►
From YouTube: Planning and Growth Management Committee - October 12, 2017 - Part 1 of 2 - Morning Session
Description
Planning and Growth Management Committee, meeting 23, October 12, 2017 - Part 1 of 2 - Morning Session
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=11891
Part 2 of 2 - Afternoon Session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KDlFxwk3PE#t=8m41s
Meeting Navigation:
0:05:46 - Call to order
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Are
there
any
declarations
of
interest
under
the
municipal
conflict
of
interest?
Act
I,
don't
see
any
confirmation
of
the
minutes
from
September
7
moved
by
Councillor
perks,
all
those
in
favor
opposed,
that's
carried.
You
have
a
speaker's
list
and
some
communications
in
front
of
us
and
it's
great
to
see
that
we
have
a
quorum
today.
I
appreciate
that
from
all
the
members
at
our
presence.
Let's
look
at
the
agenda
that
we
have
over
here
and
go
through
it
item.
23
point
1,
City,
Planning,
Division
study
work
ground
update.
A
B
C
A
A
A
A
And
if
anyone
still
wishes
to
speak,
let
me
know
otherwise
we
can
hold
the
deputations
until
we
come
back
with
that
item
23.4.
It's
also
time
for
ten
o'clock
you're
way.
Avenue
23.5
is
time
for
10
o'clock.
Every
specific
amendment
to
the
signed
by
law
for
153
different
streets,
PG,
23.6,
Portland
planning
initiative
final
report.
There
were
speakers
on
that.
A
A
Eg
23.8
official
plan
indicators.
There
are
speakers
on
that,
so
we're
holding
that
as
well.
Pg
23.9
Toronto
green
standards
review
an
update.
There
are
speakers
on
that,
so
we're
holding
that
PG
23
point
10
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
in
the
building
sector.
There
are
speakers
for
that,
so
those
items
are
held.
There's
an
additional
item,
councillor
perk,
which
you
wanted
to
add
to
the
agenda.
Yes,.
D
A
A
A
E
E
B
E
H
G
A
D
B
D
Most
of
what
I
was
gonna
say
was
covered
by
the
very
incisive
and
intelligent
questions
of
staff,
but
just
quickly,
as
you
all
know,
we
have
a
rental,
reticular
rental
protection
by
law.
That
says:
if
someone
comes
along
and
wants
to
demolish
or
rebuild
or
reconfigure
and
a
property
that
has
six
or
more
dwelling
units,
there
are
certain
obligations
on
the
owner
in
terms
of
either
compensating
the
tenants
or
finding
them
alternative
housing
or
allowing
them
right
of
return.
D
So
in
Parkdale
we
estimate
we
have
about
a
thousand
people
who
are
in
legal
dwelling
rooms
and
within
the
next
decade
we're
gonna
lose
half
of
those
units,
half
of
them
with
no
protection
at
all
and
there's
no
compensatory
housing
being
built
for
that
population.
It's
often
the
most
marginal
lowest
income
population
in
the
city.
Well,
I
appreciate
there
are
gonna,
be
issues
about
legal
ones
and
not
legal
ones,
and
so
on
and
various
parts
of
the
city.
D
A
I'll
speak
briefly.
Councillor
perks
brought
this
to
my
attention
at
Council,
where
he
was
gonna,
bring
a
notice
of
motion
and
we
discussed
it
and
thought
it
best
to
bring
it
to
committee
the
appropriate
route
I
in
full
support
and
understand
the
issues
which
he's
brought
for
us.
I,
don't
have
to
repeat
them,
but
I.
Think
I
have
to
do.
A
So
it's
a
little
more
difficult
than
just
what
it
seems
in
the
surface
and
protected,
because
we
don't
want
to
protect
something
that
is
really
an
irritant
in
the
community
and
as
there
illegally
I
support
fully
looking
at
it.
I
think
we
just
have
to
remember
different
spots
of
the
city.
Are
different
and
when
you
come
back,
we
have
to
remember
that
in
the
way
that
you
report
out
to
be
able
to
protect
what's
right
or
currently
permitted
in
each
of
those
areas.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Don't
know
if
we
dealt
will
be
making
recommendations
before
we
deal
with
the
signs
and
the
other
end.
Okay,
then,
thank
you
start
like
I
start
with
the
presentations.
We
have
some
speakers
and
then
we
can
go
to
the
timed
items
and
try
and
work
through
those.
If
that's
okay
with
members
of
the
committee,
so
who's
doing,
the
presentation,
9
and
10.
A
A
I
So
I
believe
that
clerks
gonna
load
the
presentation,
but
I'll
start
the
presentation.
So
just
first
of
all,
this
is
a
three
part
presentation
and
what
the
presentation
does
it
illustrates
how
the
two
reports
that
are
in
front
of
you
support
the
city's
overall
initiative
to
achieve
the
goals
of
transform
geo
that
that
initiative
was
recently
adopted
by
council.
I
believe
you
nanos
unanimously
in
the
last
few
months-
and
I
mark
isn't
here
from
transform
teo,
but
I
will
speak
to
his
slide.
I
So
this
part
of
the
slide
is
to
provide
you
with
a
bit
of
context
of
how
these
two
staff
reports
help
to
move
Toronto's
towards
its
climate
change
goals.
Just
as
a
reminder,
in
July
of
this
year,
City
Council
unanimously
adopted
the
transform
tÃo
climate
action
for
equitable,
healthy
and
prosperous
Toronto
report
and
within
the
cut
and
that's
within
the
context
of
today's
discussion
that
I'd
like
to
highlight
the
following.
I
So
over
50%
of
Toronto's
carbon
emissions
are
associated
with
the
heating
lighting
and
cooling
of
buildings,
recognizing
that
this
transform
tio
sets
a
series
of
world-leading
goals
and
targets.
100
percent
of
new
buildings
by
the
year
2030
need
to
be
built
to
Net
Zero
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
The
Toronto
green
standard
is
one
of
the
key
goal:
key
tools
available
to
the
city.
To
achieve
this
goal,
100
%
of
existing
buildings
must
be
retrofitted
retrofitted
to
the
highest
emissions
reductions
possible.
I
The
recommendations
being
made
about
the
revisions
to
the
Ontario
Building
Code
also
support
the
achievement
of
that
goal.
Showing
leadership
all
new
city-owned
buildings
by
2026
must
be
near
zero
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
To
that
end,
we
are
already
working
towards
a
design
for
a
three
new
city-owned
buildings
to
be
Net
Zero.
In
addition
to
helping
achieve
these
goals.
J
To
give
you
a
brief
overview
of
the
Toronto
green
standard
report,
that's
before
you,
basically
Toronto
green
standard
has
been
required
since
2010.
It's
a
set
of
a
two-tier
set
of
environmental
performance
measures
to
address
the
environmental
concerns
of
the
City
of
Toronto,
and
you
can
see
those
in
the
icons
at
the
top
of
the
page.
To
date,
we've
processed
1300
development
applications
through
the
Toronto
green
standard
and
we've
also
certified
twenty
tier
two
buildings
and
that's
our
highest
performance
standard
that
is
incentive
through
the
development
charge
refund
program.
J
We
have
another
40
that
are
enrolled
and
another
70
that
are
interested
really,
if
you
think
about
it,
that
Toronto
green
Senate
has
been
a
market
transformation
tool
and
its
influence,
the
Ontario
Building
Code
to
have
higher
energy
efficiency
standards.
So
it's
proven
that,
yes,
you
can
build
better
buildings
at
a
higher
performance.
The
standard
was
developed
and
the
implementation
of
it
is
very
much
involved
with
our
partner
divisions,
which
include
environment
and
energy,
Toronto,
water
parks,
forestry
and
recreation,
transportation,
services
and
solid
waste.
J
So
when
we
were
last
here
in
2013,
Council
asked
us
to
investigate
energy
standards
as
a
global
best
practice.
What's
out
there
what's
the
best,
and
we
did
that
and
the
next
study
that
we
did
was
a
zero
emissions
buildings
framework,
and
that
is
how
can
we
meet
our
goals
for
2050
in
terms
of
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
and
how
can
we
meet
the
targets
set
out
and
transform?
TÃo
would
just
have
a
hundred
percent
of
our
buildings
to
be
near
zero
in
2030.
J
So
what
we
did
was
the
major
recommendation
was
a
shift
from
how
we
look
at
energy,
so,
instead
of
modeling
against
a
reference
building,
the
shift
is
to
set
per
for
energy.
Absolute
energy
performance
targets
and
those
targets
are
thermal
demand
intensity,
which
is
looking
at
the
pet.
How
you
can
have
passive
design
the
envelope,
the
orientation
of
a
building
then
looking
at
total
energy
use,
which
is
everything
to
do
with
energy,
including
plug
loads,
and
then
also
setting
a
target
for
our
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
J
So
the
big
change
in
the
Toronto
green
standard
is
we
have
four
tiers.
So
this
is
our
pathway
to
get
to
our
target
of
near
zero
emissions
by
2030.
So
what
that
means
is
the
proposed
tier
2
in
front
of
you
today
would
become
Tier
one
and
in
2022
and
in
2036
tier
three
would
become
Tier
one
and
in
in
2030
tier
four
would
become
to
your
one
so
that
that's
is
consistent
with
emerging
provincial
national
codes,
so
other
changes
for
Tier
one
we
do
require,
and
this
is
the
way
we've
always
processes.
J
So
Tier
one
takes
a
higher
step.
The
energy
model
must
be
submitted.
That
indicates
a
15%
improvement
over
the
current
2017
Building
Code
or
you
have
the
option
to
apply
the
absolute
performance
measures,
and
this
is
also
the
way
we
do
things
as
we
introduce
a
new,
regular
and
new
a
requirement
in
a
voluntary
ways,
so
that
people
have
time
to
adjust
and
get
used
to
it
in
terms
of
tier
2.
Tier
2.
Applicants
are
required
to
meet
the
absolute
performance
targets.
J
We
also,
we
have
three
standards
this
time
round,
so
we
have
all
buildings
and
all
other
buildings,
and
then
we
have
mid
to
high
res
residential.
We
have
a
low-rise
standard
because
is
a
different
building
type
and
then
we've
consolidated
our
requirements
for
our
own
buildings
into
one
standard,
and
if
you
recall
in
spring
this
past
year
this
year,
sorry
in
2017
Council
did
direct
that
all
of
our
own
buildings
meet
the
tier
2
standard.
J
So
this
consolidates
that
here
and
it
does
introduce
a
few
additional
things,
such
as
bike
parking
and
having
green
roofs
that
are
pollinator
friendly
to
the
requirements
for
our
own
buildings.
It
also,
we
will
be
working
with
the
chief
corporate
officer
to
develop
a
absolute
energy
performance
targets
for
our
own
city,
buildings.
I
Ok,
I'm
going
to
conclude
the
presentation
break,
providing
you
with
an
overview
of
the
provinces
code,
consultation
process
on
the
next
edition
of
the
code.
What
this
presentation
will
show
you
is
how
the
next
edition
of
the
OBC
is
well
aligned
with
the
city's
goals
of
reducing
greenhouse
gases
in
the
building
sector.
The
results
of
this
code
consultation
also
demonstrate
how
the
city's
been
successful
in
influencing
the
province
in
recognizing
the
needs
of
the
city
and
developing
the
next
edition
of
the
code.
I
So
looking
at
the
code
development
process
in
Canada,
this
slide
just
illustrates
what
the
overall
code
development
process
looks
like
in
the
country
and
how
tronto
participates
and
fits
into
that
overall
scheme.
So,
first
of
all,
national
model
codes
at
the
national
level
are
developed
and
those
become
the
base
building
codes
that
are
used
across
the
country
and
until
a
province
adopts
that
code,
that
it
doesn't
become
law
and
what
generally
happens
the
provinces
either
adopt
the
National
Building
Code
as
their
code
or
they'll
adopt
parts
of
it.
I
In
the
case
of
Ontario,
Ontario
uses
the
National
Building
Code
as
its
base
code
and
enter
Jax
into
that
code.
The
unique
the
requirements
that
they
that
Ontario
feel
are
unique
to
Ontario
them
that
they
need
to
advance
any
goals.
That
Ontario
has
the
current
code
that
we're
using
today
in
Ontario
is
the
2012
code,
which
became
effective
in
2014,
and
so
looking
at
this
slide
off
to
the
right
back
in
June
of
2016.
I
I
All
of
this
over
to
the
far
right
and
right
end
of
the
arrow
all
aligns
with
the
products
of
the
provinces
goal
under
the
Klein
action
plan
is
to
have
buildings,
NetZero
greenhouse
gas
emission
ret
near
zero
greenhouse
gas
emission
buildings
by
2030,
and
that
goal
aligns
very
well
with
the
city's
goals.
With
respect
to
Toronto
greens,
the
Toronto
green
standard
and
transform
tio.
I
So,
just
talking
a
bit
about
how
we
proceeded
with
consultation
process,
Toronto
Building
took
the
lead
and
leading
the
consultation
on
the
2018
code,
and
we
did
that
by
put
coordinating
or
an
inter
divisional
group,
with
representation
across
the
city,
to
review
all
of
the
changes
that
are
proposed
for
the
2018
code.
The
conclusion
on
that
was
that
the
changes
that
are
proposed
for
the
2018
code
all
work
well
to
advance
the
city's
goals
of
minimizing
the
environmental
impacts
of
buildings
buildings.
I
Next
slide
and
our
recommendations
that
we
have
in
front
of
you
there's
three
key
recommendations
and
the
first
recommendation
is:
we
want
to
request
or
we're
asking
for
council
to
request
that
the
province
continue
on
with
the
framework
that
they've
set
up,
and
this
is
a
framework
that
allows
municipalities
to
adopt
higher
levels
of
energy
efficiency
requirements
in
advance
or
that
are
set
in
the
base
code.
So
we're
a
municipality
of
Ontario.
I
A
municipality
can
only
adopt
and
require
energy
efficiency
requirements
that
are
set
in
the
code
and
what
we
had
asked
the
province
to
do
is
where
a
municipality
like
Toronto
is
in
a
higher
state
of
readiness.
Give
us
the
ability
to
adopt
higher
energy
efficiency
requirements
ahead
of
what's
in
the
base
code,
and
so
the
good
news
here
is
the
province
did
listen
to
that
and
they've
set
the
framework
in
place
in
the
building
code.
I
That
allows
us
to
do
that
and
what
we're
asking
the
province
to
do
is
to
populate
that
list
of
energy
efficiency
requirements
that
municipalities
can
adopt
when
were
in
a
further
state
of
readiness.
Our
second
recommendation
is
around
the
provinces.
Setting
requirements
for
existing
buildings
and
we
feel
that
this
is
a
good.
I
We
also
are
asking
that
the
province
when
they're
moving
those
requirements
forward,
that
they
include
training
for
building
officials
as
well
as
builders,
so
they
understand
what
the
requirements
are
when
they
do
renovations
to
existing
buildings.
Our
third
recommendation
is
around
climate
change,
so
the
the
proposal-
that's
in
front
of
us
with
respect
to
the
2018
code,
addresses
some
requirements
to
make
buildings
more
resilient
to
extreme
weather
events.
I
A
D
On
that,
mr.
chair,
there
are
there's
at
least
one
deputy
and
I
know
it
was
part
of
the
conversation
I'm
having
with
stuff
and
I'd
appreciate.
If
we
could
finish
that
conversation
with
staff
before
we
go
to
deputy
interpretations,
it
has
to
do
with
a
tweak
for
the
green
standards
and
we're
working
through
whether
that
tweak
is
possible.
A
Well,
we
did
do
this
and
I
thought
it
would
be
nice
to
finish
this
item
first,
but
I
thought
we
could
do
the
deputies
in
case
they
raise
any
issues.
Then
questions
of
staff
and
then
deliberations
and
I
think
that
would
be
appropriate
to
do
and
if
they
raise
an
issue,
they'll
be
a
little
bit
of
time
here
to
deal
with
it.
So
I'd
like
to
go
to
the
deputies
on
PG
23.9.
A
And
then
after
Brian
Gabriella,
calicos,
calaboose
and
then
Emily
Alfred
and
then
we're
gonna
go
to
2310
as
well
for
Depp's,
which
will
be
Hamish
Wilson
Brian,
yeah
I
know
that
we've
been
here
before
the
rules
or
the
regulations
are
five
minutes.
Watch
the
clock.
Please
try
and
resolve
it
before
that.
If
we
have
questions
we'll
ask
some
of
you,
Thank.
C
You,
mr.
chairman
Thank
You
counselors,
my
name
is
Brian
frisselle
I'm,
the
director
of
policy
and
programs
at
the
atmospheric
Fund
and
so
I'm
here
to
talk
about
the
Toronto
green
standard,
which
is
one
of
Toronto's,
most
successful
climate
policies,
putting
Toronto
at
the
forefront
of
green
development
standards
across
North
America
and
it's
time
today
for
Toronto
to
take
the
next
step
forward
in
green
building
leadership
by
adopting
Toronto
green
standard
version.
C
Three,
so
the
atmospheric
fund
strongly
supports
Toronto
green
standard
version,
three,
which
will
put
Toronto
on
the
pathway
to
near
zero
emissions
in
new
construction.
We
also
support
the
three
core
recommendations
on
the
next
item.
Twenty
three
point:
ten.
With
regards
to
the
building
code,
we
partnered
with
City
Planning
on
a
two-year
research
and
consultation
project
supported
by
the
environment
and
energy
division,
Toronto
Building
and
as
a
stakeholder
advisory
group,
which
included
leading
architects,
engineers,
developers,
building
operators
and
the
province
of
Ontario.
C
The
result
was
the
zero
emissions
building
framework,
a
roadmap
that
lays
out
the
energy
and
greenhouse
gas
requirements
for
this
update
and
all
future
updates
through
to
2030
getting
emissions
from
new
construction
under
control
is
critical
to
achieving
Toronto's
2050
climate
target.
That's
why
one
of
the
key
council
approved
commitments
in
the
transform
tÃo
climate
plan
is
achieving
near
zero
emissions
in
all
new
buildings
by
2030.
Just
how
important
is
this
goal?
Well,
trans
population
is
projected
to
grow
by
well
over
thirty
five
percent
by
2050.
C
That
means
a
massive
build-out
of
residential
and
commercial
real
estate.
If
built
the
current
standards,
these
future
buildings
could
actually
consume
Toronto's
entire
twenty,
the
carbon
budget.
So
the
importance
of
the
2030
near
zero
target
was
confirmed
by
the
extensive
modeling
done
for
transform,
teo
and
simply
put
of
toronto
does
not
transition
to
near
zero
emissions
and
new
construction.
Any
progress
we
make
in
retrofitting
existing
buildings
will
be
offset
by
growth.
However,
an
ambitious
goals
of
little
value
without
a
plan.
The
zero
emissions
building
framework
is
a
transformative
strategy
for
achieving
the
2030
goal.
C
We
started
by
defining
what
near
zero
emissions
means
for
Toronto
and
we
then
worked
backward
to
create
interim
performance
targets
for
2026,
2022
and
2018.
This
resulted
in
four
tiers
tier
1
being
the
proposed
minimum
design
target
and
tier
2
3
and
4
voluntary
stretch
targets
with
a
financial
incentive
for
industry
leaders.
C
Then,
with
every
four
year
update,
we
eliminate
the
lowest
here
until
Tier
four
near
zero
is
the
minimum
standard
in
2030,
so
with
a
series
of
targets
in
a
clear
timetable
that
the
building's
industry
will
have
the
regulatory
certainty
that
it
needs
to
focus
on
optimizing.
The
technologies
and
design
approaches
to
cost
effectively
deliver
a
low-carbon
future
for
Toronto.
The
most
critical
change
proposed
is
the
transition
to
absolute
performance
targets.
The
tall
green
standard
energy
requirements
have
always
been
specified
as
a
percentage
better
than
building
code.
C
The
problem
is
that
percentage
above
code
is
almost
completely
uncorrelated
with
energy
use
or
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
which
are
the
things
we're
trying
to
reduce.
The
city's
energy
efficiency
office
has
demonstrated
this
by
analyzing
a
large
sample
of
models
that
we
received
under
the
katrana
green
standard,
and
their
findings
have
been
replicated
in
other
jurisdictions
across
Canada.
So,
as
a
result,
there's
a
growing
shift
towards
performance
targets,
including
most
recently
in
Vancouver
and
British
Columbia,
drawing
on
best
practices
from
around
the
world.
C
The
framework
uses
three
performance
metrics
that
address
Toronto's
core
objectives:
thermal
energy
demand,
intensity
targets,
ensure
high
performance
building
envelopes,
which
enhanced
resiliency
by
ensuring
buildings
will
remain
habitable
for
longer
during
power,
outages,
energy
use,
intensity
targets,
ensure
lower
energy
costs
for
owners
and
operators
and
residents
and
greenhouse
gas
intensity
targets,
create
a
carbon
budget
for
each
building,
ensuring
steady
progress
towards
near
zero
emissions.
The
shift
to
performance
targets
is
a
critical
step
on
the
pathway
to
near
zero
emissions.
To
ensure
the
proposed
targets
are
technically
and
economically
feasible.
C
The
project
team
ran
thousands
of
building
energy
simulations.
The
most
sensible
strategies
for
achieving
each
tier
were
then
evaluated
for
cost-effectiveness.
We
found
that
all
four
tiers
can
it
be
achieved
using
commercially
available
materials
and
technologies.
The
incremental
costs
in
construction
for
Tier
one
are
between
1/2
of
1%
and
2.3
percent
for
different
building
types.
This
cost
premium
is
well
under
1%
of
the
average
sale
value
of
new
condominium
units
closer
to
half
a
percent
or
lower,
and
buildings
will
benefit
from
lower
energy
costs,
resulting
in
net
lifecycle,
cost
savings.
C
New
buildings
will
be
part
of
our
city
for
the
next
century.
Building
them
efficiently
is
far
more
cost-effective
than
retrofitting
them
later.
Terron
green
standard
version
3
and
the
zero
emissions
building
framework
will
result
in
enhanced
resiliency,
lower
energy
costs
and
cumulative
emissions
reductions
of
over
30
megatons
by
2050.
As
estimated
through
transform
to
you.
A
C
A
K
Into
everyone
else,
for
your
time,
I
just
wanted
to
share
a
little
bit
of
the
clean-air
partnerships
input
on
the
green
standard
version
3.0.
The
clean-air
partnership
would
like
to
extend
its
strong
support
for
the
Toronto
green
standard
version.
3.0
clean
air
partnership
is
a
charitable
environmental
organization
that
works
with
municipalities
and
their
partners
to
advance
the
implementation
of
actions
that
lead
us
towards
low-carbon
resilient
communities.
K
We
also
serve
as
a
secretariat
for
the
clean
air
Council,
which
is
a
network
of
29
municipalities
and
health
units
across
the
Greater
Toronto
on
Hamilton
and
southwestern
Ontario
region,
working
together
on
clean
air
and
climate
change
initiatives.
For
over
five
years,
the
clean
air
council
has
been
working
on
furthering
the
adoption
of
municipal
green
development
standards
within
their
jurisdictions.
I
cannot
express
enough
how
instrumental
Toronto's
green
development
standard
has
been
in
enabling
this
work
with
other
municipalities
when
Toronto
came
out
with
a
version
version
1.0
of
the
green
development
standard
in
2010.
K
Its
adoption
was
instrumental
in
identifying
the
role
municipalities
play
in
advancing
more
sustainable
community
buildings.
Since
then,
the
CAC
has
been
working
to
advance
the
adoption
and
outcomes
achieved
via
communis
pull
green
development
standards,
and
it
has
made
a
difference.
Richmond
Hill,
Brampton
and
Halton
Hills
have
mandatory
green
development
standards
fallen
in
Mississauga
have
a
green
development
process
in
place
for
their
development
community
as
well.
There
is
a
critical
mass
of
about
5mm,
interés
dictions
that
are
in
the
process
of
developing
municipal
green
development
standards.
K
The
Clean
Air
Council
municipalities,
as
part
of
their
consultation
on
the
Ontario
Building
Code,
have
recommended
the
province
for
the
same
goal
that
has
been
identified
in
the
update
to
the
Toronto
green
standard
that
the
OBC
adopt
a
stepped
approach
towards
Net
Zero
buildings
by
2030,
identifying
tiers
of
performance
towards
moving
the
market
towards
that
growth.
It
is
important
to
keep
in
mind
that,
when
the
required
standards
that
are
part
of
the
under
Ontario
Building
Code
have
to
take
an
alert
and
extremely
large
geographical
area
into
consideration.
A
geographical
range
where
the
market
significantly
differs.
K
If
Minas
pallies
rely
solely
on
the
Ontario
Building
Code
to
move
their
market,
they
will
end
up
with
a
lot
more
buildings
within
their
community
that
only
needs
to
be
retrofitted
within
a
decade's
time
and
at
a
higher
cost
and
a
poorer
results
than
if
they
had
built
to
those
standards.
At
the
time
of
construction,
enabling
Ontario
municipalities
to
move
ahead
and
the
minimum
Ontario
Building
move
ahead
of
the
Ontario
Building
code
standards
will
benefit
their
own
residents
and
businesses,
as
well
as
the
entire
province
by
building
industry
industry
capability
at
a
smaller
scale.
K
Municipal
leadership,
however,
is
required
in
order
to
advance
the
market
and
be
able
to
protect
residents
and
businesses
from
energy
price
increases
in
extreme
weather
impacts.
There
is
no
doubt
that
there
is
an
affordability
issue
asserted
with
purchasing
real
estate
in
Toronto
and
across
the
GTHA
as
a
whole.
However,
this
only
reinforces
the
need
for
municipal
leadership
towards
ensuring
that
buildings
being
built
within
their
community
are
able
to
meet
both
the
short
and
longer-term
needs
of
their
occupancy.
K
The
upfront
capital
cost
increases
associated
with
better
building
envelopes
and
improved
water
waste
and
energy
bill
building
systems
are
paid
for
many
many
many
times
over.
The
life
of
that
building
through
operational
cost
savings,
and,
if
you'd
like
to
know
more
about
some
ideas
that
we
have
for
how
to
actually
deal
with
those
upfront,
capital
costs.
K
H
K
The
challenge
with
the
intera
Building
Code,
going
to
the
highest
level
that
can
possibly
go
to
is
a
result
of
the
fact
that
Ontario,
when
it
sets
its
Ontario
Building
Code,
has
to
take
this
huge
geographical
range
into
consideration
where
there's
a
very
different
capability
in
the
market.
It's
hard
to
compare
what's
available
in
terms
of
the
market,
acceleration
that
could
take
place
in
Toronto
as
opposed
to
North,
Bay
or
Timmins.
K
K
Think
that
I
think
I
think
Toronto
to
Torontonians
could
be
better
served
by
enabling
municipalities
to
go
above
there
above
the
ontario
building
code
within
a
jurisdiction
where
the
markets
able
to
handle
it
in
Toronto
is
certainly
able
to
handle
a
higher
bar
in
terms
of
market
capability
of
buildings,
better
buildings
than
the
Ontario
Ontario
as
a
whole.
Thank.
D
L
Good
morning,
my
name
is
Emily
Alfred
I'm,
the
waste
campaigner
for
the
Toronto
environmental
alliance,
so
I'm
here
to
say
first
that
tee
fully
supports
putana
green
standard
version.
Three.
We
think
that
this
is
a
great
way
for
Toronto
to
show
it's
moving
forward.
It
sets
of
great
ambitious
targets
for
improving
energy
efficiency
and
meeting
Toronto's
environmental
goals.
L
L
If
we
have
the
time
to
look
at
this
with
the
waste
portion
of
the
Toronto
green
standard,
we
feel
that
the
the
requirements
for
Tier
one
are
not
as
ambitious
and
don't
necessarily
match
the
ambition
of
the
other
sections
of
the
Toronto
green
standard
and
it
doesn't
necessarily
fit
with
the
Toronto's
long
term
waste
management
strategy,
which
was
passed
in
2016,
nor
the
direction
of
the
waste
free
Ontario
act
in
the
circular
economy
strategy,
which
was
also
passed
in
2016.
So
to
talk
about
waste,
it's
important
to
know
that
waste
is
actually
there's
growing
awareness.
L
That
waste
has
a
very
big
impact
on
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
Ontario
knows
that
this
is
a
very
addressing
waste
and
increasing
diversion
is
a
very
important
way
for
us
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions
at
the
provincial
level
and
at
the
city
level.
The
long
term
waste
strategy
set
out
sand
vicious
targets
to
reduce
waste,
not
only
in
buildings
that
the
city
has
direct
control
and
provides
waste
services
for,
but
for
the
entire
commercial
sector
and
to
address
construction
demolition
waste.
L
The
province
similarly
has
recognized
that
construction,
demolition,
waste
and
addressing
waste
diversion
in
commercial
buildings
and
non
residential
buildings
is
an
important
way
for
us
to
make
sure
we
meet
our
goals.
So
this
to
me
looks
like
a
really
good
opportunity
for
us
to
provide
more
guidance
for
buildings
to
reduce
their
waste.
Some
examples
are
requiring
that
all
buildings,
not
just
residential
buildings,
provide
space
for
recycling,
an
organics
diversion
and
provide
a
bit
of
flexible
space
for
future
diversion
programs.
L
One
thing
that
the
long-term
waste
strategy
noted
and
that
we've
heard
from
many
people
is
the
reason
a
lot
of
businesses
and
multi-religious.
Don't
have
better
waste
diversion
programs,
as
they
say
they
simply
just
don't
have
the
space
for
all
the
bins
so
being
forward
thinking
and
being
progressive
and
looking
into
the
future,
we
should
start
planning
for
more
diversion
space
in
all
buildings,
so
that
that
couldn't
be
an
excuse
that
would
slow
people
down
if
their
waste
diversion
programs.
L
We
also
know
that
the
province
over
the
next
four
years
is
going
to
be
introducing
a
great
number
of
waste
diversion
programs,
including
waste
recycling
requirements
for
textiles,
small
appliances
and
a
lot
more
hazardous
waste
and
different
materials,
including
requiring
all
businesses
to
start
collecting
organics.
So
this
is
an
important
thing
that
Toronto
can
get
ahead
of
and
make
sure
that
our
buildings
are
ready
for.
This
I
also
think
that
requiring
more
diversion
of
construction
demolition
waste
is
a
very
easy
low-hanging
fruit
that
this
green
standard
could
address.
L
Construction
demolition
waste
is
very
recyclable.
That
is
very
predictable
material
streams.
It
could
be
very
easily
diverted,
unfortunately,
with
low
enforcement
from
the
province
there's
actually
very
low
diversion
rates
among
construction,
demolition
projects,
construction
demolition
projects
over
a
certain
size
in
Ontario
are
already
required
to
develop
waste
management
plans
and
waste
diversion
plans
and
provide
source
separation
for
recycling
and
all
the
different
materials
on-site.
L
These
requirements
already
exist.
It's
not
a
big
leap,
I
think
to
require
that
these
sort
of
things
happen
in
tirana
buildings.
So
that's
my
quick
summary
sorry
I
just
looked
at
the
screen
centered
yesterday
and
saw
this
and
thought
this
is
a
good
opportunity
for
us
to
push
a
little
bit
further
ahead.
It's
a
real
opportunity
with
some
minor
changes.
I
think
it
could
really
keep
being
spirit
with
the
long
term,
waste
strategy
and
the
circular
economy
strategy,
since
those
are
very
important
goals.
Thank.
D
L
L
L
H
L
Hard
to
say,
because
there's
not
a
lot
of
clear
reporting
from
most
waste
information
in
Ontario
comes
from
municipalities
who
have
very
strict
reporting
requirements,
but
when
it
comes
to
the
private
sector,
there's
a
lot
less
clarity
and
a
lot
less
transparency.
So
there
is
a
high
level
of
recycling
that
may
be
happening,
but
it's
not
clear.
I
know
a
lot
of
sense
and.
H
L
Province
does
require,
but
they're
not
very
good,
at
enforcing
their
regulations
right
now,
they're
revising
them
as
part
of
their
circular
economy,
strategy
work
as
well,
but
they've
identified
that
construction
demolition.
Waste
is
an
area
that
you
know,
Ontario
and
Toronto
could
easily
solve,
but.
L
Material
for
large
sites
for
large
commercial
buildings,
large
institutional
industrial
buildings
and
for
large
construction
sites
over
2,000
meters
squared
they
are
required
to
show
that
they
have
a
source
separation
program,
but
there
are
some
loopholes
and
some
gaps
in
those
regulations
that
don't
necessarily
result
in
the
type
of
diversion
that
we're
looking
for
so
the
province
is
revising
those
regulations,
so
I
think
Toronto
has
an
opportunity
to
reinforce
those
regulations
and
ensure
that
applies
to
smaller
projects.
This
one.
L
A
A
M
A
N
The
aoa
is
a
regular
regulatory
body
created
by
the
province
and
to
regulate
the
practice
of
architecture
so
into
it
addition
to
all
the
bad
stuff
like
complaints
and
discipline,
and
that
we
also
are
tasked
with
promoting
the
art
and
science
of
architecture
for
the
good
of
the
public.
And
so
that's
why
we
do
things
like
this
and
we
to
be
clear.
We
are
very
supportive
of
the
toronto
green
building
standard
version
3
if
you
passed
it
as
is.
N
We
would
be
very
happy,
however,
in
context
we'd
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
energy
portion
and
the
and
highlight
the
fact
that
you're
going
to
energy
use
intensity,
which
is
a
really
really
important
step.
It's
a
little
bit
technical,
but,
for
example,
if
I
was
designing
a
residential
tower,
I
would
be
under
the
current
approach.
I
would
be
comparing
my
design
to
an
imaginary
design
that
has
all
the
same
flaws
as
my
design,
and
this
is
not
very
useful.
N
N
It's
far
simpler,
it's
far
easier
for
building
owners
to
understand,
and
not
only
that,
it's
aligned
with
the
way
that
the
city,
with
way
that
the
UN,
with
the
way
that
the
province
looks
at
reductions,
which
is
to
benchmark
what
buildings
are
using
today,
the
existing
buildings,
and
so
we
take
our
new
building
against
the
existing
buildings
and
we
slowly
get
better.
So
we
think
that
this
approach
is
very,
very
important
and
we
congratulate
the
developers
of
the
standard
for
moving
to
this
approach.
N
Just
take
out
that
compliance
path
and
the
second
recommendation
we
would
have
is
you
now
have
five
categories
of
buildings,
which
are
the
key
categories:
you'll,
probably
capture
70%,
of
the
construction
in
Toronto
with
those
categories.
But
but
we
would
expand
those
categories,
and
so
those
are
the
two
recommendations
we
would
have
for
making
it
better.
But
make
no
mistake
if
you
pass
it,
as
is,
we
will
think
it's
quite
a
significant
step
forward.
One
other
thing
that
we
would
like
to
note
is
that
we've
been
working
in
this
space
a
long
time.
N
We
actually
adopted
an
energy
use
intensity
standard
for
architects
about
ten
years
ago
and
we've
been
kind
of
forcing
it
on
them
the.
But
we
have
also
noted
that
there
is
a
bear
of
an
energy
literacy
gap
both
with
some
architects
engineers
and
regulators,
are
our
plans
examiner's
and
the
Buildings
Department,
and
so
working
we're
working
together.
N
We
have
a
project
right
now,
funded
by
IES,
so
that
we're
working
together
to
automate
some
of
the
checking
of
energy
models,
which
I
think
will
make
everything
much
easier
and
so
and
it's
kind
of
a
reflection
of
our
commitment
to
actually
getting
to
our
goals
and
to
making
sure
that
everybody
involved
in
the
system
has
the
best
possible
tools
they
can
to
get
there.
So,
in
closing,
just
congratulations.
Please
pass
this,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
listening
to
me.
Thank.
A
A
H
What
is
a
building
that
is
near
zero,
zero
emissions,
what
you
know,
what
is
a
building
that
has
near
zero
emissions,
I'd
like
to
know
what
it
would
not
what
not
what
it's
designed
as
but
I
mean
what
would
what
kind
of
performance
does
it
have?
What
are
the
performance
measures
that
were
that
we're
talking
about
through.
O
It's
a
it's
a
very
good
question.
A
near
zero
emissions
building
has
very
high
envelope
thermal
performance.
It
tends
to
have
a
lower
window
wall
ratio,
so
less
glazing
triple
pane
windows.
It
has
very
high
efficiency,
mechanical
systems,
including
energy
recovery
ventilation.
It
would
probably
use
air
source
heat
pumps.
O
O
But
there
are
some
new
technologies
and
possible
policy
implications
over
time
that
we
want
to
learn
about
tear
for
buildings,
but
they
also
tend
to
retain
their
indoor
temperature
better
because
of
that
high
performance
building
envelope
when
there's
no
power.
So
that's
a
resiliency
co-benefit.
So.
H
H
But
you
mentioned
that
you
know
a
building
that
is
energy
efficient,
doesn't
have
all
of
that
glass
and
glazing.
It's.
It
doesn't
have
that
particular
characteristic,
but
so
many
of
the
buildings
that
have
been
built
in
Toronto
are
exactly
all
of
that,
and
so
is
this
I
mean
I
asked
the
question
earlier
about
the
Ontario
Building
Code
are
we?
Are
we
looking
to
the
province
to
to
strengthen
the
Ontario
Building
Code
so
that
there's
less
of
that
type
of
building
occurring.
I
I
A
I
D
Thank
you,
so
we're
sort
of
winging
it
here,
but
I
we
just
had
a
little
conversation.
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understood
correctly.
The
outcome,
the
Emily
from
the
Toronto
environmental
alliance,
raised
two
concerns.
The
first
was
that
we're
not
requiring
recycling
space
here
for
compost,
hazardous
waste
or
whatever
in
IC
I--
buildings,
but
we
do
require
it
in
residential
buildings.
D
D
B
Through
through
the
chair,
when
we
review
residential
development
applications,
we
do
look
at
the
the
capability
of
having
appropriate
space
capacity
for
divergent
programs
and
also
for
collection.
So
a
similar
approach
can
be
adopted
for
non-residential.
With
one
caveat
when
we
do
look
at
residential
applications,
we
look
at
it
also
from
the
perspective
of
potential
collection
as
a
customer
that
would
not
apply
to
non
residential
application.
B
D
You
my
second
question.
It
was
also
raised
during
a
deputation
that
currently
the
province
requires
that
four
buildings
over
a
certain
amount
of
size,
the
Builder
file
recycling
plan
for
construction
demolition
waste.
However
the
province
and
this
it's
not
only
in
this
area,
doesn't
really
enforce
it.
Could
we,
as
part
of
our
requirements
in
the
green
standards,
requires
simply
a
filing
of
that
same
document
with
us
that
they
file
with
the
province
who,
as
far
as
I,
can
tell
puts
them
in
a
pile
and
forgets
about
them?.
B
Again
through
the
chair,
receiving
those
plans
for
reporting
purposes
is
something
we
can
certainly
request.
Again.
We
were
not
in
a
position
to
enforce
its
regulation.
103
94,
that
the
council
is
referring
to
provincial
regulation.
We
would
not
be
enforcing
that
regulation,
but
we
can
certainly
receive
the
plans
for
our
information.
Thank.
A
You
are
there
any
other
questions
members.
Maybe
if
staff
can
help
me
with
one
go
to
a
higher
standard
to
build
and
normally
cost
more
money
he's
a
little
higher
standard
to
operate,
they
should
save
money.
Do
you
have
any
idea
what
the
cost
would
be
there
on
a
per
square
foot
or
a
per
unit
basis
to
construct
more
efficient
than
different
tier
buildings
and
what
the
savings
would
be
or
what
the
payback
would
be
in
those.
J
Certainly
through
through
our
through
the
chair,
that's
our
zero
emissions.
Through
the
chair
to
the
chair,
we
did
an
estimate
of
the
cost
for
residential
to
the
increased
cost.
So
for
Tier
two
version
three.
It
would
be
between
two
and
three
point:
five
percent
for
Tier
three.
It
would
be
between
three
and
six
percent
of
overall
construction
costs.
This
is
for
residential
and
commercial
and
for
Tier
four.
It
would
be
three
point:
six,
two,
almost
five
percent
cost.
O
Through
the
chair,
we
did
do
a
twenty
five
year.
Life
cycle
cost
analysis
as
well
as
look
at
the
capital
cost
premium
of
is
a
portion
of
total
construction
cost
by
building
type
so
generally
for
Tier
one
and
two.
It
shows
a
pause
of
lifecycle,
return
or
benefit
to
the
city.
When
you
move
up
in
the
tiers.
Obviously
it
varies
a
little
bit,
there's
some
negative.
It
assumes
today's
construction
costs
and
products,
for
example
in
codes
when
it's
determining
that
benefit,
but
overall
yeah
for
the
tier
1
and
tier
2.
There's
definitely
in
that
benefit.
O
A
A
The
first
one
is:
let's
see
if
we
can
find
any
other
incentives.
I
think
that's
self-explanatory.
Right
now
you
do
get
some
development
credits,
but
there
isn't
enough
to
offset
the
cost.
The
second
part
is,
we
do
have
land
that
we
put
out
for
redevelopment
in
that
we
look
at
city
building
initiatives
and
we're
looking
at
a
lot
more
now
than
we
ever
looked.
A
A
We
look
at
those
standards
and
we
look
for
affordable
house
and
we
look
at
city
building
initiative.
We
look
at
how
we
can
save
heritage
buildings.
We
look
at
public
amenities
of
the
buildings
and
we're
very
respectful
of
the
neighbors
I.
Think.
If
we're
going
to
be
years
across
the
country
and
trying
to
have
energy-efficient
buildings,
we
should
look
at
ways
that
we
can
do
it
with
our
own
properties.
The
bottom
line
is
its
money.
A
A
How
many?
How
many
people
went
in
with
an
estimated
per
square
foot
maintenance
fee
and
actually
found
that
it
was
equal
to
or
less
because
of
the
cost,
very
often
of
the
energy
and
the
maintenance
of
the
building
itself?
There
are
always
these
estimates
that
seemed
to
be
sub
what
they
are
when
people
take
over
and
you
have
your
six
or
seven
hundred
square
foot
unit.
A
Even
if
it's
small,
you
know
three
four
hundred
dollars
a
month
and
you
could
end
more
like
five
hundred
all
this
a
month
in
maintenance
fees,
it's
a
killer,
so
we
can
do
more
on
these
standards.
We'll
do
that
so
I'm
very
supportive
and
appreciate
the
work
that
the
staff
have
done.
I
think
it's
great
moving.
It
forward,
I'd
like
to
try
and
demonstrate
that
where
we
can
within
our
own
buildings
and
that's
the
reason
for
my
emotions
and
my
support
for
these
staff
recommendations,
counselor
biology
of
a
question
of
being
I
was.
B
It
is
really
important
to
put
out
there
those
numbers
just
as
much
as
it
is
what
is
cost
so
I
was
wondering
if
he
wouldn't
mind,
adding
that
to
ask
staff
to
come
back
with
a
study
on
that,
so
that,
when
we're
having
these
conversations,
we
can
actually
show
because
we're
gonna
get
pushed
back
right
away.
Saying
it's
gonna
cost
more.
So
we
need
to
show
that,
yes,
it
might
cost
you
more
a
little
bit
at
the
beginning,
but
this
is
the
savings
that
is
going
to
translate
at
the
end
of
the
day
and.
M
D
When
that
report
comes
back,
there
will
be
some
more
robust
analysis
than
we
currently
have
in
terms
of
whether
it's
even
needed.
It
may
be
that
for
certain
aspects
of
the
development
standard,
the
payback
is
so
Swift.
We
don't
need
to
incent
it
any
further.
So
I
imagine
you're
expecting
a
little
bit
of
analysis
like
that
when
your
report
requests
come,
but
my.
A
D
Ok
so
I
have
a
motion
to
amend
the
Toronto
green
standard
to
a
require
all
building
types
to
provide
diversion
space
and
B
require
developers
to
file
a
construction
demolition,
waste
recycling
plan
with
the
city
on
the
same
basis
as
required
by
the
province.
We
heard
from
staff
that
these
are
these
two
things
are
doable
and
further.
I
very
clearly
would
help
us
to
meet
both
our
long-term,
solid
waste
goals
and
more
important,
also
our
environmental
goals
for
climate
change.
D
One
of
the
huge
drivers
of
climate
change
is
actually
all
those
materials
with
embodied
energy
being
sent
to
landfill
ins
that
have
recycled
and
not
having
the
room
within
the
in
the
IC
I
buildings
to
be
able
to
set
up
diversion
programs
for
organics,
which
I
understand
the
province
is
looking
at
making
a
requirement.
So
this
actually
is
getting
in
place
the
things
for
these
buildings
that
will
allow
us
both
to
meet
our
long
term
waste
plan
and
our
climate
change
plan
I
wanted
to
address.
D
So
the
work
we're
doing
here
is
not
only
having
benefit
in
terms
of
Toronto's
environmental
performance,
but
in
terms
of
environmental
performance
right
across
the
province
of
Ontario,
and
that's
something
we
should
be
quite
proud
of.
I
think
it's
also
worth
noting.
Having
seen
I,
think
five
different
climate
plans
approved
over
the
last
two
decades
in
the
city
of
Toronto.
What's
unique
about
this,
one
is
here
we
are
just
a
month
or
two
later
from
getting
our
environment
plan
improved
and
we're
actually
seeing
action
happening
department
by
Department.
It's
a
it's!
D
It's
miraculous,
it's
it's
incredibly
impressive
and
the
work
done
is
also
very
persuasive.
It
shows
how
we'll
both
be
avoiding
future,
invest,
expenditures
as
a
city
and
also
saving
building
owners,
future
investments.
So
it's
a
win,
win,
win,
win,
probably
there's
another
win
than
there
too
I
encourage
you
all
to
to
support
this
both
here
and
at
Council.
It's
one
of
the
things
that
makes
me
proudest
and
being
a
member
of
this
council,
the
great
lengths
we
go
to
to
try
to
achieve
the
highest
climate
change
standards.
D
The
province
of
Ontario
has
a
series
of
regulations
under
their
Waste
Management
Act
that
pertain
to
industrial
commercial
buildings.
I
can
tell
you
right
now
that
having
watched
the
province
deal
with
those
for
the
last
25
years,
there
is
ZERO
enforcement
of
them,
zero
enforcement
of
them,
so
they're
required
to
file
it
file
a
construction
demolition
plan
for
building
over
a
certain
size.
They,
the
document,
goes
to
the
province,
it's
put
in
a
filing
cabinet
and
forgotten.
D
We
tend
to
be
a
little
bit
more
activist
of
a
government,
so
I
think
developers
who
are
filing
plans
with
the
city
as
part
of
the
development
review
put.
This
will
put
on
public
record
and
with
us
the
city
that
they
have
a
construction
demolition
plan
which
we
can
use
when
we're
developing
devising
our
construction
management
plans,
which
we
do
already
so.
D
Not
necessarily
because
the
city
is
the
body
that
that
manages
and
the
relationship
with
the
developer
already
simply
the
fact
that
they're
filing
a
document
with
us
will
change
how
they
think
about
it.
That's
one
two.
We
already
have
to
monitor
the
construction,
demolition
and
rebuild
process
for
these
sites.
We
have
another
number
of
requirements
through
our
plan
review
process,
there's
something
called
a
construction
management
plan.
Already
we
have
city
staff
allocated
to
making
sure
that
the
requirements
in
those
plans
are
met
so
I,
don't
foresee
it
as
being
additional
staff
resources.
H
D
D
A
A
A
A
Deputed
for
item
number
three
PG
twenty-three
point:
three
area:
specific
amendments
to
the
city
signed
viola,
146,
Bloor,
Street,
West
I
had
Michael
fought
Erik
here
Michael.
Would
you
be
satisfied
we'd
like
to
move
a
motion
to
defer
this
to
the
January
meeting?
Are
you
okay,
then,
to
see
if
we
have
any
other
amendments
and
come
back
then
and
not
speak
today?
That's.
E
A
Right
so
I
am
moving
or
you
I'm
moving.
A
deferral
of
item
number
t
PG
twenty-three
point
three
to
the
January
meeting.
All
those
in
favor
opposed
that's
carried.
Thank
you.
Eg
23.4
area,
specific
amendment
to
the
city's
signed,
bylaw,
150,
sure--we
Drive.
It's
a
follow
up,
I
see
mr.
Wolowitz
is
here
mr.
Wolowitz.
If
we
adopted
the
staff
recommendations,
would
you
be
happy?
A
Okay?
Is
there
a
mover
of
the
staff
recommendations?
There's
two
of
them?
Well,
I'll,
go
by
Councillor
dixiano
being
the
area
that
he
represents.
The
staff
recommendations
are
PG.
Twenty
three
point,
four
in
front
of
us
all,
those
in
favor
any
opposed.
That's
one
opposed.
That's
carried.
You've
done
a
wonderful
job
today,
mister
mr.
Wolowitz.
A
Thank
you
thank
no
thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
catch
up
with
the
agenda.
Pg
23.5
area,
specific
amendment
to
the
signed
by
law
for
one
fifty
three
deference
Street.
So
mr.
Wolowitz,
you
were
here
for
that
one.
So
if
we
were
to
adopt
the
staff
recommends
on
that
one.
Would
you
be
happy
with
that?
Is
there
a
mover,
the
staff
recommendations,
there's
two
of
them?
This
one
is
councillor
Campbell.
Are
there
any
speakers
honors,
please.
A
J
A
J
A
Have
to
officially
adopt
item
number
ten,
my
air
and
that
is
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
in
the
building
sector,
response
to
the
fall,
27th
and
Terra
Building
Code
consultations,
I'll
move
the
staff
recommendations,
all
those
in
favor
and
the
opposed
that's
carried.
So
now
we
are
here
for
the
Portland's
planning
framework
and
we
have
someone
very
eager
to
give
us
a
presentation
after
an
awful
lot
of
work
on
this.
A
E
A
E
Morning,
chair
and
committee
I'm,
the
acting
chief
planner
Greg
Lynn
turn
with
me,
is
a
project
manager
in
Portland's
file.
Cassady
Ritz.
It's
a
pleasure
this
morning
to
share
with
you
four
years
of
planning
work
that
has
been
undertaken
by
the
city's
Planning
Division,
Waterfront
Toronto
and
the
eternal
region.
Conservation
Authority
and
partnership.
I
certainly
want
to
thank
all
of
those
organizations
for
working
hard
and
collaboratively
together
to
produce
this
result
for
your
consideration.
E
This
morning,
this
you're
going
to
hear
this
morning
from
staff
and
certainly
from
the
deputy
and
says
we
have
throughout
this
process.
There
are
many
perspectives
about
the
Portland's
and
that's
completely
understandable.
It's
a
very
large
area
and
it
embraces
I
think
the
vision
that
we're
proposing
embraces
in
a
very
inclusive
manner
a
wide
wide
range
of
interests
going
forward,
setting
down
a
vision
for
the
for
the
Portland's
over
a
long
period
of
time.
E
What
we're
talking
about
today
is
generally
southeast
of
the
downtown
at
the
foot
of
the
Don
Valley,
a
large
area
that
is
actually
home
to
over
5,000
people
that
work
there,
which
is
always
a
surprising
fact,
it's
home,
to
what
has
been
described
as
a
very
glorious
public
space,
which
is
known
as
the
Ship
Channel
many
interesting
bakit
of
heritage,
buildings
and
other
significant
attributes
that
we
feel
will
form
the
basis
of
the
future
character.
A
building,
a
neighborhood,
a
series
of
neighborhoods
in
the
Portland's.
E
Another
sometimes
overlooked
fact
is
that
the
land
ownership
pattern
is
very
different
than
the
rest
of
the
city.
Predominantly
the
rest
of
the
city
is
in
vast
we're
dealing
in
development
with
us
amounts
of
private
ownership.
Here
see
it's
the
reverse:
we're
dealing
with
a
lot
of
public
ownership,
various
levels
of
government,
and
although
there
are
some
strategic,
privately
held
parcels,
this
is
important
because
it
provides
an
opportunity
to
lever
and
further
influence
change
as
the
area
vols
over
time.
E
What
we're
here
today
to
talk
to
you
about
is
both
the
Portland's
planning
framework
and
the
village
Millers
Island
precinct
plan,
the
middle
part
of
your
screen,
the
important
transportation
and
servicing
master
plan
that
underpins
a
lot
of
this
has
been
completed
and
is
out
in
the
public
record.
So
the
framework
that
we've
got
for
you
today
is
represents
a
vision
and
directions
and
recommendations.
E
Really
it's
the
next
chapter
in
in
a
story
that
began
100
years
ago,
when
the
Portland's
was
created
by
the
federal
government,
the
the
policies,
the
recommendations
and
directions
that
are
in
front
of
you
really
cover
a
wide
range
of
policy
areas.
In
summary,
they
move
the
area
forward.
They
allow
it
to
evolve
as
a
city,
what
we
call
a
city
within
a
city
into
what
you
will
see
over
time
as
a
number
of
urban
districts,
really
representing
a
wide
diversity
of
land
uses
and
activities.
It's
a
long
term
plan.
E
However,
we
know
life
goes
on.
Things
are
going
to
happen
in
the
near
medium
and
longer
terms.
So
what
this
does
is
balance
that
need
to
set
key
directions,
so
we
don't
literally
make
mistakes
along
the
way
allowing,
though
for
flexibility,
because
we
want
to
take
we
want
to,
we
want
to
enjoy
and
benefit
from
what
comes
forward
in
urban
innovation
over
the
next.
E
The
vision
you
can
read
this
at
your
leisure
I
would
just
highlight
that
we're
dealing
with
an
eclectic
mix
of
uses
in
the
Portland's
we
have
for
a
long
time
and
we're
introducing
even
more
and
more
of
those
uses,
I
would
I
would
emphasize
in
the
vision
that
we're
putting
in
place
what
we
call
a
resilient
urban
structure.
It
has
to
stand
the
test
of
time
and
and
do
so
in
a
sustainable
way.
E
Well,
it
allows
the
area
to
continue
to
transition,
transform
and
evolve.
This
illustration,
it's
an
illustrative
plan,
but
it
gives
you
a
sense
and
reveals
the
potential
and
the
framing
of
the
Portland's
framed
by
the
water,
framed
by
generous
open
spaces,
natural
areas
and
newly
created
made
spaces
much
much
in
keeping
with
tradition.
The
tradition
of
waterfront
planning
in
Toronto
is
breaking
it
all
down
into
a
series
of
districts,
and
this
is
no
different.
E
The
tradition
of
precinct
planning
and
we
have
before
you
today
is
well
the
first
precinct
in
the
Portland's,
which
is
up
to
bat,
which
is
the
billiards
island
plan.
But
this
simply
illustrates
that
it
gets
broken
down
into
a
series
of
districts.
I
have
for
you
just
a
series
of
what
I
would
call
postcards
images
of
what
the
future
could
look
like.
E
So
many
different
things
happening
in
the
Portland's
and
it
gives
the
city
a
real
opportunity
to
do
something
really
different
and
exciting,
with
the
theater
of
of
the
city's
only
working
port,
which
is
an
incredibly
important
strategic
consideration
in
the
work
that
we've
done.
This
postcard
shows
you,
the
their
new
river
mouth
the-the-the
the
prominence
of
open
space
that
will
take
place
inevitably,
when
you're,
creating
a
new
river
you're,
creating
a
new
river
valley
for
it
to
behave
as
it
naturally
would,
and
this
this
image
gives
you
that
sense.
E
That
also,
of
course,
reminds
us
of
the
sustainable
modes
of
transportation
that
we
have
to
implement
if
this
place
is
going
to
work
in
a
sustainable
way
going
forward.
This
postcard
really
helps
us
understand
the
built-up
density
of
what
we're
proposing
both
the
residential
and
the
non-residential
development.
This
is
not
about
a
suburban
style
of
development.
This
is,
and
we've
actually
got
built
form
in
policies
in
the
amendment
that
encourage
an
intensity
of
use.
We
have
to
make
the
best
use
of
this
land
for
both
residential
and
non-residential
purposes
where
they're
encouraged
by
the
plan.
E
It
also
illustrates
the
incredible
opportunity:
we've
got
to
use
our
heritage
resources
for
their
place,
making
power-
and
we
all
know-
we've
seen
examples
both
in
Toronto
and
around
the
world,
of
how
you
can
turn
something
that
you
never
imagined
existed
there
into
something
that
is
truly
unique
and
special.
This
is
just
an
example
of
how
the
city
could
repurpose
the
McCleary
waste
transfer
station
into
a
public
use
the
potential
for
new
for
new
areas
that
are
completely
unknown
to
the
public.
This
is
a
great
example.
E
This
is
Keating
looking
West,
where
we
will
create
with
this
plan
and
with
the
the
new
river.
Perhaps
the
only
space
like
this
in
the
entire
city
of
trauma,
so
a
place
that
all
Torontonians
can
come
down
and
celebrate
spectacular,
public's
a
space
that's
composed
by
the
water's
edge
and
the
water
itself.
E
The
the
plan,
as
I
noted,
will
be
framed
by
important
Civic
public
in
natural
realms,
and
this
outlines-
and
it's
in
the
document
for
you
for
your
consideration,
all
of
the
very
influential
parts
of
the
Civic
public
and
natural
realms
that
will
influence
the
area.
Of
course,
any
area
of
the
city,
if
it's
going
to
stand
the
test
of
time
has
to
have
a
public
street
network.
This
shows
you
the
bones
of
this
long-term
plan.
E
It's
incredibly
important,
of
course,
for
mobility
of
all
the
modes
of
travel
and
for
the
city
services
that
lie
beneath
all
the
city
streets.
It's
an
essential
ingredient
in
bringing
in
bringing
revitalization
to
the
Portland's,
and,
of
course,
that
network
provides
the
backbone
for
both
transit
and
cycling.
That
is
also
part
of
this
plan
that
provides
the
necessary
infrastructure
for
a
sustainable
travel
system
going
forward
that
we
that
we
that
we
inch
how
we
ensure
the
sustainability
of
the
of
the
communities
that
will
be
guilty
over
the
long
term.
E
The
the
the
work
that
we've
done
imagines
how
the
streets
will
look
when
you
consider
the
diversity
of
uses
and
users
that
will
experience
the
Portland,
and
these
are
just
some
Street
profiles
that
define
the
the
public
space
that
will
be
that
will
be
coming
along
with
it
with
the
acceleration
of
the
area.
This
slide
highlights
the
four
year
process.
E
It's
really
remarkable
when
you
think
about
it
that
nobody
lives
in
this
area,
but
we've
had
an
incredible
amount
of
stakeholder
interest
as
we
normally
do
in
the
waterfront,
and
it's
only
made
it
better
and
more
enriched,
and
this
slide
gives
you
a
sense
of
what
we've
done
since
November
2013
and
the
amount
of
consultation
that
we've
had
through
the
process.
The
range
of
inputs
for
a
piece
of
work
like
this
is
vast.
E
E
It
gives
us
the
guiding
principles
and
structure
and
the
character
of
Villiers
Island,
and
it
lays
down
strategies
and
guidelines
that
bring
forward
what
is
a
climate,
positive
area
and
and
all
of
the
ingredients
really
that
take
it
to
the
next
stage
and
get
this
area
ready
for
zoning,
which
is
work.
That
is
in
front
of
us.
E
The
I'll
just
wrap
up
with
a
series
of
slides
on
the
what's
before
you
and
the
actual
process,
the
central
waterfront
secondary
plan
that
was
approved
in
2003
and
has
been
appealed
at
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board,
and
we've
been
working
through
Appeals
on
that
ever
since
it
includes
the
Portland's.
It
did
not
include
a
lot
of
specifics
about
the
Portland's,
however,
and
it
certainly
is
not
contemporary.
E
Is
it
inserts
a
series
of
detailed
policies
about
the
Portland's
Portland's
wide,
a
specific
policy
and
amends
a
series
of
maps
schedules
to
the
official
plan?
Its
just
highlights
graphically
what
those
amendments
to
one
of
the
maps
are
that
that
allows
us
to
insert
the
various
modifications
that
are
that
have
been
developed
in
respect
to
the
area.
E
Also
before
you
today
is
an
actual
official
plan
amendment.
So
this
is
the
statutory
element
of
this,
where
we
are
amending
the
city's
enforce
Official
Plan
for
amendments
to
the
schedules
on
the
road
network
that
allow
us,
as
we
have
considered
the
area
comprehensively,
that
allow
us
to
improve
the
infrastructure
in
the
road
network
in
the
area
to
support
future
development.
Specifically,
this
is
the
wedge
of
land
known
as
south
of
eastern,
which
is
just
north
of
the
Portland's
of
the
Eastern
Avenue.
E
Finally,
the
work
program
that
lies
ahead,
as
always
with
the
Portland's,
is
significant.
We
are
initiating
a
zoning
review
that
was
kicked
off
actually
at
City
Council,
with
the
adoption
of
an
interim
Control
bylaw
at
the
last
meeting
much-needed
work
to
make
the
zoning
more
contemporary,
we
are
advancing
a
precinct
plan
for
McCleary
for
one
of
the
other
districts
and
urban
design,
guidelines
and
Zoning
for
the
area
in
a
go
forward
very
embrace
of
inclusive
zoning
bylaw
that
will
support
a
wide
range
of
uses,
including
strategic
areas
such
as
film
and
production.
E
The
what's
needed
here,
because
it's
a
it's
an
area
of
employment
is
and
where
people
are
going
to
live
and
work
together.
We
need
a
Portland's
wide
truck
management
strategy,
further
work
on
low-carbon
energy
solutions
in
the
Portland's,
because
we
are
driving
toward
a
near
zero
impact
on
in
this
area
and
more
estimates
on
various
components
of
the
infrastructure,
including
hydro.
The
recommendations
of
the
report
before
you
then
specifically,
are
we're
requesting
today
that
you
adopt
the
framework.
That
is
a
large
document
that
gives
us
the
overall
picture
and
rationale
for
the
modifications.
E
A
A
The
I
have
a
number
of
speakers.
The
first
one
on
the
Portland's
and
planning
initiative
is
Peter
Epstein
and
after
that,
Julie
Bettles
is
Peter
here,
I'm
looking
for
Peter
Epstein
I,
don't
see
him
so
I
will
move
on.
Julie
Beddoes
is
Julie
here
and
after
Julie
I
have
Paul
Johnston
and
for
all
of
you
that
are
here
to
speak
and
I.
Think
you're
here
earlier.
That's
five
minutes.
It's
a
maximum
to
speak.
I
will
turn
on
the
timer.
Of
course.
Please
watch
it.
There
are
questions
we
will
ask
them
of
you
after.
Thank
you.
F
Chair
and
councillors,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
The
government
works,
Neighborhood
Association
represents
residents
of
the
historic
distillery
district,
a
stone's
throw
from
the
northern
boundary
of
the
Portland's.
We've
been
privileged
to
be
part
of
the
consultation
process,
as
this
plan
is
developed
and
hope
to
continue
our
involvement
as
development
proceeds.
We
hope
that
you
will
adopt
the
recommendations
in
front
of
you.
F
I'd
like
at
this
point,
to
give
thanks
and
recommend
commendation
to
the
city,
Waterfront
Toronto
and
TRC,
a
staff
who
have
worked
with
us
over
the
years.
They
have
been
quite
wonderful.
They
produced
an
extraordinary
piece
of
work.
They've
always
been
very
courteous
and
understanding
a
stakeholder
concerns,
and
they
deserve
every
praise.
F
During
the
Portland's
acceleration
initiative,
stakeholders
ask
that
there
be
a
framework
for
the
whole
area
so
that,
when
development
applications
come
in,
they
will
not
be
such
as
to
stand
in
the
way
of
optimal
development.
In
the
long
term.
This
the
documents
do
very
satisfactorily
and
there's
a
lot
to
applaud
here
and
it's
thrilling
for
us
to
see
the
project
move
to
its
next
stage,
we're
beginning
to
believe.
It's
really
going
to
happen.
We
salute,
in
particular
the
commitment
to
the
highest
possible
environmental
standards
and
zero
net
energy
development.
F
I'd
also
like
to
welcome
the
reports
acknowledgement
that
the
future
is
unpredictable
and
asked
that,
when
plans
are
written
in
to
statutorily
enforceable
documents,
the
language
not
be
too
prescriptive,
especially
when
dealing
with
land
use.
The
framework
calls
for
a
very
small
amount
of
residential
development
and
a
lot
of
employment.
Land
I
have
a
hunch
that
there
won't
be
takers
or
tenants
for
so
much
of
the
latter,
while
the
amount
of
residential
envisaged
for
the
whole
50-year
build-out
could
probably
be
filled
this
year.
If
the
price
were
right.
F
Besides,
we
have
a
chance
here
to
do
something
special
and
splendid.
With
this
extraordinary
piece
of
geography,
the
prospect
of
an
industrial
park
does
not
stir
the
imagination
with
so
few
residents.
It's
hard
to
believe
that
the
hoped-for
animated
retail
and
public
space
and
the
arts
activities
wouldn't
be
dark
and
deserted.
Most
of
the
time,
a
larger
residential
component
would
also
mean
more
desperately
needed,
affordable
housing,
without
which
there's
reason
to
fear
that
there
won't
be
a
workforce
to
support
the
employment
lands.
F
F
This
is
an
extraordinary
extraordinary
site
with
all
of
the
many
many
kilometers
of
water,
frontage
and
I.
Think
in
our
neighborhood
we'd
like
to
see
more
response
to
the
very
special
qualities
that
all
of
that
more
different
access
has
it's
a
fabulous
asset
to
the
city
to
have
so
much
waterfront
land
fall
into
its
lap.
How
many
big
cities,
at
our
stage
of
development
in
the
world
have
this
gift
waiting
to
be
made?
The
most
of
this
seems
in
the
framework
plan
to
be
very
little
provision
for
boaters.
F
Just
as
a
start,
the
section
on
recreational
use
only
shows
two
little
spots
where
a
boat
can
be
put
in
the
water,
but
then
we
have
the
problem
of
what
to
do
with
what's
left
of
the
marine
terminal.
Perhaps
we
could
kill
two
birds
with
one
stone
make
that
the
facility
for
a
marina,
a
public,
marina,
a
yacht
club,
kids
sailing
canoeing
facilities,
the
schools
etc.
The
way
we
have
in
in
harbour
front
area
that
could
also
be
a
short-term
activation
project,
and
in
the
long
term
it
could
be
the
catalyst
site
for
Villiers
Island.
F
That's
so
much
desired,
as
it
would
be
bringing
large
numbers
of
people
onto
that
space
and
would
animate
it
and
make
it
attractive
before
the
residential
and
business
developers
move
in
so
I
believe
the
head
as
a
possibility
for
what
to
do
with
that
marine
terminal.
Our
neighbors
are
very
close.
Members
are
very
close
neighbors
of
the
Portland's
proximity.
The
waterfront
has
transformed
our
area
in
the
past
20
years
and
we
look
forward
very
much
to
that
transformation.
Going
ahead,
thank
you.
Thank.
N
N
You
for
coming
Julia
always
great
to
see
you,
the
marine
terminal,
I'm
interested
in
the
thinking
there,
as
to
half
of
it,
is
now
burnt
down,
as
you
know,
with
that
fire
and
it
should
it
remain,
should
it
be
built
into
the
Promotora
Park.
Do
you
have
a
particular
thought
about
that
or
idea
about
how
we
could
get
to
a
good
place?
I
know,
heritage
staff
want
to
keep
it
intact.
What
a
front
Toronto
isn't
as
crazy
about
that
you're
kind
of
saying
there
might
be
something
it's
used
for.
F
No
one
thought
it
was
a
particularly
beautiful
or
inspiring
piece
of
real
estate,
and
a
lot
of
us
were
quite
relieved
when
half
of
it
disappeared,
but
there
still
is
a
chance,
I
think
to
use
what's
left
because
as
stakeholders
of
Osborne
as
the
framework
plan
calls
for
short
term
vitalization
projects
on
the
Portland's
are
really
important.
I
mean
all
those
years
ago
in
the
70s
I.
F
Think
development
in
the
silt
Lawrence
neighborhood
was
very
much
accelerated
because
the
city
had
the
sense
to
put
in
some
affordable
housing
down
there
and
that
got
the
other
developers
and
the
corpse
and
the
private
landlords
interested
in
being
there
and
the
short
term
projects
I
think
are
necessary
to
stimulate
that
interest.
So
there
we
have
the
shell
of
a
building.
You
don't
have
to
start
from
scratch.
We
have
a
magnificent
access
to
the
water
there.
Why?
Not
combine
the
two
and
make
it
the
base
for
water
activities.
F
I
don't
sail,
but
I
have
friends
who
do
and
they
they
tell
me,
there's
a
real
shortage
in
the
city
that
our
present
population
of
waterfront
Murray
in
the
space,
so
as
the
population
grows,
there's
bound
to
be
more
demand.
So
it
seems
like
both
a
short-term,
probably
not
terribly
expensive
thing
to
do,
and
in
the
long
term
it
could
be
a
real
animating
catalyst
for
the
whole
of
Phineas
Island.
N
Just
my
question
again
is
since
there's
pretty
pretty
different
things.
You
know
what
a
front
tronto
has
a
vision
that
not
in
the
sight
and
heritage
staff
at
the
city
have
said
you
have
to
have
it
at
all
costs.
Can
you
envision
a
process
where
we
can
get
to
a
good
place
with
what
to
do
with
that
building?
How
what
suggestion
would
you
make
I.
F
N
F
B
M
F
I
I
remember
the
framework
specifies
as
residential
villas
Island
and
the
McCleary
Park
area
and
I
think
the
demand
for
housing
now
will
fill
those
two
areas
and
then
there's
the
Unilever
site,
which
will
need
workers
which
will
who
could
presume
we
live
in
McCleary
Park,
so
all
of
the
future
employment
lands.
Where
will
their
workers
come
from?
Are
they
going
to
commute
from
Richmond
Hill?
Are
we
going
to
sprawl
more
over
the
Greenbelt,
etc,
etc?
F
I
know
members
of
my
family
are
desperately
trying
to
find
places
to
live
close
to
where
they
work
and
I.
Don't
think
that
trend
is
going
to
going
to
end,
so
we
I'm
not
I'm,
asking
that
we
don't
have
a
rigid
percentage
of
either
that
we
allow
the
needs
of
the
future
to
determine
how
much
residential
and
how
much
industrial
is
built.
Thank
you.
A
P
Both
properties
depend
upon
both
Road
access
and
water
dock
wall
access
to
ship,
their
products,
and,
in
fact
some
of
the
shipping
Cement
powder
by
by
boat
access
is,
is
a
very
significant
important
use
in
the
Portland's
area.
So
I
would
ask
committee
members
to
be
mindful
of
fact,
as
mr.
Linton
indicated,
that
this
is
the
only
port
in
the
city
and
that
the
port
uses
obviously
are
a
very
important
component
going
forward
in
this
area.
Now
Lafarge
has
been
an
active
participant
in
the
very
extensive
planning
process
in
the
Portland's.
P
We
have
previous
written
submissions
which
are
attached.
One
of
the
most
reason
to
voyage
is
attached
to
my
letter,
which
came
to
the
committee
last
night
and
so
I.
Don't
propose
to
go
through
all
of
that
material
in
detail
today.
What
I
like
to
do
is
deal
with
the
highlights
of
the
things
that
we
like
about
the
plan
and
the
areas
where
we
have
some
ongoing
concerns,
and
a
number
of
the
concerns
that
we've
expressed
have
not
yet
been
addressed.
P
There
are
more
detailed
comments,
but
I'm
just
going
to
hit
some
of
the
areas
of
particular
importance
to
us
and
to
Lafarge.
First
thing
we
obviously
would
be
Miya
might
wants
you
to
be
mindful
of
the
need
to
ensure
that
rezoning
to
permit
sensitive
uses
do
not
does
not
occur
until
and
unless
it
is,
it
has
been
demonstrated.
P
So
we're
happy
to
see
that
in
fact,
one
of
the
areas
that
we're
most
appreciative
of
in
terms
of
the
work
that
we've
done
with
planning
staff
is
in
the
area
of
land-use
compatibility,
the
requirements
for
studies,
the
requirement
for
there
to
be
peer
review
by
the
city
and,
finally,
that
any
source
mitigation
that
is
a
result
of
those
studies,
has
been
agreed
to
by
the
affected
industry.
We
think
by
and
large
that
those
issues
have
been
addressed.
We
have
spoken
in
our
letter
about
some
implementation
areas.
P
Some
areas
where
there
could
be
some
additional
language
added,
but
in
in
broad
strokes
we
think
that
the
city
has
listened
to
industry
in
terms
of
the
issue
of
land-use
compatibility
and
we
looked
to
work
with
staff
when
the
matter
goes
to
the
OMB.
To
ensure
a
document
that
is,
is
the
best
that
it
can
be
now.
One
area
of
particular
concern
for
us.
One
area
where
I
think
there's
a
significant
problem
is
the
lack
so
so
far
of
a
Goods
movement
strategy.
Mr.
Linton
spoke
to
you
about
some
of
the
rows.
P
Our
concern
is
that
that
work
has
advanced
to
such
a
point
that
the
incorporation
of
truck
routes
which
are
not
yet
known,
will
be
difficult,
that
pedestrian
and
and
cycling
and
other
uses
other
that
are
made
of
these
roadways
will
preclude
the
opportunity
for
both
redundant
and
appropriate
truck
routes,
and
we
would
ask
that
and
know
that
it's
one
of
the
recommendations
that
the
goods
movement
strategy
must
move
forward
as
quickly
as
it
can.
We
have
other
comments
in
the
document
before
you
if
they
couldn't
mr.
Johnston.
Thank
you.
P
N
A
A
There's
about
three
to
four
months
in
the
winter,
when
you're
not
there,
when
the
ships
aren't
there
that's
correct,
but
you
continue
operations
all
year
long
because
you're
long,
yes
and
you
think
that
you
can
work
effectively
within
with
the
plan.
That's
here
with
the
development
that's
proposed
in
the
area.
Yes,.
P
I
mean
the
final
final
completion
of
the
naturalization
is
going
to
bring
challenges
but
we're
there.
When
there's
a
dock
wall,
we
use
the
dock
wall,
it's
integral
to
the
use
and
through
our
discussions
with
staff
and
with
Waterfront
Toronto,
it's
our
understanding
that
the
two
can
coexist,
that
being
the
naturalization
and
the
dock
wall.
Okay,.
A
B
Sure
many
of
you
have
seen
the
Portland
the
article
by
Christopher
Hume,
the
op-ed
a
couple
days
ago,
he's
pretty
strongly
that's.
Why
I
came
here,
I
read
this
and
I
went
wow
I'll,
just
read
a
teeny
bit
of
it.
He
said
that
this
scheme
that
was
coming
before
you
today
would
give
much
of
the
site
for
massive
movie
studios
sound
facilities
and
back
Lots.
This
would
amount
to
building
an
industrial
park
on
some
of
the
most
potentially
valuable
land
in
the
city.
B
The
mind
boggles
at
the
shortsightedness,
the
blinkered
vision,
the
lack
of
ambition
and
imagination
and
the
sheer
thoughtlessness
of
such
a
plan,
so
I
would
just
urge
you
to
maybe
try
to
declutter
your
minds
for
all
the
lobbying
that's
happened
and
think
about.
Why
would
somebody
like
that
who
cares
about
the
city
speaks
so
strongly
about?
What's
happening,
it's
happening
very
quickly
as
well.
It
was
only
a
few
months
ago
that
the
plan,
the
the
tripartite
agreement
for
from
all
three
levels
the
government
came
forward
and
now
boom.
N
M
M
M
Thank
you,
sir.
Mr.
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Mary
Flynn.
Well,
yet
again
I'm
the
solicitor
representing
imperial
power
generation.
You
will
note
in
the
materials
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
that
there
was
a
letter
filed
yesterday
by
Connie
Hergert
who's,
the
vice
president
of
real
estate
services
for
Ontario,
Power
Generation,
and
so
that
you
know
where
the
Ontario
Power
Generation
lands
are
located.
They
are
located
at
470,
unone
Avenue,
and
that
is
where
you
will
find
the
Portland's
energy
center
and
440
on
one
Avenue
and
that's
the
former.
M
Her
and
generating
station
I
don't
profess
to
go
through
the
letter,
and
you
will
note
that
it
attached
to
that
letter
as
a
letter
dated
May
25th
and
that's
a
very,
very
detailed
letter
that
we
did
send
to
the
strategics
initiative
unit.
With
respect
to
our
comments
on
the
draft
and
why
we're
here
today
is
that
we
do
believe
and
I
did
hear
mr.
Linton
say
that
no
stone
was
left
unturned.
M
In
that
we
raised
three
variant:
critical
issues
to
our
client
and
those
three
issues
remain
unresolved
today
and
although
we
have
participated
in
settlement
discussions
with
staff
with
respect
to
those
appeals,
they
were
never
satisfactorily
resolved
and
those
concerns
stay
today
and
before
it
get
on
to
that.
I
just
want
to
show
you
the
ownership
map
and
mr.
Linton
did
put
that
ownership
map
up.
But
you
will
note
in
looking
at
the
ownership
land
that
most
of
the
land
is
owned
by
the
City
of
Toronto.
M
M
M
And
what
you
have
to
taken
into
consideration
is
this
is
introducing
what
I
would
call
sensitive
land
uses,
not
residential,
but
the
notion
that
this
will
be
public
open
space
on
private
property,
inviting
the
public
to
come
on
to
the
site,
where
you
have
a
hydro
switch
yard.
You
have
PC
and
you
have
the
old
urn,
which
is
now
subject
to
a
long
term
lease
with
respect
to
the
film
industry.
These
are
industrial
uses
and
actually
very
significant
industrial
uses.
Thankfully,
because
of
the
construction
of
the
PC
site,
we
don't
have.
M
The
brownouts
that
we
used
to
have
in
the
city
of
Toronto
population
is
increasing.
The
need
for
power
is
increasing
exponentially
in
the
city
of
Toronto,
and
it
is
critical
that
we
maintain
the
ability
to
not
only
exist
as
we
exist
today,
but
to
expand
into
the
future.
I.
Don't
think
that
the
city
wants
to
start
having
brownouts
again,
so
we
have
to
be
able
to
have
the
potential
to
expand.
M
In
addition
to
that,
the
Hearn
site,
as
you'll
know,
was
at
one
point
operated
by
coal,
where
you're,
showing
open
space
and
inviting
the
public
on
that
site
is
where
a
coal
with
stitch
width.
That's
not
healthy.
That's
not
that's
public
safety
issues,
we're
concerned
about
people
on
the
the
network,
having
safety
issues
being
in
such
close
proximity
to
the
switchyard
to
the
P
EC
site
and
enter
the
industrial
Hearn
site.
M
With
respect
to
some
of
the
things
I'd
like
to
point
out,
there
are,
in
the
provincial
policy
statement,
2014
a
requirement
that
that
includes
electricity
generation
facilities
and
transmission
lines
to
be
protected
and
that
they
should
not
permit
development
and
planned
corridors
that
could
preclude
or
negatively
affect
the
use
of
the
corridor
for
the
purposes
for
which
it
was
identified
as
well
under
the
electricity
act.
It
protects
this
particular
use
and
the
expansion
of
this
use,
as
long
as
it
meets
the
regulations
in
the
future.
M
M
M
It
is
very
pretty
oh
I'm,
sorry
if
you
look
at
the
location
of
the
broad
view,
extension
and
the
extension
of
Unwin
out
on
you.
It
creates
a
fragmentation
of
our
client
site,
so
the
property
south
of
unone
and
the
property
west
of
the
broad
view
extension
would
be
separated
and
segregated
for
the
remainder
of
the
site.
So
in
the
future,
then
we're
trying
to
plan
for
future
uses
such
as
the
expansion
of
the
PDC
site
or
the
expansion
of
any
electricity
generation
on
that
site.
M
That
would
have
a
negative
impact
on
our
client,
and
this
again
is
all
being
done
on
private
lands
and
I.
Don't
want
to
go
back
to
the
map
that
I
showed
you
initially,
which
is
the
land
use
ownership
lands.
But
if
you
look
at
the
City
of
Toronto
parcels,
none
of
the
City
of
Toronto
parcels
are
so
negatively
impacted
by
these
roads
by
these
trails
and
by
the
imposition
of
the
open
space
designation
that
occurs
on
any
other
industrial
property.
In
this
particular
area.
M
We
have
been
raising
these
concerns
with
the
city
since
2003
2005
were
a
party
to
the
OMB
hearing
and
we're
raising
them
again.
These
issues
have
not
been
resolved
and
we
certainly
appreciate
and
respect
the
ability
of
the
City
of
Toronto
to
plan
for
the
Portland's
in
the
future,
but
we
have
to
be
mindful
of
the
industries
that
are
there
and
this
industry
in
particular,
because
this
particular
site
is
very
critical
to
the
city
of
Toronto
in
terms
of
power
generation,
and
we
cannot
ignore
this
significance
of
that.
M
A
A
Q
N
Like
Toronto
Community
Housing
would
be
under
an
act
of
a
private
corporation,
correct,
but
understanding
that,
even
though
you're
under
the
act
of
a
private
corporation,
the
underlying
land
ownership
for
Toronto
Community
Housing
as
an
example,
is
the
City
of
Toronto.
Is
the
underlying
land
ownership,
not
the
province
of
Ontario.
Q
N
Q
Any
land
use
decision
we
would
make
if
it
was.
If
we
were
selling
the
property.
If
we
were
buying
a
property,
we
would
approach
our
shareholder
to
to
advise
them,
and
if
there
was
a
concern
from
the
province,
we
would
would
be
told
given
direction
as
to
what's
right,
because
that's
ultimately
our
our
shareholder
and
we
wouldn't
make
a
decision
without
there.
Your.
N
N
How
much
of
a
conversation
have
you
had
with
your
shareholder,
or
you
understand
your
shareholder?
Has
representatives
on
the
board
of
Waterfront
Toronto
directly
is
one
of
the
Tri
governments?
How
many
conversations
have
you
had
directly
with
your
shareholder
about
their
aspirations
for
the
portland's
and
their
underlying
land
ownership
as
being
part
of
a
plan
I.
Q
Can't
speak
to
that
and
through
mr.
chair
the
there
hasn't
been
a
real
reason
for
my
understanding
to
approach
any
of
the
members
of
the
waterfront
in
Toronto
that
may
be
on.
There
might
be
members
of
the
provincial
cabinet
or
whatever,
but
there
hasn't
been.
This
is
the
only
change
that
we're
looking
at
now
and,
as
our
solicitors
indicated,
there's
a
number
of
fundamental
changes
that
thank.
N
Q
N
Q
N
N
M
M
N
M
A
D
D
D
Yeah
I'm
aware
I'm,
aware
of
the
Business
Corporations
Act
and
I'm.
We
have
the
same
issue
with
Toronto
Hydro.
They
you
know
their
charters
in
compliant
with
the
Business
Corporations
Act.
Nevertheless,
they
are
a
City
of
Toronto
agency
owned
by
us.
Similarly,
your
owned
by
the
province
in
your
crown
corporations
that
correct
that's
fair,
which
makes
the
land
you
sit
on
crown
land.
Q
A
D
M
M
Q
D
Yeah
and
I'm,
aware
of
the
the
provinces,
long
term,
energy
plan
in
broad
strokes
and
similarly,
we
have
our
long-term
climate
plan,
don't
both
of
them.
Imagine
a
reduction
in
the
use
of
fossil
fuel
is
not
an
increase
that
would
be
accurate.
Okay,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
understood
the
answer
you
gave
councillor
Fletcher
about
the
conversations
around
the
her
insight.
You
said
there
have
been
conversations
has:
has
part
of
the
agreement
been
legally
triggered
to
initiate
those
conversations,
I
guess
someone
filed
a
doctor
is
the
Hearne
group
or
mister
quarter.
Q
D
M
Mr.
chairman,
if
I
may
just
finish
the
quote
on
the
electricity
at
what
that
section
says,
is
that
any
site
that
was
used
for
electricity
through
fossil
fuels
prior
to
the
date
of
March
of
1999
can
continue
or
can
introduce
any
uses
that
comply
with
the
regulations,
so
those
would
be
whatever
regulations
are
passed
by
the
province
under
the
electricity
Act.
So
it's
it's.
It's
just
permitting.
The
full
range
of
whatever
regulations
would
correct.
I.
Q
H
H
H
Q
M
M
H
And
so,
and
and
the
herd
just
akattak
you,
so
you
so
you're
one
of
your
objections
to
the
way
that
the
city
has
operated
in
this,
and
your
in
your
talks
is
that
you
don't
feel
that
this
city
has
been.
You
feel
that
the
city
is
is
enabling
incursion
onto
your
onto
the
OPG
properties
that
correct
that
is
correct,
mr.
chairman,
and
and
does
part
of
the
objection
relate
to
the
Hearn
site
as
well.
The
incursion
on
the
Hearn
site
that
is.
M
M
H
M
H
Q
Q
The
opportunity
and
I
think
it
would
affect
the
opportunities.
Should
there
ever
be
a
need
for
another
generation
type,
whether
it
be
gas
or
solar
or
anything
else.
It's
coming
very
close
to
those
those
lands
on
the
Hearn
site,
as
Mary
Flynn
had
indicated,
it's
the
bridge
crossing
a
broad
view
coming
across
it
fragments
the
westerly
portion
of
the
site
on
the
Hearn
side
and
then,
similarly,
the
Unwin
realignment
comes
very
close
to
the
stack
okay.
H
A
Thank
you,
I
have
a
question,
but
first
of
all
this
in
googley
Eddie
Pepitone
skate
five
minutes,
there's
a
second
deputed.
They
get
five
minutes.
The
first
deputed
can't
bring
a
second
Depp
unit
and
I
won't
commit
in
the
future
to
speak
for
them.
You
know
it's
not
right.
Cuz
you've
been
here
before
I,
wouldn't
allow
it
for
councillor
perks,
to
bring
people
here
to
do
that
and
if
you
do
wish
to
extend
it
and
have
this
second
person
carry
on
with
speaking
cuz.
That's
the
appropriate
way
to
deal
with
us.
A
A
A
A
M
Are
mr.
chairman,
sorry,
if
we
were
to
go
through
site
plan
approval
I'm,
you
know
I'm,
just
imagining
from
my
experience
having
done
this
for
34
years,
the
minute
that
we
do,
that
the
city
would
ask
for
dedications
and
as
well
for
the
pedestrian
cycling
path
to
be
provided
to
the
city
free
of
charge
as
part
of
the
site
plan,
approval
process.
A
A
What
proximity
do
you
have
to
have
and
I
guess?
It's
a
tech,
more
of
a
technical
question,
mr.
Davies.
How
far
away
does
this
generating
plant
have
to
be
from
the
public
because
I've
seen
them
there
and
I've
seen
them
in
other
countries,
their
buildings
that
burn
gas
and
create
electricity
and
I,
don't
know
how
far
away
they
really
have
to
be
because
it's
a
danger
there.
But
what
is
the
distance
they
have
to
be?
Mr.
Q
Chair
the
the
provincial
policy
statement,
there's
compatibility
policies
of
the
province
that
introduced
in
the
2014
PPS
provincial
policy
statement
and
it
doesn't
define
a
distance
but
I
think
there's
would
be
something
if
you're
introducing
sensitive
land
uses
like
the
parks
and
open
space
from
an
existing
major
facility.
It
believes
the
definition
and
that
a
gas
plant
would
be
that
you
would
have
to
do
site-specific
study
to
understand
what
a
setback
ought
to
be
for
a.
A
Lot
of
this,
one
of
the
questions
was
doing
a
pedestrian
chair
across
the
edge
of
the
ship
channel,
so
either
it
could
be
done
on
land
that
is
currently
under
provincial
ownership
or,
if
I'm
correct.
The
city
then
could
do
it
into
the
chip
channel
by
hanging
it
on
the
side
of
it.
Is
that
a
dangerous
use
for
you
to
pose
it
to
have
a
a
walking
trail
along
the
edge
of
that
property?.
J
Q
Think
you
know
through
design
you
could
mitigate
it.
No
question
I
think
the
the
general
concern
would
be
from
a
setback
and-
and
there
is
an
existing
major
facility
there
juxtaposed
but
beside
the
park
or
open
spaces
there,
would
it
introduce
a
risk
to
the
operation
or
introduce
risk
to
public
safety.
I,
don't
think
the
fact
that
there's
a
trail
there
is
necessarily
by
itself
an
issue.
It's
just.
It's
unusual
in
some
ways
to
have
Charles
are
close
to
a
facility
of
that
sort
and.
A
Then
this
is
an
official
plan
amendment,
so
really
it
would
come
into
play
if
there
was
a
change
of
use
on
the
land
or
an
application
for
the
city
for
those
changes
and
it'll
be
considered
at
that
time.
So
your
objection
now
is
seems
to
be
one
based
on
the
fact
that
you
don't
want
to
see
any
changes
now
and
I.
Don't
think
that
there
are
any
changes
being
contemplated
now
this
is
a
fifty
year
plan
and
you're
saying
you
don't
want
to
see
any
changes
in
the
next
50
years
through.
M
You,
mr.
chairman,
III,
think
the
answer
to
the
question
is
simply
that
when
we
plant
and
even
when
we
plan
into
the
50
year
horizon,
we
have
to
be
cognizant
of.
Are
we
putting
land
uses
side
by
side
that
are
a
compatible?
Are
we
creating
roads
and
trails
that
are
compatible
with?
What's
there?
What
could
be
there
in
the
future?
Sorry.
M
But
if
you
look
at
the
recommendations
are
under
recommendation
7a,
it
is
instructing
staff
to
immediately
start
going
through
the
zoning
process
to
ensure
that
the
zoning
bylaw
totally
complies
with
the
Official
Plan.
So
that
is
one
of
that
is
recommendation
7a
in
in
staffs
recommendations
today
that
you're
being
asked
to
approve
so
you'd
have
the
Opie
and
the
zoning
would
follow
right
behind.
M
A
Only
that
only
comes
into
play
if
there
are
changes
to
the
use.
Your
current,
your
current
facility,
can
maintain
if
you
wish
to
generate
in
the
old
facility,
which
was
a
decision
that
was
not
financially
viable.
That's
why
it's
still
rented
out
supposedly
as
a
film
studio
that
could
become
generating,
and
none
of
that
would
be
affected
by
this
plan
if
those
uses
were
continued.
But
if
you
wish
to
change
the
uses
on
the
land
or
come
in
for
something
new
on
it,
then
this
would
fall
into
place
if.
M
A
M
A
A
B
So
I'm
Kathy
McDonald
co-chair
of
Fonterra
but
I'm,
not
representing
Fon
today
today,
particularly
on
this
issue,
my
involvement
in
the
waterfront
and
Portland's
goes
back
to
helping
set
up
the
whole
idea
of
having
a
waterfront
corporation
and
getting
it
in
place.
So
I'm
very
pleased
to
be
here
today
and
see
the
Portland's
plan
developed
to
the
extent
that
it
has
I'm.
Also
a
boater
and
like
Julie
battle,
could
have
concerned
that
the
the
plan
proposals
don't
really
reflect
the
opportunity
for
recreational
boating
that
is
offered
by
the
Portland's
with
its
location
by
the
harbor.
B
The
outer
harbor
and
the
ship
channel
and
I
was
are
very
pleased
to
see
in
Greg's
presentation
boating
on
the
Keating
channel.
This
is
a
fabulous
resource
for
the
city
and
I
was
looking
for
objectives
about
using
Portland's
area
to
promote
recreational
boating,
so
that
sort
of
one
point
I
wanted
to
raise.
A
G
Thank
You
chair
and
councillors,
hi
I'm
John
Wilson
I'm,
a
co-chair
of
the
West
Don
lands
committee,
West
Don
lands
jibbety
has
been
intimately
involved
with
the
planning
and
public
consultation
on
the
waterfront
and
the
port
lands
since
our
foundation
in
1997.
So
we've
been
at
this
for
quite
some
time.
So
thank
you
for
the
chance
to
speak
to
you
on
this
important
city
building
initiative.
G
The
Portland's
planning
initiative
ism
is
made
possible,
as
you
know,
by
the
commitment
of
the
city,
the
province
and
the
federal
government
to
fund
130
each
of
the
1.25
billion
dollar
project
to
naturalize
and
flood
protect
the
mouth
of
the
Don
River.
This
project
is
beginning
this
fall
and
over
seven
years
it
will
create
a
naturalized
three
separate
mouth
spillways,
an
open
of
the
wide
Smit
swath
of
800
acres
of
land
in
the
Portland's,
where
the
city
can
grow
sustainably
sustainably
for
at
least
the
next
generation.
G
This
is
tremendously
exciting
and
there
is
great
public
interest
and
a
committed
waterfront
community
who
have
been
engaged
in
the
process
of
building
this
initiative
for
coming
on
to
30
years
now,
I'm.
Confident
in
saying
that
it
is
the
public
support
and
commitment
to
the
Don
River
in
the
waterfront
that
has
driven
this
initiative
forward
and
kept
it
on
track.
G
It
is
very
challenging
to
comment
substantively
on
the
500
pages
of
the
framework
plan,
the
villiers
bailan
precinct
plan
on
the
official
amendment
that
have
been
issued
and
reissued
over
the
past
week.
This
is
because
the
consultation
process
that
the
community
seems
to
have
gone
with
the
community
seems
to
go
on
off
the
rails
in
the
past
year.
I
say
this
because
after
broad
public
engagement
over
several
years,
there's
been
no
public
open
house
this
year
and
no
stakeholder
meetings
since
March
there
is.
G
There
is
much
to
like
in
the
Portland
framework
plan
and
the
billiards
island
precinct
plan,
there
are
some
truly
inspiring
pieces,
the
50-year
visionary
language,
the
biodiversity
framework,
the
mixed-use
plans
for
Villiers
Island
and
the
work
that's
been
done
to
make
the
Don
River
mouth
the
center
for
the
centerpiece
for
our
waterfront,
the
elevated
language
of
the
business
vision,
statements,
the
six
essential
elements,
big
and
diverse,
of
urban
and
wild,
etc.
The
transitional
moves
the
twelve
objectives.
G
These
are
generally
very
inspiring
and
positive,
but
they've
only
been
out
in
front
of
an
engaged
public
in
their
final
forum
for
about
a
week.
So
it's
we
feel
confident
that
they
it's
hard
to
feel
confident
that
they
have
been
road-tested.
There
is
a
feeling
that
the
consultation
process
and
framework
developed
by
Waterfront
Toronto
in
the
past
has
been
sidelined.
A.
G
Community-Driven
safety
net
beneath
the
Portland's
planning
process
is
still
crucial.
We
see
see
serious
risks
that
the
process
will
be
short-circuited
at
the
outset.
We
have
been
raising
concerns
about
the
specific
land-use
Direction
categories
for
the
Clery
district,
film
studio,
District,
River,
South
impulses
and
districts
for
months,
but
these
have
been
ignored.
G
What
we
feel
is
missing
is
a
transparent
process
to
govern
the
transition
from
the
unvarnished
potential
of
the
present
through
the
transformation
of
the
Don
River
and
the
build-out
of
neighboring
communities
over
twenty
to
fifty
years,
particularly
concerning
to
us
in
a
strict
categories
set
out
in
the
land-use
direction.
We
feel
that
they
do
not
allow
the
innovative
approach
that
has
been
brought
to
key
side
by
Waterfront
Toronto
and
primarily
we're
looking
for
innovative
and
transparent
ways
to
keep
the
public
engaged
in
governing
the
evolution
of
the
Portland's.
G
That
is
why
the
West
Don
lands
committee
is
collaborating
with
other
groups
to
create
a
coalition
called
waterfront
for
all.
We
hope
that
to
begin
the
process,
starting
with
our
waterfront
summit,
to
be
held
on
October,
27
and
28
of
putting
the
public
back
at
the
center
of
water
of
Portland's
revitalization.
G
We
have
a
hard
time
giving
Blanc
a
tad
or
endorsement
to
the
planning
framework
and
the
goose
island
precinct
plant.
This
time,
because
we
have
had
a
fairly
brief
time
to
look
at
it
together
and
discuss
it
together.
But
we
are
looking
for
at
this
moment
for
as
an
opportunity
to
work
with
all
parties
at
the
city,
at
Waterfront
Toronto
and
in
the
communities
across
the
waterfront,
to
put
the
waterfront
vision
back
in
the
wrong
the
rails
as
a
movement
as
a
movement
springing
from
and
led
by
the
people
or
a.
N
G
G
Remove
the
lens
from
public
ownership,
I
I
would
like
to
see
those
lands
remain
in
public
ownership.
I
would
like
to
see
us
have
the
wherewithal
to
guide
and
direct
what
happens
at
the
her
and
the
Hearn
is
a
fantastic
resource
and
as
long
you
know,
we
need
to
be
in
the
driver's
seat
on
the
Hearn
and.
A
N
A
A
E
N
G
Hoping
that
as
I'm
saying
I'm,
hoping
that
we
reintroduce
the
public
fulsomely
into
all
the
discussions
that
happen
on
the
waterfront,
including
what
happens
at
the
Hearn,
including
what
happens
throughout
the
Portland's
and
along
the
waterfront
from
Etobicoke
to
Scarborough.
And
this
is
what
our
goal
is.
But.
N
G
N
I'll
ask
the
staff
about
the
stakeholder
groups
because
I
believe
there's
two
there's
a
land-use
group.
That's
right
and
you'd
agree
that
there
are
issues
around
land
use
here
and
private,
where
the
lands
are
privately
owned,
that
make
things
not
as
straightforward
and
that
that
was
part
of
the
problem
with
the
2010
environmental
assessment.
Some
of
these
major
private
land
owners
hadn't
been
accounted
for.
My.
G
N
It's
not
as
if
it's
a
city
of
I
don't
clarify
that
with
staff
that
this
is
signed
off
by
both
agencies,
suppose
the
city
and
our
agency,
yes,
great
thanks
so
much
for
all
of
your
efforts,
400
Marine,
Terminal,
2035
Julie,
that
was
Miss
barrows,
suggested
that
it
could
be
maintained
and
perhaps
repurposed.
Would
you
be
okay
with
that
thinking
to
pull
everybody
together
to
see
what
the
future
of
that
should
be
or
you
still
marine.
G
Terminal
yeah,
my
preference
has
been
to
see
that
turn
into
parkland
and
made
that
if
the
marine
terminal
is
to
remain
to
have
it
as
minimal
a
footprint
as
as
is
reasonable,
but
I
also
think
that
I'm,
not
the
only
the
only
wise
voice
on
that
matter
and
I,
think
that
there
needs
to
be
a
continuing
public
engagement
as
to
what
to
do
there.
So.
A
Members
of
committee,
this
was
the
last
step
you
don't,
there
might
be
a
little
bit
more
in
questioning
and
there
was
an
item
I
held.
Could
I
just
have
a
vote
to
extend
to
deal
with
the
item
that
we
have
held,
which
was
the
PG
23
point
to
the
solar
panels?
No
I
can
do
that
and
questions
of
the
deputy
tent
and
then
our
deputations
will
be
finished.
We
can
come
back
after
lunch
and
ask
questions
of
staff.
Some
motion
to
extend
for
that
purpose.
A
A
A
Reiterations
of
the
draft
I
believe
over
a
period
of
time,
I'm
staff
working
up
to
that
meeting
with
what
they
were
looking
at
to
put
on
this
a
framework
that
your
organization
was
aware
of
the
drafts
in
the
past.
I'm.
Sorry,
could
you
repeat
the
question:
this
is
the
final
document.
Yes,
I've,
never
seen
a
final
document,
this
thick
being
done
without
there
being
drafts
of
it
and
recommendations.
A
Documented
self,
but
there
were
previous
drafts
of
that-
you
are
yes,
I'm,
sorry
I'm
not
trying
to
be
picky
as
oh.
No,
your
honor
I
mean
I'm
trying
to
make
is
the
direction
that
the
staff
were
going
in
and
their
recommendations
that
they
were
going
in.
They
did
have
multiple
discussions
with
your
organization
up
until
March,
yes,
and
then
they
finalized
their
draft
at
that
time
and
made
that
public.
Yes,
so
they
had
their
meetings
until
then,
and
then
it's
a
public
document
for
everyone
else
to
see.
A
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
and
then
just
a
point.
I
have
no
further
questions.
There's
anyone
else.
Thank
you
very
much
appreciate
you
coming.
There
was
a
comment
made
earlier
about
two
lobbyists
that
were
apparently
by
one
of
the
people
that
were
lobbying
members,
so
I
had
my
staff
check
and
mr.
Duffy
has
no
registrations
of
any
public
meetings
with
any
of
us
and
I,
because
I
was
questioning
whether
he
had
lobbied
any
of
us
and
I
see
none,
although
he
did
register
to
represent
pine
wood
as
of
May
in
2016
and
mr.
Adler
did
register.
A
Also
in
May
of
2016
sent
some
emails
in,
but
only
met
was
a
few
of
the
counselor
staff,
never
with
the
counselors.
So
I
really
only
bring
that
up,
because
it's
not
appropriate
I,
don't
think
to
say
that
we
had
been
lobbied
extensively
on
plans
when
none
of
us
on
the
committee
to
the
registration
show
that
we've
ever
met
with
those
two
individuals,
so
that
was
it
just
over
and
well
none
of
it.
The
the
notice
that
only
councillor
Crawford
Kelly
that
your
staff
counselor
flasher
may
have
been
contacted
by
mr.
A
Adler,
but
not
yourself
for
ourselves
or
anyone.
The
item
that
I
just
wanted
to
deal
with
was
the
one
that
we
held,
which
was
the
request
for
a
report
on
residential
solar
panels.
Protection
provisions
and
I
spoke
with
the
staff
and
they're
fine
to
come
back
with
it
in
the
new
year
and
added
into
their
work
plan.
So
I
would
just
like
to
move
their
recommendations
to
adopt
the
recommendations
that
councilman
havok
has
asked
us
to
do
in
his
memo
to
us
also
move
all
those
in
favor
opposed.