Toronto City Council
The full agenda, as filed
All 45 items in the clerk’s order. Each carries the city’s own words: the staff recommendation, what the body decided, and its status. Nothing below is written by us.
Items 1 to 25 of 45Show 2550100all
BL7.1adopted
Introduction and Enactment of General Bills and Confirming Bills
City Council will introduce and enact General Bills and Confirming Bills.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019 enacted By-laws 681-2019 to 811-2019.
CC7.1adopted
Ombudsman Toronto 2018 Annual Report
Pursuant to section 173(2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 3, the Ombudsman is required to submit an annual report on the activities of her office directly to City Council.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council receive the Ombudsman Toronto 2018 Annual Report for information.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Ombudsman recommends that: 1. City Council receive the Ombudsman Toronto 2018 Annual Report for information.
MM7.1adopted
On Thursday, March 28, 2019, the Etobicoke York District Panel of the Committee of Adjustment refused applications related to the property municipally known as 889 Royal York Road (the "Subject Property") for consent to sever the Subject Property and two associated applications for minor variances (Applications B0037/18EYK, A0311/18EYK, and A0310/18EYK). The applicant has appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body. The applicant proposes to sever the Subject Property, which has a frontage of 15.24 metres, into two undersized residential lots. The application requires variances to City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 and the Etobicoke Zoning Code, as amended, including variances for lot frontage, lot area, lot coverage, maximum permitted floor space index, side yard setbacks, building length, encroachment of a platform into a setback, roof projection, and parking space width. Community Planning staff do not support the application. City Planning staff submitted a report dated February 13, 2019 to the Committee of Adjustment to recommend refusal of the consent and variances. Staff recommended refusal on the grounds that the applications to create two undersized residential lots is not in keeping with the established character and lot pattern of the neighbourhood. Engineering and Construction Services staff, in a memorandum dated January 15, 2019, recommended that the Committee of Adjustment defer its consideration of the applications pending the resolution of certain conditions. Copies of the Notices of Decision of the Committee of Adjustment, the Community Planning Staff Report, and the memorandum from Engineering and Construction Services are attached. This Motion will authorize the City Solicitor to oppose the applicant's Toronto Local Appeal Body appeal and to secure the necessary authorization and resources to support the City's opposition to the appeal, including providing for the ability for the City Solicitor to settle the matter.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council direct the City Solicitor and any other appropriate City staff to attend the Toronto Local Appeal Body hearing in respect of 889 Royal York Road to uphold the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of the applicant's proposed development (Applications B0037/18EYK, A0311/18EYK, and A0310/18EYK). 2. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to retain outside consultants as necessary. 3. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to attempt to negotiate a resolution of the appeal and, if a resolution is reached, to settle the appeal at the City Solicitor's discretion, and in consultation with the Ward Councillor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor Mark Grimes, seconded by Councillor Mike Colle, recommends that: 1. City Council direct the City Solicitor and any other appropriate City staff to attend the Toronto Local Appeal Body hearing in respect of 889 Royal York Road to uphold the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of the applicant's proposed development (Applications B0037/18EYK, A0311/18EYK, and A0310/18EYK). 2. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to retain outside consultants as necessary. 3. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to attempt to negotiate a resolution of the appeal and, if a resolution is reached, to settle the appeal at the City Solicitor's discretion, and in consultation with the Ward Councillor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.
RM7.1adopted
- O Canada - Moment of Silence - Declarations of Interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act
CALL TO ORDER: 9:36 a.m. Speaker Nunziata took the Chair and called the Members to order. The meeting opened with O Canada. Tuesday, May 14, 2019 Members of Council observed a moment of silence and remembered: Wayson Choy Fitzroy Gordon Christoffel (Chris) Gort Lois James George Martell Don Richmond Kelly Thomson Speaker Nunziata acknowledged that City Council was meeting on the traditional territory of many nations including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Speaker Nunziata also acknowledged that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 signed with the Mississaugas of the Credit. Wednesday, May 15, 2019 Members of Council observed a moment of silence and remembered: Warren Frederick Beasley Pat Chastang
CC7.2amended
Term of Appointment for Toronto's Lobbyist Registrar
On September 12, 2016, Toronto City Council appointed Cristina De Caprio as Lobbyist Registrar for a term ending effective September 6, 2019. Her appointment was for a shortened term of 3 years as opposed to the 7 year term established in the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 3 and was intended to provide Council with the flexibility to amend the term pending the outcome of a review of the accountability functions. This report recommends that City Council extend the employment term of the Lobbyist Registrar, Cristina De Caprio, to the full 7-year non-renewable term as set out in Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 3, Accountability Officers.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council extend the term of the Lobbyist Registrar, Cristina De Caprio to a period ending on September 6, 2023 on the same terms and conditions of the current fixed term engagement so that the Lobbyist Registrar will serve the full 7-year non-renewable term set out in Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 3, Accountability Officers provided that Ms. De Caprio enters into an employment agreement satisfactory to the City Manager prior to September 6, 2019.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Manager recommends that: 1. City Council extend the term of the Lobbyist Registrar, Cristina De Caprio to a period ending on September 6, 2023 on the same terms and conditions of the current fixed term engagement so that the Lobbyist Registrar will serve the full 7-year non-renewable term set out in Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 3, Accountability Officers provided that Ms. De Caprio enters into an employment agreement satisfactory to the City Manager prior to September 6, 2019. 2. If City Council does not adopt recommendation 1, that City Council extend the term of the Lobbyist Registrar, Cristina De Caprio by two months to November 6, 2019 to provide time for staff to undertake a recruitment for a Toronto Lobbyist Registrar.
MM7.2adopted
The City of Toronto withdrew its membership in the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in 2004. At the time, we existed in what the Premier of Ontario publicly admitted was "A Legislative Straightjacket that Would Baffle Houdini". To further irritate matters, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario was entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Province that left unclear the City of Toronto's ability to negotiate any improvements in our legislative and fiscal relationship with the Province. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario and its Large Urban Mayors Caucus of Ontario have demonstrated they are a beneficial venue for thoughtful collaboration between cities as well as a useful venue for each municipality to have one-on-one meetings with appropriate Provincial Ministers and Ministry staff. Recently, we've seen that our relationship with the Large Urban Mayors Caucus of Ontario is absolutely crucial to our City and Mayor Tory's participation there has been important to the entire Province. That role must be reinforced by the full participation of Toronto Council as a member municipality, along with its public service.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council request the City Manager to report to the Executive Committee in June 2019 on the intergovernmental relationship benefits and the economic benefits of rejoining the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at this time, as well as possible costs and time frames involved in rejoining the Association.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor Shelley Carroll, seconded by Councillor Ana Bailão, recommends that: 1. City Council request the City Manager to report to the Executive Committee in June 2019 on the intergovernmental relationship benefits and the economic benefits of rejoining the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at this time, as well as possible costs and time frames involved in rejoining the Association.
RM7.2adopted
City Council will confirm the Minutes from the regular meeting held on April 16 and 17, 2019.
City Council confirmed the Minutes of Council from the regular meeting held on April 16 and 17, 2019.
CC7.3amended
On May 2, 2019, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced the Province's Housing Supply Action Plan and introduced Bill 108 (More Homes, More Choices Act) in the Legislature. The Bill proposes to amend 13 statutes. The Provincial commenting period on the proposed changes closes on June 1, 2019. The following report has been prepared by the City Planning Division in consultation with the Corporate Finance Division, Legal Services, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and other divisional partners impacted by the proposed Bill 108 amendments discussed in this report. This report highlights the proposed changes to the Planning Act, Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017, Ontario Heritage Act and the Development Charges Act,1997 and provides preliminary comments on their impact on municipal land use planning, the development approval process, heritage conservation and on funding for community facilities and infrastructure. The report also summarizes the Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, which replaces the 2017 Growth Plan and which comes into effect on May 16, 2019. The associated 2019 Growth Plan transitional matters regulation (Ontario Regulation 311/06) is open for comment until May 31, 2019.This report also comments on this proposed regulation. Despite the absence of implementation details, the proposed changes to legislation in Bill 108 signal that there will be significant impacts on: the City's finances; the ability to secure parkland; the capacity to provide community facilities; and on the evaluation of development applications that would afford appropriate opportunities for public consultation and conservation of heritage resources. Bill 108 contains limited evidence that its central objectives, making it easier to bring housing to market and accelerating local planning decisions, will be achieved. Currently over 30,000 residential units in 100 projects proposed within Toronto are awaiting Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) outcomes. Significantly shortening statutory review timelines; reducing opportunities for collaborative decision-making at the front-end of the municipal review process; expanding the scope of reasons to appeal development applications to the LPAT; and introducing a completely new process for determining community benefit (facilities) contributions could result in increased appeals and an even greater proportion of the housing pipeline projects being held up as part of the LPAT process. In addition, Bill 108 undermines the City's ability to ensure that "growth pays for growth" through substantive amendments to Sections 37 and 42 of the Planning Act, and the Development Charges Act. Combined, these tools account for a large proportion of the City's 10-year capital plan which supports critical infrastructure investments, including: 12 child-care centres with a cumulative 583 spaces; 21 Toronto Public Library expansion and renovation projects; 106 new or expanded parks; and 17 community recreation centres, 5 pools, 4 arenas and over 200 playground improvement projects. With 140,441 approved but unbuilt residential units and an additional 167,309 units currently under review (representing an estimated 540,000 people who could be housed), the need to plan for Toronto's long-term liveability and manage the impacts of growth, is of paramount importance By diverging from the long-held approach of growth paying for growth, future developments could result in a negative financial impact on the City. If this were to occur, the net outcome would be that existing residents and businesses, who make up the City's tax base, would in effect be partially subsidizing new development. Alternatively, the current service level standards would need to be adjusted to reflect this new fiscal environment. In spite of these changes, it is unlikely that they will positively impact housing affordability as Bill 108 does not provide for any mechanisms to ensure that reduced development costs are passed through to future home buyers and renters. The full impact of many of the proposed Bill 108 amendments will be assessed when implementation details, to be outlined in provincial regulations associated with the Bill, become available. The Province has not issued any information as to the timing or content of these regulations. City staff will continue to assess the impacts of the proposed legislation and provide additional comments to Council when the regulations have been released.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council request the Province to extend the June 1, 2019 timeline on the Environmental Registry of Ontario for comments on proposed Bill 108 to provide additional time for municipalities to comment on the proposed legislation. 2. City Council request the Province to consult with the City prior to issuing any draft regulations associated with proposed Bill 108, before the coming into force of the proposed Bill, such that the City can fully understand and be able to analyze the impact of the proposed Bill changes comprehensively, including the cumulative financial impacts to municipalities. 3. City Council request the Province to enshrine revenue neutrality in the proposed legislation and if not, create a municipal compensation fund to support municipalities whose revenues decline under the proposed community benefit charge regime. 4. City Council request the Province to provide compensation to the City of Toronto for the increased number of appeals and litigation if the proposed legislative changes to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal process proposed in Bill 108 are implemented. 5. City Council request the Province to provide a transparent and thorough stakeholder consultation process in the development of all regulations associated with proposed Bill 108. 6. City Council request the Province to hold fulsome standing committee meetings to enable stakeholders to make both deputations and submissions on the proposed regulations. 7. City Council direct the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report back through the 2020 Budget process on any necessary curtailment of growth-related or other capital expenditures resulting from the enactment of proposed Bill 108. 8. City Council request the General Manager, Transportation Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to report back to the June 18 and 19, 2019 City Council meeting on the legal implications of denying all road occupancy permits for development sites and forcing developers to build onsite. 9. City Council direct the City Manager to report to the July 4, 2019 meeting of the Executive Committee with respect to potential impacts on capital plans and projects as a result of the Ontario Government's proposed changes announced as part of their Ontario Housing Supply Action Plan. 10. City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report to the Executive Committee subsequent to the issuance of the regulations under Bill 108 with an analysis of the financial, planning and governance impacts to the City of Toronto. 11. City Council direct the City Manager and appropriate staff, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Transit Commission, to report back to the Executive Committee on how changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 will impact the Toronto Transit Commission's 2019 - 2028 Capital Budget and Plan and 15-Year Capital Investment Plan, if Bill 108 is enacted. 12. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to report to the Planning and Housing Committee on the feasibility of including a comprehensive list of soft and hard infrastructure costs (such as child care centres, sewer construction, sidewalk construction) in the Financial Impact Section of all final planning reports. 13. In the event that Bill 108 receives Royal Assent, City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to report to the first available Planning and Housing Committee meeting outlining any area of the City that may require a holding provision until all regulations, transitional measures and funding uncertainties related to Bill 108 are resolved. 14. City Council authorize the City Manager, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and other City Officials, as appropriate, to provide input to the Province on Bill 108 on policy and financial matters and any associated regulations. 15. City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to convey to the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the City's opposition to the proposed changes to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal process that will, in reality, restore the former Ontario Municipal Board processes and, in so doing, reduce input and direction from residents of the City of Toronto and Toronto City Council with respect to development applications within the City. 16. City Council direct the City Manager to seek assurances from the Ontario Government that the province will not, in its regulations associated with their proposals, implement any changes that will negatively impact the City through reduced or deferred development charges, elimination or reduction of Section 37 funding tools, park dedication levies or any other financial mechanisms associated with the planning and development process. 17. City Council forward the report (May 14, 2019) from the City Manager and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General for their consideration. 18. City Council adopt the following Resolution, and join municipalities from across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, where similar motions are being moved in their respective Councils, in opposing Bill 108 in its current form: WHEREAS the legislation that abolished the Ontario Municipal Board and replaced it with the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal received unanimous - all party support; and WHEREAS All parties recognized that local governments should have the authority to uphold their provincially approved Official Plans; to uphold their community driven planning; and WHEREAS Bill 108 will once again allow an unelected, unaccountable body make decisions on how our communities evolve and grow; and WHEREAS On August 21, 2018 Minister Clark once again signed the Memorandum of Understanding with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and entered into "...a legally binding agreement recognizing Ontario Municipalities as a mature, accountable order of government"; and WHEREAS This Memorandum of Understanding is "enshrined in law as part of the Municipal Act". And recognizes that as "...public policy issues are complex and thus require coordinated responses...the Province endorses the principle of regular consultation between Ontario and municipalities in relation to matters of mutual interest"; and WHEREAS By signing this agreement, the Province made "...a commitment to cooperating with its municipal governments in considering new legislation or regulations that will have a municipal impact"; and WHEREAS Bill 108 will impact 15 different Acts - Cannabis Control Act, 2017, Conservation Authorities Act, Development Charges Act, Education Act, Endangered Species Act, 2007, Environmental Assessment Act, Environmental Protection Act, Labour Relations Act, 1995, Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017, Municipal Act, 2001, Occupational Health and Safety Act, Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Water Resources Act, Planning Act, Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. Now Therefore Be it Hereby Resolved That the City of Toronto oppose Bill 108 which in its current state will have negative consequences on community building and proper planning; and Be it Further Resolved That the City of Toronto call upon the Government of Ontario to halt the legislative advancement of Bill 108 to enable fulsome consultation with Municipalities to ensure that its objectives for sound decision making for housing growth that meets local needs will be reasonably achieved; and Be It Further Resolved That a copy of this Motion be sent to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, The Honourable Christine Elliott, Deputy Premier, the Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable Andrea Horwath, Leader of the New Democratic Party, and all MPPs in the Province of Ontario; and Be It Further Resolved That a copy of this Motion be sent to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and all Ontario municipalities for their consideration. 19. City Council forward City Council's decision on this Item to the provincial government and other representatives named in the Resolution in Part 18 above. 20. City Council forward its decision on this Item to the Large Urban Mayors' Caucus of Ontario. 21. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to send a copy of the report (May 14, 2019) from the City Manager and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to all residents' associations and all residents who have been involved in development applications, with a letter from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning. 22. City Council direct the City Manager and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and appropriate staff to develop an online resource and public guide to communicate the impacts of Bill 108 to the residents of Toronto in a clear and accessible format. 23. City Council request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to approve the submitted Official Plan Amendment 405, the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, adopted by City Council in July 2018 and subsequently forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for a decision, on or before the June 6, 2019 deadline. Planning Act Recommendations 24. City Council request the Province to reconsider the timelines established for review of Planning Act applications before an appeal is permitted to the Tribunal and to return to the timelines that were in effect under Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017. 25. City Council request the Province to permit municipalities to utilize the inclusionary zoning provisions of the Planning Act in broader situations than the proposed protected major transit station and development permit system areas. 26. City Council request the Province to retain the existing Planning Act grounds for appeals of Zoning By-laws and Official Plan Amendments to only include testing for consistency with provincial policy statements, conformity with provincial plans and (for Zoning By-laws) conformity with the Official Plan and to incorporate other legislative measures that would provide for more deference to the decision-making powers of municipal councils. 27. City Council request the Province to revise the name of the proposed "Community Benefits Charge By-law" to the "Community Facilities Charge By-law" to better recognize that community facilities are necessary infrastructure needed to support development pursuant to the Growth Plan. 28. City Council request the Province to provide the later of four years or the expiry of the current Development Charges By-law from the date of enactment of the regulation that sets out any prescribed requirements for the community benefit charges before a municipality must adopt a Community Benefits Charge By-law. 29. City Council request the Province to allow municipalities to calculate the Community Benefits Charge based on per unit charges and without a cap to account for construction of facilities that are not related to land values. 30. City Council request the Province to add the following provisions to Section 37 of the Planning Act as 37(6.1) and (6.2) in Schedule 12 to Bill 108: a) 6.1 Where an owner of land elects to provide an in-kind facility, service or matter because of development or redevelopment in the area to which a community benefits charges by-law applies, the municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with the facility, service or matter. b) 6.2 Any agreement entered into under subsection (6.1) may be registered against the land to which it applies and the municipality is entitled to enforce the provisions thereof against the owner and, subject to the provisions of the Registry Act and the Lands Titles Act, any and all subsequent owners of the land. 31. City Council request the Province to delete subsections 37(15), (16), (17) (18) and (19) and add new subsection 37(15) to the Planning Act that reads: If the municipality disputes the value of the land identified in the appraisal referred to in clause 13(b), the municipality shall request that a person selected by the owner from the list referred to in subsection 37(18) prepare an appraisal of the value of the land as of the valuation date. 32. City Council request the Province to amend subsection 37(20) of the Planning Act to also require the owner to immediately provide any additional payment to the municipality where the appraisal established in 37(15) is more than the initial appraisal provided by the municipality. 33. City Council request the Province address effective transition by amending subsection 37.1 (3) of the Planning Act so that it reads: On or after the applicable date described in subsection (5), the following rules apply if, before that date, an application (complete or incomplete) under Section 34 of the Planning Act has been received by the local municipality for the site or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal has made a decision to approve a by-law described in the repealed subsection 37(1). Where an application is withdrawn by the owner and a new application is submitted within three years of the effective date, the Planning Act, as it read the day before the effective date, will apply. 34. City Council request the Province to permit annual indexing of the rates based on a blend of property value and construction cost inflation and calculated using public, third-party data if property values continue to be proposed to be used for the purposes of establishing the rate. 35. City Council request the Province to clarify Section 37 provisions in Bill 108 to: a. enable a municipality to have a city-wide Community Benefit Charge By-law or area-specific By-laws provided only one Community Benefit By-law applies in any given area; b. recognize that maximum specified caps may differ in any given area within a municipality based on an analysis of local area needs and the anticipated amount, type and location of development as set out in the respective community benefit strategy; and c. ensure that maximum specified rates as set out in any regulation will be established in consultation with municipalities with regular updates (e.g. no less than every five years) to the maximum specified rate contained within any regulation. 36. City Council request the Province to include a transition provision that specifies that the repeal of any provisions in the Planning Act which set out an alternative parkland dedication requirement will only occur once a municipality has enacted a Community Benefit Charge By-law(s). 37. City Council request the Province to amend Section 42 of the Planning Act to provide additional predictability and transparency between Sections 37 and 42, and to support the achievement of complete communities in accordance with Amendment 1 of the Growth Plan, 2017 as follows: a. enable municipalities to secure the conveyance of land for park purposes as a condition of the development or redevelopment of land along with the ability to secure a community benefits (facilities) charge in accordance with Section 37 of the Planning Act; b. clarify that where a municipality secures the conveyance of land for park purposes as a condition of development or redevelopment, the community benefits (facilities) charge will not include a payment in lieu of parkland for the site; c. revise for residential development the maximum conveyance of land for park purposes to be based on a maximum percent of the development site as determined through a community benefits (facilities) charge strategy and as established by By-law as opposed to 5 percent of the land currently proposed in Bill 108; and d. allow municipalities to set different maximum rates for the conveyance of land for park purposes for residential development based on building type(s) and intensity of development to ensure equitable contributions between different types of residential development and to support parkland need generated by the development. 38. City Council request the Province to amend proposed Bill 108 to allow municipalities to require both the community benefits (facilities) charge and/or the provision of in-kind facilities and the conveyance of land for park purposes in plans of subdivision to achieve complete communities with additional amendments to section 51.1 as per the requested amendments to Section 42 of the Planning Act reflected in Part 37 above. Development Charges Act Recommendations 39. City Council request the Province to delete provisions to delay development charges payment obligations and so preserve the concurrent calculation and payment of development charges. 40. City Council request the Province to not repeal the parkland and community infrastructure component of the Development Charges Act, 1997 in advance of the completion of the Community Benefit Charge Strategy and Community Benefit Charge By-law. 41. City Council request the Province to amend Subsection 2(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 to add "parks and recreation, and paramedic services" as growth related capital infrastructure. 42. City Council request the Province to amend Subsection 32(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 so that it reads: If a development charge or any part of it remains unpaid after it is payable, the amount unpaid including any interest payable in respect of it in accordance with this Act shall be added to the tax roll and shall be collected in the same manner as taxes and given priority lien status. 43. City Council request the Province to amend Subsection 26.1(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 dealing with when a charge is payable, to provide definitions for the types of developments listed. 44. City Council request the Province to delete Subsection 26.1(2) 4. of the Development Charges Act, 1997. 45. City Council request the Province to ensure that the prescribed amount of time referred to in Subsection 26.2(5), (a) and (b) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 be set at no longer than two years. 46. City Council request the Province to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 by adding the following provisions to permit the entering into and registration of agreements entered into pursuant to Section 27(1) of the Act: 27(4) Any agreement entered into under subsection (1) may be registered against the land to which it applies and the municipality is entitled to enforce the provisions thereof against the owner and, subject to the provisions of the Registry Act and the Lands Titles Act, any and all subsequent owners of the land. Ontario Heritage Act Recommendations 47. City Council request the Province that if the objection process is to be maintained as currently proposed in Bill 108, a time limit be included within which a person may object, by adding to the end of Subsection 27(7) of the Ontario Heritage Act, "within 30 days of the notice referred to in Subsection (5)." 48. City Council request the Province to amend Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to provide for a more efficient process for listings to allow an owner to object to a listing at a statutory public meeting before Council makes any decision, and in turn to make proposed Subsection 27(9) (Restriction on demolition, etc.) applicable from the date that notice is given respecting the proposed listing. 49. City Council request the Province to amend Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to provide for a more efficient process as follows: a. allow an owner to object to a notice of intention to designate at a statutory public meeting before Council makes any decision respecting designation; b. only permit an owner to appeal a notice of intention to designate to the Tribunal, or alternatively only permit an individual who has made an objection at a statutory public meeting to appeal a notice of intention to designate to the Tribunal; c. make the decision of Council to state its intention to designate appealable, rather than the By-law itself and delete the time limit for Designation By-laws to be passed; alternatively, extend the time period to pass a Designation By-law to one year; and d. if the opportunity to object to the Council's decision remains in the Act, then extend time periods for reconsideration of an intention to designate by Council to 180 days, allow for Council's decision to be appealed, and remove the timeframe within which a Designation By-law must be passed. 50. City Council request the Province to amend Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to provide clarity on the relationship between the individual heritage values and attributes of properties within the Heritage Conservation Districts and the values and attributes of the District, particularly as it pertains to alterations. 51. City Council request the Province to amend the Ontario Heritage Act Subsections 33(5) and 34(4.1) to change the headings to "Notice of Incomplete Application" and to add the words "that the application is incomplete" after the words "notify the applicant" for clarification. 52. City Council request the Province to amend the Ontario Heritage Act to extend time periods for consideration of alteration from 90 days to 180 days by deleting "90" and replacing it with "180" in Subsections 33(7)1 and 34(4.3)1; and/or make amendments to the Planning Act to state that where an application to alter or demolish is made under Sections 33 or 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act that the timelines in the Ontario Heritage Act prevail to the extent of any conflict for the purposes of the date an appeal may be made under the Planning Act regarding a Planning Act application. 53. City Council request the Province to make the decision of Council to state its intention to designate appealable, rather than the By-law itself, and extend the time period to pass a Designation By-law to one year. Growth Plan Recommendations 54. City Council request the Province to revise Proposed Amendment 1 of the Growth Plan, 2017, policies and mapping to recognize and include additional Provincially Significant Employment Zones in the City of Toronto, including the City's major office parks. 55. City Council support the inclusion of Official Plan Amendment 231 as a matter in process that should be transitioned and therefore not subject to a "A Place to Grow" provincial Plan and request that the Province modify Ontario Regulation 311/06 to add any decision made by Toronto City Council on the day before enactment of the proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, 2017, but are currently under appeal at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Manager and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council request the Province to extend the June 1, 2019 timeline on the Environmental Registry of Ontario for comments on proposed Bill 108 to provide additional time for municipalities to comment on the proposed legislation. 2. City Council request the Province to consult with the City prior to issuing any draft regulations associated with proposed Bill 108, before the coming into force of the proposed Bill, such that the City can fully understand and be able to analyze the impact of the proposed Bill changes comprehensively, including the cumulative financial impacts to municipalities. 3. City Council request the Province to enshrine revenue neutrality in the proposed legislation and if not, create a municipal compensation fund to support municipalities whose revenues decline under the proposed community benefit charge regime. 4. City Council request the Province to provide a transparent and thorough stakeholder consultation process in the development of all regulations associated with proposed Bill 108. 5. City Council direct the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report back through the 2020 budget process on any necessary curtailment of growth-related or other capital expenditures resulting from the enactment of proposed Bill 108. 6. City Council authorize the City Manager, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and other City Officials, as appropriate, to provide input to the Province on Bill 108 on policy and financial matters and any associated regulations. 7. City Council forward this report to the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General for their consideration. Planning Act Recommendations 8. City Council request the Province to reconsider the timelines established for review of Planning Act applications before an appeal is permitted to the Tribunal and to return to the timelines that were in effect under Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017. 9. City Council request the Province to permit municipalities to utilize the inclusionary zoning provisions of the Planning Act in broader situations than the proposed protected major transit station and development permit system areas. 10. City Council request the Province to retain the existing Planning Act grounds for appeals of zoning by-laws and official plan amendments to only include testing for consistency with provincial policy statements, conformity with provincial plans and (for zoning by-laws) conformity with the Official Plan and to incorporate other legislative measures that would provide for more deference to the decision-making powers of municipal councils. 11. City Council request the Province to revise the name of the proposed "community benefits charge by-law" to the "community facilities charge by-law" to better recognize that community facilities are necessary infrastructure needed to support development pursuant to the Growth Plan. 12. City Council request the Province to provide the later of four years or the expiry of the current development charges by-law from the date of enactment of the regulation that sets out any prescribed requirements for the community benefit charges before a municipality must adopt a community benefits charge by-law. 13. City Council request the Province to add the following provisions to Section 37 of the Planning Act as 37(6.1) and (6.2) in Schedule 12: a) "6.1 Where an owner of land elects to provide an in-kind facility, service or matter because of development or redevelopment in the area to which a community benefits charges by-law applies, the municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with the facility, service or matter." b) "6.2 Any agreement entered into under subsection (6.1) may be registered against the land to which it applies and the municipality is entitled to enforce the provisions thereof against the owner and, subject to the provisions of the Registry Act and the Lands Titles Act, any and all subsequent owners of the land." 14. City Council request the Province to delete subsections 37(15), (16), (17) (18) and (19) and add new subsection 37(15) to the Planning Act that reads: "If the municipality disputes the value of the land identified in the appraisal referred to in clause 13(b), the municipality shall request that a person selected by the owner from the list referred to in subsection 37(18) prepare an appraisal of the value of the land as of the valuation date." 15. City Council request the Province to amend subsection 37(20) to also require the owner to immediately provide any additional payment to the municipality where the appraisal established in 37(15) is more than the initial appraisal provided by the municipality. 16. City Council request the Province address effective transition by amending subsection 37.1 (3) so that it reads: "On or after the applicable date described in subsection (5), the following rules apply if, before that date, an application (complete or incomplete) under Section 34 of the Planning Act has been received by the local municipality for the site or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal has made a decision to approve a by-law described in the repealed subsection 37(1). Where an application is withdrawn by the owner and a new application is submitted within three years of the effective date, the Planning Act, as it read the day before the effective date, will apply." 17. City Council request the Province to permit annual indexing of the rates based on a blend of property value and construction cost inflation and calculated using public, third-party data if property values continue to be proposed to be used for the purposes of establishing the rate. 18. City Council request the Province to clarify Section 37 provisions in Bill 108 to: a) enable a municipality to have a city-wide community benefit charge by-law or area-specific by-laws provided only one community benefit by-law applies in any given area; b) recognize that maximum specified caps may differ in any given area within a municipality based on an analysis of local area needs and the anticipated amount, type and location of development as set out in the respective community benefit strategy; c) ensure that maximum specified rates as set out in any regulation will be established in consultation with municipalities with regular updates (e.g. no less than every five years) to the maximum specified rate contained within any regulation. 19. City Council request the Province to include a transition provision that specifies that the repeal of any provisions in the Planning Act which set out an alternative parkland dedication requirement will only occur once a municipality has enacted a community benefit charge by-law(s). 20. City Council request the Province to amend Section 42 of the Planning Act to provide additional predictability and transparency between Sections 37 and 42, and to support the achievement of complete communities in accordance with Amendment 1 of the Growth Plan, 2017 as follows: a) enable municipalities to secure the conveyance of land for park purposes as a condition of the development or redevelopment of land along with the ability to secure a community benefits (facilities) charge in accordance with Section 37 of the Planning Act; b) clarify that where a municipality secures the conveyance of land for park purposes as a condition of development or redevelopment, the community benefits (facilities) charge will not include a payment in lieu of parkland for the site; c) revise for residential development the maximum conveyance of land for park purposes to be based on a maximum per cent of the development site as determined through a community benefits (facilities) charge strategy and as established by by-law as opposed to 5 per cent of the land currently proposed in Bill 108; and d) allow municipalities to set different maximum rates for the conveyance of land for park purposes for residential development based on building type(s) and intensity of development to ensure equitable contributions between different types of residential development and to support parkland need generated by the development. 21. City Council request the Province to amend proposed Bill 108 to allow municipalities to require both the community benefits (facilities) charge and/or the provision of in-kind facilities and the conveyance of land for park purposes in plans of subdivision to achieve complete communities with additional amendments to section 51.1 as per the requested amendments to Section 42 of the Planning Act reflected in Recommendation 20. Development Charges Act Recommendations 22. City Council request the Province to delete provisions to delay development charges payment obligations and so preserve the concurrent calculation and payment of development charges. 23. City Council request the Province to not repeal the parkland and community infrastructure component of the Development Charges Act, 1997 in advance of the completion of the Community Benefit Charge Strategy and Community Benefit Charge By-law. 24. City Council request the Province to amend Subsection 2(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 to add "parks & recreation, and paramedic services" as growth related capital infrastructure. 25. City Council request the Province to amend Subsection 32(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 so that it reads: "If a development charge or any part of it remains unpaid after it is payable, the amount unpaid including any interest payable in respect of it in accordance with this Act shall be added to the tax roll and shall be collected in the same manner as taxes and given priority lien status." 26. City Council request the Province to amend Subsection 26.1(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 dealing with when a charge is payable, to provide definitions for the types of developments listed. 27. City Council request the Province to delete Subsection 26.1(2) 4. of the Development Charges Act, 1997. 28. City Council request the Province to ensure that the prescribed amount of time referred to in Subsection 26.2(5), (a) and (b) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 be set at no longer than two years. 29. City Council request the Province to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 by adding the following provisions to permit the entering into and registration of agreements entered into pursuant to Section 27(1) of the Act: "27(4) Any agreement entered into under subsection (1) may be registered against the land to which it applies and the municipality is entitled to enforce the provisions thereof against the owner and, subject to the provisions of the Registry Act and the Lands Titles Act, any and all subsequent owners of the land." Ontario Heritage Act Recommendations 30. City Council request the Province that if the objection process is to be maintained as currently proposed in Bill 108, a time limit be included within which a person may object, by adding to the end of Subsection 27(7) of the Ontario Heritage Act, "within 30 days of the notice referred to in Subsection (5)." 31. City Council request the Province to amend Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to provide for a more efficient process for listings to allow an owner to object to a listing at a statutory public meeting before Council makes any decision, and in turn to make proposed Subsection 27(9) (Restriction on demolition, etc.) applicable from the date that notice is given respecting the proposed listing. 32. City Council request the Province to amend Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to provide for a more efficient process as follows: a) allow an owner to object to a notice of intention to designate at a statutory public meeting before Council makes any decision respecting designation; b) only permit an owner to appeal a notice of intention to designate to the Tribunal, or alternatively only permit an individual who has made an objection at a statutory public meeting to appeal a notice of intention to designate to the Tribunal; c) make the decision of Council to state its intention to designate appealable, rather than the bylaw itself and delete the time limit for designation by-laws to be passed. Alternatively, extend the time period to pass a designation by-law to one year; and d) If the opportunity to object to the Council's decision remains in the Act, then extend time periods for re-consideration of an intention to designate by Council to 180 days, allow for Council's decision to be appealed, and remove the timeframe within which a designation bylaw must be passed. 33. City Council request the Province to amend Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to provide clarity on the relationship between the individual heritage values and attributes of properties within the Heritage Conservation Districts and the values and attributes of the District, particularly as it pertains to alterations. 34. City Council request the Province to amend the Ontario Heritage Act Subsections 33(5) and 34(4.1) to change the headings to "Notice of Incomplete Application" and to add the words "that the application is incomplete" after the words "notify the applicant" for clarification. 35. City Council request the Province to amend the Ontario Heritage Act to extend time periods for consideration of alteration from 90 days to 180 days by deleting "90" and replacing it with "180" in Subsections 33(7)1 and 34(4.3)1; and/or make amendments to the Planning Act to state that where an application to alter or demolish is made under Sections 33 or 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act that the timelines in the Ontario Heritage Act prevail to the extent of any conflict for the purposes of the date an appeal may be made under the Planning Act regarding a Planning Act application. 36. City Council request the Province to make the decision of Council to state its intention to designate appealable, rather than the by-law itself, and extend the time period to pass a designation bylaw to one year. Growth Plan Recommendations 37. City Council request the Province to revise Proposed Amendment 1 of the Growth Plan, 2017, policies and mapping to recognize and include additional Provincially Significant Employment Zones in the City of Toronto, including the City's major office parks. 38. City Council support the inclusion of OPA 231 as a matter in process that should be transitioned and therefore not subject to a "A Place to Grow" provincial Plan and request that the Province modify O. Reg. 311/06 to add any decision made by Toronto City Council on the day before enactment of the proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, 2017, but are currently under appeal at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
MM7.3adopted
The purpose of this motion is to improve pedestrian safety at the signalized intersection of Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue, which has been identified as one of the busiest intersections in the City with high volumes of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Currently, the west crosswalk at the intersection is restricted for pedestrian movements due to ongoing construction of the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit. The crosswalks at this intersection provide a direct route to the Toronto Transit Commission Eglinton Station, which is a significant pedestrian generator in the area. Existing road closures and unavailability of all crosswalks has resulted in safety concerns for the pedestrians and residents of the area.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council direct the City Manager to request Metrolinx and Crosslinx Transit Solutions to station pedestrian crossing assistance personnel at the intersection of Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for the duration of construction of the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit project to safely direct pedestrians across the intersection and that Metrolinx and Crosslinx Transit Solutions be responsible for all cost associated with placement, recruitment and upkeep of the pedestrian crossing assistance personnel.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor Mike Colle, seconded by Councillor Jaye Robinson, recommends that: 1. City Council direct the City Manager to request Metrolinx and Crosslinx Transit Solutions to station pedestrian crossing assistance personnel at the intersection of Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for the duration of construction of the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit project to safely direct pedestrians across the intersection and that Metrolinx and Crosslinx Transit Solutions be responsible for all cost associated with placement, recruitment and upkeep of the pedestrian crossing assistance personnel.
RM7.3adopted
Introduction of Committee Reports and New Business from City Officials
Report of the Executive Committee from Meeting 5 on May 1, 2019 Submitted by Mayor John Tory, Chair Report of the Audit Committee from Meeting 2 on May 3, 2019 Submitted by Councillor Stephen Holyday, Chair Report of the Board of Health from Meeting 6 on May 6, 2019 Submitted by Councillor Joe Cressy, Chair Report of the Economic and Community Development Committee from Meeting 4 on April 29, 2019 Submitted by Councillor Michael Thompson, Chair Report of the General Government and Licensing Committee from Meeting 4 on April 23, 2019 Submitted by Councillor Paul Ainslie, Chair Report of the Infrastructure and Environment Committee from Meeting 4 on April 25, 2019 Submitted by Councillor James Pasternak, Chair Report of the Planning and Housing Committee from Meeting 5 on April 30, 2019 Submitted by Councillor Ana Bailão, Chair Report of the Etobicoke York Community Council from Meeting 5 on April 24, 2019 Submitted by Councillor Mark Grimes, Chair Report of the North York Community Council from Meeting 5 on April 24, 2019 Submitted by Councillor James Pasternak, Chair Report of the Scarborough Community Council from Meeting 5 on April 24, 2019 Submitted by Councillor Jim Karygiannis, Chair Report of the Toronto and East York Community Council from Meeting 5 on April 24, 2019 Submitted by Councillor Gord Perks, Chair New Business submitted by City Officials
Committee Reports and New Business were presented to City Council for consideration.
CC7.4adopted
Appointment of Public Members to the Property Standards Committee
On April 25, 2019, the Nominating Panel - Property Standards Committee conducted interviews and recommended nine candidates to City Council for appointment to the Property Standards Committee.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council appoint the following candidates to the Property Standards Committee, who will serve as public members for a term of office ending on May 15, 2023, and until successors are appointed: Etobicoke York Panel William Dalton Steven Lewis North York Panel Elio Iaboni Shirley Nguyen Scarborough Panel Kiarash Kiai Monica Purdy Toronto and East York Panel Robert Hedley Marie Abraham 2. City Council appoint the following candidate to the Property Standards Committee, who will serve as a public member for a term of office ending on March 30, 2021, and until a successor is appointed: Toronto and East York Panel Laura Herbert 3. City Council direct that Confidential Attachments 1, 2 and 3 to the report (April 17, 2019) from the City Clerk remain confidential in their entirety as they relate to personal matters about identifiable individuals being considered for appointment to the Property Standards Committee. Confidential Attachments 1, 2 and 3 to the report (April 17, 2019) from the City Clerk remain confidential in their entirety in accordance with the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as they relate to personal matters about identifiable individuals being considered for appointment to the Property Standards Committee.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk transmits the Decision Letter from the Nominating Panel - Property Standards Committee. The Nominating Panel - Property Standards Committee recommends that: 1. City Council appoint the following candidates to the Property Standards Committee, who will serve as public members for a term of office ending on May 15, 2023, and until successors are appointed: Etobicoke York Panel William Dalton Steven Lewis North York Panel Elio Iaboni Shirley Nguyen Scarborough Panel Kiarash Kiai Monica Purdy Toronto and East York Panel Robert Hedley Marie Abraham 2. City Council appoint the following candidate to the Property Standards Committee, who will serve as a public member for a term of office ending on March 30, 2021, and until a successor is appointed: Toronto and East York Panel Laura Herbert 3. City Council direct that Confidential Attachments 1, 2 and 3 to the report (April 17, 2019) from the City Clerk remain confidential in their entirety as they relate to personal matters about identifiable individuals being considered for appointment to the Property Standards Committee.
MM7.4adopted
The purpose of this Motion is to create a places of Worship Security Task Force with appropriate City of Toronto services and approach Federal and Provincial Governments for their participation and possible resources to support these security initiatives.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council request the Toronto Police Services Board to consider and report back to the Executive Committee on the feasibility of establishing a Task Force to examine issues related to security, safety and public safety in places of worship, the role a Task Force might play in creating a security plan for the City of Toronto's places of worship, and possible mandate, Terms of Reference and composition, including working with City divisions, agencies and Federal and Provincial Governments.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor Mike Colle, seconded by Councillor James Pasternak, recommends that: 1. City Council request the Toronto Police Services Board to consider and report back to the Executive Committee on the feasibility of establishing a Task Force to examine issues related to security, safety and public safety in places of worship, the role a Task Force might play in creating a security plan for the City of Toronto's places of worship, and possible mandate, Terms of Reference and composition, including working with City divisions, agencies and Federal and Provincial Governments.
RM7.4received
Members of Council may file petitions.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, received the following petitions for information: 1. Petition headed "I need your voice - reverse the funding cuts to Toronto Public Health," submitted by Councillor Brad Bradford, Ward 19, Beaches-East York, containing the names of approximately 188 persons. 2. Petition regarding the Provincial health cuts to Public Health, submitted by Councillor Joe Cressy, Ward 10, Spadina-Fort York, containing the names of approximately 8,967 persons.
CC7.5adopted
Appointment of Public Members to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation
The Corporations Nominating Panel will conduct interviews and recommend three candidates to City Council for appointment to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation Board of Directors.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council appoint that following candidates to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation Board of Directors, at pleasure of Council: a. Tim Murphy who will serve as Chair for a term of office ending May 15, 2021, and until a successor is appointed; and b. Adele Imrie and John F. Campbell who will serve as public members for a term of office ending May 25, 2020 and until successors are appointed. 2. City Council direct that Confidential Attachments 1 to 5 to the report (April 29, 2019) from the City Clerk remain confidential in their entirety as they relate to personal matters about identifiable individuals being considered for appointment to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation Board of Directors. Confidential Attachments 1 to 5 to the report (April 29, 2019) from the City Clerk remain confidential in their entirety in accordance with the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as they relate to personal matters about identifiable individuals being considered for appointment to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation Board of Directors.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk transmits the Decision Letter from the Corporations Nominating Panel. The Corporations Nominating Panel recommends that: 1. City Council appoint that following candidates to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation Board of Directors, at pleasure of Council: a. Tim Murphy who will serve as Chair for a term of office ending May 15, 2021, and until a successor is appointed; and b. Adele Imrie and John F. Campbell who will serve as public members for a term of office ending May 25, 2020 and until successors are appointed. 2. City Council direct that Confidential Attachments 1 to 5 to the report (April 29, 2019) from the City Clerk remain confidential in their entirety as they relate to personal matters about identifiable individuals being considered for appointment to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation Board of Directors.
MM7.5adopted
In October 2007 City Council endorsed the City's first Social Development Plan, the Regent Park Social Development Plan. The Regent Park Social Development Plan is a framework designed to manage change and encourage community development in Regent Park throughout and post Revitalization. The plan was created in collaboration with community members, Toronto Community Housing, local agencies, and City staff from Social Development, Finance and Administration Division. The Social Development Plan was initially approved with 75 recommendations aimed at strengthening social inclusion and cohesion. In response to Regent Park moving from a low-income to mixed-income community, the plan aims to address community needs, from employment concerns, access to community facilities, to improving program/service delivery. Recommendations were grouped into four strategic focus areas: Safety, Employment and Economic Opportunities, Community Building and Communications. In 2017, a decade after the Social Development Plan was approved, a refreshment process began. As the Social Development Plan was designed to be a living document, recommendations are meant to address the current and emerging community concerns. The Social Development Plan refreshment process is near completion with a number of changes that have already been implemented. Changes include a clearer governance and accountability structure with regards to the Social Development Plan Stakeholders Table and the Social Development Plan Coordinator. The contract funding for the Social Development Plan Coordinator ends July 2019. This position is absolutely central and integral to ensuring consistent and dedicated oversight of the plan. The Social Development Plan has been supported through a collaborative effort between community members, Toronto Community Housing, agencies working in and around Regent Park, the Daniels Corporation, and City staff. Most recently, in response to the growing need for funding support for the Social Development Plan, United Way announced a three-year plan to build a $1-million Social Impact Investment Fund to drive locally led and locally invested projects in Regent Park. The Daniels Corporation have already committed $250,000 to the fund. Community revitalizations are not just about bricks and mortar. There requires an equal commitment on both the development of new buildings and community development initiatives. As the Regent Park Revitalization is entering the last few phases, Phases 4 and 5, there is an opportunity to ensure the necessary supports and resources are in place. Toronto Community Housing Corporation projects the estimated cost for the final two phases, Phase 4 and 5, to be a total of $349.0M. To date, the Social Development Plan has not been costed. Despite deep community efforts, there remains a gap in resources to operationalize the plan. In order to achieve the City of Toronto's objective of promoting and strengthening community development as outlined in the Regent Park Social Development Plan and Toronto Strong Neighbourhood Strategy 2020, an opportunity emerges to provide the necessary supports and resources for the Social Development Plan in the final few phases in the Regent Park Revitalization.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council direct the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to work in collaboration with Toronto Community Housing and the Regent Park Executive Directors Network to establish costing and a schedule for implementation for the Regent Park Social Development Plan, and to report back to the June 26, 2019 meeting of the Economic and Community Development Committee. 2. City Council direct the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to consider the feasibility of extending the full-time Social Development Plan Coordinator position and contract for the duration of Phase 4 and 5 of the Regent Park Revitalization and to report back to the June 26, 2019 meeting of the Economic and Community Development Committee.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, seconded by Councillor Ana Bailão, recommends that: 1. City Council direct the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to work in collaboration with Toronto Community Housing and the Regent Park Executive Directors Network to establish costing and a schedule for implementation for the Regent Park Social Development Plan, and to report back to the June 26, 2019 meeting of the Economic and Community Development Committee. 2. City Council direct the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to consider the feasibility of extending the full-time Social Development Plan Coordinator position and contract for the duration of Phase 4 and 5 of the Regent Park Revitalization and to report back to the June 26, 2019 meeting of the Economic and Community Development Committee.
RM7.5received
Presentations, Introductions and Announcements
Various presentations and announcements will be made at the City Council meeting.
Various presentations, introductions and announcements were made to City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019: May 14, 2019 Mayor Tory, during the morning session of the meeting, addressed City Council on the provincial Budget, and the pressure of $177.6 million it puts on the City's finances. The Mayor stated that the cuts threaten the well-being and prosperity of the City, and that he has been joined by a broad range of Councillors in standing up for Toronto in speaking out against the cuts. The Mayor stated it is important that Council send a united message to the residents, as much as to the government, that these cuts will hurt our City and impact on the residents directly; and that he believes it is the residents who will help send a message to the Province, strongly suggesting they should change course. The Mayor stated that it is important that Council also send a clear and united message to the Premier and his government, and that he looks forward to Council's debate on the matter and sending at least three messages: first, Council's profound opposition to these cuts and the unilateral, retroactive way in which they were imposed well into Council's financial year; second, Council's willingness to start over with a businesslike consultative process through which we try to find efficiencies together; and third, Council's resolve to take our concerns and our message to the people of Toronto by whatever means are necessary so that the government will put people and good public policy ahead of party. Councillor Thompson, during the morning session of the meeting, welcomed the Grade 4 and 5 students from Sathya Sai School who were present in the Council Chamber with their principal and teachers, and the leaders of the Walk for Values, which raises awareness of five human values. Council Thompson advised Council that the students will be walking on Sunday, May 26th. Council Thompson also invited Members of Council to join the students on May 23rd when they will be coming to Nathan Phillips Square to raise a flag at 12:00 noon.
CC7.6adopted
1211 Caledonia Road - Appeal of Official Plan Amendment 231 - Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Hearing
Lissard Holdings Limited, the owner of the property municipally known as 1211 Caledonia Road (the Site), has appealed Official Plan Amendment No. 231 (OPA 231) respecting the Site to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). City Council adopted OPA 231 policies for the entire city following the Five-Year Official Plan and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews regarding employment lands. The City Solicitor requires further directions for an upcoming LPAT pre-hearing conference.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council adopt the confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor. 2. City Council authorize the public release of: a. the confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor and City Council direct that the balance of the Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor remain confidential as it contains advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; b. Confidential Attachment 2 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor; and c. Confidential Attachment 3 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor. The confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor were adopted by City Council and are now public, as follows: 1. City Council accept the without prejudice offer to settle site specific Appeal No. 118 (with respect to 1211 Caledonia Road) to Official Plan Amendment 231, dated April 8, 2019, as set out in Confidential Attachment 2 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor and City Council direct the City Solicitor and other staff to attend at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in support of the settlement. Confidential Attachments 2 and 3 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor are now public and can be accessed under Background Information (City Council). The balance of Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor remains confidential in accordance with the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as it contains advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Solicitor recommends that: 1. City Council adopt the confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1. 2. If the confidential instructions in Confidential Attachment 1 are adopted, City Council authorize the public release of: a. the recommendations contained in the Confidential Attachment 1, with the remainder of the Confidential Attachment 1 to remain confidential, as it contains advice subject to solicitor-client privilege; b. Confidential Attachment 2; and c. Confidential Attachment 3.
MM7.6adopted
Toronto has rich history. Commemorating significant contributors who had an impact the City's fabric is important. William George Barker, Victoria Cross recipient, born in 1894, first came to live in Toronto in 1919 following World War I with his best friend Billy Bishop. Mr. Barker would call the City of Toronto his home until his death in 1930. During his short life, William G. Barker VC had a substantial influence on the City with his numerous achievements including: created the first commercial airline ("Bishop Barker Airlines") that flew out of Armour Heights and from Lake Ontario by what is aptly named Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport; requested the first landing rights at the City Island for a venture that flew passengers from Toronto to Muskoka during the summer months; with Billy Bishop, began what is now known as the Toronto International Air Show; was the first President of the newly christened Toronto Maple Leafs under new owner Conn Smythe, whom William G. Barker had taught to be an "Airborne Observer" for the Royal Air Force while they were both in France; was the first Executive Director (pro tem) of the Royal Canadian Air Force; was the first President of the Aero Club of Canada (Toronto); delivered the first piece of commercial cargo in North America between Toronto-New York City-Montreal-Toronto; the first pilot to make a transcontinental flight from Toronto's Leaside to New York City; introduced parachutes to the Canadian Air Force; and today William G. Barker remains the most decorated military service person in the entire British Empire. The City of Toronto however does not have a visible memorial to celebrate William Barker VC in order for his story to be told and remembered. His inspirational life story can reach our youth and teach them to strive for greatness no matter their age or path in life. A bronze statue has been crafted by renowned Canadian sculptor Armando Barbon with the approval of the descendants of William G. Barker. It is unique as it shows Barker in his Canadian Air Force uniform at the time he was appointed the first leader of the Royal Canadian Air Force. The statue is complete, is fully paid for and is currently resting at the Artcast foundry in Brampton, Ontario. Notably, to expand its presence in Toronto, in 2018 the Royal Canadian Air Force commemorated William G. Barker's contribution to the Toronto Maple Leafs by retiring its consecrated Royal Canadian Air Force colours to Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment-an unprecedented act in the history of the Canadian Forces. The flags are now on permanent display at the Scotiabank Arena at its main entrance. William G. Barker was loved by the people of Toronto, borne out by the fact that 54,000 citizens turned out for his funeral - the largest ever in Toronto's history - when he was laid to rest in Mount Pleasant Cemetery. In 2024 the Royal Canadian Air Force will celebrate its 100th Anniversary - a celebration that will honour the men and women who have and currently serve in the Royal Canadian Air Force, and especially recognize its first Executive Director, William George Barker. A suitable location for the Statue to be placed is now required along with a taxable tax receipt for the primary benefactor.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council accept the donation of the William Barker Memorial Statue by Armando Barbon, subject to the conditions of the Public Art and Monuments Donations Policy and subject to a donation agreement with the Donor, and City Council request City staff to determine the location for the statue in a high-pedestrian-volume site within the former City of Toronto area.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor Paul Ainslie, seconded by Mike Layton, recommends that: 1. City Council accept the donation of the William Barker Memorial Statue by Armando Barbon, subject to the conditions of the Public Art and Monuments Donations Policy and subject to a donation agreement with the Donor, and City Council request City staff to determine the location for the statue in a high-pedestrian-volume site within the former City of Toronto area.
RM7.6amended
City Council will review the Order Paper.
May 14, 2019: City Council adopted the May 14, 2019, Order Paper, as amended, and all other Items not held on consent. May 15, 2019: City Council adopted the May 15, 2019, Order Paper.
CC7.7adopted
On June 20, 2013 a Zoning By-law Amendment application was submitted to the City for a 10-storey mixed-use building. A revised application was submitted in October, 2017, for a 27-storey, 96.25 metre (including mechanical penthouse) mixed-use building on a larger site with the addition of two properties at 306 and 310 Davenport Road. The applicant appealed the Zoning By-law Amendment application for the October, 2017 proposal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal ("LPAT") citing Council's failure to make a decision on the application within the timeframe prescribed by the Planning Act. A 2-week hearing is scheduled to commence on June 24, 2019. On April 18, 2019, revised plans dated April 15, 2019, for an amended proposal for a 25-story mixed-use building were submitted to the City, and on May 2, 2019 a Planning Rationale Addendum Letter for the revised proposal was provided (together the "Revised Proposal"). The Revised Proposal will be in front of the LPAT at the hearing. The City Solicitor seeks direction on the revised proposal no later than the completion of the City Council meeting on May 14, 2019.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council adopt the confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor. 2. City Council authorize the public release of the confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor and City Council direct that the balance of Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor remain confidential as it contains information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege. The confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor were adopted by City Council and are now public, as follows: 1. City Council direct the City Solicitor and City Staff, as appropriate, to attend the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to oppose the Zoning By-law Amendment application for 306-326 Davenport Road in its present form. 2. City Council direct City staff to continue discussions with the applicant and authorize the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Ward Councillor, to accept a further revised proposal, subject to the resolution of the outstanding issues identified in Item 2018.TE32.13, the (April 16, 2018) report from the Acting Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District. 3. City Council authorize the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, to secure services, facilities or matters pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, should the proposal be approved in some form by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. 4. In the event that the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to request the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to withhold the issuance of any Order(s) until such time as the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that: a. the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendments are to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District and the City Solicitor; b. the owner has provided a wind tunnel test, that is satisfactory to the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District; c. the owner has provided an updated Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; d. the owner has provided an updated Hydrogeological Report and supporting documents addressing any on-site groundwater to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Toronto Water; and e. community benefits and other matters in support of the development are secured in a Section 37 Agreement executed by the owner and registered on title to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District and the City Solicitor. 5. City Council authorize the City Solicitor and City staff to take any necessary steps to implement City Council's decision. The balance of Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor remains confidential in accordance with the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as it contains information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Solicitor recommends that: 1. City Council adopt the confidential recommendations in Confidential Attachment 1. 2. If the City Solicitor's confidential recommendations are adopted by Council, then City Council authorize the public release of the recommendations contained in Confidential Attachment 1 (with the remainder of Confidential Attachment 1 to remain confidential as it contains information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege).
MM7.7adopted
Officials and parents from the Madonna Catholic Secondary School as well as executive members of the local Wilson Business Improvement Area have pointed out that there are a large number of students awaiting Toronto Transit Commission buses especially during the afternoon dismissal. The Toronto Transit Commission stop at the north-east corner of Wilson Avenue and Dubray Avenue poses a safety concern owing to the limited size of the concrete sidewalk waiting area. School officials as well as the Toronto Catholic District School Board have stated verbally that they are amenable to moving the fence north of the sidewalk at that location should that be required to improve student safety.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council direct the General Manager, Transportation Services, in consultation with Toronto Transit Commission staff, and appropriate staff of the Toronto Catholic District School Board and the Toronto District School Board, to review the current bus stop and sidewalk configuration at the north-east corner of Wilson Avenue and Dubray Avenue and report back to the North York Community Council by the June 25, 2019 meeting, such report to include: a. a plan to improve safety by reducing overcrowding which may include an encroachment agreement with the Toronto Catholic School Board to move the fence further back from the sidewalk at the Madonna Catholic Secondary School; and b. a potential funding source to proceed with the suggested plan.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor James Pasternak, seconded by Councillor Mike Colle, recommends that: 1. City Council direct the General Manager, Transportation Services, in consultation with the Toronto Transit Commission staff, and appropriate staff of the Toronto Catholic District School Board and Toronto District School Board, to review the current bus stop and sidewalk configuration at the north-east corner of Wilson Avenue and Dubray Avenue and report back to the North York Community Council by the June 25, 2019 meeting, such report to include: a. a plan to improve safety by reducing overcrowding which may include an encroachment agreement with the Toronto Catholic School Board to move the fence further back from the sidewalk at the Madonna Catholic Secondary School; and b. a potential funding source to proceed with the suggested plan.
CC7.8adopted
44 Jackes Avenue and 33 Rosehill Avenue - Zoning Amendment Application - Request for Directions
An application to permit a 29 storey rental building at the northwest corner of Jackes Avenue and Rosehill Avenue was appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal for a lack of decision by City Council within the statutory timeframes. A hearing has been scheduled to commence on July 24, 2019. The City Solicitor requires further direction regarding this matter.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council adopt the confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor. 2. City Council authorize the public release of confidential instructions 1, 2 and 3 to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor. 3. City Council direct that the balance of Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor remain confidential at the discretion of the City Solicitor as it contains advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege. Confidential instructions 1, 2 and 3 to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor were adopted by City Council and are now public, as follows: 1. City Council accept the without prejudice settlement offer dated May 6, 2019 attached as Public Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor. 2. City Council direct the City Solicitor and appropriate City Staff to attend the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal hearing on this matter in support of the revised development set out in the architectural plans prepared by Hariri Pontarini Architects dated May 3, 2019 and attached as Public Appendix A to Public Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor. 3. City Council authorize the City Solicitor and appropriate City staff to take all necessary steps to execute the without prejudice settlement offer dated May 6, 2019. The balance of Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor remains confidential at this time in accordance with the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as it contains advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege. The balance of Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor will be made public at the discretion of the City Solicitor.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Solicitor recommends that: 1. City Council adopt the recommendations contained in the Confidential Attachment 1. 2. City Council authorize the public release of the confidential recommendations 1, 2 and 3 in Confidential Attachment 1 if adopted by City Council. 3. City Council direct that all other information contained in Confidential Attachment 1 remain confidential at the discretion of the City Solicitor, as it contains advice which is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
MM7.8adopted
At its meeting of July 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30, 2018, City Council adopted Item EY32.9, which approved the amendment of former City of York Zoning By-law 1-83 for the lands at 10 Wilby Crescent to permit the development of a 22-storey apartment building by a non-profit corporation as owner. Item EY32.9 also required that the owner enter into a Section 37 agreement securing certain community benefits and that certain pre-conditions be fulfilled before the Bills enacting the Zoning By-law amendment can be brought to Council for enactment. Parts 3.b.iii, 4.d, and 5.b of Item EY32.9 require the owner to construct a sidewalk along the west side of Wilby Crescent from Hickory Tree Road to Weston Road, with the owner being reimbursed for this work under the City's Missing Sidewalks Capital Program. The purpose of the Motion is to delete the requirements for the owner to construct the sidewalk on Wilby Crescent in the Section 37 Agreement, for the sidewalk to be constructed prior to enactment of the Bill, and for the owner to enter into a Municipal Infrastructure Agreement to construct the sidewalk as a part of Site Plan Control. This amendment is consistent with comments from the Public Realm staff who have advised that it is preferable that the City construct the sidewalk. Additionally, Part 4.a of Item EY32.9 requires, before the introduction of the Bill to Council for enactment, the successful stop-up and closure of the portion of Hickory Tree Road that is located beyond the proposed cul-de-sac and the transfer of this land to the City's Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division. This Motion proposes to delete the requirement for the successful stop-up and closure of the portion of Hickory Tree Road located beyond the proposed cul-de-sac and the transfer of this land to the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division. Planning Staff understand that, as approval of the internal transfer of the land from the Transportation Division to the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division will be a matter heard before the Technical Review Committee at its meeting to be held on May 30, 2019, and staff are still under instruction to complete this requirement, however this requirement is not necessary as a pre‑condition for enactment of the Bill.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council amend its decision on Item EY32.9, adopted on July 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30, 2018, by: a.deleting the following Part 3.b.iii: iii.construction of a new sidewalk along the west side of Wilby Crescent between Hickory Tree Road and Weston Road; b. deleting the following Part 4.a: a. the successful stop-up and closure of the portion of Hickory Tree Road that is located beyond the proposed cul-de-sac and transfer of this land to Parks, Forestry and Recreation; c. deleting the following Part 4.d: d. the proponent will be responsible for the construction of the sidewalk along the westside of Wilby Crescent between Hickory Tree Road and Weston Road as per an approved site plan and functional plan to be accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services. The Applicant shall be reimbursed under the City's Missing Sidewalks Capital Program. and d.deleting the following Part 5.b: b. the owner, at its own expense, to construct a 2.1 metre sidewalk from the site to Weston Road; and 2. City Council direct the City Solicitor to amend the draft Zoning By-law amendment for 10 Wilby Crescent to: a. reflect the removal of the requirement for the owner to construct the sidewalk along the west side of Wilby Crescent from Hickory Tree Road to Weston Road shown in Attachment 1 to MM7.8; and b. require the construction of certain municipal services prior to occupation of any building or structure on 10 Wilby Crescent as set out in Attachment 1 to MM7.8. 3. City Council determine that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice is to be given in respect of the changes to the Zoning By-law Amendment for 10 Wilby Crescent.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor Frances Nunziata, seconded by Councillor Ana Bailão, recommends that: 1.City Council amend its decision on Item EY32.9, adopted on July 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30, 2018, by: a.deleting the following Part 3.b.iii: iii.construction of a new sidewalk along the west side of Wilby Crescent between Hickory Tree Road and Weston Road; b. deleting the following Part 4.a: a. the successful stop-up and closure of the portion of Hickory Tree Road that is located beyond the proposed cul-de-sac and transfer of this land to Parks, Forestry and Recreation; c. deleting the following Part 4.d: d. the proponent will be responsible for the construction of the sidewalk along the westside of Wilby Crescent between Hickory Tree Road and Weston Road as per an approved site plan and functional plan to be accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services. The Applicant shall be reimbursed under the City's Missing Sidewalks Capital Program. and d.deleting the following Part 5.b: b. the owner, at its own expense, to construct a 2.1 metre sidewalk from the site to Weston Road; and 2. City Council direct the City Solicitor to amend the draft Zoning By-law amendment for 10 Wilby Crescent to: a. reflect the removal of the requirement for the owner to construct the sidewalk along the west side of Wilby Crescent from Hickory Tree Road to Weston Road shown in Attachment 1 to MM7.8.; and b. require the construction of certain municipal services prior to occupation of any building or structure on 10 Wilby Crescent as set out in Attachment 1 to MM7.8. 3. City Council determine that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice is to be given in respect of the changes to the Zoning By-law Amendment for 10 Wilby Crescent.
CC7.9adopted
After an appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, on April 16, 2018, the applicant submitted a revised proposal, for a 12-storey (42.3-metre, plus 3.26-metre mechanical penthouse) mixed-use building at 183-189 Avenue Road and 109-111 Pears Avenue. The proposal included 447 square metres of retail and 6,951 square metres of residential floor area resulting in a total density of 6.3 times the area of the lot, and a proposed 80 square metre parkland dedication. At its meeting on July 23, 2018, City Council adopted the Recommendations in the (June 25, 2018) report from the Acting Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, directing the City Solicitor, together with appropriate City staff, to attend the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to oppose the applicant's appeal. The applicant has subsequently amended their application reducing the height of the proposed building to 10-stories (plus a wrapped mechanical penthouse), although the applicant refers to the height as 9 storeys (plus mechanical penthouse). The site contains the heritage property at 183 Avenue Road which is listed on the City's Heritage Register. The City Solicitor seeks direction on the revised proposal no later than the completion of the City Council meeting on May 14, 2019.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council adopt the confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor. 2. City Council authorize the public release of the confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor and City Council direct that the balance of Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor remain confidential as it contains information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege. The confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor were adopted by City Council and are now public, as follows: 1. City Council refuse the Settlement Offer dated April 16, 2019 and direct the City Solicitor and staff to attend the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in opposition to the revised proposed development. 2. City Council direct City staff to continue discussions with the applicant and authorize the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Ward Councillor, to accept a further revised proposal, subject to the resolution of the outstanding issues identified in Item 2018.TE34.42, the June 25, 2018 report from the Acting Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District. 3. City Council require: a. an on-site parkland dedication pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act be conveyed to the City, in the location and configuration described and set out in the report (June 25, 2018) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, to the satisfaction the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation; b. the owner to pay for and construct any improvements to the municipal infrastructure in connection with the Functional Servicing Report, as accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements to such infrastructure are required to support this development; and c. the owner to enter into an agreement with the City, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure services, facilities or matters as may be required to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the local Councillor. 4. If the appeal is approved the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to request the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to withhold its Order approving the application until such time as: a. the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments are in a form satisfactory to the City; b. the owner has entered into one or more agreements with the City, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure, at the owner's expense, facilities, services and matters to be additionally set forth in the related site specific Zoning By-law Amendments, and any agreement is registered on the lands at 183-189 Avenue Road and 109-111 Pears Avenue all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor; c. the owner provides any necessary modifications to the Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report and Hydrogeological Report, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; d. the owner submits a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and that any mitigation measures be secured in the Section 37 Agreement; and e. the owner obtains any necessary approvals under section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act to alter the building located at 183 Avenue Road. 5. If the property at 183 Avenue Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act following consultation with the Toronto Preservation Board and approval by City Council, if the appeal is approved by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to request the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to withhold its Order approving the application until such time as the owner has: a. entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 183 Avenue Road substantially in accordance with plans and drawings prepared by Brisbin Brook Beynon Architects dated April 10, 2019 and the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc. dated March 8, 2018 subject to and in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan required in Part 5.b. below all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services including execution of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, following consultation with the Toronto Preservation Board and authorized by City Council; and b. provided a detailed Conservation Plan prepared by a qualified heritage consultant that is substantially in accordance with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment for 183 Avenue Road prepared by ERA Architects Inc. dated March 8, 2018 and the architectural plans and drawings prepared by Brisbin Brook Beynon Architects dated April 10, 2019, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services. 6. City Council direct that prior to Final Site Plan approval in connection with the Zoning By-law Amendment for the properties at 183-189 Avenue Road, the owner shall: a. provide final site plan drawings including drawings related to the approved Conservation Plan required in Part 5.b. above to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services; b. provide an Interpretation Plan for the property to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services and thereafter shall implement such Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services; and c. provide a Signage Plan for the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services. 7. City Council direct that prior to the issuance of any permit for all or any part of the properties at 183-189 Avenue Road, including a heritage permit, a building permit or a demolition permit, but excluding permits for repairs and maintenance and usual and minor works for the existing heritage buildings as are acceptable to the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services, the owner shall: a. obtain final approval for the necessary by-law amendments required for the alterations to the properties at 183-189 Avenue Road, such amendments to have been enacted by City Council in connection with an Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Order and to have come into effect in a form and with content acceptable to City Council as determined by the Director, Urban Design, City Planning, in consultation with the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services; b. provide building permit drawings, including notes and specifications for the conservation and protective measures keyed to the approved Conservation Plan required in Part 5.b. above including a description of materials and finishes, to be prepared by the project architect and a qualified heritage consultant to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services; and c. provide a Letter of Credit, including provision for upwards indexing in a form and amount and from a bank satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services to secure all work included in the approved Conservation Plan, Heritage Lighting Plan, Landscape Plan, and Interpretation Plan. 8. City Council direct that prior to the release of the Letter of Credit required in Part 7.c. above, the owner shall: a. provide a letter of substantial completion prepared and signed by a qualified heritage consultant confirming that the required conservation work, required heritage lighting work, and the required interpretive work has been completed in accordance with the Conservation Plan, Lighting Plan and Interpretation Plan and that an appropriate standard of conservation has been maintained, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services; and b. provide replacement Heritage Easement Agreement photographs to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services. 9. City Council authorize the City Solicitor and City staff to take any necessary steps to implement City Council's decision. The balance of Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (May 6, 2019) from the City Solicitor remains confidential in accordance with the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as it contains information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Solicitor recommends that: 1. City Council adopt the confidential recommendations in Confidential Attachment 1. 2. If the City Solicitor's confidential recommendations are adopted by Council, then City Council authorize the public release of the recommendations contained in Confidential Attachment 1 (with the remainder of Confidential Attachment 1 to remain confidential as it contains information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege).
MM7.9adopted
In 1994, a professional association of independent filmmakers from across Canada (CIFC, now DOC) established Hot Docs. In 1996, Hot Docs was separately incorporated as an independent, non-profit organization and a year later acquired charitable status from Revenue Canada. In 1999, Hot Docs made a dramatic shift in how it delivered its mandate, opening the Festival to a public audience for the first time and drawing a crowd of 7,000. Starting off with no full-time staff, one computer, one phone, and a calling to find, screen, develop, launch, and support the best docs and their makers, Hot Docs grew out of an existing void in the arts spectrum. The organization's success stems from growing the profile and public accessibility of creative documentary works, and from growing levels of activity while ensuring programming excellence. Today, Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival is North America's largest documentary festival (and second largest film festival), conference and market. Each year Hot Docs welcomes over 223,000 attendees to over 470 screenings on 16 Toronto screens, including 123,000 students in Grades 7 to 12. Hot Docs serves 2,698 emerging and established documentary professionals, 450 programmers, commissioning editors, buyers and distributors worldwide, and 325 accredited media representatives. Hot Docs Festival has an incredibly diverse audience, due in part to the incredible range of films, subject matter, geographic representation and filmmaker perspectives presented each year. To grow the diversity of its audience base, the organization takes pride in collaborating with other organizations and events noted for their specializations in servicing specific communities and increasing community access to documentaries that advance their work. Hot Docs manages several year-round programs that support the organization's mandate: Doc Soup, a monthly screening and discussion series in Toronto and Calgary; Docs For Schools, connecting over 123,000 students (50,000 in Toronto) Grades 7 to 12 with stimulating documentary films linked directly to the Ontario curriculum. A national Docs for Schools Program is under development; and Hot Docs Showcase, bringing the Festival's top documentary films to audiences outside of Toronto and Ontario. Throughout the year, Hot Docs also provides much-needed financial support to documentary film artists facing financing gaps at critical stages in their projects through three separate production funds. In 2012 and in partnership with Blue Ice Group, Hot Docs began managing operations for the Bloor Hot Docs Cinema, a century old 727-seat theatre located in Toronto's Annex neighbourhood. In June 2016 a generous gift from the Rogers Family enabled Hot Docs to purchase the since renamed Hot Docs Ted Rogers Cinema, giving a permanent home base for independent doc makers and the best in documentary programming into the future. The Cinema is a Toronto landmark, community hub, and one of the only documentary-focused cinemas in the world. Annually, the Hot Docs Ted Rogers Cinema screens more than 200 Canadian and international documentaries for 200,000 people and maintains a membership of 8,500 committed documentary lovers. The Cinema continues to solidify its reputation as a preeminent exhibitor of documentary film, while expanding the offering of live events and community gatherings. The 2018 Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival and its associated non-Festival activities generated an estimated $54,402,190 in actual and expected expenditure in Canada. This translates to a positive estimated impact of $54.7 million on the total GDP of Ontario, 657 jobs and $19.4 million in tax revenue. The Hot Docs Ted Rogers Cinema has never been in debt and despite all of Hot Docs economic contributions to the City of Toronto; only 2 percent of the Hot Docs annual budget is made up of City of Toronto funding. As a registered charity, Hot Docs currently receives a 40 percent property tax rebate. A property tax exemption would provide an estimated $70,000 in additional assistance to Hot Docs, which would allow the organization to continue growing the impact of documentary film across the City, Province and Country. It will also enable Hot Docs to further grow initiatives designed to directly support Toronto artists, to engage communities across the Toronto's neighbourhoods, and to grow accessibility, diversity and equity across programs for public audiences and practitioners.
City Council on May 14 and 15, 2019, adopted the following: 1. City Council confirm its support of the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival and Hot Docs Ted Rogers Cinema in its efforts to obtain Provincial legislation that would enable City Council to exempt Hot Docs from property taxes related to the Hot Docs Ted Rogers Cinema, 506 Bloor Street West.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor Mike Layton, seconded by Councillor Michael Thompson, recommends that: 1. City Council confirm its support of the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival and Hot Docs Ted Rogers Cinema in its efforts to obtain Provincial legislation that would enable City Council to exempt Hot Docs from property taxes related to the Hot Docs Ted Rogers Cinema, 506 Bloor Street West.