►
Description
Planning and Housing Committee, meeting 2, February 12, 2019 - Part 2 of 2
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=15489
Part 1 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSkmlfD4Lrc#t=9m51s
Meeting Navigation:
0:06:56 - Meeting resume
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
I
recognize
that
in
the
next
steps
there
was
mention
of
the
report
going
to
the
Ministry
of
Municipal,
Affairs
and
housing,
but
the
report
going
federally
was
going
to
go
to
CMHC
and
I.
Think
I
should
sit
in
the
house
of
government
so
that
they
can
take
a
look
at
it,
not
just
a
crown
agency
and
then
three-
and
this
is
not
the
slowdown.
B
The
work
at
all,
because
I
want
the
work
to
to
move
at
the
pace
that
it
should,
which
is
with
a
level
of
urgency,
but
also
to
make
sure
that
the
the
consultation
plan,
the
bulk
of
it
that's
public
facing
I
heard,
was
going
to
be
in
the
months
of
June
and
July.
If
we
can
have
that
draft
of
the
report
least
come
back
to
us
here,
so
we
can
take
a
look
at
it,
but
don't
necessarily
stop
doing
the
work.
B
But
I
am
aware
that
the
analysis
that
came
before
us
from
the
urban,
the
Canadian
Urban
Institute
and
Canadian
Centre
for
Economic
Analysis,
is
really
putting
a
in
on
a
subject
matter
that
we
are
all
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time.
Talking
about
and
I
think
that
they've
done
us
a
favor
and
I'm
grateful
that
the
staff
raybert
commissioned
this
work,
but
I
think
they've
also
done
us
a
favor
by
raising
some
big
red
flags
that
and
in
an
in
a
systematic
way
that
puts
it
out
before
us
in
a
fashion,
that's
organized.
B
There
are
so
many
different
ways
for
us
to
address
the
structural
deficits
that
have
led
to
the
housing
crisis
as
before
us,
and
this
is
not
necessarily
because
the
provincial
and
federal
government
are
not
at
the
table,
although
that
is
a
big
component
of
it.
There's
also
the
piece
around
the
aging
housing
stock,
the
the
fact
that
the
city
of
Toronto
has
largely
let
the
market
dictate
the
rules
to
counter
courts.
B
Councillor
perks,
this
point
and
the
fact
that
we
probably
have
not
prioritize
our
work
as
well
as
we
could
have
to
councillor
Bradford's
point
and
we're
gonna
need
a
whole
suite
of
tools
really
to
address
all
of
it
and
over
the
past
year
we've
we
fought.
We
found
ourselves
pitted
against
this
conversation
of.
Do
we
provide
more
shelter
services
because
the
demand
is
there
and
if
we
do
that?
Does
that
mean
that
we
don't
have
the
capacity
at
the
City
of
Toronto
to
also
work
concurrently
on
long
term
housing
solutions?
B
Well,
of
course
we
do,
and
especially
since
now
we
have
a
waiting
list
that
seems
to
have
been
developed
for
people
who
are
looking
for
emergency
shelters.
That
means
people
who
are
almost
on
the
street
and
I,
don't
know
where
they
are,
if
they're,
if
they're
already
requiring
emergency
shelters
that
somehow
prohibits
them
from
gaining
access,
and
so
that's
why
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
the
staff
for
the
work
that
they
are
going
to
embark
on.
I
know
that
this
is
going
to
be
a
very
important
document.
B
B
The
last
two
three
four
administration's
we've
actually
unlocked
city
assets
and
said:
go
to
the
market
and
let's
get
the
highest
and
best
use,
and
we've
never
been
able
to
extract
that
triple
bottom
line.
Community
benefit
that
I
think
is
so
critical
if
we're
gonna
build
these
complete
sustainable,
upright
neighborhoods,
and
so
we
do
have
a
lot
of
thinking
to
do.
B
And
if
we
can't
get
in
front
of
it
now
we're
certainly
not
going
to
be
able
to
get
in
front
of
it
in
the
next
twenty
or
thirty
years,
and-
and
this
is
where
I
do
want
to
thank
Steve
mehar
who's,
not
here,
but
I
thought.
He
raised
a
really
important
point.
And
that
point
is
that
behind
the
data
and
all
that
all
the
numbers
are
people's
real
lived
experiences
and
right
now
we
are
not
doing
enough
as
a
city
to
adequately
address
people's
suffering.
B
And
so,
therefore,
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
the
for
the
volume
of
work
that
they
will
do
to
pull
it
all
together
for
us
in
a
blueprint
that
will
take
us
forward
and
then,
of
course,
we'll
have
to
thank
City
Council
in
the
future
to
fund
and
make
sure
that
it
gets
done,
and
so
we
all
have
a
role
to
play.
I
think
we
should
all
own
it,
not
just
the
municipal
government
or
the
federal
government,
but
every
single
one
of
us
who
actually
says
that
we
care
deeply
about
housing.
A
So,
when
we're
talking
about
housing,
we're
really
talking
about
a
opportunity
for
our
residents
and
equity
for
our
residents
here
in
the
city,
and
that's
why
this
is
so
important
as
we
develop
the
next
ten
year
plan
and
respond
to
an
incredible
amount
of
growth
that
is
happening
in
the
city
but
question
ourselves.
How
are
we
growing?
Are
we
growing
in
accordance
with
our
values?
A
Are
we
growing
in
accordance
with
what
we
want
this
city
to
be
and
aspire
to
be
and
I
think
these
are
the
questions
that
we
should
be
asking
as
we
develop
this
this
housing
plan
I
agree
that
we
can
just
tinker
with
the
outsides
it
is.
It
is
true.
I
think
we
need
to
be
somewhat
provocative
and
think
that
you
know
how
the
way
that
we're
gonna
solve
the
different
points
of
the
housing
continuum.
It's
not
gonna,
be
by
building
ourselves
out
of
this
issue
or
subsidizing
ourselves
other
out
of
this
issue.
A
Nobody
has
ever
talked
about
those
things
and
I
think
that
hopefully,
Toronto
will
start
exploring
I'm,
not
saying
that
this
is
right
or
wrong
right
now,
but
I
think
that,
as
we're
developing
a
housing
plan,
we're
gonna
have
to
start
having
these
conversations.
How?
What
are
the
tools?
It's
the
zoning
tools
is
the
planning
tools.
It's
a
tax
incentive
tools.
It
is
the
subsidies
that
we
have.
It
is
the
partnerships
with
other
levels
of
government.
It
is
the
partnerships
we've
done
into
a
non
profit
sector.
A
All
these
are
gonna
be,
and
we're
gonna
need
to
bring
them
together
during
the
these
next
few
months
and
have
this
conversation
in
some
cases
in
a
provocative
way,
to
find
some
new
ways
and
some
new
tools
to
bring
to
this
issue
and
I.
Think
that's
an
important
conversation.
I
I
know
that
we're
gonna
be
reaching
out
to
the
four
corners
of
this
city.
I
know
that
Torontonians
want
to
talk
about
this
issue.
I
know
that
you
know
from
people
with
very
very
low
income
are
feeling
the
pain.
C
This
is
the
first
kind
of
being
able
to
get
you
engaged
in
in
this
conversation
and
I'm
just
going
to
very
quickly
highlight
the
purpose
of
the
report.
The
policy
framework
that
we're
dealing
with
some
of
you
are
more
familiar
than
others,
with
our
employment
lands
policies
and
other
effective
policies.
What
we're
telling
you
in
this
report,
what
we're?
What
our
advice
is
in
our
next
Oh.
C
Affected
by
the
growth
plan
in
the
Golden
Horseshoe
by
February,
the
28th,
so
we
have
to
get
back
to
them
with
something
from
City
Council,
and
we,
this
timeline
allows
us
to
do
that.
Overall.
I
just
want
to
stress
that,
while
we
are
still
completing
the
previous
municipal,
comprehensive
review
and
still
at
the
old
pad
finishing
up
under
the
old
rules,
the
we
have
now
to
consider
some
new
rules.
C
What
we
are
trying
to
do
as
much
as
possible
is
is
stick
with
the
and
apply
the
Council
adopted
policies
that
we
have
in
the
Official
Plan
a
theme
you
know
we're
not
inviting
a
major
change
in
direction.
In
other
words,
with
our
comments
back
to
to
the
province,
we
have
an
official
plan
that
manages
sustain
growth,
while
balancing
all
the
community
interests,
the
economy
and
the
environment,
and
that
very
much
has
guided
what
we
want
to
the
framework.
C
We
embarked
upon
a
municipal,
comprehensive
review
in
2013
to
look
at
all
of
our
employment
lands
and
that's
the
two
sides
of
employment
lines.
Ironically,
as
we
discussed
this
morning,
do
we
have
enough
employment
lands
to
meet
our
employment
targets?
Do
we
have
enough
housing
potential
to
meet
our
population
targets,
so
that
was
that
is
the
package
that
is
now
before
the
el
Patten
is
working
it
through
working
its
way
through
a
long
litigated
process
that
started
in
2013.
C
We
also
have
come
to
you
with
a
five-year
ope
review
policies
and
the
previous
committee
committee,
your
predecessor
committee,
looked
at
environment,
neighbourhoods,
transportation
and
other
matters.
We
have
been
working
with
a
growth
plan
that
was
updated
with
new
job
population
and
job
targets
in
2013
and,
of
course,
the
conformity
exercise
that
we
concluded
with
OPA
231
was
in
response
to
that.
Finally,
the
growth
plan
puzzle
is
completed
by
up
until
recently,
the
growth
plan
puzzle
is
completed
by
the
amendments
made
in
2017
approved
by
the
province,
and
now
we
are
dealing
with
an
amendment.
C
What
they're
calling
the
first
amendment
to
that
growth
plan.
We
have
a
timeline
to
comply
with
the
growth
plan
in
2022,
and
that
includes
implementing
the
zoning
bylaws,
so
one
so
I'm,
going
to
just
lay
out
a
few
major
tranches
of
policy
shift
that
we
want
to
bring
your
attention
to,
and
the
report
goes
through
in
detail.
One
of
them
is
something
new
called
pro
provincially
significant
employment
zones.
This
is
what
they
are
proposing
in
it.
It
basically
is
looking
at
what
we
have
in
city
in
the
City
of
Toronto
context.
C
Firstly,
on
the
one-third
we
want
to
be
able
to
establish
what
I
would
call
a
backstop
to
use
the
brick,
the
brexit
terminology,
a
backstop
to
these
today.
Now
you
don't
go
there,
but
to
the
33%.
In
other
words,
we
need
to.
If
they
want
to
create
another
tier
or
another
grouping
of
employment
lands,
we
still
want
to
look
at
those
lands
comprehensively.
We
also
believe
that
they've
simply
missed
some
important
significant
areas,
including
our
office
parks,
the
of
the
food
terminal
on
the
Queensway
sanofi
pasteur.
C
C
In
our
office
parks,
for
example,
65,000
people
work
in
our
office
parks,
that's
not
something
that
we
have
to
date
exposed
to
do
the
speculation
in
the
land
market,
and
we
want
to
be
as
protective
as
we
can
with
with
these
areas.
The
next
slide
the
agri-food
I've
mentioned
this
as
well,
the
the
the
business
of
agriculture
I
noticed
it
was
Canada
agriculture
day
today.
Another
irony
and
the
the
the
mapping
that
has
been
brought
forward
to
the
province
fails
to
include
the
food
terminal.
C
C
The
another
another
major
part
of
the
amendment
that
they're
proposing
is
to
take
the
concept
of
major
transit
station
areas
that
was
introduced
in
the
previous
growth
plan
or
the
existing
growth
plan.
If
you
will
and
look
at
widening
the
radius
of
the
major
transit
station
areas
from
500
up
to
800
meters,
the
the
the
the
problem
set
for
the
city
is
that
we've
got
about
160
major
transit
station
areas,
the
maybe
about
half
already
meet
the
minimum
density
requirements,
so
we're
pretty
good
we're
in
good
shape,
but
many
of
them
do
not.
C
There
is
a
work
program
associated
with
the
MT
SAS
at
the
500
meter
range.
Opening
them
up
to
800
meters
for
us
is
a
significant
complication
of
an
already
big
task.
We
do
have
concerns
about
expanding
them,
up
to
800
meters,
understanding,
the
transit
capacity
issues
that
we
have
in
the
city
and
the
other
infrastructure
issues
that
we
have
in
the
city.
C
We
have
not
shown
on
the
map,
other
lines
and
other
stations
that
will
come
as
a
result
of
further
transit
expansion,
Eglinton
east
and
west,
for
example,
and
the
relief
line
north
so
we're
looking
at
keeping
up,
as
we
normally
have
with
planning
frameworks
in
these
growth
areas
and
making
sure
that
we
build
complete
communities.
Finally,
there
are
a
series
of
other
recommendations
in
the
report.
The
we
want
the
province
to
require
office
replacement,
set
minimum
employment
standards.
C
These
are
the
types
of
things
that
we've
started
to
do
in
teok
or
in
Yonge
and
Eglinton
in
some
of
the
other,
and
in
some
of
the
other
plane
planning
frameworks
where
we
have
mixed
use
permission,
we
want
to
be
able
to
see
the
the
jobs
materialize
in
a
mandated
form.
Some
of
the
the
policy
thrusts
that
we've
been
advancing.
C
There
are
growth
plan
amendments
proposed
to
how
urban
design
policy
is
applied
and
the
strength
that
the
growth
plan
gives
us
in
the
way
that
we
do
planning
in
in
Toronto
the
way
that
we
achieve
high
quality
design.
The
importance
of
that
for
a
healthy
and
competitive
City
is
something
that
we
want
the
amendment
to
to
be
modified
around
and
also
how
the
growth
plan
policy
aligns
with
our
intensification
policies
in
the
Official
Plan.
As
we
discussed
this
morning,
we
have
a
nervin
structure
in
Toronto
and
we
want
good
alignment
with
that
urban
structure.
C
So
we're
going
to
continue
the
analysis
of
the
amendment.
Obviously,
we've
been
consulting
with
economic
development
and
legal.
We
are
continuing
just
tomorrow.
We
have
another
round
table
with
ministry
staff
and
we
anticipate
coming
directly
to
City
Council,
with
further
recommendations
to
what's
in
front
of
you
this
morning.
This
afternoon.
D
C
Step
is
that
we
have
to
conform
with
that
2017
policy
in
the
growth
plan,
and
so
we
were
embarking
or
are
embarking
on
a
conformity
exercise
to
make
sure
that
the
official
plan
and
ultimately
the
zoning
in
each
of
those
500
meter
areas
implements
the
minimum
densities
that
are
in
the
growth
plan.
So
that
step,
you
know,
let's
say
they
weren't
amending
the
plan
up
to
eight
or
the
growth
plan
up
to
800.
That's
a
work
program
item
that
we're
embarking
on
it's
in
our
work
program
and
it's
a
conformity
exercise.
Basically.
C
Exactly
and
and
as
I
as
I
indicated
before,
we've
got
about
a
hundred
and
sixty
of
them
in
play.
Many
of
them
like,
for
example,
we've
done
the
Yonge
and
Eglinton
plan
and
the
densities
in
Yonge
and
Eglinton
more
than
meet
the
MTS,
a
minimum
densities.
So
in
many
of
these
areas
we
will
find
just
because
we're
such
a
dense
urban
place
that
were
that
we're
comfortably
able
to
achieve
those
minimums
other
areas
we
may.
We
may
need
to
introduce
more
specific
area
plans
that
get
us
those
minimum
densities.
Okay,.
D
C
D
Like
in
the
hundreds
of
millions
or
billions
of
dollars-
yes,
so
so,
if
I'm,
some
guy-
let's
just
say
your
heritage
properties,
I,
don't
know
everybody
just
picking
you
a
Tran.
It's
not
pick
anybody,
okay,
let
but
I'm,
one
of
those
guys
and
I
and
I
owned
land
in
one
of
these
areas.
This
policy
comes
into
effect.
I
go
through
the
process.
I
get
converted
the
day
after
I'm,
converted
up
zone
to
a
residential
use
being
permitted.
The
value
of
my
land
increases
just
that
day
substantially.
E
Yes,
but
a
lot
of
these
places
are
fractured
ownership,
so
existing
industrial
things.
So
there's
two
issues,
one
that
you're
focusing
on,
which
is
the
up
up
value
and
which
is
very,
very
significant
at
multiples
of
the
current
land
value,
significant
multiples.
The
other
thing
is
it's
going
to
entice
people
that
are
currently
owning
properties
that
are
employed
people
to
stop
employing
those
people
and
convert
them
to
residential,
and
that's
you
that,
from
my
point
of
view
from
an
economic
development
point
of
view,
that's
even
more
worrisome.
Oh.
C
Wait
I
think
there
it
comes
back
madam
chair
to
meet
around
the
public
policy,
concern
whether
or
not
somebody's
going
to
make
money.
I
have
a
public
policy
concern
about
that
fair
enough,
but
I'm
I'm
concerned
that
this
creates
a
departure
from
what
has
become
an
established
practice
of
keeping
speculation
to
the
side
and
putting
these
matters
are
no
longer
appealed.
For
example,
so
we've
been
able
to
you
know
through
a
lot
of
work
with
economic
development
and
stakeholders
to
calm
this
down
over
the
last
10
years
and
to
ring-fence
these
employment
areas.
C
It's
not
to
say
that
there
aren't
candidate
locations
for
methodical,
measured
change
in
Toronto.
There
will
always
be
those
selected
and
we
need
to
look
always
be
looking
at
those
and
importantly
ask
for
jobs
when
those
things
happen.
So
the
silastic
example
working
through
the
settlement
on
silastic
a--
asking
and
negotiating
and
securing
significant
employment
through
a
regeneration
of
a
complete
community,
so
there's
kind
of
a
recipe
book
for
both
there's
a
recipe
book
for
stability
that
we've
been
working
hard
on,
and
there
is
there
areas
on
occasion
a
methodical
way
of
solving
these.
C
F
Very
much
and
appreciate
the
tight
timeline
and
turning
this
around
that's
crazy.
You
have
45
days
to
get
the
comments
in
good
thing.
I
love
planning
through
the
chair
a
couple
questions
so
OPA
231,
we've
always
held
the
consistent
view.
Employment,
land
conversions
are
not
needed
for
the
growth
plan,
targets
2017,
but
what
I'm
reading
here
is
that
these
changes
could
have
significant
implications
for
our
employment
lands.
F
G
The
most
part
through
the
chair
excuse
me,
for
the
most
part,
the
employment
lands
designations
are
in
effect,
and
we've
brought
a
series
of
amendments
forward
to
planning
and
growth
at
the
time
and
counsel
last
term
with
respect
to
policies
around
hotels.
What
remains
outstanding,
however,
are
our
conversion
policies
and
our
projections.
So
that's
currently
before
the
l
pad
with
a
hearing
scheduled
in
September
of
this
year
to
deal
with
those
matters.
So
we
have
a
three-week
hearing
coming
up
parking.
G
That
aside,
we
also
have
a
number
of
seitan
area,
specific
appeals,
a
number
such
as
silicic
and
other
matters
where
we
have
achieved
settlements
and
we've
brought
them
forward
for
councils
endorsement,
and
then
legal
has
been
able
to
advance
them
at
the
L
pad.
So
we
really
have
two
streams,
the
policy
piece
and
then
individual
site
nary,
specific
appeals
which
both
continue
to
advance.
So.
F
C
Indicated
the
the
the
the
implications
are
that
it
it
establishes,
in
my
mind,
a
a
two-tier
system
where
the
P's
Ed's
are
going
to
deal
be
dealt
with
as
status
quo
protections
that
the
system
that
we're
used
to
now,
whereas
the
thirty-three
percent
will
be
open
to
conversion
in
the
period
between
the
approval
of
the
growth
plan
amendment.
So
let's
say
they
approve
the
growth
plan,
amendment
on
June,
the
1st
and
Council's
approval
of
the
next
MCR.
So
let's
say
Council
approved
an
MCR
a
year
and
a
half
from
now.
C
So
in
that
window
a
window
would
open
where
there
would
be
an
opportunity
to
converge
and
the
growth
plan
amendment
suggests
that
there
should
be
an
approach
that
maintains
jobs
in
though
in
those
33
percent.
So
that's
good.
We
want
a
I
think
a
firmer
policy
approach
and
we
also
are
specifically
recommending
that,
should
the
province
go
ahead
with
the
33
percent
impact
on
us
that
we
still
do
a
municipally
initiated
kind
of
approach
for
those
33
so
that
we
we
look
at
it
as
holistically
as
possible.
C
Understanding
that
there
will
always
be
the
odd
little
one
that
that
doesn't
really
affect
the
the
big
policy
thrust.
We
would
like
to
maintain
the
the
general
approach
that
it's
not
initiated
by
private
individuals,
but
it's
something
that
the
municipality
initiates
and
that
City
Council
has
authority
over.
So.
F
C
F
C
Well,
I
think
the
like
the
peas
ads
are
would
follow
the
normal
level
of
protection
that
we've
been
able
to
achieve,
but
the
33%
that
are
not
in
a
33%
I
think
are
more
susceptible
to
change.
Yes,
and
that's
that's
why
we
have
recommendations
in
the
report
but
making
sure
that
we
that
we
put
as
much
land
as
possible
into
the
p-set
basket.
If
you
will
and
minimize
the
the
two-tier
system
approach,
okay,
I.
B
You
very
much
just
to
follow
up
so
I
have
a
better
understanding
if
the
P
sets
are
not
approved
on
June
the
1st,
but
rather
December
31st
or
perhaps
even
into
2019
your
window
of
opportunity
does
that
shrink
in
a
in
a
same
corresponding
manner.
So
you
no
longer
have
a
year
and
a
half
to
to
initiate
and
conclude
the
MCR.
C
Far
as
we
know,
the
way
the
rules
are
drafted
is
that
they're
introducing
the
new
peas
Ed's
Pizza
is
whatever
we
want
to
call
them
and
the
the
that
that
clock
starts
ticking
when
when
they
approve
it,
so
I
just
speculatively
said:
June
the
1st
yeah,
that's
after
that
time
and
before
council
commences
its
next
municipal
comprehensive
review,
there
would
be
an
opportunity
to
look
at
the
conversion
of
these.
These
lands
account
the
the
province
could
also
could
always
come
back
and
say:
well,
you
have
until
2023
they
could.
C
B
With
respect
to
the
the
new
transit
zones,
the
exam
expansion
from,
or
the
MT
sa,
from
500
to
800,
recognizing
that
there's
a
minimum
quantum
that
has
been
identified
is
there
a
maximum?
Is
there
is
there?
Is
there
a
time
where
there's
just
too
much
too
much
density,
subway
lines
and
transit
lines
are
at
the
critical
juncture
where
they
can
accommodate
any
more
capacity.
Childcare
centers
are
inadequate,
hospitals
are
full.
Is
there
that
particular
Maxima.
C
So
that's
the
formula
and
in
some
of
these
areas
we
will
have
to
undertake
in
order
to
meet
the
minimum
densities,
I'm,
pretty
confident
we'll
be
able
to
do
in
a
city
like
Toronto.
We
will
have
to
look
at
the
development
capacity
in
those
areas
and
whether
or
not
there
are
infrastructure
needs
in
those
areas.
So.
B
By
way
of
your
proposal
now
is
to
recommend
removing
the
expanded,
800
meter
radius
and
going
back
to
the
500
meter
meter
radius.
If
the
province
says
no,
then
we
have
to
then
live
with
the
the
fact
that
these
neighbourhoods,
these
centers,
these
transit
hubs,
could
already
be
at
capacity,
and
we
can't
say
no
to
further
development
is.
Is
that
what
happens.
C
Well,
I
think
there
there
there
the
plan
calls
for
minimum
densities,
whether
it's
500
or
800,
but
the
planning
approach
that
we
would
take
in
response
to
that,
because
the
growth
plan
also
has
policies
about
infrastructure
and
livability
and
sustainability.
We
would
be
in
the
words
yes,
a
lot
of.
We
would
be
bringing
back
to
you
in
order
to
conform
with
the
growth
plan.
C
We'd
be
back
coming
back
to
you,
with
not
just
housing
plans,
but
plans
for
complete
communities,
so
you're
not
going
to
get
just
plans
for
new
housing
units
you're
going
to
get
plans
in
these
areas.
If
there's
a
daycare
need
or
a
transit
capacity
need,
and
if
there's
a
new
community
center
need
so
you're
going
to
get
a
fuller
picture
back
from
us
about
what
it
takes
to
build
these
kinds
of
densities
in
these
areas.
So.
B
B
C
B
F
E
E
F
G
F
E
I
just
add
to
that
answer.
Sorry,
I
mean
you,
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
other
office
areas
in
the
city,
namely
young
and
st.
Claire,
Yonge
and
Eglinton,
and
the
rapid
conversion
of
office
space
in
those
areas.
We
know
that
office
parts
that
they
designate
or
they
want
to
design
8,
are
in
development
pressured
areas.
It
doesn't
take
very
long
for
that
to
happen,
and
not
only
does
it
load
up
in
certain
nodes
in
terms
of
transportation
infrastructure,
it
again
takes
jobs,
away,
enforces
and
often
cases.
E
F
Thank
you
and
then
lastly,
this
document
and
from
the
province
is
that
we're
introducing
these
changes
when
the
idea
to
like
make
planning
better
and
to
improve
housing
affordability.
It
sort
of
looks
like
from
the
presentation
and
first
glance
at
that
the
approach
is
MTS
A's,
Wild
West.
You
know
whether
it's
five
hundred
eight
hundred
meters
do
they.
Is
there
any
commentary
or
proposed
changes
that
will
help
us
deliver
housing
in
other
ways
other
than
you
know,
whether
you
call
it
missing
middle
or
yellow
belt
or
market
urbanism
or
whatever?
C
Think
the
there
is
a
an
approach
in
the
growth
plan
that
we
do,
support,
which
is
to
unbundling
the
MT
SAS
from
a
municipal,
comprehensive
review.
I
think
that's
beneficial,
because
we
will
be
able
to
look
at
a
bundle
or
a
tranche
of
MT
SAS
as
one
group
and
get
them
brought
forward
to
City
Council
as
as
individual
packages.
So
it's
easier
for
us.
Frankly,
it's
easier
for
the
communities
who
are
affected
by
those
changes.
C
A
You
yes
and
just
I
echo
that
it's
incredible
I
know
that
many
staff
were
working
over
the
weekend
to
be
able
to
present
this
here
to
the
committee
today.
So
thank
you.
So
just
a
quick,
so
the
33%
doesn't
automatically
get
converted
right.
But
if
this
goes
ahead,
I
mean
you
would
probably
see
a
flood
of
requests
very
shortly.
Coming
into
the
city,
we.
C
A
A
And
again
so,
this
does
not
affect
so.
For
example,
I'm
gonna
give
you
an
example
in
my
area,
have
Cadbury
completely
surrounded
by
residential,
so
their
piece
of
land
doesn't
automatically
transfer
unless
they
go
through
the
process
right,
so
two
existing
manufacturing,
there's
no
and
unless
they
transferred
there's.
No,
it
risk
correct.
Okay,
good
with
the
160
stations.
C
A
When
you
say
so,
what
you're
asking
is
that
at
least
the
bare
minimum
the
province
allow
us
to
do
a
thoughtful
study
on
the
33
percent,
and
how
long
would
that
would
that
be?
So
if
the
province
asks
you,
you
know:
okay,
fine,
the
City
of
Toronto
go
ahead.
Do
your
study?
How
much
time
do
we
need
to
do
that
study.
C
A
A
C
B
Just
to
clarify
I'm
not
to
clarify,
but
just
thank
staff
for
the
report,
also
just
the
fact
that
they
move
so
quickly
and
and
unpacked
it
in
such
an
accessible
way
for
us.
I
think
that
was
incredibly
helpful.
I
really
hope
that
the
members
of
council
will
have
just
as
much
time
and
with
your
present,
it
may
be
perhaps
have
the
same
presentation
opportunity
at
City
Council,
because
this
is
going
to
affect
many
communities
than
I
I.
B
Just
hope
that
some
of
our
colleagues
will
be
able
to
turn
their
heads
to
it
and,
and
also
just
to
explain
that
I
will
not
be
moving.
The
motion
I
was
speaking
about,
because
Kerry
was
was
very
good
to
advise
me
that
they
need
a
bit
more
time
to
really
that's
that
language,
so
I'll
be
moving
that
I
counsel
instead.
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
and
in
closing
just
once
again
thank
you.
This
is
a
very
important
work
in
our
city.
You
know
we
are
finally
growing
and
jobs
not
only
growing
in
population
and
I
think
everybody
wants
to
maintain
growth
on
both
both
areas,
and
this
is
really
important
work
to
make
sure
that
that
happens.
Thank
you
motion
to
receive
adopt.
Sorry
come
on
time,
all
those
in
favor.
No,
no,
no,
we
see
and
that
carries
carry
almost
had
a
heart
attack.
She's
like
what
is
this?
What
we're
doing
to
me
and
next
item.