
fail
us
on
this.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
councillor.
Cressie
heard
the
answer
to
that.
Last
that
last
question
the
on
the
notion
of
enforcement.
There
there
is
now
I
guess
there
was
before,
but
is
now
a
what's
being
proposed
there.
O
I
Through
the
chair,
so
currently
the
noise
by
law,
the
maximum
fine,
is
$5,000
into
the
Provincial
Offences
Act.
We
are
proposing,
under
the
City
of
Toronto
act
to
increase
the
maximum
find
amount
allowable
to
100
dollars.
So
when
the
courts
are
deciding
or
considering
the
fine
amount,
once
a
guilty
verdict
is
rendered
on
a
noise
violation,
they're
now
looking
at
a
larger
maximum,
so
they
realize
that
the
significance
in
the
ability
will
impose
a
higher
penalty.
Is
there
as
well
as
through
this
process?
I
I
Essentially
so
we
would
be
seeking
and
there's
a
maximum
I'll
allowed
under
that
process,
but
we'll
be
seeking
through
the
courts
to
have
that
set
fine
amount
increased
as
well
to
reflect
this
the
impact
of
this,
but
we
would
use
those
tickets
only
in
certain
instances
where
it's
a
homeowner
may
be
doing
something,
but
where
we
have
businesses
are
knowingly
and
willingly
violating
the
bylaw,
then
we
would
go
through
what
was
called
the
part
three
or
a
summons
to
court
process
were
the
set.
The
maximum
fine
amounts
are
then
in
I.
O
A
G
Thank
you
very
much
mr.
chair
and
I
like
to
preface
my
questions
were
thanking
staff
for
such
a
an
in-depth
report
and
the
amount
of
information
they've
put
in
here
and
the
time
that's
taken.
I
just
like
to
thank
them
for
that
so
like
to
start
off
my
questions,
I'm.
Actually,
one
of
the
one
of
our
first
accidents
made
mention
of
I
think
mr.
Smith
around
adequate
staffing,
and
my
first
question
is
what
what
has
been
municipal
licensing
and
standards
capacity
to
respond
to
issues
of
noise,
complaints
in
the
city
today.
H
So
I'll
start
and
let
my
colleagues
who
who
manage
the
enforcement
weigh
in
as
well.
We
have
staff
in
two
different
areas:
investigation
services
who
deal
with
noise
on
private
property,
and
then
we
have
bylaw
enforcement,
which
is
noise
related
to
bars
and
restaurants,
the
amplified
sound
pieces,
and
then
we
actually
have
a
third
piece
where
animal
services
on
dog
barking
etc.
So
we
have,
you
know,
you
know,
the
total
number
is
235
officers.
This
is
one
of
30-plus
bylaws
that
they
enforce.
We
are
looking
at
prioritizing.
G
H
It
doesn't
actually
change
we.
Over
the
last
five
years,
we've
had
11,000
complaints
per
year.
It
has
been
pretty
consistent.
What
we're
doing
is
again
trying
to
implement
a
priority
model
whereby
we're
getting
to
the
repeat
offenders,
the
ones
we
that
will
really
make
the
biggest
impact
on
the
community
and
going
less
to
the
one
odds
and
more
to
the
ones
that
are
repeat,
repeat
and
making
sure
we're
focused
on
those
and.
G
G
I
Through
the
chair
to
the
councilor,
some
of
this
change
in
the
numbers
was
because
of
the
manner
in
which
the
data
was
collected.
So
there
used
to
be
a
point
in
time
where,
if
multiple
people
phoned
in
to
complain
about
a
noise
issue,
it
would
be
only
captured
as
wine
and
had
that
corrected,
because
in
order
to
judge
the
impact
of
an
issue,
we
needed
to
know
how
many
people
were
calling
in.
So
now.
I
If
ten
people
call
in
to
complain
about
the
same
noise
issue,
it's
being
captured
ten
times
or
of
a
hundred
people,
because
we
need
some
time
we
found
that
we
were
missing.
For
instance,
we
were
getting
noise
complaints
about
the
Island
Airport
during
construction.
When
we
looked
our
records,
we
only
had
a
couple
of
complaints
when,
in
fact,
whereas
hundreds
of
people
calling
it
so
it
helps
to
ensure
that
when
we're
looking
at
an
issue,
we
know
the
magnitude
and
the
scope
of
the
impact
and.
H
On
our
honor
and
our
public
consultation
website,
we
typically
post
summaries
of
what
we
heard,
so
it
may
be
there
during
our
discussions.
We
did
have
this
looking
at
different
parts
of
the
city,
north
Etobicoke,
northeast
scarborough
versus
downtown,
and
whether
we
should
have
different
rules
for
different
parts
of
the
city,
because
ambient
levels
are
different.
In
the
end
we
did
not.
H
G
Mr.
chair
one
more
question
last
question:
yeah,
and
this
is
my
last
question:
there
are
three
you
two
staff.
So
what
is
the
difference
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
Toronto
Police
do
not
respond
to
noise
complaints,
and
if
that
is
accurate,
what
is
the
relationship
in
how
NLS
will
deal
with
planes
that
are
noise?
Complaints
are
quite
bothersome
to
a
community.
I
Through
the
charity
of
councillor,
so
yes,
part
of
the
trauma
police
transformation
exercise
that
was
been
going
on
as
it
was
identified
that
having
police
services
respond
to
a
noise
complaint
is
not
a
policing
matter
and
best
lies
with
MLS.
So
we've
been
working
with
them
and
implemented
this
last
year
that
any
noise
complaints.
If
anybody
called
Toronto
police,
they
would
be
directed
to
call
3-1-1.
I
So
that
frees
up,
please
resources
to
do
what
they
should
be
doing,
which
is
policing
matters
if
there's
an
activity
or
an
event
going
on
that
has
a
Public
Safety
impact,
whether
it
be
a
large
house
party,
I,
know
councillor.
You
called
me.
Last
year
there
was
a
large
party
in
a
park
that
was
unsanctioned
trauma.
Police
will
respond
to
those
because
that's
their
role
as
community
and
Public
Safety,
and
if
there's
a
noise
issue,
we
will
deal
with
the
impacts
of
the
noise
that
it's
having
and
who
are
the
creators
of
that
noise.
I
D
Thank
you
so
questions
around
the
general
prohibition.
So
previously
my
understanding
was,
we
didn't
have
the
new
decibel
limits
they
didn't
exist
before
there
was
this
general
prohibition
related
to
any
unreasonable
and
persistent
noise.
So
why
the
rationale
to
withdraw
that
general
prohibition
and
how
did
we
determine
the
decibel
limit?
That's
proposed.
H
So,
firstly,
it
wasn't
withdrawn,
it
was,
you
know,
we
kind
of
transfer
it
to
another
section
where
it's
called
unreasonable
and
repetitive
persistent,
not
repetitive,
persistent
the
decibel
levels.
So
again,
what
was
happening
was
anything
unlikely.
The
sturb
could
be
my
voice
right
now
and
that
was
really
subjective
and
we
felt
it
needed
to
be
more
objective,
so
we
put
it
in
the
other
category
and
then
we
created
the
decibel
levels,
which
I
believe
is
65
to
85.
I
I
Then
we
said
certain
other
types
of
noise.
We
regulate
construction
noise
by
hours
of
day
when
you
can
make
noise.
When
you
can't,
we
looked
at
that
and
when
we
looked
at
some
of
the
issues,
especially
on
the
amplified
sound,
we
would
get
complaints
about
noise,
but
it
wasn't
about
the
volume
or
the
intensity
of
the
noise.
It
was
about
the
type
of
sound
the
music
being
played,
so
we
wanted
to
take
that
subjectivity
out
of
the
equation
put
in
meaningful
and
reasonable
quantifiable
measures.
So
that's
why
we
adopted
the
noise.
I
D
So
your
proposal
to
to
bring
in
the
decibel
measures
so
to
take
the
subjectivity
out
but
to
allow
us
to
enforce
it
in
theory
around
and
insistently
enforce
it
so
talk
to
me
about
in
terms
of
the
decibel
noise,
how
we
distinguish
bass
because
as
a
downtown
councilor
it
is,
it
is
more
the
bass
than
the
music
itself.
So
how
do
we
take
into
account
that
bass?
We
talked
about
in
construction,
vibrations
and
I
know.
We
talked
about
that
here.
We
I
I,
do
not
know
the
difference
between
DBZ
and
DB.
Max
knows
all
that.
I
That's
what
the
DBC
level
measures
so
with
our
noise
meters
set
to
measure
DBC,
which
is
the
base
type
of
sound.
We
will
be
it.
We
have
established
the
parameter.
What
that
maximum
decibel
level
is,
which
is
you
know,
60
DBC
at
night
and
65
DBC
during
the
day?
So
if
we
get
a
complaint-
and
we
hear
with
our
own
ears
or
we
sense,
it's
a
base
level
or
we
would
measure
for
both
a
and
C
we'll
be
able
to
address
those
types
of
noise
sources.
D
Guess,
from
a
mixed-use
downtown
perspective,
where
we
place
what
you're
proposing
is
a
reasonable
cap
on
the
noise
transfer,
that's
allowed
by
virtue
of
a
decibel
limit.
The
enforcement
model.
I
mean
it's
not,
it
doesn't
work
right
and
I
think
like
calling
to
say
come
out
at
2
a.m.
and
every
Saturday
at
2
a.m.
and
then
you
have
to
what
stay
up
until
2
a.m.
to
let
a
mile
officer
into
your
house.
So
in
other
sectors
we
have
automated
enforcement.
We
look
at
with
cameras
and
others,
and
we
talk
about
why?
Who
is
there?
D
Is
there
why
no
opportunity
in
high
problematic
areas
where
we
know
we
get
a
consistency
of
complaints
to
not
have
a
model
of
automated
enforcement,
as
opposed
to
the
expectation
of
having
a
bylaw
officer
come
out
at
3
a.m.
because
we
frequently
hear
the
party
boats
during
four
months
of
the
year
at
that
time?
On
that
day,
last.
I
Question
so
in
regards
to
that,
you
know,
there's
a
couple
of
different
aspects
that
go
into
investigating
a
noise
complaint.
So,
first
of
all,
we
have
to
identify
if
it
exceeds
the
permitted
levels
or
outside
the
hours
permitted,
but
then
we
have
to
be
able
to
articulate
when
if
we
get
into
court
and
the
source
of
it.
So
if
we
have
a
multitude
of
possible
sources,
we
have
to
be
able
to
try
and
articulate
and
distinguish
why
we
believe
this
was
the
source
of
that
music.
That's
being
heard
for,
and
so
it's
not
just
week.
I
It's
I,
don't
believe
is
something
that
we
can
automate
in
that
regard,
because
it
will
require
other
investigative
techniques.
Measuring
noise
level
is
just
one
but
then
identifying
and
being
able
to
say
based
upon
this
evidence.
This
is
the
the
establishment
that
was
creating
that
noise
or
that
music.
A
P
M
You
so
much
mr.
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
quick
recovery
everyone
I
want
to
I
want
to
thank
the
deputies
for
taking
the
time
energy
and
also
bringing
your
talents
and
also
sharing
your
feedback.
I
know
for
many
of
you.
This
has
been
a
very
long
and
arduous
journey.
You
have
been
extremely
patient
members
from
the
community
members
from
the
different
industries
that
are
represented
today
and
I
think
that
our
journey
is
almost
coming
to
a
conclusion.
M
This
has
been
for
me
personally.
Almost
a
six
and
a
half
your
journey
I.
Don't
think
that
we
should
delay
too
much
longer.
I
do
think
that
it's
important
for
us
to
perhaps
work
together
and
I.
Don't
know
councillor
Krusty
is
feeling
the
same
way
is
to
properly
do
more
work
between
now
and
the
time
Council
meets
to
make
a
final
decision
to
make
sure
that
every
last
comment
that
was
brought
out
today
is
gonna.
M
Give
is
going
to
be
given
a
bit
more
consideration,
whether
it's
dialog
with
the
stakeholders,
one
more
time
or
perhaps
just
reviewing
the
correspondence
and
the
deputations
that
were
received
today
and
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
everyone.
Who's
been
involved
with
this
process
I
recognize
that
noise,
especially
as
a
downtown
resident
I,
have
lived
with
noise
and
ambient
noise.
M
All
my
life
I've,
never
not
lived
in
the
downtown
to
be
quite
honest
and
and
I
and
I
also
recognize
that
the
the
level
and
the
volume
over
the
years
has
significantly
risen
and
the
construction
impacts
layered.
On
top
of
that,
with
the
volume
of
human
activity
and
then
in
the
mixed
use
environment
that
we
want
to
foster
in
the
core
and
beyond,
as
we've
moved
to
a
higher
densification
area,
it
is
going
to
create
conflicts,
but
the
tools
that
we've
had
so
far
have
been
woefully
inadequate
and
I.
M
Think
that
if
I'm,
correct
I
think
that's
what
staff
are
trying
to
do
here,
give
yourselves
the
empowerment
tool.
So
you
can
go
off
and
do
some
active
and
perhaps
reactive
enforcement
asking
community
members
as
I
have
and
I
know.
Every
single
councillor
has
has
has
had
this.
A
very
embarrassing
moment
is
to
ask
people
to
keep
a
noise
log.
M
Tell
us
when
it's
taking
place,
it's
it's
it's
20th
century
and
then
not
being
able
to
enforce
it,
because
the
fines
are
just
so
modest
that
developers
and
other
large
contractors
just
factored
into
the
cost
of
doing
business
is
another
loophole
that
we
have
not
been
able
to
close.
So
I
do
want
to
thank
staff
for
this.
M
This
body
of
work
and
I
think
it's
critically
important
that
we
do
land
on
it
sometime
between
now
and
and
the
time
of
counsel,
I,
don't
think
it's
ever
going
to
be
entirely
perfect,
but
I
am
largely
satisfied
that
we're
getting
to
where
we
need
to
go.
One
final
push
I'm
gonna,
ask
you
for
your
final
bit
of
patience
from
the
community.
Thank
you
for
all
that
you've
done,
I
think
we're
almost
there.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
D
While
an
update
to
the
noise
bylaw
is
long
overdue,
we
need
to
get
it
right
and
so
between
now
and
council,
I
think
it
is
incumbent
on
us
to
roll
up
our
sleeves
to
work
with
the
stakeholders,
based
on
what
we've
seen
here
today
to
ensure
that
we
do
tweak
this
where
necessary,
to
get
it
right.
Noise
is
a
quality
of
life
issue,
as
it
is
also
a
public
health
issue,
and
it
is,
as
we've
heard
exceptionally
complex,
construction,
nightlife
vehicles,
leaf
blowers
and
air
conditioners
dogs.
D
I
mean
everything
and
and
I
approach
this
from
a
citywide
perspective,
but
critically
as
one
of
the
three
downtown
councillors
from
a
downtown
perspective,
which
is,
we
have
developed
a
mixed-use
downtown
core,
which
means
that
it
is
not
a
24/7
entertainment
district,
but
nor
is
it
a
Sleepy
Hollow
and
so,
while
downtown
is
not
devoid
of
sound,
the
expectation
cannot
be
unreasonable
disturbance,
and
so
it
is
finding
that
balance.
Now.
I
can
tell
you,
in
my
personal
experience,
that
the
existing
system
does
not
work
and
I
can
tell
you.
D
I
live
downtown
that
every
Friday
and
Saturday
night
between
1:00
a.m.
and
4:00
a.m.
I
am
woken
up.
Every
Friday
and
Saturday
night
at
minimum
four
times.
Councillor
Leighton,
who
is
my
local
councillor,
knows
all
about
this
because,
as
a
constituent
I
female
does
office
because
of
three
local
establishments
and
I
have
filled
out
more
noise.
D
on
a
Saturday
night
to
identify
the
source
and
to
start
it's
not
gonna
work
and
to
my
concern
here,
I
have
to
tell
you
is
on
the
monitoring
in
the
enforcement,
and
so
I
want
to
look
two
ways
to
strengthen
that
both
from
my
personal
experience,
but
also
from
that
which
I've
heard
from
my
constituents
and
so
I
will
just
say
that
in
the
path
of
head,
we
need
a
new
noise
bylaw.
Nobody
wants
to
be.
You
know
a
year
from
now
still
kicking
around
on
this
residents
deserve
it.
D
Our
stakeholders
in
the
business
community
to
serve
deserve
it,
but
I
think
between
now
and
council.
Let
us
roll
up
our
sleeves
and
get
over
the
finish
line
together
and
as
much
as
I
am
surprised
when
I
joined
the
Community
Economic
Development
Committee,
that
this
was
also
the
licensing
committee.
Given
the
given
I'm
not
kidding,
I
was
like,
given
the
CRO
everything
at
us,
throw
everything
out
of
schematic
even
coming
back
to
the
fact
that
sound
is
a
quality
of
life
issue.
It's
a
public
health
issue
and
it
is
also
an
economic
issue.
D
A
G
G
G
Needless
to
say,
I
look
I,
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
the
work
that
they
have
done
with
on
this,
and
even
though
I've
only
been
on
counts
for
about
three
years
now,
understanding
the
context
of
what
we're
looking
at
has
gone
back
a
number
of
years.
I
want
to
thank
them
for
such
a
such
a
report.
I
think
they've
done
some
great
work
and
I
think
also
our
staffs
commitment
to
consulting
the
public
I
know
across
our
city
goes
very
much
noticed
here
and,
and
I've
done
really
good
work
as
much
as
I.
G
You
know
making
me
jokes
about
downtown
versus
Sleepy
Hollow
Etobicoke.
We,
you
know,
we've
had
a
number
of
issues
as
well
in
North
Dakota.
Go
that
mr.
Ragan
knows
very
well
of
my
calls
on
a
couple
of
things
so
and
I'm
and
I'm
pretty
confident
that
the
report
in
front
of
us
and
and
the
changes
to
the
noise
bylaw
will
satisfy
some
of
those
concerns.
I
have
seen,
but
one
of
the
things
I
have
heard
a
lot
from
the
decadents
who
have
come
up,
and
they
have
made
some
very
very
valid
points
on
this.
G
That
I
think
should
be
looked
at
before
Council,
so
Mike
and
I
unlap
salutely
be
supporting
councilor
crises
motion
as
well
as
also
doing
some
work
in
regards
to
the
res
con
deputation,
which
I
also
take
much
weight
to.
So
looking
at
a
few
things,
as
we
approach
council
would
be
very
important,
so
I
will
be
supporting
this
moving
forward
the
council
and
look
forward
to
continuing
that
dialogue.
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
thank.
B
Just
quickly
I
feel
sometimes
like
I'm
sort
of
in
between
downtown
and
and
and
suburbs,
because,
if
I
look
over
the
course
of
the
amount
of
time,
I've
served
one
area
it
used
to
be,
if
you
know,
if
somebody
wanted
to
expand
on
the
the
hours
for
construction,
I
would
think.
Oh
we're
gonna
have
to
warn
that
subdivision
across
the
street,
whereas
now
sometimes
that
application
comes,
can
we
work
all
night
for
four
days
because
we're
at
that
juncture
in
a
construction
site
and
I
realize
there
are
now
15,000
people
to
notify?
Rounded?
B
It's
not
just
that.
So
you
just
have
to
you
end
up
having
to
make
a
unilateral
decision,
but
I
have
to
say
this
I
see
the
need
for
the
noise
bylaw,
because
I've
had
those
experiences
recently.
Now
that
we
have
a
dense
community,
they
are
gonna,
have
to
strike
a
balance
downtown
and
while
we're
asking
for
this
sort,
I
call
them
11th
hour
meetings.
B
When
we
say,
let's
have
one
more
meeting
before
Council
I,
don't
expect
that
meeting
to
result
in
a
change
for
every
single
person,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
are,
we
do
have
a
music
strategy.
We
and
we
have
a
music
Advisory
Committee.
That
tells
us
we're
losing
venues.
So
you
know
not
everybody's
going
to
be
completely
satisfied
in
that
that
regard.
B
B
So
that's
going
to
be
the
delicate
balance
that
they're
going
to
they've
tried
to
make
and-
and
there
may
be
one
or
two
tweaks
they
can
do,
but
we're
not
going
to
at
the
eleventh
hour
I
hope
see
radical
change
because
we
we
really
do
have
to
keep
those
directives.
We
and
there
are
a
lot
more
transit
sites
to
be
built,
and
we
will
have
to
make
our
way
through
those.
But
I
have
to
say
even
before
making
this
change
with
the
235
officers.
B
I
think
it
was
Carlton
said
where
we
know
something
is
coming
where
I
have
an
annual
event,
and
it's
been
a
noise
problem.
I
have
had
great
attention
when,
when
it's
something
where
we
can
be
proactive
and
we
could
sit
down
and
work
out
solution
with
the
stakeholder,
we've
had
great
attention
from
our
staff.
B
A
You
very
much
councillor,
Carroll
I
will
just
add
my
voice
to
this
issue.
First
and
foremost,
I
want
to
thank,
certainly
the
members
of
the
public
who
are
here
with
us
today
and
I
know
that
there's
been
many
as
we've
heard,
public
meetings
and
discussions
I
recall
a
meeting
that
I
attended
at
Metro,
Hall
and
I
think
Spencer
may
have
been
in
that
meeting.
A
It
was
a
very
large
room
and
it
was
a
heated
heated
discussion
and
debate
about
noise,
bylaw
and
the
changes
and
so
on,
and
what
we've
had
here
today
is
a
proposed
amendment
to
the
bylaw
and
we've
had
civility,
which
is
really
extremely
important.
Obviously,
as
part
of
the
process,
we've
heard
your
presentations
members
of
the
public
and
those
who
are
industry,
we've
heard
and
we
take
it
all
very
seriously.
A
The
motion
that
has
been
presented
by
councillor
Cressy
is
seeking
to
try
to
create
some
refinement
as
it
got
them
as
a
spanner
goes
to
council
and
I.
Think
you
all
understand
that
this
is
not
the
end
office.
This
will
continue
to
be
refined
and
so
on.
I've,
looked
at
my
review
of
the
New
York
City
bylaw
that
I
haven't
particularly
document
here
and
I've.
Looked
at
other
places.
A
This
has
been
a
very
difficult
process
for
the
most
part.
It
has
now
come
to
a
point
where
I
think
we
can
see
the
headways
in
terms
of
coming
to
resolution
that
will
help
us
and
continue
to
help
us
to
refine
the
process.
As
we
deal
with
this
particular
matter.
I
think
and
I
again
want
to
stress
the
fact.
On
the
public
I've
made
note,
staff
have
made
notes
that
we're
listening
to
you.
We
care.
We
heard
what
you
have
stated.
A
We
want
to
address
this
I
lived
at
Harbourfront,
for
example,
the
gentleman
that
came
and
talked
about
the
party
boats
I,
was
on
the
fifth
floor
at
77,
99,
Queen,
ski
and
or
Harvard
Square,
and
in
fact
there
were
nights
when
it
was
absolutely
terrible
and
I
couldn't
call
my
city
councilor
at
that
time.
I
wasn't
a
member
of
council
at
that
point.
A
I
couldn't
call
the
bylaw
enforcement
and
we're
not
going
to
call
the
police
because
they
were
not
going
to
come
because
they
had
more
important
things
to
do,
and
so
we
are
mindful
of
that.
There
are
other
elements
and
and
the
noise
that
the
lady
spoke
about
in
terms
of
the
air-conditioning
noise
and
so
on.
We
are
mindful
of
that
as
well,
and
I
know
that
much
of
the
regulations
come
from
the
province
in
terms
of
that
regulation
as
such,
and
so
this
is
something
that's
important.
A
A
This
I
think
the
final
point
I
wanted
to
make
it's
around
enforcement.
That
will
be
the
critical
piece
because
we
can
have
all
the
rules
and
regulations
and
bylaws
in
effect,
unless
we
actually
are
focusing
on
in
its
enforcement.
That
is
not
going
to
help
us
unless
we
do
that-
and
you
know
this
notion
that
we
want
people
to
keep
a
noise
log.
I
can't
tell
you
how
many
times
I've
had
to
hold
my
head
down
and
sort
of
talk
to
residents
about
this
noise
log
that
they
thought
were
so
inefficient,
so
problematic
for
them.
A
In
fact,
they
would
just
say
I
throw
my
hands
up.
I
won't
be
bothered
with
it
and
so
on,
so
it.
This
is
not
a
perfect
situation
in
terms
of
what
the
outcome
is,
but
I
think
it
balances
the
interest
as
best
as
we
can
at
this
time,
and
it's
a
work
in
progress
all
right.
So
members
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
recorded
vote
on
this
particular
matter.
There
are
four
of
us
left,
so
madam
clerk.