Toronto City Council

Also in this item

• A 2.5-year city-initiated study on Lake Shore Boulevard West concluded with approval of mid-rise zoning and mixed-use redesignation, implementing the Avenues policy framework across multiple properties.

The journey

Decision

Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for Lake Shore Boulevard West approved, including redesignation of certain properties from Neighbourhoods to Mixed Use Areas, deletion of two existing site-specific policies, amendment of another, and adoption of urban design guidelines for future development.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• Yonge Street, a major north-south arterial serving thousands of commuters, is proposed to be fully closed for approximately two years during the main construction phase (2027-2029 based on typical subway construction timelines). The diversion road west of the current alignment is a temporary public highway, not a permanent routing.

• The General Manager of Transportation Services would gain delegated authority through December 31, 2030, to approve similar long-term road closures and traffic modifications without subsequent Council reports. This extends authority beyond the Steeles Station project and could affect other major construction projects city-wide through the end of the decade.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents and businesses affected by the Yonge Street closure between Steeles and Madawaska can contact their ward councillor before the vote or depute at City Council if the item remains open for public comment. Ward 1 (Willowdale) and Ward 2 (Don Valley West) councillors are most directly affected.

Also in this item

• The motion raises the specific concern that newly built high-density developments in Willowdale and across North York may later seek access to residential on-street parking permits, intensifying competition for curbside space in adjacent low-rise neighbourhoods.

• TTC commuter parking at stations is flagged as a critical first- and last-mile connection for North York residents living beyond walking distance of rapid transit, and the motion seeks to maintain and enhance these facilities.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute to Council before the vote, contact their ward councillors with their position on parking minimums and spillover impacts, and attend the Council meeting to observe the debate.

Who did what

• Councillor Amber Morley (Ward 3, Etobicoke-Lakeshore) amendedAdded amendment requesting applicant engage with residents and local BIA on materiality and related matters through site control process

From the floor

“It's just to request the applicant engage directly with area residents and our local BIA on some specific items through the site control process, including materiality and other things of that nature.”Councillor Amber Morley (Ward 3, Etobicoke-Lakeshore)

Also in this item

• The project's approval required an Official Plan Amendment to override the protected view corridor of City Hall and Old City Hall, a rare institutional exception to heritage protection policy.

• 216 replacement rental units were secured for 210 existing tenants, addressing a key tenant-protection commitment in a downtown intensification project.

The journey

What happens next

City Council vote is the next stage. Residents can contact their City Council members before the vote. The item moves from Community Council to City Council for final approval.

Decision

The project was approved with one amendment: to request the applicant engage directly with area residents and the local Business Improvement Area on materiality and related items through the site control process. The Official Plan Amendment waiving the protected view corridor protection was approved.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“[resident concerns about five-year displacement during construction, health impacts, and broken promises about duration]”A resident

Also in this item

• A resident deputed on displacement impacts and broken promises about construction duration, but the transcript does not record council's response or any motion to address the concern.

The journey

What happens next

The item has been decided. No further municipal action window remains at this stage.

Decision

Alterations to the designated heritage property approved under Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act; heritage easement agreement amended. The transcript does not specify what changes were made to address the resident's displacement concerns, if any.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“The current infrastructure and the way the area was designed do not support this level of residential density, especially this site. The proposed design includes only two vehicle exits into a two-way street. None of the 40 tall towers along the Humber Bay Shores and the Queensway Lake Shridor have these same conditions.”A resident

“I mean we support new housing and thoughtful intensification. However, we oppose this application because it goes beyond the community plan that was previously approved for this site and we believe it will be having negative long-term impact in our neighborhood.”A resident

“This third tower is too much. I find it a bit of a game. Over the years I've watched successive changes to apartment ratios, garage ratios and spots and all the rest of that. And I find that we've been gradually pushed into this corner.”President, condo corporation YCCC87

“As a three-time cancer survivor, that has real consequences for my mental health and that of my kids well-being. It also has real financial consequence. Once that tower goes up, no one will choose a shadowed south facing unit when there's a north facing one available. My value will drop.”A resident

“When our own councilor Perks recommends approval before residents have even had a chance to speak, it's hard not to wonder whose interests are actually being prioritized here.”A resident

Also in this item

• The proposed development revises an earlier approved scheme (2023); staff state the new conservation strategy and amended heritage easement mitigate heritage impacts, but the revision appears to include a third tower not previously approved at this scale.

• Community Council heard sustained multi-household opposition from adjacent condo residents citing traffic, structural safety, shadow and property value impacts; no pro-development deputation is recorded in the provided transcript.

• One resident alleged Councillor Gord Perks recommended approval before the public deputation period, raising procedural fairness concerns.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents may have deputation rights at City Council if this item advances; the decision appears pending based on the transcript provided (only deputations shown, no vote recorded).

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• Nearly three-year sidewalk closure on a major downtown arterial (Richmond Street West) during peak tourism and event season (August 2026 to April 2029), with pedestrian access reduced to a 2.1-metre covered walkway for 33 months.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents and businesses affected by the Richmond Street West closure can contact their councillor before the vote, or attend council to depute on the impact of the three-year lane closure on traffic flow, pedestrian safety, and local commercial activity.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Nick Mantas (Ward 22, Scarborough-Agincourt) movedMoved the motion to increase arborist staffing and tree maintenance resources
• Councillor Paul Ainslie (Ward 24, Scarborough East) secondedSeconded the motion

Also in this item

• The motion ties increased arborist spending to the city's commitment to reach 40 percent tree canopy by 2050, a long-term environmental target requiring sustained investment.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can contact their councillor before the vote to urge support, or attend deputation if the item is called for debate. The vote is expected at this Council meeting on 2026-07-29.

Decision

Council approved increased resources for tree maintenance and arborist staffing, with funds directed toward addressing routine pruning backlogs citywide and supporting the 40 percent tree canopy goal by 2050.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Ausma Malik (Ward 10, Spadina-Fort York) movedMoved the motion to direct staff to expand parkland in King-Spadina and Wellington Place.
• Councillor Gord Perks (Ward 4, Parkdale-High Park) secondedSeconded the motion.

Also in this item

• King-Spadina has among the lowest parkland provision rates in Toronto at 0.9-3.9 square metres per capita, compared to a citywide average of 28 square metres per capita, despite significant residential growth.

The journey

What happens next

Residents in King-Spadina and Wellington Place can monitor future staff reports on parkland expansion, advocate for their preferred sites or solutions during future consultations, and contact their councillors (Perks, Malik) to pressure implementation and funding.

Decision

Council directed city staff to pursue new parkland and expand existing parks in the King-Spadina and Wellington Place area, including through creative solutions and partnerships to address the documented shortage.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Parthi Kandavel (Ward 20, Scarborough Southwest) movedMoved that the data centre expansion be assessed against forthcoming city guidance on AI data centres, with clarity on ownership, data sovereignty, and community benefits required before Site Plan Approval proceeds.
• Councillor Dianne Saxe (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) secondedSeconded the motion.

Also in this item

• More than 100 residents attended a community meeting expressing concerns about the facility's scale, power and water demands, noise, employment, and the lack of a public vote on a project of this magnitude.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can monitor staff response to the motion and follow the data centre guidance development; deputation opportunity may arise if the project returns to Council or a public hearing is called.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Stephen Holyday (Ward 2, Etobicoke Centre) movedMoved two motions asking staff to analyze the impact of the federal decision on the city, including impacts on housing, transportation, transit, noise and livability, and to study the same impacts related to Pearson Airport growth.
• Councillor Josh Matlow (Ward 12, Toronto-St. Paul's) movedMoved a separate motion (on PH 32.7) asking staff to further explore the publicly stated goals of the province's airport expansion and provide analysis on impacts.
• Mayor Olivia Chow movedMoved the urgent motion demanding province repeal Bill 110, return Toronto Islands and Little Norway Park, and restore Toronto's seat in Billy Bishop Airport governance.
• Councillor Ausma Malik (Ward 10, Spadina-Fort York) secondedSeconded the motion.

From the floor

“The province has no right to take away Toronto's land and our democratic voice. We will fight for every inch of parkland and waterfront that belongs to our residents.”Mayor Olivia Chow

“This motion sends a clear message to Queen's Park: Toronto will not accept the land grab. Our islands, our parks, our future.”Councillor Ausma Malik (Ward 10, Spadina-Fort York)

Also in this item

• Federal government declined to support Ontario's proposed Billy Bishop Airport expansion, removing a key lever for the province's land-takeover strategy.

• City Council's unanimous vote on a provincial conflict matter is politically significant and demonstrates cross-partisan support for Toronto's position on land sovereignty.

The journey

What happens next

This is a completed council vote with no further municipal action window. Residents interested in the Islands or Billy Bishop expansion should monitor provincial legislative proceedings and any negotiations between Toronto and Ontario.

Decision

Motion carried unanimously. City Council directs the Mayor to demand the province repeal Bill 110, return the Toronto Islands and Little Norway Park to Toronto's control, and restore Toronto's seat at the tripartite Billy Bishop Airport governance agreement. City staff are directed to prepare a comprehensive report on the fiscal and land-use implications of the provincial takeover and options for recovery.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Alejandra Bravo (Ward 9, Davenport) movedMoved the motion to accept cash contribution and redirect funds to affordable housing and community amenities
• Mayor Olivia Chow secondedSeconded Bravo's motion

From the floor

“The advancing alternate section 37 agreement contribution at Bloor and Dufferin is urgent because it's lost counsel.”Councillor Jamaal Myers (Ward 23, Scarborough North)

Also in this item

• A below-grade pedestrian connection to Dufferin Station will not be built; the development contribution is redirected to affordable housing instead.

The journey

Decision

City Council adopted the motion to accept the cash contribution in lieu of the below-grade tunnel connection and direct the value toward affordable housing initiatives, community and cultural amenities, and public realm improvements for Dufferin Subway Station, as identified through community consultation.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• A 46-storey tower on a Part IV heritage-designated site represents one of the city's highest-profile heritage conservation cases in recent years, testing whether the city can permit substantial density while preserving heritage fabric. The relocation and reorientation of the existing bank building is a material conservation approach, not demolition, and staff recommend approval.

• The site is immediately adjacent to the planned Mount Dennis GO/UP station, making it one of the first major residential intensifications directly adjacent to the new transit hub. The outcome may establish a precedent for what density and form the city considers appropriate around new rapid transit.

The journey

What happens next

Residents and organizations can depute at Etobicoke York Community Council and Toronto City Council if the item advances. No public consultation window is stated in the agenda; deadlines depend on the committee meeting date and council date, both on the published forward agenda.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents and tenant advocates can still depute at this City Council meeting before the vote. The Tenant Assistance Plan and replacement unit details are open to public comment. Contact your councillor before the vote.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• Spadina-Dundas intersection redesignated to permit higher density under the adopted framework, a significant shift in zoning for one of Chinatown's most visible intersections

• Framework includes Official Plan amendment, making it binding city policy rather than guidance only, and constraining future council discretion on West Chinatown development

• Baldwin Street now permitted small-scale retail under the new framework, enabling ground-floor commercial activation in a previously restricted area

The journey

What happens next

Residents and stakeholders can depute at this Council meeting on the staff recommendation (date and deadline not stated in this agenda extract, typically 2-4 business days before meeting). Interested parties can also contact their councillors before the vote.

Decision

The West Chinatown Planning Framework was adopted, including Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments permitting higher density at Spadina-Dundas, allowing small-scale retail on Baldwin Street, and establishing guidelines for public realm, housing, cultural heritage and business investment in West Chinatown.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Josh Matlow (Ward 12, Toronto-St. Paul's) movedMoved to have staff further explore the publicly stated goals for Billy Bishop expansion and to provide factual information to the public and federal government on the airport's viability and the city's waterfront vision.
• Councillor Stephen Holyday (Ward 2, Etobicoke Centre) questioned staffQuestioned why the city should use taxpayer resources to research positions aligned with Queen's Park opposition parties rather than the provincial government.
• Councillor Paula Fletcher (Ward 14, Toronto-Danforth) questioned staffAsked applicant about 12.5m setback absence; asked about transportation study authors and capacity for Uber/FedEx/parcel delivery management.
• Councillor Brad Bradford (Ward 19, Beaches-East York) questioned staffQuestioned the mayor about when city staff were lobbied by Billy Bishop owners prior to the province's expansion proposal, and whether the mayor's office received advance notice of provincial plans to expropriate waterfront.

From the floor

“When did you learn specifically from the province and the port authority that they wanted to expand the island airport?”Councillor Brad Bradford (Ward 19, Beaches-East York)

“At no point have myself or any members of my staff received any plan on what Toronto Port Authority are trying to do. It remains secret.”A councillor

“The reason is because we advocate for our communities. That because premier Ford was not making decisions based on publicly available plans, publicly available information where he was saying things but he couldn't support them, it was left to us to provide our communities and the public facts, information to make informed decisions about the future of our own waterfronts.”Councillor Josh Matlow (Ward 12, Toronto-St. Paul's)

“Together, we made it very clear that premier Ford's voice is not the only one that matters. We all care about our waterfront. We all care about economic development. We want Billy Bishop to be viable, but we also want it to be in balance with a waterfront that is healthy and vibrant.”Councillor Josh Matlow (Ward 12, Toronto-St. Paul's)

“If you treat us like partners, be respectful. Stop calling people who live on the island squatters. Stop calling people who disagree with you fringe. Stop trying to remove the voices of Torontonians as you did with the tripartite agreement.”Councillor Josh Matlow (Ward 12, Toronto-St. Paul's)

Also in this item

• The federal government rejected Premier Ford's proposal to expand Billy Bishop Airport and expropriate Toronto waterfront parks, supporting the city's waterfront protection stance.

• The mayor stated her office has not received any plan from the Toronto Port Authority on the expansion proposal, characterizing it as remaining secret.

• Councillor Bradford alleged that the mayor's office was lobbied by Billy Bishop owners in the weeks before the province announced its expansion intention, though the mayor denied receiving any advance notice.

The journey

What happens next

This item is now at staff level; no immediate public participation window. Residents concerned about Billy Bishop expansion or waterfront protection can contact their councillors to express views on the city's negotiating priorities before the next report.

Decision

Council received the federal government's rejection of the Billy Bishop expansion proposal and referred the matter back to staff to continue exploring the airport's viability and the city's role in any future agreement, without adopting a binding position on the airport's long-term operation.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Amber Morley (Ward 3, Etobicoke-Lakeshore) movedMoved to support the staff recommendation and close a contentious, long-running community issue.
• Councillor Vincent Crisanti (Ward 1, Etobicoke North) secondedNo detail provided in transcript.

From the floor

“I'm happy to introduce this motion and with great thanks to staff for some quick work. It's to oh, fifty nine and sixty. Any Craig, it's to support the conclusion of a very contentious, long going, nuanced issue in community. We've come up with a great solution. So, hopefully, staff colleagues will support it.”Councillor Amber Morley (Ward 3, Etobicoke-Lakeshore)

“This is with respect to a development that has had some significant challenges just in terms of the access. And so staff have come up with a”A councillor

Also in this item

• Tenant raised concerns about five-plus year displacement period affecting elderly and vulnerable residents with chronic health conditions, but these concerns do not appear to have been addressed in the final approval.

The journey

What happens next

This item appears to have been decided at the committee stage with no stated outstanding window. If the matter proceeds to City Council for final approval, residents and tenant advocates may depute at that stage. Current tenant concerns about timeline and design consultation could be raised in writing to the ward councillor or at council if the item is not yet final.

Decision

Approved with amendments. The transcript does not specify what the amendments changed.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• A 922-unit mixed-use development at a major downtown intersection (Yonge and Church) adds significant rental housing while retaining a heritage facade, directly expanding housing supply in the downtown core.

• Staff technical review confirmed the project meets sewer, transit, and infrastructure requirements despite resident objections about capacity strain, enabling approval to proceed.

The journey

What happens next

Residents may contact their ward councillor before the full Council vote (date not stated in transcript). The item moves to City Council; public deputation may still be available at that stage if the meeting is noticed.

Decision

Zoning by-law amendment approved as recommended by Planning and Heritage Committee; the two high-rise towers totalling 922 units (rental and condo mix) at 835-839 Yonge Street were permitted to proceed, with the heritage facade at 835 Yonge retained.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Dianne Saxe (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) movedMoved referral to council without recommendation, citing ongoing negotiations with applicant and need for further conversations.

From the floor

“This structure will not only fully block our view, but it will also block the natural right reaching our units. Our windows will end up facing a large wall just a few meters away. I'm concerned about what life will be like once these buildings are completed.”Resident owner at 825 Church Street

“The proposal before community council today is the result of collaboration not only with city staff but with the greater Yorkville residents association and the ABC. Through several meetings with them, we now have a proposal before you that we think has provided significant public realm improvements on Young Street, securing new large setbacks, new tree plantings, a new pop space in place of an existing gas station.”Bowfields, on behalf of Canadian Tire, the applicant

“The podium is currently 5 m away from the property line of the adjacent building, which is consistent with the mid-rise design guidelines. The high-rise has 20 m of separation, which is significantly more than we typically get, which we usually ask for 12.5.”City staff

“Why are you bringing it to council before those studies are reviewed, submitted and reviewed?”Councillor Dianne Saxe (Ward 11, University-Rosedale)

“We're actually putting a hold on this approval. There's a holding bylaw which is a requirement on the applicant to provide those studies that will determine whether or not there's capacity. A development is not able to proceed without them. There will be a hold on the bylaw, which will mean this the zoning permissions will not actually they will not be able to build a building until they satisfy those.”City staff

Also in this item

• Infrastructure hold: applicant must satisfy engineering and infrastructure capacity studies before the zoning by-law can take effect. Staff found issues in submitted studies requiring further work with the applicant.

• Adjacent building shadow and light: podium only 5 metres from 825 Church Street property line; resident deputation raised concerns about view obstruction and loss of natural light. Staff noted this meets mid-rise guidelines but is adjacent to a high-rise (20 m separation from towers).

• Rental housing: 17 existing rent-controlled rental units will be demolished and replaced by 17 rental replacement units as part of the 640-unit development, subject to a Tenant Assistance Plan providing return rights at similar rents and financial compensation.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can depute at City Council when this item is called. The holding bylaw ensures further technical work; residents with infrastructure or shadow/light concerns should contact their councillor before the council vote.

Decision

Referred to City Council without recommendation. A holding bylaw will require the applicant to complete infrastructure and engineering studies before construction can proceed. The item does not advance with staff's recommendation; instead it goes to council for a fresh debate.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“Somebody needs to go back to the Webster's dictionary because that translates for those of us that are old enough to know the imperial system about a piece of lot that's 30 ft by 64 62 feet, which is the size of a small to a mediumsiz backyard for a home, let alone for a building of this size with thousands of residents”A resident

“The traffic report is not our reality. We have near collisions and people traveling on incorrect you know one-way streets in the opposite direction”A resident

“11 Lillian has parking for the units and 16 guest parking with 98 units. This proposal has 640 units with no parking and only 10 guest parking. As a previous person was saying on the church street they had six places for Ubers and that I think that's a great idea but that's cost and I understand that.”A resident

“When se 68% of the units are onebedroom or studios, this is not for families. This is not the this is for investors. It's typically for investors and hence they think they don't need the rent.”A resident

“Having a building of 14 stories next to a building of 50 of 53 stories makes no sense... You can read all the books you want and watch all the movies you want about Venice, but if you don't visit Venice, you don't live it. And as the people at Young and College can tell you, it's crazy.”A resident

Also in this item

• Development increases tower heights significantly: northern tower gains 10 storeys (to 48), southern tower gains 10 storeys (to 55), altering the built massing profile at a major intersection.

• Parking provision remains zero for residential units with only 10 guest spaces for 640 units, in a neighbourhood where existing residents report parking shortage and escalating rates ($200 to $500+ per space).

• Unit composition is predominantly small units (68% one-bedroom or studios according to deputant), raising questions about whether development serves family housing or investor market.

The journey

Decision

Zoning By-law Amendment approved as presented. The northern tower height increased from 38-storeys to 48-storeys (158.3 metres); the southern tower from 45-storeys to 55-storeys (179.3 metres). Retained elements include 5,783 square metres of retail, heritage preservation at 1913 Yonge Street, dedicated grocery store space, POPS, mid-block connection, and off-site parkland dedication.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“The report wants to change the commercial floor space from 12,000 square meters in that building to 1.8,000. It is a full 90% reduction in floor space for that building in a part of Toronto that is already seeing the closure of many small businesses not be able to afford floor space. So I am urging this council to reject this report and to keep the 12,000 meter floor space so that small businesses in Bay Clover Hill can flourish”A resident

“My name is Benjamin Larson. I'm a partner at Elevate Planning Project Management. We are the applicant to 1075 Bay Enterprises Limited Partnership who's proposing a 62 story mixed use building on this downtown site. That package is being preserved and within that package $3 million was earmarked towards affordable housing in the ward. so again, it's being preserved and is actually being supplemented through the current application with additional benefit in the form of required non-residential space or 10 more affordable housing units.”Elevate Planning Project Management, on behalf of 1075 Bay Enterprises Limited Partnership

“I'm the treasurer of the St. Nicholas Housing Cooperative. We've been in this on Incerman Street, which is immediately south of the Bay Street address. We celebrating our 40th anniversary. We have provided rent geared to income housing for 40 years. We request that the proposal that affordable housing be included in this application be mandatory and that otherwise we do not support its acceptance. Our own situation is that we would like to be designated as the developer or the manager of whatever affordable housing is provided.”St. Nicholas Housing Cooperative

“Through the chair, my name is Derek Walo, city planning. At the moment, we don't have a construction management plan, but as part of the site plan application, we anticipate we will see one then.”City staff

Also in this item

• Affordable housing commitment is only 10 units out of 738 total residential units (1.4%), plus $3 million in Section 37 funding; cooperative adjacent to site requested mandatory provision and management role due to construction impacts and their 40-year tenure in the neighbourhood.

• Non-residential floor space cut by 90% (from 12,100 to 1,815 square metres) in a neighbourhood experiencing small-business closures near University of Toronto; deputant cited existing high vacancy in nearby student housing and loss of community spaces like the Fur Kin on Bay pub.

The journey

Decision

Approved with amendment regarding permit parking. The core amendments reduced non-residential floor space from 12,100 square metres to a minimum of 1,815 square metres (or combination of non-residential and affordable housing), height increased from 59 to 62 storeys, and applicant committed to 10 affordable units plus preservation of $3 million Section 37 affordable housing funding from the prior approval. An amendment concerning parking permits was also carried.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“This is an infill development with a new building next to another building. So it is an infill development in an apartment neighborhood. also this is not determined to be a condo development. It very well could be a rental building.”Bastfields, on behalf of Great West Development (applicant)

“From a fire safety perspective, the building will be designed fully to Ontario building code requirements and which will ensure that there are appropriate fire safety precautions and measures taken into consideration. those will all be worked out in the later process.”Bastfields, on behalf of Great West Development (applicant)

“The application will bring forward both a new public park which was expanded from the original proposed 604 meter size to 713 m through the addition of a portion of the CBC in kind contribution. of 37% of the 4% CBC contribution would be provided as an additional parkland to expand a park at the front”Bastfields, on behalf of Great West Development (applicant)

“I I live actually not too far from [the site]. St. Jamestown is already a very densely populated area you know with a lot of marginalized people you know with a lot of and the buildings are very old right I mean that's the complaint I've heard throughout that the landlord or the owners of the property can do a better job to maintain the buildings”A councillor

“It is a gamble that to go to refuse this application and send it to the OOLT knowing that likely that it would be approved and all the things that we have actually requested and worked with staff on would be would disappear overnight.”A councillor

Also in this item

• Holding provision imposed on zoning amendment due to unresolved engineering issues, but resident safety concerns not similarly protected despite parallel language in staff report.

• Existing 24-storey rental building retained; developer committed to major building improvements (roof, facade, accessibility, mechanical systems) as part of deal. Councillor cited these improvements as reason to approve rather than appeal.

• Resident opposition to development cited food bank program launch at 77 Howard as evidence of existing unmet community need, arguing density alone does not create service capacity.

The journey

Decision

Approved with conditions: zoning by-law amendment with holding provision; 713 sq m on-site parkland dedication at northeast corner; in-kind contribution (37% of 4% community benefit contribution) for park expansion; improvements to existing 24-storey building including accessible door improvements, new roof, facade replacement with exterior brick, new fob system, heating and control system upgrade with new generator, electrical room and component upgrades, 16 e-bike parking spaces, and three outdoor amenity areas for shared use by new and existing tenants. Parking permit amendment added.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“I came here a month ago to depute about the sneaky D's and I brought up an analogy saying, Hey, councilor Moyes, if you're pedestrianizing Church Street, it would really suck if they demolished everything on Church Street to build a condo there, right? Well, now you're building a condo on Church Street.”A resident

“I am not entirely sure if there is a need for this condo building construction, especially considering that the pedestrianization of Church Street is very much in line with the Church-Wellesley neighborhood vibe of small business, local pubs, local eateries, a few shops here and there that sell various trinkets. And we are demolishing a lot of these to build condos.”A resident

“What's the point of pedestrianizing Church Street if you're going to gradually demolish everything that makes Church Street Church Street and replace it with condos?”A resident

“The implications of demolishing 66 and 64 Wellesley Street will mean that Church Wellesley, which is I believe the heart of Toronto's culture, will now be missing a piece that is very important. When you go to Church Wellesley you get off Wellesley station and you walk eastbound and you see the beautiful murals, the beautiful world pride murals that people so much associate with Church Wellesley.”A resident

Also in this item

• World Pride murals on 66 Wellesley Street will be demolished as part of the development; the project includes no stated plan to restore them.

• The Wellesley Apartments (64 Wellesley Street), identified by the deputation as historically relevant, will be demolished for the development.

The journey

Decision

Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment approved. The site will be developed with two towers (206 and 196 metres including mechanical penthouse) containing approximately 1,419 dwelling units. 34 Huntley Street to be demolished; 122-124 Isabella Street to be conserved in-situ; 30-32 and 38-40 Huntley Street to be relocated and conserved. 32 existing rental units will be replaced in the new building at similar rents with tenant financial assistance.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“What will they see there instead? Another construction site, another demolishment, and another condo that has no bearing to the culture of Church Wellesley whatsoever. It's not necessary. Please reject it.”A resident

“My issue is not essentially with the history of this application. I brought it up with the Toronto Preservation Board to ask if specifically at the World Pride Murals, if you want to build your condo, build your condo. But my question is mainly about the World Pride Murals and how it seems that there has been no plan. If this has been a 4-year development, that is actually more concerning because in none of these four years has there been any plan to even discuss the World Pride murals other than we will take a picture of said murals and save it on a TIFF image. That is the extent of the attempts to preserve the world pride murals for this report.”A resident

“Are you aware that for the last 3 to four years we've had many public consultations on this particular application among others? Are you aware that we have been working with the neighborhood association been very much involved in this application? Do you know the history of any of these applications that you're speaking to but this one in particular?”A councillor

Also in this item

• World Pride Murals on the Huntley Street site face only photographic documentation as preservation; no substantive re-location, recreation, or integration plan documented in the 4-year development process despite being a culturally significant public art asset in the Church-Wellesley area.

• Tenant Assistance Plan mandates right of return for existing 32 tenants at similar rents and financial hardship compensation; rent-protected units embedded in a market-rate 1,419-unit development in a high-demand central neighbourhood.

The journey

Decision

Approved: demolition of 32 rental dwelling units at 30-32 and 38-40 Huntley Street and 120-124 Isabella Street; replacement of 32 rental units within a new development containing 1,419 total dwelling units across two towers (56 and 60 storeys); Tenant Assistance Plan mandating existing tenants' right to return at similar rents with financial compensation; Residential Demolition Permit under Chapter 363 approved subject to conditions. Related zoning and Official Plan amendments approved concurrently.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“The World Pride Murals, which is very much important to the pride community of Church Wellesley and Toronto Center, should be preserved. Despite having the recommendations by the Toronto Preservation Board, despite the developers also being relatively amendable to the idea, it was there was no mention of anything that you are going to do to preserve the World Pride murals because right now on the report it remains said that the World Pride murals the only preservation of the World Pride murals will be a TIFF image, a TIFF file on a computer somewhere on a USB drive somewhere for future use. There's been no mention whatsoever of said recreation of World Pride pride that that was made to be relatively amendable by the Toronto Preservation Board.”A resident

Also in this item

• World Pride murals at the site will not be physically recreated despite developer and Toronto Preservation Board openness to including them in the design; digital preservation only via TIFF file

The journey

Decision

Zoning by-law amendment approved for 69-storey, 220.5-metre residential building with 818 dwelling units. Tower reoriented north-south to permit full retention of 94 Isabella Street heritage building. Front facade of 90-92 Isabella Street retained in situ; east and west return walls dismantled and reconstructed. World Pride murals documentation only preserved as TIFF digital file, not physically recreated on new building.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“[Audio garbled in transcript; content not recoverable]”Spoke on the record

“I am a single mother who lives at 60 Southport. I am a social worker who's worked in community my entire career. I now work with a research team at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health and the majority of my work is related to creating inclusive communities where people are able to safely get around in their communities. This slab tower is going to be spilling a thousand more people into our streets and I have not been safe to actually cycle around the way I used to.”Resident of 60 Southport; social worker at Center for Addiction and Mental Health

“Please don't approve this. Please allow safety and infrastructure to be built first.”Resident of 60 Southport; social worker at Center for Addiction and Mental Health

“I've been a resident of 60 Southport since 2019. I'm a naturopathic doctor and a registered psychotherapist and my work and values are centered on health. Health is shaped by the strength of our communities, access to nature, safety and stability. These conditions improve mental and physical health. They strengthen child development and they help people live longer and healthier lives.”Resident of 60 Southport since 2019; naturopathic doctor and registered psychotherapist

“Southport Street is a two-lane local road without so much as a crosswalk. The planning report acknowledges increased traffic, shadow, loss of light, wind, reduced open space, and a pressure on infrastructure. These impacts are considered acceptable, but acceptable to whom?”Resident of 60 Southport since 2019; naturopathic doctor and registered psychotherapist

Also in this item

• More than 1600 residents signed a petition against the amendment and dozens submitted written objections, yet the staff recommendation was approved without debate or recorded opposition in committee.

• The proposal replaces 38 existing rental units and 25 rooming rooms with only 50 rental replacement units; net rental housing impact not stated in record.

The journey

Decision

Staff recommendation approved without recorded opposition or amendment in the transcript excerpt. The motion to move staff's recommendation carried on a call for 'all those in favour.'

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“Planning decisions don't just shape buildings, they shape communities. Residents should be able to trust the approval plans won't later become something fundamentally different without a compelling public planning reason.”A resident

“Many residents, myself included, made important life decisions based on the approved vision for the site and to build their lives here. It replaces 16 approved town houses. The tallest building on the street rising about the length of a football field standing upright is proposed.”A resident

“Good planning is measured by not how much density can fit in a site, but whether the final community is better out than the one that was approved.”A resident

Also in this item

• The approved plan for the site (two towers and 16 townhouses) is being replaced by a 70-storey tower; this represents a fundamental change to the neighbourhood approved under a prior application.

• Only 50 replacement rental units are being created to replace 63 total existing rental rooms and units (25 rental rooms at 168 Isabella plus 38 units being demolished), a net loss despite the Tenant Assistance Plan.

The journey

Decision

Demolition application and Residential Demolition Permit approved. The replacement includes 50 rental units (12 studios replacing 25 rental rooms at 168 Isabella, and 38 replacement units for the demolished stock), a Tenant Assistance Plan, and Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment concurrently approved permitting the 70-storey, 599-unit development. The 16 approved townhouses in the original plan are eliminated.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“Almost 65% of the proposed building C units start at 450 square ft, not suitable for families. There is limited public transit for Southport. There are no retail, health, or community services. The only park space is a small patch of public land with no recreation facilities. With building C, there will be approximately 2,000 more people living on Southport. In total, we can expect upwards to 4,000 people more on our little Southport Street.”A resident

“The Swansea secondary plan, which came out this June, says 34 to 50 Southport Street can have a maximum building floor space of four times the lot area. The approval of the proposed tower results in an overall site density of 9.93 times the area of the site.”A resident

Also in this item

• Approved zoning density of 9.93 times lot area contradicts Swansea secondary plan limit of 4.0 times lot area, approved by city staff in June 2026.

• Building contains 596 units with 65% under 450 square feet, characterized as unsuitable for families.

The journey

Decision

Zoning by-law amendment approved to permit 50-storey mixed-use building at 115 Jarvis Street with 596 dwelling units and 226 square metres of non-residential floor space, with a holding provision.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“Building C is 10 times the size of the land it's perched on. It's a 250% variance of the official plan. Please, councilors, do not approve building C. You have already approved the project. Please leave well enough alone. There is no need to punish us with too much density, too many units, too many cars, too many people jammed into zero green space.”A resident

“We are fully in support of a staff recommendations for the application which recommend approval for the official plan amendment and zoning by amendment applications and these applications would as stated by a number of residents from the area add a third tower to the development in place of a low-rise townhouse building which is originally approved as tower as building C as part of the application that application was 14 years ago was approved in 2012 originally submitted in 2010 and the proposed tower which is now on the table will fit on the site has been designed to be generally in line with the tall building design guidelines.”Spoke on the record

Also in this item

• A 16-storey tower at 64 metres replaces an originally-approved low-rise townhouse building from a 2012 approval, representing a significant density increase on a downtown infill site near Ontario Street.

The journey

Decision

Approved as recommended by staff. The zoning amendment permits a 16-storey, 64-metre building (including mechanical penthouse) with 98 dwelling units and 78 square metres of non-residential space, with a holding provision. This replaces the previously-approved low-rise townhouse building (Building C).

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“We have considered all of them. the application included a detailed traffic study prepared by Lee Consulting which was reviewed by staff and no outstanding con concerns remain from a traffic perspective.”City staff

“That is a related to the Swansea pumping station and capacity at that station and to deal with that capacity issue. We are proposing and our staff have proposed and we are accepting of a holding provision that would require the city to undertake work related to that public station to ensure that there is sufficient capacity prior to the application being able to be brought forward.”City staff

“There is a community benefit contribution as part of this application which is a expanded section 37 in the form of additional public art on the site.”City staff

Also in this item

• A wastewater holding provision: the city must upgrade Swansea pumping station capacity before zoning can be exercised, meaning the applicant cannot build unless the city completes infrastructure work

• 65 existing rental units will be demolished and replaced at similar rents; tenants have a right to return under a Tenant Assistance Plan

• Heritage alterations to the designated heritage property at 64 Wellesley Street East remain to be decided separately by City Council

The journey

What happens next

This decision report goes to City Council for final approval. Residents who wish to express support or objection to the development, or to the holding provision on pumping station capacity, or to the heritage alterations may depute at the Council meeting or contact their councillor before the vote. The timeline for that Council meeting is not stated in the transcript.

Decision

The recommendation is approval of amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a 36-storey building (122.5 metres including mechanical penthouse) with 409 dwelling units and 852 square metres of non-residential gross floor area. Approval is contingent on a holding provision requiring the city to complete upgrades to the Swansea pumping station to ensure sufficient wastewater capacity before zoning permissions can be exercised. The applicant proposes to acquire and demolish Dapper Lane as part of the development. A related rental housing demolition application and heritage alterations report will be considered by City Council in a separate process.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“I live at 60 Southport Street and am one of the directors on the condo board. I speak for myself today, not for the board, but there are some concerns that overlap with the interest of 60 Southport. We are the building most affected by this proposed amendment, being right next door.”Resident of 60 Southport Street, director on condo board (speaking for himself)

“The density in the Swansea secondary plan was set at a maximum of four times the lot area. The proposed amendment is arbitrarily crossing that out and changing it to six or more. For what reason?”A resident

“In the report for action, if you look at attachment 10, that is labeled looking east, but it's actually looking west. You can see the Humber River behind the proposed tower. Attachment 11 is labeled looking west, but it's actually east. You can see Grenadier Pond. That's sloppy and significant when we're supposed to trust that the shadow study is acceptable.”A resident

“The shadow study is concerning as the south side of 60 Southport is going to be shadowed already by the buildings approved at 34. The new proposal takes what little area was not shadowed during the day for most of the year and puts the south of the building into shadow at least four hours or more when you look at the shadow study on March 21st.”A resident

“I'm not against development. People do need good housing, but this proposal is not good housing. It makes housing that's already there demonstrably worse to live in.”A resident

Also in this item

• The report identifies inaccuracies in supporting studies: shadow study renderings mislabeled (east/west reversed); transportation study listed speed limits incorrectly (50 km/h recorded for streets actually posted 40 and 30 km/h). Staff recommendation does not address these errors.

• This is an amending report to a July 2023 council approval. The building height increased from 31 storeys to 36 storeys; unit count rose from 405 to 409 total units. Both the replacement rental unit count (65) and the demolition approval remain unchanged.

The journey

What happens next

Item has already been decided by council (July 19-20, 2023) in its original form; this amending report updates terms of that approval. No further deputation or voting opportunity.

Decision

Approved: demolition of 65 rental dwelling units permitted; replacement of 65 rental units required in the new 36-storey development; tenant assistance plan updated to reflect current city practices; replacement floor plans updated based on revised development proposal (36-storey, not 31-storey).

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Josh Matlow (Ward 12, Toronto-St. Paul's) movedSupported the motion
• Councillor Jamaal Myers (Ward 23, Scarborough North) questioned staffQuestioned whether the motion and analysis account for high-speed rail impacts in addition to aviation, seeking clarification on scope

From the floor

“My question related to the other motion, not the one regarding the health impacts. Is that also in terms of looking at the future, is that also looking at the Alto high speed rail as well, or that's just restricted to airports?”Councillor Jamaal Myers (Ward 23, Scarborough North)

“I'm just asking because, obviously, that's gonna have an impact on rail as well. So I'm just asking, are you just looking at an apples to apples comparison to airlines, the island and the Pearson, or are you looking at sort of what are all the factors that are gonna affect air travel, including the potential advancement of the high speed rail?”Councillor Jamaal Myers (Ward 23, Scarborough North)

“I use the words that were in the report that was before us, I think that has to do with livability. It includes noise, which is the plain version of what happens to your health. It's all implied in that, of course. It's all about quality of life.”Councillor Stephen Holyday (Ward 2, Etobicoke Centre)

Also in this item

• A 32-storey tower replacing 16 previously approved townhouses represents a significant departure from a 2012 site plan, intensifying density in what residents expected to remain lower-rise.

• The application faced sustained community opposition on infrastructure, shadowing, parking, and livability grounds, but Council approved it.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can depute at the upcoming City Council vote on this application.

Decision

The application was approved, though the transcript excerpt does not show the vote tally or whether conditions were imposed.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“My name is Shafak Latif and I moved into the building less than a year ago. My concern is that this is an older building and it's rent controlled and so when they build new buildings, we're going to lose rent control buildings for future generations. And I think it's very important that we think about our future generations because, you know, it's hard to get rent control buildings in the city the way that the city is. And I would like for the city to think about the people before the profits and I mean city councilors to think about the people before the profits. So please keep in mind the future generations like we lose this rent control building and many others what are we going to do you know so I really feel that this is important. So I want I want I don't want to have and and the density is so in intense. We have like five or six tall skinny towers in that one area. They're all like more than 30 stories. It's so dense and”A resident

Also in this item

• Only 6 of 377 units required as affordable rental; the existing rent-controlled building will be demolished

The journey

Decision

Zoning By-law Amendment approved to permit a 33-storey apartment building with 377 units (6 affordable), 994 square metres of retail and commercial space at 1439 Bloor Street West.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“Staff have reviewed the proposal, including the potential impacts on sewer capacity, TTC infrastructure, and are satisfied that the technical studies submitted with the application demonstrate that these impacts can be appropriately accommodated.”City staff

The journey

Decision

Approved; Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments adopted as recommended. The 2018 LPAT decision was modified to permit three towers (70, 60, and 14 storeys) instead of the original mid-rise envelope, with 195 on-site affordable rental units, 468 square metres of community agency space, and 2,130 square metres of publicly accessible open space.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• Of 29 demolished rental units, only 29 are replaced at similar rents; an additional 25 rental rooms are demolished but replaced with only 22 studio units, a net loss of 3 units in the rental inventory at that site, offset by 51 total replacements across the two towers.

• Tenant Assistance Plan secures right of return at similar rents and provides financial compensation; tenants of rental rooms receive studio-unit replacements rather than identical room-type returns.

• Development timeline: East Tower (51 replacement rental units) is Phase 1; West Tower (remaining 1,360 units) is Phase 2, meaning replacement units may not be available immediately upon demolition, requiring interim tenant relocation and assistance.

The journey

Decision

Rental Housing Demolition Application approved. Demolition of 29 rental dwelling units at 47-65 Huntley Street, 3 and 11 Selby Street, and 2, 8, 12, 16 Linden Street authorized. Replacement secured: 29 rental units to replace the demolished 29 units, plus 22 rental studio units to replace 25 demolished rental rooms, all in the East Tower of the first phase. Tenant Assistance Plan mandated, including right of return at similar rents and financial compensation. Residential Demolition Permit approved under Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 363, subject to conditions.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Gord Perks (Ward 4, Parkdale-High Park) movedMoved the item without recommendations (noting further work to be done with Fred Victor, TCAC, and Daniels before Council) but in effect moved staff's recommendation; item carried.
• Councillor Brad Bradford (Ward 19, Beaches-East York) movedReleased the item in favour

From the floor

“(motion moved in favour)”Councillor Brad Bradford (Ward 19, Beaches-East York)

Also in this item

• 863 residential units approved in Regent Park, including new retail, daycare, public street and public park as part of mixed-use development

The journey

What happens next

This item has passed committee and moves to City Council. No further deputation opportunity at this body. Residents seeking to oppose or amend can contact their councillors before the Council vote, or pursue appeals at the Ontario Land Tribunal if the application is subsequently appealed by third parties.

Decision

Approved as recommended by staff: three buildings with 863 residential units, 2,260 square metres of non-residential space (retail and daycare), new public street extending Rose Avenue, new public park, and improvements to existing rental buildings. Mover stated further details would be resolved before full City Council.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• Two new public parks and a childcare facility are required as part of the mixed-use redevelopment on the former Sherway Gardens mall site, a significant infill opportunity converting underutilized commercial land to mixed-use with public amenities.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can depute at City Council before the vote (date to be confirmed on the council agenda). Written submissions can be sent to the City Clerk. This is the Official Plan stage; zoning and subdivision decisions will follow separately, offering future opportunities for input on height, density, and design details.

Decision

Official Plan Amendment approved as recommended, redesignating the site to support mixed-use development with public parks and childcare facility. Housing affordability report required before zoning stage.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The Official Plan Amendment is mandated by provincial planning law and requires the Minister's approval before taking effect; the City cannot appeal the ministerial decision once granted.

The journey

What happens next

Deputation at this Council meeting (2026-07-29) if open; Council vote follows. Once approved by City, the amendment goes to the province and is out of Toronto's hands.

Decision

Official Plan Amendment approved, establishing minimum density of 160 residents and jobs per hectare for the Mount Dennis Station Protected Major Transit Station Area. The amendment requires provincial ministerial approval, after which it becomes binding.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents may depute at the council meeting or contact their ward councillor before the vote if they wish to comment on the heritage alteration and the proposed expansion of PARC.

Also in this item

• Staff recommend refusing the application citing site configuration, building massing, and height as inappropriate for the context.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents interested in this development can depute to Council before the vote, or contact their councillor to express support or opposition. The Council vote is the final decision point.

Also in this item

• The tower height has been reduced from 69 storeys (approved October 2024) to 61 storeys in the revised scheme, though additional land and massing have been added to the site footprint.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents may depute at this council meeting to object or support the heritage alterations and demolition; the agenda does not state a deputation deadline or the meeting date, so the window depends on the published council schedule.

Who did what

• Councillor Shelley Carroll (Ward 17, Don Valley North) amendedMoved amendment to redirect the report-back from community council to Infrastructure and Environment Committee, citing the need to track financial implications, deputy city manager involvement, and citywide budget alignment as the scope expands beyond initial findings.
• Councillor Stephen Holyday (Ward 2, Etobicoke Centre) voted againstVoted against, arguing the report lacked sufficient data depth (two-week ridership sample) and that the process bypassed proper community and business consultation before authorizing staff to explore undefined further measures on a major citywide street.
• Councillor Alejandra Bravo (Ward 9, Davenport) questioned staffChallenged Councillor Holiday's critique, defending the transparency of the process and the necessity of implementing transit priority measures to manage congestion and support the TTC's objectives.

From the floor

“There were improvements made to the Dundas Street corridor to improve ridership experience. And they were, what we heard, they were traffic chain, like traffic and parking changes, return prohibitions, and changes to parking. And then a follow-up report came to the community council. It was a receipt for information, and instead of doing that, they basically said, hey, go further. We have no idea what that is. Dundas is a really important route. It's an important route for residents of Etobicoke if they want to drive into the city...The report does with its limitations note that they compared a couple week period from one year to the next and that the ridership was up. Good for them. Why the ridership is up is perhaps requires a little bit of a deeper analysis...I'm not comfortable basing an important policy decision on a very thin slice of information that is admittedly very limited in the report.”Councillor Stephen Holyday (Ward 2, Etobicoke Centre)

“It makes sense for Councilor Holiday to vote no to this item because he voted no when we brought the transit priority measures motion to council at the same time that this was considered and adopted at TTC. It makes sense that if you don't accept that moving transit more effectively through the city, we can't actually manage congestion...We cannot criticize and say that our streetcars are slow if we don't do the things that TTC is telling us, or at least explore the things that TTC tells us move them more quickly. And we can't actually manage congestion in the city if people can't increasingly choose transit as their mode of choice.”Councillor Alejandra Bravo (Ward 9, Davenport)

“But we're now getting into and what more can we do? And at that point, we need to be able to track the financial implications. We need to be able to track the involvement of deputy city managers and and the like, dispatching staff to do the work...Dundas goes from one end of the city to the other and we all drive it. And we're talking about something that is very citywide. And while it's really important to the residents who live there, it's something that if we're gonna get it right, we're going to begin to spend what are citywide dollars and we need to align it with citywide priorities along with the coordination priority.”Councillor Shelley Carroll (Ward 17, Don Valley North)

“How many days of analysis comparison did you use to derive the increase in ridership that you cited in the report? Was it two weeks, or was it all the entire year?...It was a two week period that we looked at to determine the ridership increase.”City of Toronto Transportation Services

“We could also look at a queue jump lane potentially, not really relevant with streetcars as much as it could be with buses. But right now, we'd be looking at just the curb management, options, and turn restrictions.”City of Toronto Transportation Services

Also in this item

• The ridership increase cited in the report (approximately 25–35%) was based on a two-week comparison period, not a full-year analysis, creating questions about data robustness for a major policy decision on a citywide corridor. Councillor Holyday pressed staff on this limitation; staff acknowledged construction-related data constraints but defended the methodology.

• The scope of 'further transit priority measures' remains undefined. Staff suggested queue jump lanes, additional curb management, and turn restrictions, but a full menu will only emerge after the engagement plan is developed and Infrastructure Committee reviews it.

• The TTC Board has separately directed a citywide streetcar acceleration study (due early 2027) of which this Dundas work is a part, creating a parallel planning process that staff are attempting to consolidate into one comprehensive report rather than piecemeal motions at different bodies.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can provide input during the August consultation on Dundas, and can track the Infrastructure Committee report-back in early 2027 for the full menu of proposed transit priority measures before they are implemented.

Decision

Council adopted the report with an amendment. Recommendation 2 was changed so that the General Manager of Transportation Services and the CEO of the Toronto Transit Commission will report back to Infrastructure and Environment Committee (rather than to community council) on recommendations for additional transit priority measures on Dundas, with an engagement plan to be developed and community consultation to occur before implementation. Ridership analysis in the report covered a two-week comparison period.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Alejandra Bravo (Ward 9, Davenport) movedMotion to add expiration date and report back to community council in 2027
• Councillor Ausma Malik (Ward 10, Spadina-Fort York) movedMotion to ensure clear communication of construction phasing to mitigate impacts on riders and businesses

From the floor

“My motion is simply to ensure that there's an expiration date for the proposed temporary parking and traffic regulations on Queen Street West and report back to Toronto East Shore Community Council in 2027.”Councillor Alejandra Bravo (Ward 9, Davenport)

“I have a motion, and this is to just ensure that we are very clearly communicating the phasing of the construction work in order to mitigate the impact on folks who use the line and work with staff on this.”Councillor Ausma Malik (Ward 10, Spadina-Fort York)

Also in this item

• Temporary traffic restrictions on Queen Street West affect roughly 90,000 daily transit and vehicle trips during a seven-month construction window on a major east-west corridor.

The journey

What happens next

Residents and businesses along the diversion route (Queen Street West from Roncesvalles to Spadina, and affected side streets) can depute to Council before the vote, or contact their ward councillor. The meeting date and vote timing are not stated in the item.

Decision

Council adopted the Executive Committee recommendation with two amendments: (1) Councillor Bravo added an expiration date for the temporary regulations and directed a report back to Toronto East Shore Community Council in 2027; (2) Deputy Mayor Malik added a requirement for staff to clearly communicate the phasing of construction work to mitigate impacts on transit users and businesses.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Paula Fletcher (Ward 14, Toronto-Danforth) questioned staffQuestioned the scope of delegated authority, raised concern that delegation would prevent community council from imposing construction conditions on Metrolinx, and moved an amendment to shorten the delegation period to 12/31/2027.

From the floor

“My ability or counselor's ability to actually give instructions will change with what you're asking for tonight. Correct?”Councillor Paula Fletcher (Ward 14, Toronto-Danforth)

“We have always come to City Council to seek direction and also to give an opportunity to community to delegate. And through that we've managed to put conditions on Metrolinx's work that's kept the community quite safe and brought issues to the forefront that they had to deal with.”Metrolinx

“I think what I'd like to do is change that delegated authority from 12/31/2030 to 12/31/2027 for this period that the election is on, and then to bring that authority back to the councilor and the community to impose conditions for safety and for construction that will not exist otherwise.”Councillor Paula Fletcher (Ward 14, Toronto-Danforth)

Also in this item

• Delegation of authority through 2030 would allow Metrolinx to implement traffic and parking changes without returning to council for each decision, potentially limiting community input and the ability to impose construction conditions.

• The amendment to shorten the delegation to 12/31/2027 (end of current term) would preserve council and community oversight during the construction phase and past the 2026 election, preventing a differently-composed council from inheriting an open-ended delegation.

The journey

What happens next

Residents in affected areas (Riverside, Leslieville wards) can contact their councillor before the vote resumes; the item remains on the agenda for decision.

Decision

Council received the item and discussion occurred, but no final vote was taken on the record during this meeting. Councillor Fletcher asked questions about the extent of delegated authority and raised concerns about losing community council's ability to impose construction conditions. A motion was proposed to reduce the delegation expiry from 2030 to 2027 to preserve council oversight, but the motion was not finalized before the meeting broke for dinner at 6:30 p.m.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• Pedestrian access on the east side of Noble Street will be fully restricted for 24 months, forcing users to cross to the west sidewalk and use only the intersections of Queen Street West and Noble Street, or Noble Street and Strickland Avenue.

• Noble Street will be converted from two-way to one-way traffic operation between Queen Street West and Strickland Avenue, with westbound-only flow permitted.

• The construction staging area involves closure of a full northbound traffic lane on the east side of Noble Street for the entire 24-month duration.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can contact their councillor before the vote, or depute at Council if a deputation window is open. The measures take effect December 1, 2026, so the window to influence the decision is narrow.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Council vote on 2026-07-29; residents may depute before the vote or contact councillors representing this ward (Ward 10, Spadina-Fort York).

Also in this item

• The developer originally requested extension through June 30, 2028 but City Council in July 2025 approved only to December 31, 2026, effectively cutting the requested timeline in half. A second extension request now seeks the original end date.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents and transit riders can depute to council before the vote or contact their councillor. The staging area directly affects Yonge Street pedestrian and vehicular flow at a major intersection.

Also in this item

• A new public roadway, Collegiate Road, will connect Croatia Street to Bloor Street West as part of development at three sites (1141 Bloor West, 980 Dufferin, 90 Croatia Street); hundreds of vehicles are projected to use it daily.

• The existing pedestrian crossover at Bloor and Pauline will be replaced with a traffic control signal when Collegiate Road opens.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents on Pauline Avenue and nearby streets can depute at this council meeting to speak for or against the through restriction. The item is on the published agenda for 2026-07-29.

Also in this item

• The City has secured $1.5 billion in federal and provincial funding over 10 years conditional on implementing development charges reductions; this represents the first time the city has accessed this federal-provincial housing funding stream.

• Development charges will be suspended from annual indexing through 2029, locking in flat rates for all development types during the reduction period.

• The program is time-limited: eligibility requires that a development's first building permit be issued during the three-year reduction period, and an above-grade permit obtained by the end of that period or within 24 months, whichever is later, to prevent speculative acquisition of cheap charges.

The journey

What happens next

Residents and organizations concerned with housing supply and development costs can contact councillors before the vote. No deputation window is mentioned on the agenda as of the summary provided.

Also in this item

• 47 site-specific Official Plan Amendment applications to redesignate lands within Employment Areas are currently pending, and 10 active Ontario Land Tribunal appeals seek employment land conversion, with hearings scheduled starting November 2026

• The matter is flagged as urgent and cannot be deferred, but the reasons are set out in a confidential attachment not available to the public

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

This is before Council with no vote scheduled yet; deputation opportunity depends on whether Council permits delegations. The report is partially confidential, limiting public information on the urgency claim.

Who did what

• Councillor Jamaal Myers (Ward 23, Scarborough North) questioned staffCouncillor Myers requested to hold the item

Also in this item

• The Sheppard East Secondary Plan has been appealed by seventeen landowners to the Ontario Land Tribunal, meaning the city's planning direction for a major corridor is under external legal challenge and may be substantially altered by adjudication.

The journey

What happens next

This item has not been publicly noticed for deputation as of the record provided. Monitor the Ontario Land Tribunal case files or contact your councillor if you have interest in the Sheppard East Secondary Plan appeals.

Decision

Council authorized the City Solicitor to provide legal directions at the Ontario Land Tribunal Case Management Conference scheduled for September 28, 2026.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The Ontario Land Tribunal brought most of OPA 778 into force on July 24, 2025, meaning the Avenues policy is already active on 283 kilometres of Toronto streets except where site-specific appeals are still pending. The November hearing addresses only the remaining disputed sections, not the bulk of the amendment.

• Three of five original appellants have withdrawn their appeals, reducing the opposition the city must defend against at tribunal.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents supporting or opposing the Avenues designations have no further city-level deputation opportunity before this hearing; the tribunal process is now in control. Those wanting to shape the city's legal position must contact their councillor before the vote.

Also in this item

• The Ontario Land Tribunal upheld the heritage designation on three criteria but granted an appeal on one criterion, meaning the property remains designated but one ground for protection was rejected.

The journey

What happens next

Residents opposing this development could attend Ontario Land Tribunal public hearings when scheduled in 2027, or submit statements to the tribunal process. No deputation or comment opportunity exists at this Council meeting, as the item seeks only legal directions, not a zoning decision.

Also in this item

• Ontario Land Tribunal issued a settlement decision in March 2026 on appeal OLT-24-001146 filed by SG Adelaide Ltd. from the City's failure to make a timely decision on the original zoning application.

• The applicant's request comes with revised architectural plans, indicating a materially different proposal from the one originally before Council.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents may contact their councillor before the vote to express support or opposition to consenting to the review request. No formal deputation period is indicated on the agenda.

Who did what

• Councillor Amber Morley (Ward 3, Etobicoke-Lakeshore) movedMoved to delete staff recommendations and adopt confidential alternative direction

From the floor

“I do have an item I would like to try to go ahead. It's a confidential motion that I have. It's CC43.21, 2915, 2917, 2939, 2941, and 2943 Bloor Street West, zoning by law amendment application request for direction. Staff have my motion, and it has been advanced circulated colleagues. It is confidential, or a portion of it is confidential, but I will read out the public portion here, which is to delete the recommendations in the report, and to adopt instead the following. I'll consider that read, and appreciate support from my colleagues on this.”Councillor Amber Morley (Ward 3, Etobicoke-Lakeshore)

Also in this item

• The substance of Council's direction on a major downtown development under Ontario Land Tribunal appeal was kept confidential and not disclosed to the public, despite the vote occurring in open session.

The journey

What happens next

Residents interested in this development can monitor the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing process once a date is scheduled, and may participate in that process. Contact your councillor before the vote if you wish to influence Council's response direction.

Decision

City Council voted to amend and adopt Councillor Morley's motion to delete the planning staff recommendations and adopt instead a confidential alternative direction; the content of the alternative direction was not disclosed in the public record.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The proposed development would retain only the west and south facades of the 1935 Spanish Colonial Revival Grand Central Market building, demolishing all other existing structures and the surface parking lot to make way for two residential towers.

• Heritage Planning staff indicate they are satisfied the development conserves onsite and adjacent heritage properties and is consistent with existing policy, with heritage impacts mitigated through the overall conservation strategy.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents may depute at City Council or submit written comments before the vote. The agenda is published; the meeting date is 2026-07-29.

Who did what

• Councillor James Pasternak (Ward 6, York Centre) movedMoved the motion endorsing the Ontario Inspector General's findings and directing city action
• Councillor Mike Colle (Ward 8, Eglinton-Lawrence) secondedSeconded the motion

Also in this item

• The motion was deemed urgent by the chair and the two-thirds waivers for notice and referral both carried, allowing immediate passage without Executive Committee review.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can contact their councillor before the vote if they wish to express support for or concerns about the motion. The item is on a published agenda; the vote will be public record.

Decision

Council passed the motion. The motion was deemed urgent by the chair; notice and referral to Executive Committee were waived by two-thirds votes.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Chris Moise (Ward 13, Toronto Centre) movedMoved the motion to study Corktown as a potential heritage conservation district.
• Councillor Ausma Malik (Ward 10, Spadina-Fort York) secondedSeconded the motion.

From the floor

“Who made the refund decision searched by the Ombudsman? No consensus among witnesses. Views were split on certainty.”A councillor

“We weren't able to determine whether that decision was made by TTC Management or whether the decision was made by TTC board members.”An accountability officer

“We would have felt that a decision of this magnitude that had the ability to impact a large majority of the riders would have a decision making process in place. They would have done the necessary research and conducted analysis to see how this decision would impact riders, particularly vulnerable riders and equity deserving groups.”An accountability officer

“One of the things we communicated internally to our exec and to board members was the difficulty in actually processing the refund. That was one of the things that was considered in the debates about refunds.”Councillor Mike Colle (Ward 8, Eglinton-Lawrence)

Also in this item

• The TTC could not locate or produce any decision records for a $24 million refund policy affecting millions of transit riders.

• The Ombudsman found no consensus among TTC board members and staff on who actually made the decision or when it was made.

• A five-year gap existed between the TTC's 2019 announcement of no refunds and the 2024 discontinuation of tokens and tickets.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can depute to City Council (meeting 2026-07-29) in favour of or against the motion; contact your ward councillor before the vote.

Decision

City Council received the Ombudsman report for information; no vote was taken on the record.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Brad Bradford (Ward 19, Beaches-East York) movedMoved the motion to affirm the mayor should occupy the head-of-council seat on the Police Services Board
• Councillor James Pasternak (Ward 6, York Centre) secondedSeconded the motion

Also in this item

• The Police Services Board controls $1.43 billion in police budget and sets policing priorities, so the mayor's direct seat carries real institutional weight

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Council vote on this motion is the actionable event; residents can contact councillors before the vote

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Alejandra Bravo (Ward 9, Davenport) movedMoved the motion requesting noise and vibration barriers and electrification commitment from Metrolinx
• Councillor Paula Fletcher (Ward 14, Toronto-Danforth) secondedSeconded the motion

Also in this item

• The Bloor-Lansdowne GO station will see trains every 7.5 minutes idling and passing through a densely populated residential corridor, raising acute noise (70+ decibels), vibration, diesel exhaust, and bell noise concerns for nearby residents.

The journey

What happens next

Residents near the Bloor-Lansdowne corridor can monitor council's decision and contact their councillors before the vote to express support or concerns. If passed, the motion's force depends on the Province's response, which is outside municipal control.

Decision

Motion passed requesting the province and Metrolinx to install noise and vibration barriers at the Bloor-Lansdowne GO station corridor south of Bloor Street and to commit to full line electrification rather than diesel operation.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Nick Mantas (Ward 22, Scarborough-Agincourt) movedMoved the motion to advance the Bridletowne Neighbourhood Centre/Community Hub
• Mayor Olivia Chow secondedSeconded the motion

Also in this item

• A 5.2-acre city-owned property in Scarborough has been held in reserve for over a decade for this community hub project; Scarborough Health Network's withdrawal does not derail it, as YMCA and United Way remain committed partners.

The journey

Decision

Motion moved by Councillor Nick Mantas and seconded by Mayor Olivia Chow to advance the Bridletowne Neighbourhood Centre/Community Hub, transferring the property to YMCA. The record does not show a vote tally or explicit council action beyond the clerk's procedural question on waiving referral.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Jon Burnside (Ward 16, Don Valley East) movedMember motion requesting waiver of referral and advancement of the Don Mills redevelopment direction
• Mayor Olivia Chow secondedSeconded Burnside's motion

From the floor

“On favor of waiving referral?”City staff

Also in this item

• 770 Don Mills Road is a city-owned surface parking lot immediately adjacent to the new Don Valley Station, positioning a redevelopment for transit integration; the proposal combines housing (market and affordable), schooling, park space, and childcare on a single city-controlled site.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

If Council votes on this item at a future meeting, residents can depute at that session or contact their councillor before the vote. The urgency motion itself may be voted on at this meeting.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Paula Fletcher (Ward 14, Toronto-Danforth) movedMoved the amendment to increase lane closure nights
• Councillor Frances Nunziata (Ward 5, York South-Weston) secondedSeconded Fletcher's motion

Also in this item

• Lane closures double to four nights per configuration due to Lower Don Bridge construction complexity, affecting both major expressways serving downtown Toronto in August 2026

The journey

Decision

Amendment approved, allowing Metrolinx four nights per configuration of lane closures on the Don Valley Parkway and Gardiner Expressway (doubled from the original two nights) to support Ontario Line construction at the Lower Don Bridge

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Chris Moise (Ward 13, Toronto Centre) movedMoved authorization to release Section 37 funds for Church Street reconstruction.
• Councillor Ausma Malik (Ward 10, Spadina-Fort York) secondedSeconded the motion.

Also in this item

• Water main on Church Street has been overdue for replacement since 2021; this authorization finally unblocks that work alongside streetscape improvements.

• YongeTOmorrow project deferral to 2030-2040 removes the scheduling conflict that had blocked Church Street work for years.

The journey

What happens next

Residents and businesses in Church-Wellesley can monitor the staff report expected to follow this authorization. No vote is pending; once authorized, implementation timelines will depend on the reconstruction strategy staff develops.

Decision

Authorization passed to release Section 37 funds for phased reconstruction of Church Street, including water main replacement and streetscape improvements (widened sidewalks, patios, pedestrianization infrastructure, public realm enhancements).

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The applicant invoked the Planning Act's deemed refusal provision after Toronto's inaction, shifting the decision from City Council to an independent tribunal, which removes municipal control over the outcome.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can observe the OLT hearing if it is open to the public; contact your councillor if you have concerns about the proposal or the city's negotiating position.

Also in this item

• The development would retain an existing medical office building on site, preserving some existing use within the redevelopment.

• The proposal includes the provision of affordable housing as part of a mixed-income project, though the agenda text does not specify the percentage or affordability level.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at City Council if there is a deputation window before the vote; check the meeting agenda for timing. Contact your councillor before the vote to express support or concerns.

Who did what

• Councillor James Pasternak (Ward 6, York Centre) moved and questioned staffVoiced opposition to the application

Also in this item

• Application includes a Holding provision requiring developer to resolve servicing and compatibility issues before development can proceed

• Two separate motions moved to secure parkland dedication and continued negotiation with adjacent property owner, suggesting ongoing design refinement

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents and affected property owners can depute at the City Council vote, which has not yet been scheduled. Deputation window typically closes 48 hours before the meeting.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor James Pasternak (Ward 6, York Centre) moved, amended and questioned staffMoved amendments to expand parkland dedication and continue negotiations with adjacent property owner; urged colleagues to reject the main application due to precedent concerns about mid-rise buildings in stable neighbourhoods.

From the floor

“We need to reject this application. The precedent of approving mid-rise buildings in stable neighbourhoods undermines our planning framework.”Councillor James Pasternak (Ward 6, York Centre)

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can contact their councillor before the City Council vote. Deputations may be possible depending on the council agenda.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• One referral waiver failed: the Infrastructure and Environment Committee will review the project despite council's unanimous approval on merits, signalling divided opinion on environmental or servicing readiness.

The journey

What happens next

Residents and stakeholders can depute at the Council meeting. Anyone with standing (property owner, resident within the notification area, or authorized representative of an organization) may request to speak to Council. The agenda item number is CC43.12. Public comment windows, if any, are typically closed before the Council vote, so timing depends on the meeting notice.

Decision

City Council approved the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for 245 Eglinton Avenue East, allowing a mixed-use development with two connected towers totaling 82,742 square metres, including 1,202 residential units, retail, and amenity space. The motion carried 22-0 unanimously. One motion to waive referral to Infrastructure and Environment Committee failed 9-15; that committee referral will proceed.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Rachel Chernos Lin (Ward 15, Don Valley West) movedMoved deferral to next Council meeting

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

City Council has not voted; residents can contact their councillor before the vote or depute at council if a public hearing is scheduled.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The Leslie Site Official Plan Amendment responds to the opening of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, establishing a transit-oriented framework that could unlock significant mixed-use development on a central employment site.

• The study included engagement with Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council, indicating Indigenous consultation on a site in this region.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Deputation window may be open depending on council agenda management; residents can contact their councillor before the vote.

Also in this item

• The proposal delivers 383 housing units with only six identified as affordable rental, a 1.6% affordability rate far below city targets. The balance of the site plan and land value capture terms, if any, are not visible in the public agenda text.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents may depute at the council meeting if still within the public participation period; contact your ward councillor before the vote if the comment window has closed.

Who did what

• Councillor Vincent Crisanti (Ward 1, Etobicoke North) questioned staffAsked detailed questions about implementation timeline, accommodation process, design standards, and accessibility for seniors and people with disabilities.
• Councillor Jamaal Myers (Ward 23, Scarborough North) questioned staffQuestioned city's role in mailbox design, maintenance of surrounding areas, and accessibility for people with disabilities and seniors.

From the floor

“Back in April, I moved a motion asking for a response for a detailed implementation timeline, key dates identifying planning purposes, consultation with Etobicoke North residents, and also details of any legal, fiscal planning, social impacts. We got an update, but I didn't see the update as comprehensive or included any of the items that mentioned in the motion.”Councillor Vincent Crisanti (Ward 1, Etobicoke North)

“Canada Post has identified they have an accommodation program in place that allows for residents to make a request for an accommodation and that request could be fulfilled within as short of a period as one week.”City staff

“What role does the city have in looking at the design of the boxes themselves, as the current design of some of the boxes that we have is quite, not flattering, I would say. And to have these boxes all over the city would definitely bring down the aesthetic of the city.”Councillor Jamaal Myers (Ward 23, Scarborough North)

“Canada Post is responsible for the design of the mailboxes. We've we are consulting with Canada Post on the sighting of the mailboxes, but not the design of the box themselves.”City staff

Also in this item

• Residents with disabilities and seniors can request accommodation for continued home delivery within one week, but must apply through Canada Post directly; city has no role in accommodation decisions.

• 376 community mailboxes planned for Etobicoke North in 2026-27; Councillor Crescenti's April motion for comprehensive implementation details was not addressed in the staff update.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can contact Canada Post directly to request accommodation for home delivery, apply via phone/email/mail, or appeal rejections to Canada Post's ombudsman. August 2026 consultation period is noted.

Decision

No decision made; Council received information from staff on Canada Post's accommodation program, timeline, and location process. No motion passed or defeated.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The proposal requires Official Plan amendment to increase density, indicating the Secondary Plan's density targets were not automatically enabled by existing zoning and the city had to choose to unlock this site.

• Holding provisions on sewerage and stormwater capacity are a signal the infrastructure is not yet adequate; the developer must fund or coordinate upgrades before the city releases the holding and permits construction.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Council members and the public can depute or contact councillors before the vote. Given that this is a staff recommendation at the final approval stage, the window for substantive change is narrow, but deputations on the holding conditions (sewerage, waste collection requirements) may still influence implementation details.

Also in this item

• All 8 existing rental units are currently vacant, which exempts the applicant from the requirement to submit a Tenant Assistance Plan and removes the immediate tenant displacement concern, though it does not address the broader loss of rental stock.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents and organizations can still depute at this Council meeting to object to or support the demolition and replacement proposal. The meeting date is 2026-07-29. Contact your ward councillor before the vote if you wish to influence their position. Tenant advocacy groups may submit written comments during the meeting.

Also in this item

• The applicant is no longer appealing to City Council; they escalated to the Ontario Land Tribunal, shifting the venue from municipal decision-making to a provincial tribunal. This removes the item from Toronto's control and means the outcome depends on tribunal rules and OLT judgment, not Council debate.

The journey

What happens next

If you are a Park Hill Road resident or in the area, you may have already been notified of the tribunal hearing by the OLT; check the tribunal's website or the city's notice of application for hearing dates and instructions to participate as an intervenor or observer.

Also in this item

• The replacement building must include 141 affordable rental units total, with 54 units required to house existing tenants at similar rents under the Tenant Assistance Plan.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents and tenant advocates may depute to Council before the vote or contact their councillors. The deputation window closes when this meeting begins.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at council if a public hearing is held before the vote, or contact their councillor to express views before council votes. The deadline depends on council's meeting schedule and any hearing procedures, which are not yet public.

Who did what

• Councillor Gord Perks (Ward 4, Parkdale-High Park) movedNot directly stated in transcript but moved related items; no substantive opposition noted

From the floor

“The entire $100,000,000 to build this space will be absorbed by Temple's team. The implication, the impact it has on our future generation is incredible. Think of the girls and boys that would have a chance to play on this beautiful court.”Mayor Olivia Chow

“It is a market based lease even though for a period of time, there's not money exchanging hands. The market in kind piece to this is about capital commitment. Someone else is building it, and the community use provisions mean you can't change the deal down the line and say, now we want it exclusively for pro athletes.”City-staff

“When you look at that capital investment and amortize that with operating and capital renewal over forty years and you take the NPV on that, plus the interest on capital over thirty years, you're looking at almost a $200,000,000 economic benefit to the city.”CreateTO

“This $100,000,000 investment will actually grow into a much larger number for the city of Toronto. We would probably wait another hundred years for us to maybe think about developing something there. We probably would have had maybe 60 studies, and we probably still wouldn't get to it.”Councillor Michael Thompson (Ward 21, Scarborough Centre)

“I'm just beginning to worry. There's too much downtown centric investment happening. We've got the Raptors downtown... Everything is downtown. What about the rest of the city of Toronto? There is a Toronto north of Eglinton, believe it or not.”Councillor Mike Colle (Ward 8, Eglinton-Lawrence)

Also in this item

• City secures $100 million facility construction without capital budget cost; facility remains city property with permanent community access rights embedded in lease agreement.

• Toronto Tempo becomes Canada's first WNBA team operating in a municipally-controlled downtown facility with guaranteed public community hours, addressing significant gap in women's professional sports infrastructure in the city.

• Agreement includes 2,000+ annual public access hours to world-class training courts; model mirrors successful Raptors facility partnership but with stronger community access guarantees.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can contact their councillor before the vote; deputations may be available depending on whether Council opens the item for debate.

Decision

Executive Committee recommendation to enter into a long-term lease and community access agreement with Toronto Tempo Basketball Club for 701 Fleet Street approved unanimously. Related Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment (TE34.19) also approved without amendment.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“My family owns and resides in a condo on Lillian Street which is next door to the proposed building. We vehemently oppose this massive development on several issues.”A resident

“Our neighborhood is already extremely busy and densely populated. We have traffic flow issues, high level of traffic congestions of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. We already do not have enough street parking for visitors, deliveries and services.”A resident

“To approve such a huge massive development of 53 stories with 640 dwelling units, it is our opinion that is absolutely ridiculous. Let alone with only a handful of parking spaces.”A resident

“We will see thousands of deliveries. I believe that was mentioned, and I'm thinking about postal food deliveries, Amazon, Ubers, waste management, etc. And so per week we're talking about thousands. This will further our neighborhood and community.”A resident

“Our schools are critically overcrowded and facing severe enrollment pressures. And because the schools in the Young and Eglinton area are operating well beyond their planned capacities, students are being redirected away from their neighborhood schools.”A resident

Also in this item

• Tenant Assistance Plan includes right of existing tenants to return to replacement rental units at similar rents plus financial compensation, a protective measure for the 17 displaced units.

• 39-storey tower height represents a significant density increase on a site in an already densely populated neighbourhood near Yonge and Eglinton.

The journey

Decision

Approved: demolition of 17 rental units at 148-158 and 162 Soudan Avenue; rezoning to permit 53-storey residential building with 639 units (17 replacement rental units); Residential Demolition Permit under Chapter 363, subject to conditions; Tenant Assistance Plan as tabled.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Dianne Saxe (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) movedMoved approval of the application

Also in this item

• Ronald McDonald House, a long-established community service on the site, will continue operating as part of the approved mixed-use development rather than being displaced by the project.

The journey

Decision

Official Plan Amendment approved as recommended by staff. The Site and Area Specific Policy for 237-253 Victoria Street was secured, permitting the 24-storey tower at 237 Victoria Street and establishing height, setback, and location requirements for development of the 249 and 251-253 Victoria Street parcels. Ronald McDonald House will continue operating on the property.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“It's so dense and it takes a long time just to get just to leave the building. You know for people that drive and also people that use public transit. Yeah. It's too the area is too dense and this is not a good idea. I think we really need to put this thing to an end because the city area like has too much density already.”A resident

“What about tenants that you know like you when they build these new buildings, there's not going to it's not going to be rent controlled, you know, like they're going to have people paying market rent, right? So the rent controlled 200 units are going to be gone. They're just they just care about profit.”A resident

“The 200 rent control units are still going to be rent controlled, but the city doesn't have authority to make the other new units rent controlled because that's the province.”A councillor

Also in this item

• Of 446 new units, 200 retain rent control post-development; remaining 346 units will be market-rent, not subject to municipal rent-control authority

The journey

Decision

Application approved; zoning and Official Plan amendment permitted the 34-storey mixed-use building as proposed. Staff clarified that 200 existing rent-controlled units will remain under rent control post-development; new units fall under provincial jurisdiction and are not subject to municipal rent-control authority.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Dianne Saxe (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) movedMoved to refer to City Council without staff recommendation; stated unresolved concerns about TTC capacity and affordability

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

If the item is referred to council, residents may depute at the council meeting. Check the City Council agenda for the date this item appears.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• Seven existing rental units slated for demolition will be replaced in-building at similar rents; all existing tenants have right of return under the tenant assistance plan.

• Permanent closure of the public lane that forms part of the site will be decided by City Council in a separate process.

The journey

Decision

Zoning amendment approved with holding provision. Seven rental units will be demolished and replaced in the new building at similar rents with tenant assistance plan. Approximately 350 square metres of non-residential ground-floor space and 143 square metres of parkland dedication included. Lane acquisition and permanent closure deferred to separate City Council process.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The project retains all 2,251 existing rental units while adding 1,115 new units, a net increase of dwelling stock without displacement on this site

• Rose Avenue reinstatement as a public street and creation of a new public park represent public realm improvements beyond the housing addition

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Contact your councillor before the City Council vote. Deputation may still be possible if the item returns to council.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The development is planned to include approximately 4,969 new dwelling units with a total gross floor area of 325,000 square metres, representing significant intensification of the previously approved four-block master plan.

• The proposal removes a planned Promenade Road and replaces it with an enhanced water's edge public promenade, altering the street network originally approved in the master plan.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can attend the council meeting and depute during public consultation periods, or contact their councillor before the vote if the meeting is scheduled and publicly noticed.

Also in this item

• The proposal is for 555 dwelling units at a major transit hub, but the applicant is not replacing existing office space, creating a conflict with the City's intensification policies that require office retention in mixed-use zones.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute to council before the vote, contact their councillor, and submit written comments if a consultation window remains open.

Also in this item

• The applicant's appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal was triggered by the city's statutory failure to make a decision within the prescribed timeline, shifting the burden to prove grounds for refusal from the applicant to the city at tribunal.

The journey

Also in this item

• The applicant has appealed the City's failure to decide the original zoning and Official Plan Amendment application to the Ontario Land Tribunal, consolidating three heritage demolition appeals into one hearing before the same tribunal.

• City Council previously refused permits for alterations to the designated heritage properties and demolition of heritage attributes and the detached building; this item asks what directions Council wishes to provide as those refusals are defended at the tribunal.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents may depute at this Council meeting if the item reaches deputation; contact your councillor before the vote. Public comment window may have closed; check the agenda portal.

The journey

Also in this item

• A 55-storey mixed-use tower appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal will be argued and decided while the new council is still in its first weeks, with no opportunity for the incoming council to influence the City's defence strategy if they disagreed.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

This item has not yet been heard. Residents who oppose or support the development may contact their councillor before the vote, or review the application materials (available through the City's development portal) to understand the City's stated position.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The applicant appealed the city's failure or neglect to decide on the resubmitted application to the Ontario Land Tribunal on June 26, 2025, triggering a formal hearing process outside city council's control.

• The applicant's resubmitted proposal (April 2025) increased building heights from 32/39 storeys to 42/43 storeys and added 17 dwelling units (877 to 894) while reducing parking slightly (319 to 349 spaces).

The journey

What happens next

Residents who live near or have views on the Tapscott Road development can contact their councillor (Ward 21, Scarborough Southwest) before the vote to influence what legal position the city takes. No deputation window is indicated on the agenda for this item.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The applicant's appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal is proceeding on a three-tower waterfront site originally approved for Pier 27 Phase 1 and 2; the City's refusal of Phase 3 is being contested in a quasi-judicial tribunal rather than resolved internally.

The journey

What happens next

Residents with interest in the Pier 27 waterfront development can monitor the OLT hearing process. Those with concerns about the site's height, massing, or waterfront impact may wish to attend or participate in the OLT proceedings in March 2027 if the forum permits public input, but the timing and rules are set by the tribunal, not City Council.

Who did what

• Councillor Stephen Holyday (Ward 2, Etobicoke Centre) movedMoved the staff recommendations for the traffic signals installation after community consultation.

From the floor

“I can release and move the staff recommendations for e Y 33.29 Kipling Avenue and Furrowick Crescent pedestrian crossing protection. You may recall we sent this without recommendations to allow some community consultation, and happy to report that the consultation returned to thank you.”Councillor Stephen Holyday (Ward 2, Etobicoke Centre)

The journey

What happens next

Residents can contact their councillor before the vote or depute at council if a deputation window is open.

Decision

Approved the staff recommendation to install traffic control signals at Kipling Avenue and Firwood Crescent.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The Scotiabank branch building, originally built with its principal entrance facing Weston Road in 1949, would be physically moved and reoriented 180 degrees to face Eglinton Avenue West instead, a major alteration to one of its designated heritage attributes.

• The proposed 46-storey tower would place a mid-rise mixed-use building on what is now a single-storey modernist bank with a large front lawn, representing significant intensification at a major intersection.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at City Council before a vote on this item if a date is set. The Ontario Heritage Act also allows public consultation on Section 33/34 approvals; a commenter should check whether a consultation window is still open.

Also in this item

• The plan addresses speeding of motor vehicles and road safety for vulnerable road users in Flemingdon Park, an established neighbourhood south of Eglinton Avenue East.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can contact their City Councillor before the vote. If there is a public deputation period, residents may speak to Council directly.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can contact their councillor before the vote if they have concerns about this intersection or traffic safety in the area. The vote date is 2026-07-29.

From the floor

“We've had extensive public consultation with the community. We've actually had about three iterations of the drawings as to how this should actually look. We've had the supports of the Church Wyandotte Neighborhood Association, the BIA and others. So again, this is not done arbitrarily by myself or the applicant. It's been done with consultation from by others.”Spoke on the record

“64 Wyandotte Street is the official recognized heritage site where it is a World War II pre-world or interwar architecture style building. It's very important to like the grander history of the region. However, I brought up to the Toronto Preservation Board that there is more that while the World Pride Murals has not been officially given as an official heritage designation because obviously the World Pride Murals were actually quite recent. Nevertheless, it should be given enough”Spoke on the record

Also in this item

• 34 Huntley Street, listed on the Heritage Register but not meeting designation criteria, is cleared for demolition as part of the development

The journey

Decision

Staff recommendation approved: alterations to the three designated heritage properties are authorized under Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act; authority granted to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement; 34 Huntley Street, listed but not meeting Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria, cleared for demolition as part of the proposal.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

From the floor

“Why should council approve a significant increase in density before confirming the infrastructure needed to support it?”A resident

“Removing town homes that are suited to families and replacing it is not necessarily familyfriendly”A resident

“There's no affordable housing considering the high market price pricing and cost per square footage for this build”A resident

“I'm asking you, this is not about growth. It's about the balanced community that was approved and we would like you to have a better planning outcome.”A resident

“I live at 20 Southport Street, next door to the proposed 32story building C. Building C must not be built. You have already approved two towers, building A and building B, 26 stories and 29 stories, 16 town houses, and 10,000 square ft of retail space. This is quite enough development for Little Southport Street.”A resident

Also in this item

• The Isabella Street heritage properties are being relocated as part of the development, a material alteration that requires council approval under the Ontario Heritage Act.

• Residents dispute the planning outcome on grounds of infrastructure capacity (sanitary sewer) and housing mix, not heritage conservation, suggesting the heritage approval may advance while planning concerns remain unresolved.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents may depute at future committee or council votes if the item is referred; the transcript shows active opposition suggesting further opportunities may arise.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The listing is time-limited under provincial law to two years unless the property is formally designated, and must occur before any development application is deemed complete.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can contact their Ward 13 councillor before the vote or depute at council if a deputation window is open.

Also in this item

• 72 Henry Street is immediately south of a site under application for a 45-storey mixed-use tower with 545 affordable rental units. The owner of the development site has recently acquired 72 Henry Street. Listing it on the Heritage Register will require a Heritage Impact Assessment for the tower proposal.

• 258 Wallace Avenue and 80 Ward Street are part of a separate Official Plan Amendment application to redesignate the site from Core Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas. The applications trigger the requirement to list on the heritage register before the prescribed event (deemed-complete notice) under the 2023 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can contact their councillor before the vote, and can depute to council if the item is not moved without debate. The vote is likely within days of this agenda publication.

Also in this item

• Demolition would clear a non-contributing building in a heritage conservation district to create new public green space, trading built heritage for park access in a dense downtown ward.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents may depute at City Council before the vote. Contact your Ward councillor to express support or opposition. The heritage aspect may also attract attention from heritage advocacy groups.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents may depute at the City Council meeting or submit written comments before the vote.

Also in this item

• The property is one of only two non-residential contributing buildings in the Harbord Village Phase II Heritage Conservation District, making the loss or alteration of its character particularly significant to the district's identity.

• Staff recommend approval despite the roof addition not conforming to heritage district guidelines that state additions should be rear-located and lower than the existing roof ridge.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

City Council members may be contacted before the vote. If residents wish to speak, check if a public hearing or deputation window is open; the agenda does not state one.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at the City Council meeting (CC43, 2026-07-29) if they have concerns about the proposal's impact on the North Rosedale Heritage Conservation District. Check the council agenda for deputation registration deadlines.

Who did what

• Councillor Dianne Saxe (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) movedReleased the item from hold; moved TE34.72 to pass.

From the floor

“I can release TE34.72, authorization to study the Yorkville Village Core as a potential heritage conservation district.”Councillor Dianne Saxe (Ward 11, University-Rosedale)

Also in this item

• The study will determine whether formal Heritage Conservation District designation is warranted, a status that would impose design controls and restrictions on property modifications in the area.

The journey

What happens next

Residents in or near Yorkville Village can participate in the public consultation phase once the study begins; no further council vote window remains on this authorization itself.

Decision

City Council authorized the study; item TE34.72 was released from hold and passed without amendment.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Lily Cheng (Ward 18, Willowdale) movedMoved the authorization to release Section 37 funds for Ward 18 participatory budgeting park projects
• Councillor Amber Morley (Ward 3, Etobicoke-Lakeshore) secondedSeconded the motion

The journey

What happens next

Residents of Ward 18 can depute to Council (if the window is open) or contact Councillor Lily Cheng or their own councillor before the vote. The agenda is public and the motion text is available; there is no consultation window beyond the earlier participatory budgeting process.

Decision

Section 37 funds were authorized for release to fund Ward 18 participatory budgeting park projects: seating, picnic tables, gazebo, pickleball and ping pong courts, and adult fitness equipment in Willowdale East and Newtonbrook East. The 2026-2035 capital budget was amended to establish the sub-projects and authorize spending.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The closure spans 41 months across a major arterial street in the King West neighbourhood, affecting pedestrians, cyclists, and southbound traffic on Peter Street during peak construction years

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Council vote is imminent. Residents and cyclists affected by the Peter Street corridor closures can contact their councillor before the vote.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at City Council if the item remains on a published agenda with a meeting date. Contact your ward councillor before the vote.

Also in this item

• The closure spans the entire 39-month construction window (July 2026 to September 2029), removing curb and sidewalk access on Dreamers Way for nearly three years.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at City Council (meeting date 2026-07-29); deputation deadline depends on Council's rules, typically 24-48 hours before the meeting. Ward councillors can be contacted before the vote.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Deputation at City Council before the vote; written comment to City Council.

The journey

Decision

City Council authorized the prohibition of northbound left turns and westbound left turns at all times at the temporary construction access on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, approximately 158 metres west of Remembrance Drive, for 36 months from August 1, 2026 to August 1, 2029.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at the Council meeting before the vote, or contact their councillor to express support or opposition before the item is called.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can contact their councillor before the vote or depute at council if the item is called for debate.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Deputation at City Council before the vote; contact your councillor on this item.

The journey

What happens next

Residents of or visitors to the affected developments, or nearby permit parking users, can contact their councillor before the vote if they oppose or support the exclusions. The agenda lists the specific addresses in Attachments 1 and 2.

Decision

Motion to exclude various developments from permit parking eligibility in Toronto and East York was adopted. The transcript does not specify which individual addresses or developments were included in the final list.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents and stakeholders can depute at Council or contact their councillor before the vote.

The journey

What happens next

Residents near Donlands and Aldwych can contact their councillor before the vote. No public deputation window is apparent from the agenda.

Also in this item

• The CNE temporary traffic plan requires City Council approval because the TTC operates transit on Dufferin Street and Springhurst Avenue, triggering a non-delegated report requirement.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents in the Exhibition Place area can depute at City Council before the vote. Local impacts on parking and traffic access during August 21 - September 7 are the relevant evidence.

Also in this item

• The Distillery Winter Village event is scheduled to run Nov 12, 2026 to Jan 3, 2027, overlapping with the holiday season and New Year; traffic management will affect Parliament, Mill, and Front Streets East, which carry TTC transit service.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at City Council before the vote, contact their councillor, or attend the public meeting to comment on the temporary traffic plan.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents who use this intersection or live nearby can contact their councillor before the vote to express support or concerns about the signal installation.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can contact their councillor before the vote or depute at City Council if a public hearing is called.

Also in this item

• Motorists are documented driving onto sidewalks on Crescent Road to circumvent bus congestion and parked vehicles, creating a safety hazard for children walking to school.

• Way-finding apps (Google Maps, Apple Maps, Waze) have measurably increased cut-through traffic through formerly quiet residential areas in Ward 11, according to the councillor's statement.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents of Ward 11 and users of Crescent Road can depute at City Council; comment window typically closes 48 hours before the meeting. Councillors can be contacted before the vote.

Also in this item

• The closure is required because the TTC operates transit service on the street, creating operational constraints that force staging into the public right-of-way rather than allowing private-lot alternatives.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at this City Council meeting (2026-07-29) if the item is called for debate; the closure takes effect September 1, 2026.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• In Fall 2024, the councillor's office successfully negotiated a reduction in dump truck numbers at key intersections and won a commitment from Metrolinx that Strachan Avenue would be used only as a backup route when absolutely necessary.

• Metrolinx recently proposed a new haul route that would allow unrestricted access through the Strachan Gate from both Dufferin and Strachan gates, which city staff have advised would increase truck traffic at the Strachan Avenue and East Liberty Street intersection.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Public Gallery users in Liberty Village ward or with interests in construction impact can contact their councillor before the Council vote. The motion is on a published agenda; if the vote is imminent, contact opportunity is open only through the meeting date.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents in or near the Dundas-Bathurst area, or businesses in the affected block, may depute before this vote. Deputation deadline will close 24 hours before the council meeting.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can contact their councillor or attend public deputation at City Council if they have concerns about this street use change.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents or organizations concerned about sidewalk accessibility or pedestrian space can depute at the Council meeting or contact their councillor before the vote.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Deputation at City Council meeting on 2026-07-29 if the item is debated; contact your Ward 10 or Ward 13 councillor before the vote to express support or opposition.

Who did what

• Councillor Brad Bradford (Ward 19, Beaches-East York) movedReleased the item for vote; item carried unanimously.

Also in this item

• Nine households with no other access to their properties will now receive winter snow clearing and regular road maintenance services, closing a long-standing service gap in Ward 19.

The journey

Decision

Creek Place Laneway reclassified as a local road, eligible for City snow clearing and regular maintenance services.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• A new accessible loading zone at the Davisville aquatic centre addresses mobility access at a new city facility serving residents with disabilities.

The journey

Decision

A motion to designate an accessible loading zone in front of the new Davisville aquatic and community centre was carried. The zone will permit Wheel-Trans and other accessible vehicles to load and unload passengers during peak hours.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

The journey

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• Two paid parking spaces removed from Queen Street West corridor to accommodate accessible loading zone.

The journey

Decision

Accessible loading zone approved on Queen Street West east of Walnut Avenue; two pay-and-display parking spaces will be removed during operating hours.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The stopping prohibition on Old Weston Road south of Ed Clark Gardens, in place since 1999 for a Toronto West Flea Market that no longer operates, is being removed.

The journey

Decision

Permit parking introduced on the east side of Old Weston Road between Davenport Road and St. Clair Avenue West; the all-times stopping prohibition south of Ed Clark Gardens removed.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• The Province cut short the City's usual planning approval process for Ontario Place, creating a gap in standard development oversight, including the absence of a Construction Management Plan that would normally be submitted for all major projects.

• The Martin Goodman Trail, a major multi-use cycling and pedestrian corridor connecting across the city, has been identified by City staff as needing safety improvements and will be affected by Ontario Place construction access.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can monitor whether the Province responds and whether the Construction Liaison Committee is established and functional. No public deputation window evident from the record.

Decision

Council requested that the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Gaming: (1) submit a Construction Management Plan addressing pedestrian and cycling safety, truck routes, and traffic management impacts on Lake Shore Boulevard and the Martin Goodman Trail; (2) establish a Construction Liaison Committee including site users, residents, and businesses for information sharing and transparency during construction.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at this City Council meeting to support or raise concerns about Bremner Boulevard pedestrian safety work, or contact their councillor before the vote.

Who did what

• Councillor Rachel Chernos Lin (Ward 15, Don Valley West) movedMoved the motion directing staff to develop a coordinated Thorncliffe Park plan
• Mayor Olivia Chow secondedSeconded the motion

From the floor

“Thorncliffe Park is a densely populated arrival neighbourhood for newcomers, and we have an opportunity to maximize the benefits from the Ontario Line investment through coordinated planning around housing, jobs, community facilities, and improved mobility”Councillor Rachel Chernos Lin (Ward 15, Don Valley West)

“This motion supports our commitment to transit-oriented development and ensuring newcomer communities benefit from major transit infrastructure investments”Mayor Olivia Chow

Also in this item

• No report-back deadline specified in the motion; the timing and resource allocation for staff to develop the plan are undefined.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at this City Council meeting (2026-07-29) if the item is called for debate; deputation window typically closes at the start of council debate on the item. Contact Councillor Chernos Lin's office or the Mayor's office to express support or concerns before the vote.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• Staff explicitly flag collective bargaining as a prerequisite constraint for any ward-based pilot, signalling early that labour agreement changes may be required.

• The report details the Keep Toronto Beautiful initiative as a recent example of the city's ability to concentrate resources in high-need areas within the current structure, implying the current model already delivers on responsiveness goals without a ward pivot.

The journey

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Also in this item

• A 46-storey purpose-built rental apartment building is proposed for a two-lot site in a neighbourhood that may be zoned for significantly lower density; the applicant's tribunal appeal means the City must now defend its refusal in a formal hearing.

The journey

What happens next

Residents may deputize at council if council permits public speaking on the item. The Ontario Land Tribunal hearing process itself (separate from this council direction) may have its own notice and participation windows; check the OLT.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents can depute at City Council if they wish to speak for or against the designation before the vote.

Also in this item

• The property owner made alterations to a designated heritage property (dentils, brackets, Tudor detailing, porch, windows, masonry coating) without first obtaining a heritage permit, which is required under Ontario Heritage Act Section 42.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Residents or affected parties can depute at the Council meeting to support or oppose the staff recommendation to refuse the permit.

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Deputation at this Council meeting (CC43, 2026-07-29) is the primary lever; written submissions to Council before the vote are also available.

The vote

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

The journey

What happens next

Residents can attend the council meeting to depute, or submit written comments before the vote. The item is on the 2026-07-29 Toronto City Council agenda.

Decision

Approval of demolition of the existing rear garage and construction of a new carport at 6 Whitney Avenue, in accordance with staff recommendation and heritage conservation standards.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

The journey

Decision

Council ordered a staff report on sewer by-law compliance for the 353-357 College Street site plan application, with the General Manager of Toronto Water to lead the investigation in consultation with Transportation Services and Development Review.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Dianne Saxe (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) movedMoved authorization to release Section 45 funds for Elm Street streetscape improvements
• Councillor Rachel Chernos Lin (Ward 15, Don Valley West) secondedSeconded the motion

The journey

Time to act

You can weigh in

Council vote pending; residents may contact their councillor before the vote.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Dianne Saxe (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) movedMoved authorization to release Section 37 funds for protective tree fencing in Yorkville Village
• Councillor Gord Perks (Ward 4, Parkdale-High Park) secondedSeconded the motion

The journey

Decision

City Council carried a motion to waive referral to the Executive Committee and authorize the release of Section 37 greening funds for protective tree fencing on Bloor Street in Yorkville Village.

On video

Jump to this item in the meeting video

Who did what

• Councillor Dianne Saxe (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) movedMoved the motion to study heritage designation for Sneaky Dee's
• Councillor Josh Matlow (Ward 12, Toronto-St. Paul's) secondedSeconded the motion

Also in this item

• Council waived referral to Scarborough Community Council by a two-thirds vote, allowing the study to proceed without delay to that body.

The journey

What happens next

Residents can depute at this Council meeting to support or oppose the heritage study; the meeting date and deputation deadline are not yet published but will appear on the Council agenda.

Decision

Council voted to waive referral to Scarborough Community Council and direct a heritage designation study for Sneaky Dee's at 431 College Street. The motion was moved by Councillor Dianne Saxe and seconded by Councillor Josh Matlow.