►
From YouTube: Planning and Housing Committee - September 17, 2019
Description
Planning and Housing Committee, meeting 8, September 17, 2019
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=15428
Meeting Navigation:
0:00:39 - Call to order
2:39:03 - Public Session
Agenda Items:
0:03:52 - PH8.1 - Review of Electrical Systems at Toronto Community Housing: Update on Maintenance and Upgrade Processes for Electrical Services (Ward All)
0:02:20 - PH8.2 - Review of the Terms of Reference - Subcommittee on the Protection of Affordable Rental Housing (Ward All)
0:20:18 - PH8.3 - Open Door Program Call for Applications 2019: Support for 651 New Affordable Rental Homes (Ward 4, 5, 6, 9, 14, 19, 20, 21)
0:02:41 - PH8.4 - Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 363, Construction and Demolition By-law Update (Ward All)
1:08:11 - PH8.5 - Feasibility of Implementing a Support Centre for Committee of Adjustment and Toronto Local Appeal Body Matters (Ward All)
2:21:50 - PH8.6 - Appeals of City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 - Request for Direction (Ward All)
1:26:51 - PH8.7 - End-to-End Review of the Development Review Process (Ward All)
2:20:33 - PH8.8 - Response to Auditor General's Outstanding Recommendation Regarding Section 37 and Section 45 Funds Not Received in 2008-2017 Approvals (Ward All)
A
A
A
Good
morning,
everybody
welcome
to
meeting
8
of
the
planning
and
Housing
Committee
due
to
a
medical
emergency
were
about
a
half
an
hour
delay.
We
certainly
hope
that
everything
turns
out
to
be
ok
and
the
person
is
in
good
health,
I
hope
everybody
had
an
excellent
summer
and
is
all
reenergized
to
do
lots
of
work
that
we
have
coming
in
the
fall
and
I
want
to
welcome
back
the
members
of
the
committee
and
welcome
the
members
of
the
public
here
in
attendance
and
for
those
in
the
room
with
us.
A
We
acknowledge
the
land
we
are
meeting
on
as
the
traditional
territory
of
many
nations,
including
the
Mississauga's
of
the
credi,
the
credit
beyond
ashabi,
the
ship
away,
Tohono
Shawnee
and
the
wind
at
people's
and
is
now
home
to
many
diverse
First
Nations
in
we
and
maytee
peoples.
We
also
acknowledge
that
Toronto
is
covered
by
treaty.
Thirteen
with
the
Mississauga's
of
the
credit
are
there
any
declarations
of
interest
other
than
under
the
municipal
conflict
of
interesting
at
interest
act.
A
Seeing
none
can
I
have
a
motion
to
confirm
the
minutes
of
the
July
3rd
2019
meeting
councillor
perks,
all
those
in
favor
that
carries
and
we
will
go
through
the
agenda
right
now.
So
first
item
review
of
electrical
systems
at
Toronto,
Community,
Housing,
update
on
maintenance
and
upgrade
process
for
electrical
services
at
Council,
wong-tam,
review
of
the
terms
of
reference
subcommittee
on
the
protection
of
affordable
rental
housing,
move
approval
by
councillor
perks,
all
those
in
favor
that
carries
8.3,
open
door
program
call
for
applications,
2019
support
for
651,
new,
affordable
rental
homes.
A
We
have
speakers
on
that.
Eight
point:
six:
appeals
of
citywide
zoning
bylaw;
five,
six,
nine,
two
thousand
thirteen
request
for
a
direction.
Councillor
perks,
asked
your
hold
eight
point:
seven
and
two
end
review
of
the
development
review
process.
We
have
deputations
on
that
item
and
eight
point:
eight
response
to
auditors
general
outstanding
recommendation
regarding
section
37
and
section
45
funds
not
received
in
2008
to
2017
approvals.
A
B
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
I
have
some
questions
for
staff.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
report.
I
just
want
to
have
a
fuller
understanding
with
respect
to
the
maintenance
program
and
the
upgrades
many
of
the
TCH
see
buildings
are
of
a
particular
vintage,
we're
looking
at
60,
70
80
years
old,
similar
to
that
of
650
Parliament,
which
is
where
we
saw
the
catastrophic
failure
of
the
electrical
system
is
that
are
all
them.
Are
all
the
electrical
systems
and
TCH
see
buildings
as
reported
here?
C
Thank
you
for
the
question
counselor
through
the
chair.
I
will
speak
counselor
for
the
from
the
fire
perspective
and
actually
I
did
follow
up.
Knowing
this
item
was
on
the
agenda
this
morning
with
the
general
manager
of
the
Electoral
Safety
Authority,
so
the
from
the
electrical
perspective
counselor,
the
general
manager
of
the
Electoral
Safety
Authority,
has
the
utmost
confidence
in
the
electrical
maintenance
systems
in
the
TCH
buildings
that
are
owned
and
managed
by
TCH,
and
he
wants
me.
He
wanted
me
to
draw
a
distinction.
C
They
have
been
part
of
the
proactive
electrical
inspection
with
the
Electrical
Safety
Authority
for
a
number
of
years,
and
the
Electrical
Safety
Authority
has
no
concerns
on
the
preventative
maintenance
side
for
those
owned
by
and
managed
by
Toronto
Community
Housing,
where
the
Electrical
Safety
Authority
has
expressed.
Concerns
and
confidence
are
those
contract
managed.
They
have
not
been
participating
in
the
proactive
electrical
inspections
because
they
are,
they
are
contracted
out
and
those
are
similar
issues
that
we
have
seen
what
the
fire
prevention
matters
are.
C
B
And
then,
with
respect
to
ensuring
that
we
can
prevent,
if
we're
trying
to
do
everything,
we
can
to
prevent
electrical
fires
to
ensure
that
electrical
systems
are
not
compromised,
including
those
false
alarms.
I
know
that
that's
a
constant
breach
is
there
anything
more
that
TC
HC
owned
buildings,
whether
they're
contracted
out
or
perhaps
TC
HC
managed.
Is
there
anything
more
that
the
corporation
can
do,
because
it
sounds
to
me:
we've
got
two
tiers
of
TC
agency
buildings.
C
Through
the
deputy
mayor,
Councillor
I
will
state
from
again
from
a
fire
perspective.
Those
buildings
that
are
managed
and
operated
by
Toronto
Community
Housing
solely
have
certainly
a
lot
less
violations
that
Toronto
Fire
have
noted
over
the
number
of
years.
So
from
that
perspective,
no
they've
been
very
proactive
with
us,
and
that
was
the
same
message
communicated
to
me
this
morning
by
the
general
manager
of
the
Electrical
Safety
Authority
in
terms
of
the
preventative
maintenance
in
terms
of
those
buildings
that
are
managed
outside
of
TCH
by
contract
companies.
B
Thank
you
is
THC
here
to
answer
questions
for
our
staff
at
TCH,
see
I
want
to
know
the
the
program
that
THC
managed
buildings
go
under
with
respect
to
safety.
Audits
seems
mandatory,
but
for
those
that
are
contracted
out
to
third
party
property
managers
is
not.
Is
there
a
reason
for
this
service
discrepancy.
D
Allen
Murray,
acting
vice
president
for
facilities,
management
with
Toronto
Community
Housing
I,
also
live
in
your
in
your
Ward,
so
I'm
familiar
with
the
area
as
part
of
the
RFP
for
the
contract
property
managers.
They
are
responsible
for
implementing
their
own
electrical
PM
program.
So
there
is.
It
is
part
of
their
contract
to
complete
a
PM
program
using
the
specifications
that
are
set
out
by
TC
HC.
So.
D
We
believe
that
they're,
following
their
own
program,
they
are
required
to
submit
their
full
PM
records
to
TC
HC
when
there's
a
deficiency,
and
we
do
review
the
entire
PM
program
to
ensure
the
property
managers
are
meeting
the
required
specifications
and
standards
to
make
sure
they're
addressing
any
deficiencies.
What
we
are
moving
towards
is
to
require
them
to
submit
the
full
PM
reports
annually
and
to
standardize
their
documentation
because
they
don't
have
standardized
documentation.
May.
D
A
E
D
E
E
D
E
C
Through
the
deputy
mayor,
Councillor
Fletcher
I
don't
have
a
breakdown
between
the
number
of
fires
between
contract
management,
buildings
and
TCH
buildings.
What
I
can
say
is
the
number
of
violations
we
have
noted
over
the
last
number
of
years.
There
is
a
difference.
A
higher
proportionate
number
in
contract
managed
buildings
than
those
managed
by
TCH.
B
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
I
will
just
suggest
that
we
move
this
report
along
to
to
City
Council
I'm,
not
entirely
satisfied
with
the
approach
of
simply
adopting
the
the
report
in
its
entirety
by
council.
I
would
like
to
I
would
like
to
work
with
TCH
see,
trial
fire
and
the
Electrical
Safety
Authority,
on
how
we
can
actually
strengthen
what's
contained
in
here.
B
B
E
This
report
I'm
going
to
move
this
report
to
Council
formally
because
it's
not
technically
going
there.
Yet
it's
just
a
report
for
the
committee
and
at
that
point,
I
will
ask
as
well
that
this
report
before
worded
to
that
City
Council
forward
the
report
to
the
Toronto
Community
Housing
Board
of
Directors
and
I
guess
this
means
it
has
to
go
to
council,
so
I
think
I'm
doing
the
same
thing.
We
wanted
to
do
that.
This
is
really
an
interesting,
an
interesting
report.
E
It's
very
good
to
know
that
in
our
directly
managed
buildings,
things
are
being
managed
so
well
so
I
want
to
thank
you
very
much
for
the
work
around
fire
safety
and
fire
prevention,
and
it's
very
concerning
to
note
that
in
the
contract
manage
buildings
that
things
aren't
going
as
well,
that
is
left
up
to
the
contract
managers.
So
we
don't
know
if
they're
cutting
corners
are
not
would
probably
do
book
bit
more
of
work
on
that
when
it
gets
to
TCH.
See.
E
I
would
note
that,
through
our
tenant
satisfaction
survey
at
Toronto,
Community
Housing,
that
the
contract
managed
buildings
were
scored
significantly
lower
20
or
30
percent
lower.
In
tenant
satisfaction
than
the
directly
operated
buildings,
so
the
council
had
made
a
motion
to
eliminate
contract
managed
buildings.
E
Tch
C
is
looking
that
this
is
incredible
kind
of
weight
or
moving
in
that
direction,
because
fire
safety-
and
nobody
knows
that
more
than
you
counts
a
long
time
when
you
have
a
big
building
that
you
have
a
compromised
fire
system
and
what
happens
there,
such
as
the
one
you
had
on
Parliament
to
write
650
and
that
could
happen
in
any
of
our
buildings.
So
the
other
thing
is
that's
interesting
and
doesn't
connect
to.
E
This
is
just
a
number
of
false
alarms
that
are
coming
from
Toronto
Community
Housing
and
how
we're
managing
that
and
I'm
just
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
asked
for
that
before,
but
I'm
sure
we'll
find
a
way
to
find
that
out
to
manage
the
false
alarms
and
just
thank
the
staff
for
their
vigilance
around
fire
safety,
both
TCH,
see
and
also
our
fantastic
fire
department,
mr.
Jessop
you're,
always
on
the
job.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
So
I
I
would
just
like
to
thank
staff,
because
when
I
was
talking
to
staff
before
the
meeting
and
I
was
being
told
that
actually
most
of
the
buildings
at
TCH
see
their
electrical
service
is
way
better
than
the
average
of
the
city.
So
that's
good
to
know.
It
is
disappointing
to
know
that
our
outsource,
managed
buildings
are
not
up
to
par.
A
So
the
report
will
be
moved
to
2
to
Council,
but
we're
looking
forward
to
working
with
TCH
see
in
our
fire
department
to
make
sure
that
both
are
contracted
out,
managed
buildings
and
our
directly
managed
buildings
have
the
same
standards
and
they're
way
above
par.
What
we
have
in
the
rest
of
the
city
for
once
that
TCH
C,
is,
is
actually
delivering
well
on
on
this.
So
with
that,
counselor
Fletcher
moved
a
motion
and
the
report,
if
I,
could
have
a
vote
on
back
to
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries.
A
F
So
counselors
I
won't
waste
your
time
this
morning,
because
I
know
you're
running
behind
already.
My
name
is
Mark.
Richardson
I
am
from
housing
now
co.com.
We
are
a
website
that
was
established
last
year
after
the
mayor
made
his
announcement
for
40,000
new,
affordable
housing
units
over
the
next
12
years,
which
is
an
average
requirement
that
you
guys
need
to
deliver
3300
units
of
affordable
housing
every
year.
That's
a
really
tough
number
for
you
to
get
to.
F
As
you
are
well
aware,
over
the
last
eight
nine
months
we
launched
our
public
open
map
of
the
housing
now
sites
that
were
announced,
trying
to
make
the
information
as
clear
as
possible,
trying
to
be
as
transparent
as
possible
and
also
trying
to
track
against
the
targets.
Since
we
launched
in
January
we've
had
over
23,000
visitors
to
our
website
and
coming
soon
to
our
website
is
going
to
be
all
of
your
open
doors
history.
So
every
opened
doors
site
that
you
have
assigned
numbers
to
since
2015.
F
Really
we
just
trying
to
do
this
because
we're
finding
that
getting
the
information
is
incredibly
difficult.
You
have
to
go
into
different
staff
reports.
Different
PDFs
scrape
information
out
of
teenis
numbers
and
dates
that
were
assigned
to
these
projects
in
previous
years.
Don't
always
come
to
fruition
for
various
different
reasons.
So
for
a
couple
of
examples,
there's
the
open
door
site
from
a
few
years
ago,
those
at
3:55
Coxwell
we
supposed
to
have
33
seniors
housing
units
that
project
fell
apart.
F
As
far
as
we
can
tell
we're,
still
counting
those
numbers
in
some
of
the
talking
points
that
are
used
about
affordable
housing.
Yesterday
we
were
out
at
80
Dale,
which
is
going
to
be
at
full
council
next
week.
I
believe
so,
please
feel
free
to
talk
about
80
Dale,
where
you
went
from
a
hundred
and
sixteen
units
in
the
original
proposal
down
to
33
in
the
revised
proposal.
So
you
lost
83
units
of
affordable
housing.
You
only
lost
17
units
of
market
housing.
This
is
a
site
next
to
a
go
station.
It's
transit
oriented
development.
F
So
this
is
a
slide
that
sometimes
gets
used,
and
this
is
a
talking
point
that
gets
used,
that
you
have
7,000,
affordable
rental
units
under
development.
That's
a
super
fuzzy
number,
because
it's
really
what
you
have
said
you're
going
to
develop
on
these
sites.
They
can
be
in
a
really
embryonic
state
in
the
development
process,
things
can
fall
apart.
These
numbers
never
seem
to
get
revised
down.
F
So
the
terms
under
development
and
pre
development
are
fairly
unreliable,
while
they're
being
discussed
around
here
until
you
get
to
that
column,
that
is
affordable
rental
units
under
construction
until
a
building
permit
is
physically
issued
for
these
projects.
We
just
need
to
be
really
careful
with
how
the
numbers
are
being
being
described
so
across
all
the
affordable
housing
projects,
open
doors,
housing.
Now
the
inclusionary
zoning
plan,
all
of
them
are
gonna,
require
more
density
than
the
locals
want.
F
In
order
for
you
to
make
your
math
work,
that's
pretty
clear
from
every
housing
now
meeting
we've
been
to
from
the
open
doors
meetings
we've
been
at
as
well.
You
need
to
be
painfully
transparent
with
your
site-by-site
information
to
earn
public
confidence
if
you're
not
painfully
transparent
with
it.
What
happens
is
the
locals
in
their
Facebook
groups
and
their
neighborhood
fliers?
F
You
got
651
units
here
today,
but
as
all
of
these
open
doors
projects
move
forward,
we
need
to
put
meaningful
numbers
and
have
some
way
either
put
it
up
as
open
data
and
we'll
do
the
tracking
or
you
guys
need
to
create
user
interfaces
that
are
much
more
user
friendly.
In
order
for
people
to
be
able
to
have
quality
information
about
your
affordable
housing
programs,
otherwise
you
could
become
the
victim
of
misinformation.
That's
my
time.
F
A
E
D
At
one
of
the
buildings
that
is
one
of
the
651
units
of
affordable
housing,
it's
slated
for
redevelopment
and
she
is
a
member
of
Riverdale's
committee
for
this
housing
development.
She
wanted
to
thank
councillor
Fletcher
and
city
staff
for
helping
to
move
this
project
along
and
to
build
affordable
housing
where
it's
needed.
Thanks.
A
G
Very
much
I
guess
to
the
affordable
housing
office,
so
I've
taken
a
look
at
the
different.
What
are
they
eight
different
proposals
here
and
I've,
divided
them
into
nonprofit
and
for-profit,
and
tried
to
calculate
how
much
public
subsidy
we're
giving
to
each
type,
and
it
looks
to
me
on
a
per
unit
basis
like
the
average
subsidy
for
a
not-for-profit,
is
87
thousand
dollars
per
unit
and
five
hundred
and
forty
eight
thousand
dollars
for
the
for-profit
is
that
in
the
ballpark
it
looks
like
it's
about
a
six
to
one
ratio.
H
Across
the
651,
there
are
more
private
sector
proposals
being
funded
I'm,
asking
on
a
per
unit
basis
a
per
unit
basis.
My
calculations
show
that
the
average
of
the
215
non
profit,
the
total
subsidy
to
18
point.
8
million
is
87,000
per
unit.
Now
in
the
private
sector.
The
total
subsidy
overall
is
thirty
one
point:
eight
million
and
four
hundred
and
thirty
six
units,
which
is
seventy
three
thousand
a
unit,
so
we're
subsidizing
the
per
unit
cost
of
the
non
profits
higher
than.
G
G
Okay,
well
we're
gonna
have
to
sit
down
and
do
our
math
together
to
be
more
than
happy
to
do
that.
One.
The
one
telling
thing,
though,
is
that
the
for-profit
units
are
for
shorter
durations,
30
30,
40,
30
50,
whereas
the
not-for-profit
or
99
years.
So
if
you
take
the
subsidy
on
a
youth
on
a
year
of
housing
basis,
it's
wildly
skewed
in
favor
of
the
for-profit.
Is
that
correct.
G
I
G
J
Thanks
very
much
and
through
the
chair,
noting
on
page
9
of
the
report,
says
that
we
received
a
total
of
20
applications.
Yes,
my
question
is:
do
we
have
a
sense
of
if
this
is
higher
or
lower
than
previous
years
and
what
we
can
do
to
maybe
increase
the
number
of
applications
that
the
city
is
receiving.
H
Counselor
it's
in
keeping
with
the
range
of
applications
that
we've
received
in
previous
years.
What
we
have
done
for
the
first
time
in
this
this
report.
It
is
we're
recommending
some
funding
for
those
applications.
They
came
from
the
nonprofit
organizations
that
we're
not
in
a
position
to
recommend
to
you
today,
but
we're
recommending
$50,000
to
each
of
those
organizations
to
perfect
their
applications
and
come
back
next
year,
so
we're
looking
to
scale
up
the
number
of
the
open
door
program,
but
recognizing
that
all
of
these
projects
are
coming
without
any
federal
or
provincial
funding.
H
H
Prior
to
the
housing
now
initiative
being
introduced,
we
were
targeting
a
thousand
units
a
year
and
so
I
think
from
a
staff
perspective,
we'd
like
to
get
to
a
thousand
units
recognizing
as
well.
That
next
year
is
the
last
year
of
the
open
door
program
and
City
Council
has
a
decision
to
make
as
to
what
that
program
looks
like
and
whether
it
would
be
continued.
Okay,.
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Just
following
up
on
the
agreement
terms,
there
does
seem
to
be
a
discrepancy
with
respect
to
some
agreements
being
thirty
years,
others
going
as
far
as
99
years
and
I
know
that
there's
other
policies
of
the
city
that
actually
had
believed
in
less
of
a
term
lock
in
about
20
years.
Why
is
there
such
a
wide
range
of
this
of
options
for
the
developer,
and
why
do
we
not
just
try
to
be
consistent
and
and
go
for
the
99
years,
the
longest
term
hospital.
H
Typically,
in
these
instances,
a
99
year
term
would
be
something
where
the
city
would
have
owned.
The
land
or
the
land
is
owned
by
a
nonprofit
organization.
We
have
not
factored
in
instances
here
where
land
has
to
be
purchased,
and
so
that
is,
if
you
will
a
drag
on
the
projects
in
so
far
as
the
economics
and
the
ability
to
make
them
work.
So
I
think
we
could
go
back.
H
We
are
having
some
discussions
with
planning,
as
well
with
respect
to
inclusionary
zoning
as
to
whether
there
could
be
a
consistent
term
limit,
if
you
will,
but
all
things
considered.
As
I'd
indicated,
we
removed
the
minimum
term
from
25
to
30
years
and
we
could
look
at
extending
that
further.
If
that's
council's
direction
and.
B
H
The
proposals
that
come
in
it's
a
competitive
process,
and
so
each
of
the
sites
compete
and
we
make
decisions
based
on
what
the
financial
request
is
and
whether
it's
reasonable
the
term
of
affordability,
the
depth
of
affordability,
also
the
unit
sizes
and
also
the
unit
mix.
So
it's
a
lot
of
variables
go
into
the
decision-making
as
well.
H
B
H
B
We
not
simply
be
paying
for
the
the
leasehold
improvements
in
the
build
cost,
but
not
necessarily
land
value,
because
the
land
value
is
fixed
if
they
build
50
stories
or
60
stories.
If,
if
15
floors
goes
to
the
city,
they
the
developer
still
has
their
density
plus
the
financial
incentives
that
we've
offered
them.
Would
it
not
make
more
sense
to
try
to
obtain
the
ownership?
So,
therefore,
we
can
have
affordability
in
perpetuity
as
opposed
to
a
family
and
30
years,
go
by
pretty
quickly,
especially
for
those
who
are
who
are
need
a
fixed,
affordable
housing?
B
Is
it
just
something
that
we
haven't
started
that
conversation
or
is
it
pushback
from
the
industry?
Have
we
thought
about
how
we
can
secure
more
buy
more
without
having
to
buy
the
land,
because
it
sounds
to
me
the
the
best
way
to
go
about
it,
because
we
are
already
financial
incentives
are
already
in.
If
we
go
with
that
extra
distance,
we
know
when
we
just
secure
it.
Okay,.
H
H
B
Fewer
units
yeah
so
right
now
we
we
put
in
approximately
sixty
thousand
two
hundred
and
you're
averaging-
oh
let's
just
say,
sixty
thousand.
We
use
that
number.
But
after
30
years
it's
gone
but
you're
saying
that
if
we
double
that
cost,
they
say
one
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
dollars
or
even
triple
that
costs
one
hundred
and
eighty
thousand
dollars
we
own
it
and
after
99
years
it's
still
within
our
inventory.
H
E
You
councillor
Fletcher,
yes,
I
just
want
to
follow
up
on
that.
Where
circumstances
where
we
are
able
to
purchase
for
a
couple
of
floors
within
a
private
development
when
it's
already
being
built,
are
there
scenarios
that
would
be
friendly
to
that
or
scenarios
that
make
that
easier?
Perhaps
when
some
type
of
city
property
might
be
involved.
H
E
H
E
H
H
I
E
E
E
I
G
On
on
a
different
aspect
of
this,
so
they're
here
in
this
report
there
its
proposed
that
we
exempt
twenty
five
million
dollars
in
fees
and
charges
and
twelve
million
dollars,
while
thirteen
million
dollars.
That's
the
pretty
net,
present
value
of
property
tax
exemption
in
terms
of
the
fees
and
charges.
That's
developed,
development,
application
fees
and
development
charges
is
that
what
that
is.
H
G
H
Through
through
the
chair,
that's
been
Ricky
recognized
since
these
fees
and
charges
exemptions
were
instituted
by
the
city
in
2001
that
these
projects,
essentially
wouldn't
otherwise
get
built,
and
as
a
result,
there
is
no
mechanism
to
charge
back
or
to
compensate
those
divisions.
But
that's
been
a
long-standing
practice
of
the
city.
I
understand.
G
G
Am
just
about
there's
actual
money
that
we're
being
asked
to
approve
here,
specific
about
how
it
works
so
to
the
chief
planner
when
you're
in
your
department
as
I
understand
it,
development
review
is
paid
for
completely
out
of
fees,
development
fees
that
correct
that's
correct,
so
this
here
takes
12
million
dollars.
Out
of
that,
how
do
you
compensate
it's
absorbed,
its
absorbed,
which
means
that
you
have
less
money
to
do
planning
generally
when
applications
come
in
to
the.
A
The
decision
has
been
made:
we've
Olive
cated
two
hundred
and
fifty
million
dollars
to
be
allocated
to
different
projects.
The
decision
we're
making
today
is
which
projects
are
going
to
be
receiving
that
those
allocations
there
was
there's
gonna,
be
a
time
that
we're
gonna
be
reviewing
the
program
recommendation.
A
G
A
Vote
to
appeal,
the
chair,
all
those
in
favor
Thank,
You
chair,
is
upheld.
We
can
move
and
is
there
any
other
questions?
Okay,
so
I
do
have
some
questions
there
is.
There
was
a
request
to
have
a
third
party
value
for
money
evaluation
of
this
program
as
we're
giving
two
different
projects:
I,
don't
see
it
in
front
of
us
today.
Are
we
gonna?
Have
it
at
counsel.
A
Thank
you.
I
want
to
follow
up
on
actually
the
presentation
that
the
that
Mark
Richardson
did
on
the
availability
of
the
information.
Is
there
a
possible
way
and
I
think
that
councillor
Bradford
is
thinking
of
putting
forward
a
motion?
Is
there
a
way
that
we
actually
can
have
this
information
available
where
the
project
stand?
How
are
we
doing
on
the
planning
process?
How
do
people
apply
because
I'm
sure
all
of
us
get
these
questions?
A
Would
we
be
able
to
have
a
very
easy,
understandable
map
that
could
have
all
this
information
where
the
application
stands
and
I
know
that
we
have
these
as
part
of
the
velen's?
But
we
can.
We
have
one
on
the
open
door
and
housing
now
sites
that
actually
or
work
with
a
nonprofit
sector
to
to
actually
made
these
available
to
the
public.
Yes,.
I
Just
to
supplement
mr.
Gardens
comment,
the
Planning
Division
does
maintain
the
application
Information
Center
online.
That
includes
virtually
real-time
information
on
the
status
of
applications
across
the
city,
and
it
has
been
recently
enhanced
to
include
reference
to
all
the
materials
that
have
submitted
to
the
city.
So
it's
a
pretty
robust
platform.
It.
H
H
They
may
have
had
a
preliminary
review
of
what
their
proposal
was
as
part
of
what
we
do,
but
they're
generally
multi-year
projects
in
terms
of
execution-
and
you
know
it's
not
surprising
in
the
environment
that
we
work
in
in
Toronto
and
the
real
estate
environment-
that
people
do
their
business,
that
some
projects
may
not
proceed.
It's
that's
to
be
expected.
We
would
love
to
come
back
here
next
year
and
recommend
more
projects
in
front
of
you
and
we
would
love
to
be
recommending
more
nonprofits.
G
G
G
One
thing
we
have
all
heard
many
many
times
is
that
not-for-profit
housing
providers
in
the
City
of
Toronto
are
struggling
to
find
the
capacity
to
apply,
for
you
know,
building
more
affordable
housing
in
the
City
of
Toronto
and
a
large
part
of
the
reason
why
they
don't
have
that
capacity
is
because
they're
mission-driven
they
do
it
on
paper,
thin
margins
and
try
to
make
sure
that
every
dollar
they
get
goes
into
the
housing.
As
a
result,
the
capacity
isn't
expanding.
On
the
other
hand,
the
for-profit
guys
we
seem
to
be
guaranteeing
their
profit
margin
it's.
G
It
makes
no
sense
to
me
that
we
would
be
spending
public
money
on
housing
in
an
imbalanced
way
like
this
I
want
to
understand
how
we
can
rebalance
it
better.
The
other
consequence,
of
course,
is
that
they're
not
for
profit.
Housing
providers
tend
to
be
providing.
You
know,
housing
in
perpetuity
ninety
nine
years,
and
we
know
that
when
we
get
to
the
end
of
the
ninety
nine
they
roll
it
over,
but
the
way
we've
structured
it
with
the
thirty
year
term.
G
At
the
end
of
the
term,
we
just
effectively
what
we've
done
is
kicked
the
affordable
housing
can
down
a
generation
when
all
these
thirty-year
proposals
run
out,
we're
going
to
be
in
another
crisis,
so
I
I
think
if
we
can
think
about
how
to
better
rebalance
the
way,
we're
spending
public
money
so
that
we're
not
you
know,
encouraging
profiteering,
but
actually
encouraging
investment
in
capacity
in
the
social
housing
sector.
We
will
be
providing
for
a
more
robust
housing
program
in
perpetuity
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
so
I
hope,
you'll
support.
My
motion.
G
So
I
want
to
get
advice
from
city
staff,
one
on
what's
the
most
rational
way
to
do
it
I.
You
know
there
are
a
lot
of
moving
pieces.
There's
the
length
of
term
there's
whether
we
own
the
land,
it's
whether
there's
additional
housing
subsidies
provided
given
the
kind
of
tenant
that's
going
to
be
there
I,
don't
want
to
be
prescriptive
about
how
that
mathematics
works,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
spending
planet
public
money
in
a
fair
and
equitable
way
in
a
way
that
doesn't
privilege
the
for-profit
sector
over
the
not-for-profit
okay.
G
And
if
I
could
jump
inside
mr.
Gavin's
brain
I
could
make
it
all
clear
to
all
of
us,
but
I
I
well,
I
I,
know
I
fit
because
it's
a
big
brain
but
I
I'm
not
sure
what
mathematics
you
would
use
to
to
do.
This
and
I
want
to
see
it
calculated
out
so
that
I
can
understand
word
when
we're
evaluating
projects.
What's
the
right
way
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
inadvertently
over
subsidizing
the
private
sector
at
the
cost
of
the
not-for-profit
sector
and
if
I
get
some
more
robust.
G
E
J
Thanks
very
much
for
the
chair,
I
have
a
motion
here.
Just
very
quickly
appreciates
mr.
Richardson's
deputation
I
thought
that
was
insightful
and
were
the
same
neck
of
the
woods
out
in
the
East
End,
and
this
is
really
meant
to
address
some
of
the
topics
that
keep
coming
up
on
social
media
or
in
meetings
and
I.
J
Think
when
we're
discussing
these
these
sites,
the
need
for
housing,
some
of
the
larger,
more
dense
projects,
there's
a
lot
of
misinformation
out
there
and
finding
the
right
information
is
often
challenging
for
residents,
and
the
best
thing
that
we
can
do
is
arm
ourselves
with
accurate,
fact-based
information
that
we
can
share
and
provide
people,
clarity
and
certainty
so
that
we're
all
talking
about
the
same
thing
that
is
so
critical
on
these
projects.
And
do
you
appreciate
the
deputation
and
council
bylaws
remarks
as
well?
J
This
this
I
think
will
will
place
it
in
one
place
and
act
as
a
portal
for
for
residents
to
get
that
those
facts.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
staff
for
all
of
their
work
on
this
I.
Think
that
you
can
see
in
the
report.
We
are
making
good
progress
on
open-door,
especially
as
we've
actually
started
to
move
forward
with
the
the
housing
now
program.
J
These
two
initiatives
together
make
a
lot
of
sense
and
it
it
feels
like
it's
not
enough
right
and
when
we
look
at
our
targets
over
the
next
10
years,
we
have
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
work
to
do,
but
with
housing
now
you've
got
the
3700
units
across
the
11
sites
in
phase.
One,
of
course,
will
be
coming
back
with
phase
two
shortly
and
with
open
door.
We're
now
consistently
approving
around
that
six
hundred
unit
mark
purse
per
year,
and
these
are
good
outcomes.
J
It's
definitely
important
progress
from
you
know
five
years
ago
when
we
were
consistently
missing
those
targets.
So
you
know
I
want
I
want
to
thank
a
resident,
in
particular
in
our
Ward
David
Brown
who's
been
working
hard
to
bring
one
of
these
projects
forward
and
I
know.
I
know
it's
not
an
easy
process,
but
we
met
back
in
January
when
he
was
in
the
very
early
stages
of
working
on
a
project
and
I'm
grateful
for
the
commitment
and
partnership
that
he's
bringing
to
ward
19.
J
As
well
as
all
of
the
applications
across
the
city,
whether
it's
its
public
or
private
or
not-for-profit,
we
all
have
a
role
to
play
in
this.
In
building
housing
in
this
city
and
and
it's
a
critical
issue,
we
can't
do
it
fast
enough
and
we
all
have
to
work
together
on
it.
So,
thank
you
very
much
hope
you
all
support
my
motion,
Thank.
B
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
I
want
to
just
commend
staff
and
thank
you
for
the
report.
I
recognize
that
you
are
doing
the
very
best
that
you
can
with
the
tools
in
front
of
you
and
recognizing
the
astronomical
land
values
that
exists
in
the
city,
recognizing
that
there
are
tremendous
development
pressures
and
we're
actually
in
the
market
competing
with
these
for
more
for
market
forces
that
we
now
know
as
as
transnational,
the
capital
is
global,
and
how
do
you
actually
extract
them?
B
Where
you
can,
the
one
thing
I
always
struggle
with-
and
this
is
knock
me
a
surprise
is
that
is
the
term-
is
that
the
financial
incentives
continue
to
escalate
from
the
city,
whether
it's
the
waving
of
the
development
fees
or
or
permit
fees,
and
the
fact
that
we
have
growing
growing
populations
that
require
what
will
be
even
more
difficult
under
built
under
the
changes
of
bill.
108
we're
seeing
this
diminishing
return.
B
It's
taking
more
and
more
effort
to
build
these
community
facilities
to
make
sure
that
the
water
flows
that
the
roads
are
complete
and
that
the
community
centers
are
there
and
the
parks
are
there
when,
when
the
projects
are
complete
and
not
the
same
on
the
same
hand,
those
are
the
on
the
same
sort
of
hand.
Those
were
the
same
tools
that
we're
actually
using
the
give
away
the
incentives.
B
Hopefully
the
ones
that
are
not
at
99
will
continue
onward,
but
it's
a
lot
of
money
going
out
and
very
little
tangible,
meaningful
return
coming
out
of
it.
So
the
formula
is
going
to
have
to
be
fixed,
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
out
how
to
make
that
fix
and
a
significant
way
of
making
that
fix
is
actually.
Another
strategy
will
because
I'll
be
coming
forward
from
the
Krait
teo
side
and
also
in
concert
with
mr.
gavin
shop
is
when
do
we
expropriate
and
how
do
we
actually
expropriate?
B
And
we
need
to
get
much
more
aggressive
of
retaining
the
lands
that
we
have,
so
we
can
build
as
much
affordable
housing
when
we
actually
have
the
assets,
not
just
you
know,
a
small
percentage
of
20,
but
a
hundred
percent
affordable
home
ownership,
formal
rentals
on
the
site,
not
necessarily
home
ownership,
all
the
time,
so
we're
not
diluting
the
toolbox.
I
already
have
and
weakening
it
from
a
position
of
go,
but
we're
strengthened
and
only
leading
from
from
the
front.
B
The
major
difference
there
as
I
see
it
is
that
the
provincial
and
federal
government
are
at
the
table,
while
I
was
told
by
the
federal
government
is
that
when
we
start
talking
about
housing
and
and
particularly
at
the
highest
level
of
political
office,
we
will
get
housing
dollars.
If
we
talk
about
transit
and
transit
is
all
we
all
we
advocate
for
and
and
over
the
years,
that
seems
to
be
the
recurring
theme
we
will
get
the
transit
dollars.
B
Even
if
our
transit
plans
don't
make
sense,
they'll
still
come
to
the
table
and
say
you
want
a
one
track
that
you
want
a
one
stop
subway
here
you
go.
You
want
smart
track,
whether
it
makes
sense
or
not.
We'll
just
leave
that
for
another
day
you
can
have
some
money
on
that,
but
boy
if
we
start
talking
about
housing-
and
we
don't
ease
up
on
the
conversation
that
we
have
to
address
the
housing
affordability
crisis
in
the
city,
apparently
I've
been
promised.
B
E
Yes,
I
just
want
to
say
that
this
a
great
conversation
that
we're
having
today
because
we're
having
to
grapple
with
how
we're
going
to
build
a
town
we're
going
to
achieve
more
affordable
housing
over
a
long
period
of
time.
Maintaining
the
affordability-
and
we
didn't
quite
have
this
pressure
years
ago,
when
we
had
the
affordable
housing
committee.
Things
weren't
at
the
crisis
point
that
they
are
now.
So
we
are
really
digging
deep
into
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
do
these
things
regarding
the
the
nonprofit's
I
would
say
that,
generally
they
need
help.
E
We
acknowledge
that
in
the
housing
now
report
that
they
need
I,
don't
want
to
say
that
what
they
do
is
they
operate.
Housing,
they're,
not
builders,
and
so
how
do
we
marry
up
the
nonprofit
world,
the
building
world
in
order
to
achieve
the
efficiencies
in
building
in
design
and
other
things,
and
having
run
into
a
number
of
situations
where
the
nonprofit's
on
their
own
have
created
designs
and
things
that
are
very
expensive
per
square
foot
and
we've
had
some
of
our
development
partners
step
in
to
assist
on
reducing
those
costs.
E
So
there
are
real
synergies
that
need
to
be
developed.
I
really
am
serious
about
this.
We
said
we
would
try
to
help
increase
capacity.
One
of
the
projects
that's
being
just
discussed
in
we're
going
to
approve
today
is
the
Riverdale
co-op.
They
own
124
units
over
a
large
number
of
sites
in
the
East
End,
and
they
started
off
with
a
project
on
Riverside
square
and,
as
this
has
been
going
along
in
order
to
achieve
this
and
make
sure
we
can
build
it.
E
The
developer
of
Riverside
Square
has
partnered
with
them
in
order
to
actually
build
the
facility.
It's
that
type
of
expertise
that
not
a
lot
of
nonprofits
have
when
I
look
at
this
list.
I
see
wood
grain
in
there.
They
have
that
capacity.
I,
don't
know
many
others
that
do
and
I
think
Mark
Richardson
and
his
deputation
mentioned
the
failed
project,
a
coxswain
Gerard
that
may
have
been
too
ambitious,
not
within
a
framework,
so
I
think
we
have
to
really
be
looking
at
that
capacity
issue
constantly
and
finding
very
creative
ways
to
do.
That.
E
So
I
know,
that's
not
the
subject
of
this,
but
I
do
think
that
always
that
we
have
to
remember
that
when
we're
talking
about
this
is
very
easy
to
do,
X
or
Y,
it's
not
so
easy
for
many
of
these
nonprofits.
We
have
to
help
them
get
to
that
point
where
they
can
achieve
their
housing
builds
with
not
a
lot
of
problems
and
not
a
lot
of
crises.
There
have
been
so
many
crises
here
and
nobody
was
here.
E
I
think
you
may
have
been
counselor
perks
when
there
was
the
Ghanaian
housing
project
in
councillor,
Maliki's
ward,
that
had
gone
150
percent
off
the
rails.
That
was
a
telling
moment
that
nonprofits
and
developers
we
need
people
working
together.
Even
in
that
idea,
councillor
a
long
time
where
there
may
be
a
nonprofit
that
would
be
partnered
with
a
developer,
delivering
a
certain
number
of
floors,
such
as
in
the
art
scape.
A
You
councillor
and
just
like
to
say
a
few
words
as
well:
I
want
to
start
by
thanking
the
applicants,
because
this
can
only
work
if
we
have
good
projects
in
front
of
us.
The
non
nonprofit
sector,
the
profit
sector
that
they're
ready
to
partner
with
the
city
also
thank
staff
to
put
together
the
program
and
continue
to
deliver
on
these
proposals,
and
we've
been
learning
throughout
the
years
and
I
think
there's
some
important
things
that
definitely
came
through
this
report.
A
The
first
one
is
that
it
was
identified
that
we
needed
a
much
closed,
a
relationship
between
the
planning
and
the
the
housing,
Secretariat
and
I.
Think
that
was
one
of
the
key
things
that
staff
looked
for
this
year
was
to
bring
these
these
things
together,
so
that
the
80
Dale's
or
the
other
projects
that
that
we've
seen
sometimes
not
happening,
don't
happen
anymore.
We
also
looked
at
what
projects
are
close
to
shovel
ready.
That
was
a
very
important
consideration,
because
the
need
is
is
enormous.
A
In
our
city
work,
you
know
the
feeling
that
we're
constantly
catching
up
and
not
even
getting
close
is
I
think
what
everybody
feels,
and
so
we
were
really
looking
at
what
projects
could
we
make
sure
that?
Could
we
help
to
get
shovel
ready?
The
other
thing
that
it
is
important
as
well
and
that
I
think
it
will
go
a
long
way
to
ensure
that
our
learning
experience
throughout
these
years
is
complete?
A
Is
the
value
for
money
analysis
that
the
third
party
is
going
to
be
making
I
think
that
we
always
constantly
need
to
be
challenging
ourselves
as
this
working?
Are
we
getting
good
value
for
money?
Are
these
actions
taking
as
in
the
direction
that
we
want
to
go
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
that
as
well?
I
do.
A
Support
and
and
I
think
it
was
a
great
presentation
that
that
Mark
Richardson
did
in
here
and
I'm,
looking
forward
to
seeing
a
much
more
transparent
way
to
follow
these
projects
through.
So
I
am
supportive
of
the
two
motions
that
the
two
members
of
the
committee
put
in
here
also
because
not
only
we
need
to
be
transparent
on
how
these
projects
are
going,
how
they're
being
in
the
planning
process
and
how
people
can
have
access
to
these
units,
but
also
one
of
the
things
that
this
report
made.
A
Sure
it
happened
is
that
support
for
the
nonprofit
sector,
as
you
notice,
there's
250
thousand
dollars
that
go
out
to
support
the
nonprofit
sector,
because,
as
the
city
has
ramped
up
its
efforts
to
build,
affordable
housing
and
the
reality
is
we've
never
been.
This
invested
in
the
building
of
affordable
housing
through
funds
through
land
through
initiatives.
The
reality
is,
the
City
of
Toronto
has
never
been
involved.
I
wish.
A
The
other
orders
of
government
could
say
the
same,
but
I
think
that
in
particularly
with
regards
to
our
provincial
government,
there's
there's
still
a
lot
of
work
that
that
could
be
done
in
there.
But
one
thing
that
we
always
have
as
an
aim
is
to
strengthen
our
nonprofit
sectors
through,
so
through
all
these
initiatives
making
land
available
making
these
benefits
available.
How
can
we
make
sure
that
our
nonprofit
organizations
are
getting
stronger
and
stronger
so
that
they
can
apply
to
bigger
and
bigger
projects?
A
So
I
think
that
councillor
perks
way
of
looking
like
can
we
look
even
further
I
think
it's
an
important
thing
to
do,
but
I
think
it's
also
an
important
step
that
we
took
forward
to
support
the
nonprofit
organizations
by
saying
this
application
wasn't
ready
yet,
but
we
understand
your
challenges
and
your
struggles
and
we're
ready
to
come
to
the
table
and
help
you
get
to
the
finish
line.
I
think
it's
an
important
step
that
we
needed
to
take
forward
so
that
we
can
get
even
more
partnerships
going.
A
So
with
that
said
once
again,
thank
you
to
the
applicants.
Thank
you
to
our
staff,
both
in
planning
housing
secretary,
everybody
involved
to
make
sure
that
we
have
today,
six
hundred
and
fifty
units
approved
and
ready
to
move
forward,
and-
and
thank
you
for
you-
know
the
people
out
in
the
communities
that
keep
us
on
our
toes
and
and
always
challenges
to
do
more
and
and
better
and
so
I'm
looking
forward
to
having
this
very
ready
available
in
an
open
data
portal.
A
D
All
those
in
favor
of
the
two
motions
amendments
by
councillor,
Bradford
councillor,
perks,
councillor
Bradford,
councillor,
perks,
councillor
Fletcher
councillor
by
law,
councillor
wrong
tam.
That
motion
carries
unanimously
all
those
in
favor
adopting
the
item.
As
amended
recorded
vote
councillor
bradford
councillor
perks,
councillor
fletcher
councillor
by
law,
councillor
wong-tam.
That
motion
carries
unanimously
great.
Thank.
A
K
K
It's
we
believe
it's
really
important,
especially
with
the
t
lab,
to
try
to
correct
the
imbalance
that
exists
between
the
ability
of
residents,
most
residents
and
the
abilities
of
developers
to
be
effective
before
the
T
lab
at
the
committee
of
adjustment.
This
is
not
so
much
of
a
problem.
The
committee
of
adjustment
has,
on
the
whole
being
able
to
respond
to
the
fact
that
most
residents
don't
understand
the
floor
tests,
but
is
able
to
bridge
that
gap
and
it
does
a
pretty
effective
job.
K
On
the
whole,
we
look
forward,
incidentally,
to
what
I
understand
will
be
coming
forth
in
December.
Their
report
on
the
committee
of
adjustment
process
talked
to
instrument
C
about
this
and
understand
that
that's
coming
then,
but
with
respect
to
the
support
center
in
the
tea
lab,
the
tea
lab
is
a
relatively
compared
to
the
committee
of
adjustment,
which
is
relatively
informal,
the
tea
labs
anything
but
informal.
K
It's
a
relatively
legalistic
process,
which
gives
huge
advantages
to
developers
that
are
able
to
able
to
afford
expensive
lawyers
and
expensive
planning
staff
know
the
cost
of
the
cost
of
residents
appearing
before
the
tea
lab
is
measured
in
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
if
they
wish
to
be
effective
and
if
they
appear
without
a
lawyer
and
planner
in
general,
they
are
ineffective.
A
support
center
can
help
both
in
providing
information
and
helping
people
understand
the
very
rigid
deadlines
for
submissions
etc
that
exists
within
the
tea
lab
procedures.
K
Support
Centre
can
also
be
helpful
in
in
providing
advice
as
to
how
to
proceed
effectively
and
in
some
cases
in
some
cases,
go
beyond
that
to
provide
legal
and
planning
assistance.
I,
frankly,
think
that
the
arguments
that
were
made
in
the
staff
report
are
remarkably
poor,
the
short
duration,
the
duration
of
the
new
support
center,
that
was
set
up
by
the
previous
government,
leaves
us
with
very
little
information
as
to
how
that
could
have
worked
once
it
got
going
and
and
became
effective.
K
The
notion
that
that
that
the
limited
experience
provides
evidence
as
to
the
as
to
the
limited
use
of
it
by
residents.
I
just
don't
think,
flies
the
fact
that
effective
residents
might,
in
some
cases
be
arguing
contrary
to
the
city
position.
That's
no
argument
for
not
providing
support
to
them.
I
mean
we
pride
ourselves
in
this
city
on
public
involvement
in
the
planning
process,
and
it
is
to
say
that
you
know
it
would
be
in
some
cases.
K
Contrary
to
the
position,
that's
taken
by
the
city
is
not
a
reason
to
say
that
we
should
not
support
and
provide
assistance
to
citizens
and
making
their
involvement
more
effective
and
so
anyway,
but
the
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
there
are
many
arguments
in
favor
of
trying
to
make
citizen
participation
in
the
planning
process
more
effective.
The
staff
arguments
I
believe
do
not
provide
a
compelling
case
for
not
providing
assistance
and
I.
Would
we
recommend
that
that
you
refer
this
matter
back
to
the
staff
or
consider
reconsideration?
K
On
a
final
note,
there's
a
rather
deprecating
comment
in
the
staff
report
about
about
the
mediation
about
the
lack
of
use
of
mediation.
I
would
call
your
attention
with
respect
to
elf,
at
mediation,
to
the
chart
that
I
added
on
page
two
of
my
letter
of
my
supplementary
letter,
you'll
notice,
that
the
Tila
that,
since
the
T
lab
has
regime,
has
become
effective,
there's
far
more
cases
that
have
been
settled
through
mediation
and
a
negotiated
process.
K
K
K
A
B
Thank
you
very
much
and
just
drawing
from
mr.
Boston's
deputation
regarding
the
the
lack
of
activity
in
the
provincial
sort
of
Appeal
Support
Center,
which
is
one
thing
that
you
cite
in
your
report
is
a
after
a
year
almost
a
year,
one
point:
six
million
dollar
there
just
wasn't
a
lot
of
activity.
Would
you
say
that
a
year,
especially
in
the
in
a
year
of
fluctuating
changes
in
the
planning
process,
big
significant
changes
and
even
how
this
the
OMB
has
been
rebranded?
Do
you
think
a
year
is
enough
to
be
able
to
determine
that
outcome.
D
And
through
the
chair
to
the
councilor
in
reviewing
the
year-in-review
report
that
we
have
met
with
a
former
executive
director
of
local
planning,
appeal,
Support
Center,
and
she
was
kind
enough
to
provide
us
with
her
year.
In
the
VV
report,
which
we
read
and
ten
several
times,
they
had
very
conservative
estimates
for
future
growth,
as
well
as
the
modest
uptake
in
the
first
year,
and
her
report
actually
outlined
how
their
program
normalized
after
a
year
and
how
the
public
was
using
it.
D
B
D
Believe
the
focus
of
the
and
I
can't
speak
on
behalf
of
the
former
executive
director,
but
I
believe
the
focus
of
the
local
planning
appeal
support
center
at
the
province
was
to
align
in
supporting
the
primary
focus
of
the
local
planning
appeal
tribunals,
new
legislative
changes.
So
they
were
both
enacted
at
the
same
time
and
that
alignment
happened
and
was
normalized
in
year.
One
by
the
end,
because.
B
I
think,
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
local
appeal
Support
Centre
was
set
up
was
largely
to
sort
of
recalibrate
the
balance
and
the
power
within
development
sector
and
local
communities
and
and
and
municipalities.
So,
therefore,
even
though
the
the
original
changes
to
to
sort
of
reform,
the
OMB
in
the
create
t,
lab
and
and
then
ultimately,
L
pad,
was
to
really
try
to
bring
everyone
together
earlier
on.
B
So
therefore
you're
going
to
front-load
all
your
cost
as
much
as
your
consultation
to
sort
of
get
proactive
and
in
sort
of
informing
the
public
of
what
the
intended
bill
form
changes
were
going
to
be.
You
were
supposed
to
bring
everyone
together,
so
it
really
was
one
additional
tool,
given
the
wide
range
of
changes
in
the
Planning
Act
at
that
time,
to
sort
of
bring
everyone
together.
So
I
think
that
that
particular
inaugural
year
was
a
year
of
changes
and
changes
to
actually
to
reduce
the
conflict
that
Constance
rifle
were
butting
up
against
each
other.
B
Everything
has
now
been
turned
upside
down
on
its
head
again,
and
that
means
that
municipalities
have
even
less
power
than
they
did
under
the
previous
reforms,
which
is
to
reform
the
OMB
and
communities
in
particular
have
even
less
power
than
they
did
pre-owned,
because
OMB
is
back
bigger,
badder
just
worse.
Would
it
be
now
the
time
to
actually
introduce
this
local
support
center.
L
Who
you,
madam
chair,
important
thing
to
note,
is
that
when
we
interviewed
the
executive
director
of
the
province
of
support
center,
we
had
some
focus
on
relating
to
appeals
to
tea
lap,
the
local
appeal
body.
We
got
a
clear
message
back
from
the
province
that
a
very
small
proportion,
no
more
than
20%,
of
all
the
inquiries
or
work
that
they
assisted
people
on
related
to
C
of
a
matters
we
have
to
remember.
L
We
have
40
plus
people
in
C
of
a
and
a
hundred
and
twenty
Community
Planning
staff
that
routinely
daily
assist
neighbors
and
others
in
helping
them
understand
the
planning
process.
What
the
process
is
about
and
even
providing
guidance
on
appeal
matters,
so
we
just
didn't
feel
based
on
what
we
got
in
terms
of
feedback
from
them
that
it
was
warranted.
Recreating
such
a
system
to
assist
on
T
lab
appeals.
B
Just
one
final
question:
I'm
just
looking
at
my
own
I'm
self
monitoring
my
time
and
thank
you
for
that
for
the
answer
so
recognizing
that
that
there
is
you
know
there
is.
There
is
a
team
of
staff
persons
who
are
there
to
review
the
CFA
applications
have
go
through
that
the
litmus
test,
but
their
primary
job
is
not
to
go
out
and
educate
and
provide
technical
support.
That's
not
what
they
do.
B
Is
there
no
value
in
creating
perhaps
an
additional
either
unit
or
perhaps
creating
a
toolkit
of
some
sort?
That
will
actually
support
the
public
when
they
need
that
additional
support,
because
I
don't
believe
for
a
minute
that
every
single
planner
is
on
their
phone
waiting
for
the
public
call,
so
they
can
get
down
into
the
weeds
to
explain
the
process.
They
answer
questions
and
then
put
down
the
phone.
L
Madam
chair,
in
terms
of
did
the
support
center
for
that
the
province
created
provide
value.
Yes,
it
provided
some
value.
What
we're
saying
in
this
report
is,
when
you
put
it
all
together,
and
you
put
it
in
our
context
and
what
is
already
provided
work
for
by
City
of
Toronto
staff.
We
just
don't
think
the
cost
is
warranted.
Nor
is
this
support
center
needed,
but
in
terms
of
your
toolbox
question,
actually
the
department
has
actively
pursued
a
number
of
improvements,
some
which
will
be
referenced
or
our
reference
in
the
end-to-end
review
report.
L
It's
a
later
item
where
we
have
tried
to
increase
transparency,
improve
dialogue
with
residents,
upgrade
the
website
so
they're
more
interactive,
such
as
the
reference
made
earlier
today
on
the
application
information
centre.
So
we
think
in
fact
that's
a
very
important
objective
of
the
department
to
broaden
and
deepen
the
availability
of
options
for
us
to
interface
with
the
public,
so
I
think
that's
been
improving
over
the
years.
I
That
we,
we
are
going
to
be
reporting
in
December
on
a
kind
of
roundup
of
various
committee
of
adjustment
initiatives
that
are
underway
and
in
flight,
some
of
which
been
introduced.
And
we
can
certainly
include
in
that
report
an
update
on
our
education
piece,
because
I
agree
with
the
comment
that
it
is
part
of
the
responsibility
of
the
division
to
provide
that
educational
support
and
that
manifests
itself
in
various
ways.
So
we'll
we'll
look
to
include
an
update
on
that
in
our
in
our
December
report.
B
B
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
I
struggle
with
this
particular
report.
Just
simply
because
I
know
how
difficult
is
for
residents
to
actually
break
through
the
system
and
the
the
perception
of
it
always
being
rigged
against
local
communities
is
out
there
and
and
I
think
that
there
was
some
good
moves
under
the
the
Liberal
government
has
tried
to.
B
You,
know:
equalize
some
of
the
playing
power
that
communities
had
municipalities
had
and
I
recognize
that
all
the
rules
were
up
ended
not
just
once
but
twice
and
and
continuously
the
Planning
Department
is
sort
of
in
the
on
the
on
the
bowels
of
us
are
on
the
heels
of
their
feet,
reeling
backwards,
trying
to
understand
what
all
these
big
unilateral
changes
mean.
So
this
is
why
I
think
that
this
this
particular
support
center
represented
something
to
that
local
communities
across
Ontario
that
then
needed
to
get
that
additional
support.
B
So
whatever
we
can
do
to
offset
the
fact
that
the
report
says
we
should
not
proceed
and
I'm
gonna
sort
of
be
encouraged
by
by
what
mr.
Linton
has
said
is
that
if
there
is
a
way
to
create
additional
supports,
make
it
transparent
but
also
extremely
accessible
and
comprehensible
and
usable
for
the
general
public
I
think
is
going
to
be
a
very
valuable
tool
for
the
further
general
public,
because
I
do
know
that
you
know
for
communities
that
are
not
as
sophisticated
or
they
don't
spend
as
much
time
through
the
planning
process.
B
Development
is
just
happening
to
them,
and
changes
are
happening
to
them,
but
because
of
language
or
perhaps
work
schedules.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
who
do
not
participate
in
our
planning
process.
No
matter,
no
matter
how
we
try
so
the
tools
we
use
to
bring
forward
all
those
communities
to
inform
them
to
empower
them
so
that
they
can
actually
advocate
for
themselves
of
what
they
want
is
so
critically
important.
B
It's
an
equalising
it's
an
equity
tool,
and
so
that's
what
I
think
the
the
the
support
center
could
have
done
if
they
had
particularly
put
that
that
frame
around
how
they
were
to
carry
out
their
work
and
in
the
absence
of
provincial
to
land
the
asset
coming
forward.
It
would
be
great
for
the
city
to
step
up
where
the
most
diversity
in
the
world
we
speak
over
200
languages
and
I
know
there
are
communities
that
never
will
walk
through
the
door
here.
Nor
will
they
walk
through
a
development
meeting.
B
They
will
not
participate
any
of
our
transit
discussions,
because
the
language
and
and
the
way
we
conduct
our
business
is
not
accessible
to
them,
which
means
that
when
we're
planning
our
programs
and
our
services
we're
kind
of
doing
it
without
them.
So
so,
thank
you
very
much
for
further
your
answers.
I
do
find
them
helpful,
even
if
I
don't
agree
with
them.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
G
A
K
There
is
a
lot
to
be
said
in
favor
of
an
enhanced
case
management
system
to
handle
development
review.
There
are
a
lot
of
good
proposals
in
the
end-to-end
review
report.
I
want
to
start
off
by
saying
that
there's
no
question
that
development
review
can
be
made
more
efficient,
especially
by,
and
that
there
are
a
number
of
good
proposals
to
that
effect.
K
In
this
report
we
are
concerned,
I
must
say
that
the
the
one
thing
that
may
give
it
gave
us
a
little
bit
of
a
chuckle
was
the
notion
of
extensive
stakeholder
participation
and
review
without
involving
the
public.
It's
one
thing
to
say
that
the
stakeholders
are
the
development
industry.
You
know,
etc,
etc,
etc,
but
a
very
important
stakeholder
in
the
public
process
is,
of
course,
the
residents
of
the
City
of
Toronto,
and
we
were
disappointed
that
the
stakeholder
consultations
did
not
go
to
go
through
a
process
of
public
review.
K
K
The
problem
here
is
that
Community,
Planning
and
community
building
is
not
a
mechanical
process.
It's
not
something
that
is
easily
made
efficient,
and
the
important
thing
is
that
there
is
a
conflict
potentially
between
making
the
development
review
process
efficient
in
the
sense
of
speeding
up
the
process,
saving
applications
and,
on
the
other
hand,
making
it
effective
in
delivering
good
planning.
That's
the
conflict
that
concerns
us.
K
K
However,
in
creating
a
separate
staff
to
handle,
l-pad
appeals,
if
that
means
that
that
we're
trying
to
keep
the
planners
that
are
dealing
with
an
application
before
it
goes
to
the
L
pad
out
of
the
process
and
creating
specialized
staff
to
dealing
with
this,
then
there
will
be
a
loss
of
information.
The
planners
that
will
be
appearing
at
the
L
pad
will
not
have
the
knowledge
that
has
been
gained
by
the
planners
dealing
with
the
application
ditto
with
site
plan
agreements.
I'm
not
saying
that
these
are
easy
matters
to
handle.
K
I'm,
not
saying
that
efficiencies
cannot
be
realized.
I'm.
Just
saying
that
it's
important
to
do
this
in
an
area
in
a
way
that
does
not
result
in
a
loss
of
good,
a
reduction
in
good
planning.
The
essential
point
is
the
community
planning
is
most
effective
when
the
community
is
involved
and
when
community
planners
are
involved
throughout
the
process.
K
A
further
concern.
We're
really
concerned
about
the
fact
that
that's
drive
for
efficiency
may
reduce
the
city's
commitment
to
effective
planning.
I
mean
the
big
problem
here,
in
fact,
is
very
much
emphasized.
In
the
first
couple
of
pages
of
consultants
report,
the
number
of
applications
that
the
city
is
now
dealing
with
is
right.
Now
its
greater
is
actually
eight
times
the
average
number
of
residential
units
approved
in
each
of
the
last
ten
years.
There's
been
a
huge
explosion
in
the
number
of
applications
before
the
city.
K
Thanks
to
the
way
in
which
bill
139
was
handled
and
with
all
with
the
transition
provisions,
we
can't
undo
the
mistakes,
but
but
it's
important
that
we
recognize
that.
That's
that's
a
real
problem.
The
key
thing
here
is
that
efficiency
is
not
going
to
be
able
to
undo
the
fact
that
the
city
is
not
providing
enough
budgetary
resources
to
city
planning.
Thank.
A
I
Thank
you,
madam
deputy
mayor
I'm
joined
by
my
associate
crystal
Alana's
from
City
Planning
and
just
prepared
a
short
overview
presentation
of
the
report.
Just
to
give
you
some
flavor,
it's
obviously
a
complex
topic
and
we're
I
mean
thankfully,
at
the
end
of
the
beginning,
if
I,
if
I
may
in
terms
of
the
process
of
change
which,
as
you
can
imagine,
is
both
and
I
kind
of
take.
My
cue
from
mr.
I
The
planning
development
review
process,
specifically
I,
think
in
the
context
and
spirit
of
continuous
improvement
is
something
that
all
of
us
include
in
in
how
we
operate
and
what
we
think
about
our
business
processes
here
at
the
city.
It
fits
as
well
into
the
city,
manager's
emphasis
on
customer
service
and
I
would
say
customer
experience
and
staff.
Experience
is
something
that
we're
hearing
more
and
more
about
at
the
city
and
a
focus
of
our
work.
How
that
those
experiences
can
be
delivered
and
improved
it
it
also.
I
I
know
many
councilors
are
familiar
with
the
basic
model
of
development
review
in
the
city,
where
we
have
pre-application
an
application,
a
circulation,
a
cycle
of
comments,
a
parallel
process
that
involves
the
public
that
that
process
informs
and
supports,
and
ultimately,
an
outcome
which
comes
before,
or
various
committees
of
council,
for
decisions
council
being
the
final
decision-making
body
here
in
the
city
and
appeal
rights
under
the
under
the
Planning
Act.
That
basic
system
is
not
affected
by
this.
This
is
about
making
that
system
work
better
efficiently
and
effectively
as
much
as
possible.
I
Just
taking
you
through
it
a
little
bit
as
I
said
it's
about
the
operating
model
and
a
focus.
Many
people
call
it
the
planning
process,
but
really
it's
an
inter
divisional
planning
process.
We
have
a
lot
of
people
involved
and
I'll
explain
that
in
the
middle
in
a
minute,
but
we
very
much
and
I
know
it
again.
Mr.
boss's
comment
about
a
focus
on
the
outcomes,
we're
actually
quite
driven
by
the
outcomes
and
don't
see
conversation
about
efficiency
in
any
way,
taking
away
from
the
ultimate
outcome,
which
is
good
city
building.
I
That
has
to
remain
squarely.
The
objective
of
any
review
of
any
of
the
effectiveness
and
efficiency
of
the
process,
we're
not
putting
that
aside
in
any
way
shape
or
form,
but
the
city
does
believe
in
continuous
improvement,
certainly
as
in
my
leadership
with
the
division.
It's
something
that
I've
emphasized.
In
fact,
throughout
my
career,
the
the
the
the
desire
I
think
to
provide
clarity
to
all
the
players
that
are
involved.
Predictability.
The
transparency
both
to
applicants
and
for
the
public
is
very
important
and
again
continuing
to
to
get
good
outcomes.
I
I
want
to
emphasize
as
well,
because
we
are,
we
have
been
discussing
at
Council
this
year,
changes
in
legislation.
We
often
change
policies
and
guidelines.
All
kinds
of
things
get
get
changed
in
in
the
environment
of
the
process,
so
we
kind
of
put
that
aside.
This
is
more
about
the
focus
on
the
machinery
come
what
may,
with
the
various
environment,
planning
that
we
that
we
do
work
in
the
next
slide
just
highlights
the
the
fact
that
it
is
complex.
I
It's
interdivisional
in
my
career
again,
I
think
it's
only
gotten
more
complex
and
the
interest
based
planning
process
that
we
deal
with
in
the
city,
25
city
divisions,
sometimes
touch
this
30
external
commenting
partners.
This
really
underscores
the
need
to
look
at
our
operating
model
to
support
the
most
effective
way
that
we
can
earn
interact
with
each
other.
Not
all
25
and
30
parties
touch
everything,
but
it
gives
you
a
sense
of
the
scale
and
scope
on
the
complexity
and
the
the
fact
that
this
is
much
more
than
than
the
City
Planning
Division
itself.
I
The
process
of
stakeholder
engagement,
the
the
focus
on
the
machinery
of
the
system,
really
did
focus
on
the
stakeholders
that
are
affected
by
it
directly.
The
the
the
the
comment
about
public
consultation,
I
would
I
would
just
simply
say
that
that
a
good
good
development
review
process
supports
and
informs
good
consultation.
It
was
not
the
focus
of
this
review
is
the
division
has
undertaken
work
in
the
last
five
years
around
consultation
practices.
I
We
continue
to
emphasize
improvement
in
consultation
practices,
so
I
see
these
two
things
as
mutually
supportive
and
certainly
any
time
that
we
have
consultation
process
be
a
light
one
or
a
hour
or
a
heavy
one.
A
good,
a
good
development
review
process
is
a
backstop
to
the
quality
of
that
of
that
consultation.
I
The
the
consultation
with
various
stakeholders
are
involved
in
the
machinery.
The
of
the
work
revealed
this
list
quite
a
robust
list
of
issues
to
focus
on
the
this
is
kind
of
what
we
heard
from
from
that
range
of
stakeholders,
including
city
staff,
although
only
emphasize
a
few
of
them
here,
but
obviously
the
interaction
of
of
clients,
customers,
whatever
you
want
to
call
them,
but
also
the
experience
of
the
experience
that
they
are
having
the
experience
of
city
staff
is
a
crucial
area
of
focus
and
feedback
that
we
got.
I
You
know
value-added
work,
I've
heard
a
lot
from
staff
over
the
years.
Why
I?
Why
am
I
having
to
input
this
data
I
would
rather
be
working
on
X?
We
hear
we
hear
that
a
lot
and
the
focus
on
having
better
systems
that
allows
staff
to
do
what
they
went
to
school
for
or
what
they
frankly
enjoy.
More
than
punching
data
into
a
machine.
The
the
whole
idea
of
the
way
that
we
support
the
process
with
technology
and
project
management
skills.
I
You
know
the
top
frustrations
and
many
of
you
experience
this
yourselves
around
things
that
get
stuck
and
people
not
knowing
what
to
do
about
it.
The
extra
circulation
set
frankly
can
gum
up
the
process.
The
length
of
time
that
results,
the
enix,
inconsistent
experiences
and
I
think
we
all
have
to
be
honest,
that
we
have
good
processes
very,
very
good
processes,
sometimes
and
less
than
average
processes.
Sometimes
so
it's
it's
raising
the
level
of
consistency
and
all
of
that
and
addressing
the
frustration
that
all
the
players
have
with
it.
I
What
what
can
we
bring
to
the
bring
to
bear
to
make
this
a
center
of
deaths?
X,
sighs
for
for
a
team
as
opposed
to
a
side
of
dusk?
The
the
department
has
been
engaged
in
continuous
improvement
initiatives,
but
this
is
significant
enough.
Interdivisional
II,
that
we
want
an
implementation
team
with
the
business
transformation
lead
to
to
take
it
forward
and,
of
course,
technology
and
other
supports
that
are
necessary.
For
this
thing
to
work
better.
The
I
want
I
want
to
emphasize
that
that
you
know
we
often
have
complaints.
I
I
This
is
about
making
the
system
work
better,
so
that
when
we
do
have
differences
of
opinion,
we
can
have
a
good
high
quality
debate
about
about
what
that
height
should
be
and
I
think
it's
important
to
emphasize
this,
because
I
don't
want
people
to
come
away
with
the
impression
that
this
is
going
to
fix
all
of
our
differences
of
opinion.
We're
still
gonna
have
them,
and
you
can
see
why
we'll
still
have
them
with
a
list
of
issues
in
the
know,
column,
but
again
underpinning
the
conversation
about
about
the
way
the
city
responds
to
development.
I
It
is
important
to
to
to
focus
on
on
continuous
improvement.
I
can
recall
the
best
practices
review
that
was
done
right
after
amalgamation,
where
we
ran
around
and
talked
about
everything
that
everybody
did
in
the
seven
municipalities
that
comprised
Toronto-
and
you
know
it
was
a
Needham
goddamn
exercise,
but
we
came
up
with
a
way
of
doing
business.
This
is
the
first
actual,
fully
comprehensive
review
since
that
time.
I
Last
slide,
you
know
this
is
a
culture
journey,
a
shift
building
on
a
lot
of
really
good
things
that
people
in
this
organization
do
but
systemizing
and
modernizing
those
good
things
you
can
all
think
of
very
good
outcomes
and
practices
that
you've
enjoyed
over
the
years.
You
can
probably
think
of
things
that
you
didn't
enjoy
as
much
and
honestly.
I
G
So
going
to
all
right
slide,
five
there's
a
piece
of
this
you
didn't
talk
about,
which
frankly
seems
to
me
it
would
be
about
half
the
problem,
which
is
application,
quality,
I,
can't
think
of
the
number
of
times.
I've
had
an
applicant
come
in
and
show
me
just
a
block,
massing
diagram
and-
and
you
know
no
unit
count,
no
nothing
and
say
well.
I
show
this
to
the
planner
and
I
couldn't
get
an
answer.
I
I
So
you
know
our
the
test
for
staff
is
to
ensure
that
what
comes
in
meets
in
a
specific
way
the
quality
in
a
qualitative
way.
That's
the
application,
submission
requirements.
Okay-
and
you
know
that
that
is
a
test
for
staff
honestly
and
it's
a
test
for
the
applicants
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
something
that
we
can
rely
on
to
evaluate
we
test.
For
example,
we
get
an
applicants
out
of
study.
I
We
will
do
our
own
shadow
studies
to
test
that
often
topography
changes
things
like
that,
so
we
have
to
be
diligent,
even
though
we
may
feel
that
those
applications
submission
requirements
have
been
met.
We
still
have
to
be
diligent
and
do
our
due
diligence
and
and
follow-up
when
we
discover
that
hey,
you
know
that
scale
isn't
working
on
that.
Drawing
or
that's
a
mistake.
You
know
there
is
a
human
element
to
this.
That
has
to
be
monitored
in
relying
upon
a.
G
Related
and
possibly
slightly
more
serious
question
one
of
the
the
places
where
my
experience
has
been
that
all
the
difficulties
arise
or
the
most
difficulties
arise
is
the
applicant
makes
an
application.
The
planning
department
is
very
upfront
from
the
beginning
element.
X
of
your
proposal
is
going
to
be
a
problem
and
we
sit
there
and
sit
there
and
sit
there
and
then
somewhere
towards
you
know
as
we're
getting
closer
to
a
deadline.
G
I
It's
a
Rubik's,
Cube
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
what
you're
describing.
Is
that
unusual?
Actually
it's
in
common,
and
that
is
the
say,
the
art
and
the
science
of
what
we,
what
we
do.
There
are
inevitably
options
in
in
that
puzzle
that
you
just
described
that
reveal.
You
know
an
outcome
that
we
can
all
live
with
that
meets
policy,
or
that
is
a
supportable
policy
amendment,
but
that
has
to
be
revealed
through
an
analysis
of
options,
and
you
know
a
sifting
of
preferences
and
probably
I'm.
G
Asking
I'm
asking
I
just
don't
want
to
run
them
I'm,
asking
something
a
little
a
little
bit
different.
So
we
we
have
a
disagreement
about
something
and
then
close
to
the
end
of
the
process.
The
developer
makes
a
change,
but
but
it's
the
community
sees
that
the
planner
sees
that
maybe
the
counselor
sees
it,
but
I
find
a
problem
happens
when
all
the
other
departments
have
to
on
a
dime
review
all
that
stuff
and
wondering.
Is
there
a
way
of
being
more
upfront
with
applicants?
G
I
The
this,
the
system
that
we're
proposing
here
has
a
governance
structure
with
it,
so
that
when
something,
when
that
scenario
happens,
an
escalation
can
take
place
and
decisions
can
be
made
either
either
by
an
empowered
planner
with
experience
or
someone
with
less
experience,
but
anyway,
they're
backed
up
by
that
by
that
escalation
procedure,
so
that
a
decision
can
be
made
about
well,
what's
the
extent
of
the
circulation
that
needs
to
take
place
which
departments
are
affected
by
that
change,
can
we
scope
the
resolution
of
it?
Does
it
need
a
full
circulation?
I
I
B
Thank
you
very
much
with
respect
to
the
report.
I
see
that
a
lot
of
it
is
speaking
about
changing
how
you
review
and
and
working
together,
more
collaboratively.
What
I
don't
see
are
numbers
so
by
example,
the
amount
of
time
the
circulation
process
should
take
and
and
then
what
you've.
And
where
is
that
document?
To
so
view,
sort
and
a
complete
application
comes
in
clock
starts.
You
circulate
to
these
25
divisions
and
the
external
partners
when
what's
the
deadline
for
them
to
reply
and
what
happens
when
the
deadline
is
not
met
with
any
comments.
So.
I
That
that's
a
good
question.
The
the
this
report
did
not
go
to
that
level
of
detail.
We
have
existing
operational
procedures,
for
example,
on
a
first
circulation.
It's
a
seven
week
turnaround
for
comments
from
commenting
divisions,
and
we
monitor
that
and
report
internally
on
our
performance
on
that
part
of
the
the
new
system
is
a
governance
structure
that
triggers
automatic
reflexes
when
those
deadlines
aren't
met
so
that
the
planner,
for
example,
who's
at
the
center
of
that
is
not
left
to
their
own
devices.
I
Struggling
for
a
missing
comment
that
that
that
team
involved
in
that
review,
everyone
will
be
aware
of
what's
missing
and
everyone
in
that
system
will
be
accountable
for
what's
missing
and
it
will
be
escalated
such
that
a
response
is,
is
pursued
in
a
more
effective
manner
than
maybe
it
is
today.
What's
missing.
I
Today
is
a
system
that
box
tops
what
what
what
you've
described
in
your
question
and
being
able
to
better
measure
our
performance
on
that
in
a
way
that's
more
transparent
because
I
I
think
what's
hot
what's
happens,
is
you
know
what
the
consequence
of
what
you've
asked
is
that
you
know
the
applicant
will
start
phoning.
You
know,
Toronto
water
counselor
will
start
phoning
Toronto
water.
We
want
to
work
back
from
that
kind
of
activity
to
more
of
a
system
approach
that
everybody
can
rely
on
and.
B
Is
there
a
progressive
lead
time
that
says
okay,
five
weeks
in
we're
not
seeing
your
comments?
So
if
this
is
the
under
the
existing
system,
you've
got
two
weeks
to
go.
Is
there
like
a
reminder
that
goes
off
on
that
and
the
engineers
does?
Oh
I
haven't
provided
my
comments
yet
like
who's
who's,
managing
the
the
amount
of
work,
that's
sitting
on
the
the
individuals
desk
and
then
what
deadlines
are
not
being
met,
because
my
understanding
is
we
don't
oftentimes
get
these
comments
circulated
coming
back
to
us
within
the
seven
week
time
turnaround
right.
I
So
those
are
the
system
layers
that
have
to
be
we've
got.
We've
got
both
overall
timelines
to
meet
and
individual
divisions
have
their
own
procedures.
Those
are
the
next
layers
down
below
this
report
that,
as
we
as
we
roll
this
out
with,
we
create
a
new,
a
new
system
and
we
certainly
will
be
pursuing
those
project
management
at
that
level
of
a
project
management
effectiveness
with
every
division
that's
affected.
B
So
then,
under
the
new
system,
when
that
their
first
circulation
deadline
is
not
met,
the
team
comes
together
in
HUDs
Huddle's.
They
hold
each
other
responsible
for
them.
For
what
should
be
the
evaluation
feedback
loop
do,
do
they
then
have
to
recirculate,
or
do
they
just
draw
their
conclusions,
and
then
they
don't
have
to
recirculate.
So.
I
I
think
again,
you're
the
questions
getting
into
the
next
layers
of
how
how
the
process
will
operate,
and
we
we
have
not
taken
it
to
that
level
of
the
functionality
of
it.
This
is
the
operating
model
that
we're
putting
in
place
based
on
the
research
and
stakeholder
engagement
that
was
done
and
the
business
transformation
lead
and
the
implementation
team
will
be
addressing
the
issues
that
you've
raised
in
your
question.
Thank.
B
Oftentimes
developers
will
think
that
the
Clark
has
started
simply
because
they've
shown
you
some
very
vague
image,
even
if
they
haven't
submitted
anything,
and
even
if
there
is
submission,
is
not
even
complete,
they
will
start
citing
of
I
looked
at
a
parcel
of
land
three
years
ago,
I
started
to
think
about
buying
it.
Four
years
ago,
I've
been
working
on
this
application
three
years
ago.
B
How
is
it
taking
you
so
long
to
give
me
comments,
and
why
is
the
city
holding
up
the
process
of
time
by
showing
us
vague
little
drawings
like
little
blocks
on
it
on
a
piece
of
paper
and
and
having
us
to
meet
with
them
and
like?
How
do
we
hold
them
to
account
so
that
we're
actually
all
going
to
be
working
professionally
and
and
and
together
right?
So
we
want
to
review
quality
applications
after
they
go
through
their
planning
rationale.
I
So,
just
to
reflect
on
the
question
the
the
you
know,
there
would
be
some
benefit
in
a
pre
application
process.
We
already
have
a
pre
application
process,
but
we're
thinking
that
there
would
be
some
benefit
in
putting
some
rules
around
that
pre-application
conversation
so
that
it
doesn't
perhaps
go
on
for
years
that
there
is
more
quality
information
that
we
can
rely
on
in
a
pre-application
conversation.
I
We
looked
at
a
sample
size
of
I
think
it
was
maybe
40
or
50
applications
in
two
up
2017,
and
we
saw
that
average
processing
time
around
18
months
because
they
never
you
know
a
complex
application
usually
runs
beyond
a
year,
but
that
really
nine
months
was
on
the
city
in
nine
months
was
on
the
applicant,
and
you
know
so.
I'm
focused
here
on
you
know,
making
our
nine
months
work
the
best
it
can.
Understanding
it's
a
bit
of
table
tennis
that
goes
back
and
forth,
but
I.
I
You
know
whether
an
applicant
decides
to
sit
on
something
change,
change
their
business
model
change
their
direction.
I
can't
rely
on
that
when
observations
are
made
by
the
industry
recently
about
11
years,
you
may
recall:
I
mean
I.
Don't
understand
that
comment,
because
really
what
I
feel
we
should
be
judged
on
is
what
we're
responsible
for
on
our
side
of
the
ledger
and
making
that
work.
E
Yes,
first
I
just
want
to
say
all
the
steps
that
you've
taken
to
date
over
the
last
number
of
years.
You've
taken
simplified
language.
The
signs
are
different,
a
change
is
coming
to
this
site,
rather
than
the
very
officious
looking
just
listing
a
bylaw
that
wouldn't
tract
anybody's
attention.
So
that's
just
part
of
this
overall.
This
is
the
next
step.
Really
that's.
I
Right:
we've,
modernization,
there's
a
whole
modernization
initiative
over
the
last
two
years.
I
can
go
over
14
different,
incremental
things
that
we've
done
to
make
it
all
work.
Better.
We've
gone
from,
for
example,
20
paper
plan
circulations
to
zero
in
the
next
couple
of
months,
we'll
get
to
zero.
So
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
we
do
anyway,
because
we
love
continuous
improvements.
Your.
E
I
E
If
there's
one
place
where,
in
development
that
its
friends
up
being
frustrating
I
know
for
me
and
also
for
our
residents,
it's
the
transportation
planning
aspect
of
the
development
application
and
there
I
don't
know
if
it's
because
of
lack
of
staff
or
there
is
a
tendency
to
simply
rely
on
the
traffic
study
that
the
developer
has
submitted,
which
I
think
it's
fair
to
say.
You
might
agree
that
that's
always
going
to
be
in
their
favor
that
everything
can
work.
E
E
Review
from
our
own
staff
of
the
transportation
studies
that
includes
a
different
lens
other
than
just
yes,
technically,
you
can
build
that,
but
that
places
it
in
a
neighborhood
context,
Division
zero
context.
Would
you
think
that
we're
actually
operating
at
that
level
now
or
that
that
could
get
better
I.
I
Would
just
comment
that
we
currently
in
our
application,
submission
requirements,
I
believe
have
two
transportation
related
reports.
One
is
a
more
narrow
examination
of
functionality
and,
and
one
is
a
broader
lens,
so
there's
room
in
the
platform
that
we
have
now
I
think
to
canvas
the
issues
that
you're
describing
I.
Think.
What's
really
important
and
I
noted
that
Ashley
Curtis
is
here
from
transportation
boats,
what's
really
important
at
the
beginning
of
an
application
is
to
identify
the
scope
of
the
issue
that
needs
to
be
canvassed.
L
You
Greg
yes
through
the
chair,
so
I
think
the
simple
answer
to
your
question,
counselor
is,
is
yes,
we
could
do
better.
The
the
focus
previously
from
transportation
has
been
has
been
quite
narrow.
One
of
the
outcomes
from
our
fundamental
divisional
review,
which
we've
undertaken,
is
to
look
at
restructuring.
L
As
you
know,
a
number
of
sections
within
within
our
division,
of
which
development
planning
is
one
so
as
an
example,
currently
development
planning,
new
development
planning
and
traffic
planning,
the
team,
so
we've
removed
the
traffic
planning
component
from
them
to
enable
them
to
focus
solely
on
the
development
planning
function,
we're
also
building
in
increased
training
for
staff,
so
that
they
can
look
increasingly
from
a
multi
modal
and
multi
multi
level
perspective
at
each
of
the
applications.
So,
yes,
we
fully
recognize.
L
E
A
A
A
I
I
A
Great,
the
other
thing
is
there's,
obviously
a
technology
component
that
is
going
to
be
needed
in
here.
If
we
want
to
so
when
do
you
expect
to
have
something?
Are
you
gonna
try
to
have
something
in
this
budget
process
like
how
can
we
make
sure
that
things
are
moving
and
that
the
requests
are
coming
through
so.
I
It's
very
much
an
enabler
we
can
take
this
only
so
far
without
improving
our
technology.
That
dates
back
a
couple
of
decades.
Now
it's
an
important
part,
especially
for
the
way
that
we
do
our
business
and
the
building
division,
who
both
rely
in
the
same
platform,
the
IBM
s
platform
a
little,
even
though
MLS
uses
it
it's
less
of
a
dependency
issue
for
them,
and
we
are
working
with
information
technology.
A
I
My
goal
would
be
to
make
it
as
transparent
as
possible,
and
you
know
we
want
to
be
obviously
able
to
give
you
good
information
and
metrics
that
we
can
rely
on
so
part
of
the
end.
End
review
is
actually
building
a
system
of
metrics
so
that
we've
got
more
of
an
open
and
transparent
understanding
of
how
we're
all
performing
both
on
the
city
side
in
the
applicant
side.
So
it's
part
of
its
part
of
the
work
I
had
so.
I
A
Think
this
is
too
much
of
an
important
project
that
I
think
the
committee
would
look
just
like
to
and
and
the
public
most
importantly,
and
would
like
to
have
this
so
within
the
next
two
years.
If
we
could
have
another
couple
of
updates
and
specially
for
us
with
these
numbers
as
well
and
and
I
think.
B
B
What's
necessarily
to
me,
my
observation
has
been
missing
so
being
able
to
sort
of
bring
those
divisions
together
too
much
work,
much
more
collaboratively
to
to
actual
outcomes
and
their
time
to
two
to
two
measurements
of
when
we
can
anticipate
responses
in
a
timely
fashion.
All
of
that
makes
it
so
much
better.
What
I
really
appreciate
about
this
report
is
that
it's
entirely
transparent,
which
is
very
different
from
the
development
sector
when
they
come
forward.
B
When
you're
asking
us
to
review
an
application,
I
don't
do
the
technical
review,
but
when
you're
asking
for
comments
on
an
eighty
sorry
structure
coming
down
hard
at
the
corner
of
intersections
across
the
downtown
core,
and
you
expect
the
response
in
eight
weeks,
you've
got
to
be
kidding
and
then
every
single
everybody
else
is
asking
for
exactly
the
same
thing,
because
you're
not
the
only
game
in
town
and
so
I.
Think
that
you
know
by
way
of
the.
B
I
should
be
commended
because
it's
not
necessarily
the
same
level
of
respect
that
I
see
the
development
industry,
give
our
planning
staff
because
they
will
never
ever
make
their
process
as
transparent,
that
we
make
our
process
and
I
would
like
to
see
them.
Go
through
an
internal
review
to
streamline
their
processes
finger-point
about
what
the
city
doesn't
do
for
them,
as
if
all
as,
if
all
we
are
supposed
to
do,
is
serve
their
needs.
B
When
we
should
be
coming
together
to
collaboratively
proactively,
build
better
sustainable,
affordable,
inclusive
neighborhoods
that
are
livable,
as
opposed
to
tell
us
all
the
things
that
we
don't
do,
because
this
is
actually
what
we
are
doing
and
I'd
like
to
see
them
now
pony
up
from
their
side.
What
are
they
going
to
do
to
eliminate
that
nine-month
gap
out
of
an
18-month
review
that
actually
sits
on
their
end
because
we're
actually
doing
our
job?
So
what
are
they
doing?
Thank
you.
I.
G
Just
one
add
a
little
bit
to
what
counsellor
wong-tam
says:
I
I
recall
actually
the
genesis
of
this
report.
It
was
some
members
of
the
committee
in
the
previous
term
who
you
know
we're
taking
as
gospel
complaints
from
the
development
industry
that
the
city
was
simply
too
slow
and
it
was
impossible
to
get
something
approved
in
Toronto
and
I.
Just
simply
point
to
the
fact
that
names
somewhere
else
where
we
approve
more
stuff.
G
Somehow
somehow
we
managed
in
incredible
circumstances,
to
move
a
phenomenal
number
of
projects
through
the
development
review
process
and
the
fact
that
we're
trying
to
make
it
even
better
is
remarkable.
So
hats
off
to
you,
mr.
chief
planner,
and
to
all
of
your
staff.
You
do
a
fantastic
job
and
I
hope.
Anyone
listening
to
this
realizes
that
you're
trying
to
go
from
a
plus
to
a
double
plus.
J
There
is
just
the
fact
that,
when
we
make
operational
improvements
that
really
enhances
our
ability
to
deliver
on
the
policy
side
as
well,
whether
that's
yeah
with
you
know,
with
the
better
data
and
information,
that's
going
to
come
out
of
that
and
enabling
us
to
make
better
decisions
on
the
policy
side.
That's
huge
and
it's
quite
timely
that
this
is
coming
back
right
now
and
we're
gonna
be
able
to
leverage
that
information
in
those
better
processes.
J
In
light
of,
you
know
the
province,
kind
of
shifting
the
goal
posts
on
bill
108
and
all
the
changes
that
are
really
being
handed
down
towards
us
right
now
from
the
provincial
context.
So
you
know
the
best
thing
we
can
do
is
arm
ourselves
with
that
information.
We're
gonna
get
better
information.
That's
coming
out
of
this.
That
really
highlights
all
the
great
work
that's
going
on
on
this.
Lastly,
I
will
add
you
know
we
were
at
the
Toronto
Urban
Design
Awards
last
week
or
week
or
two
ago,
and
it
really
those
sort
of
projects.
J
You
know
two
council
perks
and
councillor
Wang
Tam's
point:
you
can
really
see
the
tangible
benefit
that
City
Planning
makes
and
our
team
makes.
This
division
is
additive
to
city
building,
it's
additive
to
projects
and,
as
you
go
through
these
25
commenting
partners
and
external
agencies,
and
you
go
through
the
development
review
process,
we
end
up
with
better
outcomes
and
I
think
with
the
enhancements
and
improvements
operations,
that's
going
to
be
strengthened,
but
it
really
does
lead
to
a
better
Toronto
and
better
city
building
outcomes.
E
I
think
it's
good
if
this
becomes
yearly
to
look
at
that
kind
of
best
practice
and
continuous
improvement
that
our
chief
planner
has
said
that
he's
overseeing
and
engendering,
and
also
acknowledged
the
kind
of
shifting
sands
that
exist
so
bill,
108
and
then
transportation
planning
no
longer
looking
after
relief
line
or
anything
else.
Things
are
shifting
inside
and
I
know
it's
hard
it's
hard
for
us.
I
can
imagine
how
hard
it
is
for
staff
so
being
really
clear
that
you're
on
the
right
path
doing
well.
E
We
understand
that
every
developer
believes
that
their
project
is
the
number
one,
and
only
project
that
should
be
looked
at
by
City
Planning,
often
not
everybody,
but
that
generally,
when
they
start
getting
panicky.
That's
what
happens
and
I
do
want
to
say
that
when
things
start
going
off
the
rails
or
panic
starts
that
planning
always
steps
up
to
assist
to
get
things
back
on
the
rails
because
it
is
possible
and
not
to
have.
E
E
One
of
them,
of
course,
as
we
know
as
you've
looked
at,
is
the
kind
of
clearing
out
of
people
if
they're,
B
and
B
the
changes
in
rental
and
run
of
Ixion's
the
preponderance
of
restaurants
and
places
that
generally
had
a
nice
mix
of
businesses
and
I
know
they're,
not
all
things
that
you
can
reach
in
and
fix,
but
I
think
of
all
the
divisions
that
have
that
big
picture
that
it's
planning.
That
actually
has
that
picture
to
look
and
say:
here's
what
trends
were
noticing
that
are
positive
trends
and
here's?
E
What
trends
were
noticing
that
are
difficult
trends
in
in
the
City
of
Toronto?
So
that's
the
only
other
thing
I
kind
of
asked
to
layer
in
there
and
that
the
working
in
my
ward,
how
well
economic
development
and
planning
work
together,
is
really
an
important
thing:
around
jobs,
maintaining
neighborhoods,
maintaining
and
not
just
employment
areas,
but
approaches
to
applications
etc.
E
To
me,
that's
something
that
I
would
like
to
see
it,
perhaps
just
a
little
bit
more
focus
on
I'll,
just
harken
back
to
the
first
golf
site,
which
has
now,
as
everybody
knows,
been
purchased
like
Cadillac
Fairview,
but
the
difficulties
in
understanding
why
a
site
like
that
wouldn't
be
a
big
mixed-use
site
or
have
a
lot
of
housing
and
a
little
bit
of
employment.
To
me.
That
is
something
that's
really
important
for
people
to
understand,
because
it's
our
goal
at
the
city
to
maintain
a
certain
number
of
employment
areas
and
a
certain
number
of
jobs.
E
So
the
more
we
can
marry
up
and
focus
on
those
two
things
together,
I
think
is
very
helpful
and
with
that
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
the
report
and
all
the
work
that
you
do
through
You,
mr.
chief
planner
to
all
of
your
staff.
For
all
of
their
great
work,
pardon,
yes
and
all,
and
all
the
divisions,
that's
correct.
Thank
you.
A
A
I,
really
I'm
wearing
I'm,
really
excited
about
this
stuff
I,
because
I
think
there's
there's
a
lot
of
he-said
she-said
out
there
in
this
world
and
and
I
think
that
this
kind
of
work,
especially
and
that's
why
I
asked
about
the
technology.
If
we
can
put
it
out
there
call
them
out,
you
know,
put
it
out
there
where
the
application
stands
when
it's,
when
we're
waiting
for
information
from
the
applicant
be
public
about
it.
A
The
fact
also
that
we
need
a
layer
of
project
management
and
how
we
deal
with
the
applications
I
think
it's
really
important
for
everybody
for
all
the
departments.
Somebody
that
is
has
that
accountability
and
has
that
responsibility
as
well.
I
think
it's.
It
is
important
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
for
us
to
check
in
to
see
you
know,
how
are
we
doing
and
staff
do
we
need
more
staffed.
It
would
not
be
more
staff.
Do
we
need
technology?
What
kind
of
technology?
How
do
we
improve
our
systems?
A
I
mean
I
think
this
is
extremely
important.
What
we're
doing,
and
so
congratulations
to
you
I
just
wish
we
could
move
even
faster,
but
I
understand
that
you're
dealing
with
a
lot
of
things
at
the
same
time
and
you're
definitely
doing
your
best.
But
I
am
looking
forward
to
the
next
updates,
because
I
think
this
is
really
important.
A
Work
that
you're
doing
here
also
to
allow
to
focus
and
to
have
staff
focused
on
really
important
work
that
the
city
is
doing,
and
the
reality
is
that
we
have
an
unprecedented
amount
of
growth
and
we
have
to
focus
on
how
to
manage
the
growth
and
and
we
need
a
planning
that
is
focused
on
on
doing
that,
and
for
that
we
need
to
be
well-organized
and
well-managed.
So
thank
you
and
looking
forward
for
future
updates.
A
Okay
and
next
item
8.8
response.
Oh
sorry,
motion
to
adopt
the
item:
councillor
perks,
all
those
in
favor
that
carries
item
8.8
response
to
Auditor,
General's
outstanding
recommendation
regarding
section
37
and
section
45
funds
not
received
in
2008
to
2017
approvals.
Councillor
perks,
you
held
the
item
I.
D
D
A
Other
questions
seeing
non
speakers.
No
speakers
motion
to
adopt
the
item:
councillor
perks,
all
those
in
favor
that
carries
okay,
the
last
item.
We
need
to
go
back
to
eight
point:
six
appeals
of
citywide
zoning
bylaw;
five;
six,
nine,
two
thousand
thirteen
request
for
direction,
and
will
you
need
to
go
in-camera
counselor?
Okay?
A
So
extended
was
moved
by
Councillor,
Bradford,
yep
and
then
council
perks
is
moving
to
okay,
that
the
Planning
and
Housing
Committee
meet
in
closed
session
to
consider
Adam
pH
8.6,
as
it
is
about
litigation
or
potential
litigation
that
affects
the
city
or
one
of
its
agencies
or
corporations,
and
contains
advice
or
communications
that
are
subject
to
solicitor,
client
privilege
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries.
Thank
you.