Good morning. I am councelor Gourd Perks, the chair of the planning and housing committee. We have quorum. I am now calling meeting meeting 30 to order. Welcome everyone. Today's meeting is being held by video conference and in person at city hall in committee room 1. This meeting is also being livereamed at youtube.com Toronto City Council Live. Although we may be meeting in different locations today, the planning and housing committee would like to acknowledge that the land we are meeting on is the traditional territory of many nations including the Missagas of the Credit, the Anesnab, the Chipoa, the Hodnosoni, and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Matei people. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 with the Missagas of the Credit. If you are registered to speak at today's meeting, please listen for me to call your name. I will call speakers in the order they appear on the list. The list of speakers can be viewed online by visiting the planning and housing committee page at toronto.ca/counsel and clicking the speakers box for today's meeting. If you are present in the room and wish to register on an item, please come up to the glass partition located on my right hand side and a member of the clerk's staff will come to you. Members, the city clerk has uh provided all agenda materials on toronto.ca/counsel and on CMP, the clerk's meeting portal. Clerk's IT staff are available to members if you need help with your devices. I want to remind you to please submit and approve your motions by email. Staff are available at phc toronto.ca to help with motions. Are there any declarations of interest under the municipal conflict of interest act? Seeing none, may I have a motion to confirm the minutes from our meeting of April 14th. Councelor Nunziata. All those in favor opposed. That carries. Okay. Now I need my other piece of paper. Let's do the agenda rundown. Uh PH30.1. Uh there's a speaker on that item. So I'll hold it. PH30.2 Toronto Builds 970 Kipling Avenue zoning bylaw amendment application decision report for approval. I'll just move that. All those in favor opposed that carries. Uh PH30.3 we have speakers. PH30.4 uh 65 through 87 Huward Avenue official plan amendment application appeal report. Uh are there any members of the public wish to make a deputation on this? Seeing none, uh I'll move it. All those in favor? Opposed carried. PH 30.565 Huward notice of intention to designate a property under part 4 section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh see no speakers. So I will move that one as well. All those in favor opposed carried. Uh PH30.6 has deputents. PH30.7 has a deputent. PH30.8 8 has a deputent. PH30.9 the 2026 Toronto Heritage Grant Awards. Second round. Uh we have no deputence on that. So I'll just move it. All those in favor? Post carried. Uh PH 30.10 10 3032 and 308 to 40 Huntley Street and 122 to 124 Isabella Street. Notice of intention to designate a property under part 4 section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Does anyone want to hold that? No. Uh but councelor Myers is eager to move it. So all those in favor opposed carried. Item PH30.11, property included on the city's heritage register. Consideration of objection for 1767 Bay View Avenue, 1773 Bay View Avenue, and 73 Niagara Street. Uh, does anyone wish to hold that? Seeing none, I'll move it. All those in favor? Opposed? Carried. Uh we also have uh a request to add a new business item which we will number PH30.12 re making it easier to build multiplexes. It's a letter from Mayor Chow. Uh can I have a motion to introduce? Councelor Croanti is eager to do that. So councelor Croanti is moving introduction. All those in favor of introducing it. Uh that carries. We'll leave that on the agenda for a little while so members have a chance to read it. So that completes the rundown. That takes us to the top of the agenda. PH30.1 minusing city initi initiated official plan and zoning bylaw amendment and precinct plan update decision report for approval. We have a registered deputent on the item. Uh Mark Richardson. >> I understand. Mark, you're online. Can you hear me? >> I can. Can you hear me? >> I can. Mark. Welcome. Uh you've done this before, so you've got five minutes. You can start when you're ready. >> I will take less than two because I'm speaking on other items later today and I will be there in person later. Uh on behalf of the volunteers at Housing Now TTO, we just wanted to thank Create TTO and Waterfront Toronto on the excellent work on this new plan for Ukraine Mining, formerly known as Villia's Island. Um as some of you who have been around a while will recall, originally the planning for this site back in 2017 was only 4,800 units of housing. Um it came back with an additional housing and a higher affordable housing target in uh 2023 early 2023. At that time we recommended to get to 30% affordable housing you would need approximately 12,000 units of total housing on UK mining bills in order to deliver um the affordable housing requirement that you need. And as you will see from the staff report before you today, you have just over 12,000 units of total housing. Um, so it's taken us nine years from that 2017 report. Uh, but we now have $3 billion for a new transit line um in the in that area as well. Um, we want to move as fast as we can on these projects while we have some stability in the federal government um and their current desires to use Build Canada homes to support new developments near transit. So, u just a thank you for listening to our advice and you'll be hearing similar advice to go bigger, move faster on other items later this morning. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for the deputent? Okay, I'm just going to mark my calendar. Today is the day Mark Richardson thanked the Toronto Public Service. Um, are there any questions or speakers on the item? No. Uh, okay then I'll move it. And you have my thanks as well. >> Question for staff. >> Sure. Go ahead. Um, I know that uh staff is uh following up on the motion that I moved to uh to better understand the impact on um the proposed housing uh in the new neighborhood uh uh as a result of um uh the prospect of jets being introduced to Billy Bishop Airport. Uh but I was just wondering if staff uh even at this stage can uh provide us just some feedback on you know what is being proposed. Um is is there a general understanding that if the flight path needs to be changed uh to accommodate jets at Billy Bishop? Um uh is there is there is there a reasonable suggestion that uh the housing targets could be affected along with uh schemes to um to achieve uh more affordable housing units as well. So through the chair, I wouldn't be able to confirm that at this point. That's the direction that we were given and we were working on a report back in June as to whether or not any changes at the airport would affect the flight pass and which would then have a carry-on effect in terms of um building envelopes that would be permitted. What we've got in front of you today is in keeping with the current flight path requirements. Um but I wouldn't be able to comment uh yet. That will come forward in June as to whether or not there's any implications as a result. But just to be clear, like that's the current flight path requirements, but if the flight path requirements change to accommodate uh jets flying out of the island, there is a possibility that this plan in front of us could change as well. >> So through the chair, that's what we're looking at in the June report back. Um both in terms of if the if there's uh any implications of the flight path change in terms of of length, direction, orientation, any of those sorts of things. Uh so yes, that's work that will be bringing back in June. Based on what we what we have, we again we still don't have any specific plans. Um so we will we will do the best to kind of identify whether there's any impacts based on the information we have with on on >> and lastly on that on that uh that that that path of of questions. Um has there to your knowledge has there been an actual aside from the premier's announcement uh that he wants to uh expropriate city lands and remove it from the tripartite agreement? Has there been an actual plan that anyone has actually read uh to be able to review uh what the impact might be of the announcement? So, we have not seen any specific plans to this date. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other questions of staff? Seeing none, uh does anyone wish to speak to the item? Councelor Matlow. Um this this is a very exciting plan. Um >> could you do me a favor and move it? >> Oh, sure. I'll move it. Thank you. Uh very happy to move it. And uh um uh this has been decades in the making. Decades and decades in the making um with um with a new park, a new neighborhood, pedestrianized street, uh more housing options for more people uh along with affordable housing for those who need it. Um, this is turning a what was an industrial area um and then a really vapid vacant space into a new vibrant neighborhood for people. And uh and I want to acknowledge all the work from uh from city staff along with all their other partners uh to achieve this dream. and it hasn't been fully achieved yet, but it's it's one heck of a long way from where it began. And uh so I just want to really acknowledge the the creativity, the thoughtfulness, um the uh and the very hard work that so many people have put into this. The reason I asked those questions though that I am very concerned about how decades of work, thoughtful, evidence-based work, uh, with so many partners that has finally finally arrived at this point where we're we're ready to launch a new neighborhood that all these plans could be shattered and have to be rethunk. and many drawing boards will have to be revisited, including ways to provide more affordable housing units within the new housing supply. If all of a sudden a unilateral edict from above at Queens Park just dismantles all these years of of good planning. It it it it the fact that nobody here, including the chief planner, has been provided a proposal, a plan to actually understand what the impacts might be is really concerning to me. Um because we've already heard that there's a plan to introduce jets to Billy Bishop has it's already been announced as a as a fact by the premier and he's already announced legislation moving forward to expropriate lands on the Toronto Islands and in Baths Key in the waterfront neighborhoods. Um, but there's been and and we do know, we don't need to theorize. We know the Navan will say that the flight path will have to change if jets are introduced. And we know that it will have an impact on the height of these buildings and the number of units that can be provided to this new neighborhood which we already know will impact the plan that we are discussing today. Now how much how much it'll impact and exactly how many units will be removed and how many affordable units will be lost and the impact to the entire plan we don't know yet. And Mr. Thorne was correct like we need we need a plan to actually read so that we can understand what the reality will be but um I'll just you know just say that I hope that if the province is true to its word that it wants to meet its housing targets it will work with us rather than add us on the future of this vibrant new neighborhood. And I also believe that Prime Minister Carney also wants to achieve the federal government's housing targets and will do everything they can to ensure that whatever plan moves forward will support this vision for Ukamin Mining along with the vision for the rest of the waterfront working with waterfront to introduce new parks, recreational opportunities, a new exciting vision for exhibition place and the entire waterfront. together, including Humber Bay to the Scarbor Bluffs. Um, so I move this because I'm excited about this vision, this aspirational vision that has so much substance work been put into it, but I really hope that it's not derailed by some unilateral announcement that has not been thought through. Thank you. >> Thank you. I just wanted to uh add a couple of remarks to that. Um so to waterfront staff and planning staff, you just want to echo uh th that thanks. This is a really remarkable piece of city building and I just wanted to include uh councelor Fletcher in the praise. Uh those of you who have worked with councelor Fletcher uh will know that uh she is uniquely determined in uh this city building enterprise and has really done a lot to improve uh inch by inch, mile by mile uh this work and it's a real achievement for all of us on council. Uh it's rare that uh an urban municipality like ours uh gets a whole new neighborhood and the the amount of care, thoughtfulness, and determination that have gone into getting us to this point has really been something to see. So thanks to all who've been involved. And with that, uh anyone else to speak? No. We'll just vote. All those in favor opposed that carries. That takes us now to uh PH 30.3 which is 3838 Blure Street West official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application decision report. We have a number of deputants before we begin the item. I'd like to make a few comments as chair. The planning and housing committee welcomes comments from the me from members of the public in writing and as presenters at our meetings. We understand individuals are passionate and committed to their views on a given subject. Hearing from the public is a very important part of how local democracy works. As chair of the committee, I am required to enforce some rules for public presentations in accordance with council's procedures. I want to remind everyone today uh of those rules. Public presenters to committee must not speak disrespectfully about anyone, must not use offensive language, and speak only about the subject on which the committee is invited to make a invited them to make a public presentation. On this last point, I just want to be clear. Um, what we have in front of us is a proposal, a zoning proposal. And so this is about the size and shape of the building, uh how the it fits into the physical context of the neighborhood, those kinds of land use planning questions. And we're really eager to hear any thoughts you have on those questions. We're not uh discussing any other item at that at this moment. Okay. So we'll dive in. Uh, the first deputent we have is Andrea Pasti. Pashti. Did I get that even close? Pasti. >> Welcome. Uh, make yourself comfortable. Make sure that you tap the button in front of you till it turns green. Yeah. And you've got five minutes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Hi, welcome everybody and thank you for inviting me to the planning and housing committee and welcome city council members and members of the community and giving us this time. I'm here with Grace Kowali. She will not be speaking but represents street haven as well. So, my name is Andrea Pasti and I am the executive director at Street Haven and we are GTA based women- centered organization that provides emergency shelter, supportive housing, mental health supports, training, employment services, and other services to women experiencing homelessness, trauma, addictions, and poverty. As the shelter operator, I'm here to support this proposal and the zoning changes that have been brought forward. The city's own streets needs assessment confirms what we see every single day on the ground. There is a significant shortage of women's specific shelter spaces in the GTA. More women are living unsheltered or cycling between unsafe situations that we we have spaces available for. At our current sites, we see this every day. We serve more women on the streets seeking shelter than women already housed with us. And our beds are at capacity every single night. That reality means women are routinely turned away at the door, not because the need isn't urgent, but because the space simply does not exist. >> Andrea, yes. >> Do you have any thoughts on the zoning matter in front of us? >> I was segueing right to that. This is why the zoning matters. Absolutely. The difference between a two-story and four-story building is not cosmetic. It is the difference between meeting and continuing to fall short. The two-story structure would severely limit capacity and functionality at a time when demand for women onlyly shelter and supportive space has never been higher. Importantly, the proposal for an additional two stories does not just provide more beds. It allows for better space, better planning, and better outcomes. There have been concerns related to the increased capacity including medications on site unsafess of the clientele and we can assure you that as the provider with these additional spaces added those concerns can be mitigated. The proposed adjustments also include um areas of the loading space and waste disposal area. These areas will be at the rear of the building. We are ensuring that they're not at the front outside of public view. And this will also minimize traffic congestion and visually put these areas out of the front of the building. Most importantly with the zoning changes are the additional floors. I have to emphasize that these outdoor spaces, other planned amenities that are essential, absolutely essential in order to create common spaces for clients and staff and additional shelter beds. This space provides congregate areas for clients to use, increases programming space, keeps clients engaged in meaningful activities because a shelter is more than just a bed. These floors are absolutely critical to provide those adjunct and integrated services that Street Haven provides. The goal is to have these women within the community employed in a meaningful way and productive. So these shelter proposed changes are critical steps in preventing homelessness and ensure the shelter runs effectively as well as safely. So in closing, approving fourstory zoning amendments is not just a technical planning decision. It is a decision about whether our zoning enables us to respond to reality. Right now the reality is this. There are more women seeking safety than there are spaces available and the smaller overcrowded buildings are not the answer. So I urge the committee to please approve the application as proposed zoning amendments at 3838 Street West. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. >> Thank you Andrea. Are there any questions for Andrea? Councelor Myers, >> thank you. Uh, thank you for your deputation. So, I just reading some of the letters that came in with this item and one of the things that uh I noticed was that the one of the um residents or business owners I think wrote about the safety in the shared lane way or shared driveway. And I'm just wondering if you have any plans to address that. >> Absolutely. So, just to give a little context, the previous long-term care facility that was there had 10 parking spaces. We will have three, and that won't even be for staff, and none of our clients will be using vehicles or house vehicles at the site. So, we'll actually be reducing the traffic flow and the congestion. Also, as I mentioned with the loading spaces and the um stopping spaces for unloading and loading foods and critical supplies will be at the rear of the building, and that's part of the zoning changes is to move those. So the congestion will be mitigated. The laneway will only be used for through traffic and even that will be minimized even less than previous use. >> And is the lane way going to have certain uh anti antisocial behavior deterrence like lighting things like that to keep like certain activities out of it? >> Absolutely. That's I I did see that concern as well and it's it's a fair concern when you increase populations in an area that is something that comes up. Um access control is being planned um very thoughtfully for the building but also around the building. Absolutely. Lighting, we will have 247 security around the building as well. Really increasing the safety of the neighborhood. Um and it's not just for the shelter that will protect the area in in general. Um, so the lighting, access control, security, patrols around the area, and we're open to suggestions on any other improvements that we can do. But we are 61 years in shelter operations, so we're very experienced at how to keep um shelters safe and the community safe with these buildings. >> Thank you very much. >> Any other questions for the deput? No. Andrea, thank you so much. And and I understand from you that Grace doesn't need to speak. No, Grace. Okay. >> Spoke on both. Thanks for being here, though. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh, next I have Soa Dwarte. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> So, I understand you're online. Can you speak up? >> Hi. >> Hey, there you are. Welcome. Um, so you've got five minutes to address the committee. You can start as soon as you're ready. >> Okay. So then I apologize to all of you because when I provide my phone number and attendant to this meeting, uh, my intention was to be present, not to actively participate. But um as a member of the Wwood Neighborhood Association, I have to all obviously raise my voice regarding this. I hear that I hear and we understand as a community that there is a need for shelter, right? We don't denying that. However, what we are concerned is based on the experience other shelters have brought to the communities where they are located. Right? So, um we are okay with the current size of the facility. What we are objecting is the increase of the capacity. Okay. Uh I understand that the intention is to provide more service to those that are not capable to help themselves but my my question and the question for the community is how 20 new 28 new beds will make a big difference right uh neighbors are very worried about this there are new building business around the facility that are going to impacted. We have a schools is a high traffic and moreover what worries us also is the proximity to the hydro field that we want to avoid as much as possible having camping right and also uh currently we have a situation with some homeless in the area that have impacted negatively some business around the area. So that's that is our position and this is why we said we are against the extension. We are okay with the size of the facility as it is today. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for the deputent? >> Mr. Chair, may I ask a question please? >> Councelor Holiday, welcome. Uh certainly go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh good morning uh Sabita. It's Steven Holidayiday, uh, counselor of W 2 at Tobokco Center. Um, thank you for speaking. Could you explain to the committee a little bit about the Wedgewood Association and and who you are and how you know about this um this development project? >> Okay. Westwood organization is um is a effort we did in the community to group neighbors to try to be a voice and representation to in this case of situation right is uh the proximity of members we are around 70 uh to 80 members the scope is Berntor South, Blue North, Keepling West, and um Ismo East. >> Right. >> Thank you. And it's safe to say for the the committee members that aren't familiar, you are uh one of the local resident associations that are close to this shelter. I mean, that's your interest. >> Go ahead. Now, can you you tell me, you know, with anything, people have different ideas and opinions, and there's different ideas about the use of the shelter that we're not talking about today, but there's also opinions on the changes on balance in the catchment area and the people that you've interacted with. Would you say the majority of people are opposed to this or significantly? I mean, how would you describe that to the committee? >> Well, in the fairness, right? Because as I said before not we understand the necessity right but we also understand that how this is going to impact if I am fair I will say that is 7030 70% again 30% in favor >> thank you one last question just to help uh the committee members understand a little bit about the community one of the criticisms I've heard is that there's very little parking being provided. If you're a business or a resident in this area, uh what options do you have if you need to have more parking than you can physically accommodate on your site or is there very many options? >> The question goes to me. >> Oh yes, please. just to help the committee members understand from a local perspective. >> Well, in in the area there are kind of 10 business and the parking spot in the area is very limited even for the current business. So then I assume the other options are going to be the street. I don't you know there is no other option. >> Correct. Thank thank you very much for speaking to the committee today. Thank you Mr. Thank you. Any other questions for the deputent? Seeing none, uh we'll move along to our next deputent, Michelle Verhaven. Hi, Michelle. Welcome. And start whenever you're ready. >> Thank you. Um good morning. My name is Michelle Verhaven. Thank you for allowing me to address the committee this morning. It is with great understanding I speak to you regarding this topic. I have taken some time to look at the plans and the pictures and ideas proposed by the city of Toronto. It is phenomenal. The model proposed will give those in need and in crisis a chance to become a part of the community and begin their lives again, a chance to rebuild. No one sets out to be in a shelter. Some people in today's society call it the system. I was in a shelter. two in fact since 2024. The first night I remember being in ship service housing and project. I cried. I was told that once you were in the system you would never get out. Most were diagnosed with a mental illness or a drug addiction. I was neither. I was determined to get out of the shelter and I did after the mandatory 14 days. I left for an Airbnb taking no advice from the counselors but setting out on my own. My life went on. I landed in Atobbico South, renting a room through Sparrow, committing to volunteering in my new found community at Daily Bread Food Bank while looking for employment. I became homeless once again this summer. After a month in another Airbnb in Missaga, while keeping up volunteering during the day and through a series of events, I was pascued and placed at Sacred Hand Canada. The night before, I prayed for a rescue, a miracle. PE regional police brought me there. I was allowed to bring all my things and have a bed every night. Although it wasn't an open area, a shared space. I was stable, getting meals and a shower. In addition, I was given the opportunity to do my laundry. During my time in the shelter in the summer of 2025, I found a room to rent via roomies.ca. And then eventually, I moved into my own apartment. For the first time in three years, I have what others would deem as very little. I have my own home. I have a community. I have a relationship, friends. I volunteer at the assembly hall, Princess Margaret Cancer Walk, and Journey to Conquer Cancer in addition to the Carnival Wellness Run. While still looking for employment, I have rebuilt my life here in South Atobico. It is possible. Homelessness is not a statistic. It is human. >> Sure. >> Providing stability is what a shelter should be. >> Hi. The definition of a shelter is a refuge, a home offering safety to protect. When someone, anyone, single, couples or family enter a shelter, it is for those reasons to state that having a shelter in your community, in your neighborhood, is saying you don't want people to have a home, safety, or refuge. What is being proposed and offered is an answer to a problem that has become a plague on today's society. In one of the richest nations and one of the richest cities of the world, when we cannot house those in need and provide safety, a refuge, or protect those who are the most in need, then what are we saying about our city, our nation, or us as humanity? There is a saying that I learned when I was teaching preschool. It takes a village to raise a child, but it also takes a village to help those in need. Ignoring and turning a blind eye to those in need explodes an already expansive situation. These proposed models are not offering just a night of solace and a meal. They are offering a transition from what has become uncertainty in people's lives. They are offering stability and freedom. the freedom to make choices that will give each person a chance to become productive and essential parts of the city in which they live and to become an asset to the community in which they live and to build their lives again. Thank you for allowing me to speak. >> Thank you, Michelle. Um, we really appreciate your sharing your your personal story. I just want to remind members of the public, we're not debating whether shelters are good or bad here. We're looking at the the zoning for this particular site. >> Yeah. But we do appreciate you sharing your story. >> Thank you. I appreciate it as well. >> Any questions for Michelle? Councelor Myers. >> Sorry. >> Not a question but a comment. Just thank you for sharing your story. It was very powerful and moving. >> Thank you very much. >> Um the next deputent we have is Tadius Sherlock. Welcome. Testing. All good. All right. Thank you. My name is Thaddius Sherlock. I work with the South I am deputing here on behalf of the South Atobbico Shelter Support Network. You may otherwise know us as the Atobico Lake Shore Shelter Support Coalition. and we advocated last year for the shelter at located 66 Third Street which is now under construction. Anyways, regarding 304 3848 Blur Street West, the site is currently zoned um it's act it actually bisects two sites right now which are zoned CL and um second density residential under the former city of Atobico bylaw number 11,747. mouthy, I know, but um the ladder classification does not currently permit dwellings above two stories. So, it is essential that this um these parcels be brought into the amalgamated city of Toronto's official plan and particularly um the proposal com conforms with the atobico center secondary plan. It falls within mixeduse area B which allows for a range of commercial, residential and institutional uses and pedestrianoriented heights along that section of Blur Street West. The reasonzoning is fairly mild and seeks to only add a few stories to the structure and the city is also seeking an exemption from the retail requirements in the secondary plan. So, we um support and urge um the city and urge the committee to exempt the site from those retail requirements in order to build the planned HSCIS shelter to serve women surviving gender-based violence. Um for Vermore, the site does is while is not directly served by a public transit route, it is close to a bus stop for two bus stops for the TTC and for my way um routes along Bor Street West 49 and the My Way Free at Auckland Blore. And it is also served to the east by a bus stop serving the 45 Kipling 945 Kipling Express and 46 Martin Grove bus routes. And the site is also in walking distance to Kipling station on the TTC line and its various buses that serve that terminal. Kipling transit hub for the Missaga transit myway system and its various buses and the Kipling Go station on the Milton GO line. As such, it would greatly benefit the residents to be within walking distance of this public transit and the new Toco Civic Center and various buildings being constructed under the Atoco I mean the Kipling housing now now Toronto builds proposal. As such, I think that will constitute a walkable transit oriented community that will serve um future residents well. And it is essential that we upzone the site both in order to fall within the secondary plan and to serve um unhoused women who are experiencing intimate partner violence um gender- based violence um in order to bring dignity to them, to our city, and to generally advance the goals of the official plan. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for Thaddius? No. Thank you so much for your deputation. Uh, next I have Melissa Wong. >> Melissa, I understand you're online. >> Hi Melissa, welcome. >> Hello everyone. Chair. Hello. >> Yep, we got you. Uh hello chair and members of the planning and housing committee. My name is Melissa Wong. I am speaking today on behalf of Social Planning Toronto. We are a nonprofit and charitable organization dedicated to addressing inequity in our city through research, policy analysis, civic engagement, advocacy, and collaboration. And I'm here to speak in support of the proposal for resoning in an official plan amendment at 3838 Blur Street West. And also speak to why the proposed shelter is an appropriate use of the site. As you know, homelessness in Toronto is at a critical point. We simply do not have enough shelter space. Every night, over 150 people are turned away from the city's emergency shelter system. The city calls these individuals unmatched callers. But they are real people, women, men, and children, non-binary individuals that do not have a place to go when nightfalls. These are not people that only exist in downtown Toronto. They are individuals living in all parts of the city. And if they lose their housing or need to leave their home because it becomes unsafe, they need to be able to access shelters in their neighborhoods close to their community. Toronto is making progress to address this reality through the homelessness services capital infrastructure strategy, a plan to build 1600 permanent shelter spaces by 2033 that will create safe, secure shelter spaces that are integrated into local communities. Delaying the building of any of the shelters in this plan is truly a life and death decision. In Toronto, life expectancy for women experiencing homelessness is worsening. The median age at death drop has dropped from 44 years in 2022 to now 36 years in 2025. The staff recommendations in the report before you demonstrate that the proposed shelter is consistent with the city's planning policies for the local neighborhood, including the attopico center secondary plan. The provincial policy statement calls for a full range of housing options in every community and emergency shelter which this proposal fulfills. The proposal also conforms to the Toronto official plan housing Toronto's official plan housing policies as well as a built form in the public realm policies. The property is well served by transit res reducing the need for on-site parking. In reviewing the report report, it is evident that the city staff have determined the proposed building and the proposed use are a good fit for this location and a clear indication that this proposal should be approved by city council. Over the past couple of years, we've seen local communities raise concern that raise concerns that services for unhoused residents will somehow make their communities unsafe or that their neighborhood is the wrong place for a shelter. I encourage these individuals to reach out to resident groups who have also held these views, but then were able to welcome new shelters and supportive housing into their neighborhoods and have experienced how this type of housing can make a community. We know these conversations can be hard and challenging when a change is coming to your neighborhood. And that's why we created a discussion guide to help have positive conversations about homelessness and help communities members to understand that homelessness is a systemic issue, not an individual issue, and how it can support and benefit neighborhoods by having more services available, not fewer. Across Toronto, we've seen that communities become safer when residents feel welcome, included, and are able to participate fully in community life. As members of the planning and housing committee and city council, you each have a responsibility to approve the recommendations in this report. Not only because it includes a strong planning rationale, but also because it fulfills city council's commitments to create safe, welcoming shelter spaces and that are integrated into local communities. We also encourage city staff to move quickly to remove the holding conditions so this this shelter can be opened as soon as possible. In closing, I strongly support this application and we urge the committee to approve the report before you today. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for Melissa? Seeing none, um >> sorry, sir. This is for members of the committee to have questions. Uh seeing none, Melissa, thank you so much. The next deputent we have listed is B. Marie >> B. Hi, I understand you're online. Can you hear me? Hi Ken, are you able to hear me? >> Hi B, welcome. >> Hello. Are you able to hear me? >> Yes, we can. You've got five minutes. You can start when you're ready. >> Excellent. Thank you so much. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I go by V. Um, and I'm here to express my full support for the shelter project at 3838 Blur Street West. This new shelter, which will be operated by Street Haven, an organization with more than 60 years of experience doing women- centered work, is such a critical step in preventing homelessness, and making our city a better place to live for everyone. Uh, this zoning proposal is important, and I strongly support the additional floors, outdoor space, and other planned adjustments. Um, I work as a communications officer for the Toronto Dropin Network where I do deeply meaningful community work with some of Toronto's most diverse and vulnerable folks. Um, I volunteer in my community. I'm an active member in advocacy groups all working towards a city where we can all thrive. And I wouldn't be able to do any of this work if I didn't have stable housing. And the truth of it is like for a long time I didn't. I was unhoused. These zoning changes are essential in providing space for women to escape cycles of poverty. That's four stories uh where women can feel like they belong. Um I accessed permanent housing this January for the first time in three years. I'm a survivor of intimate partner violence and I'm three years into my recovery journey. Uh I was what is often referred to as hidden homeless. So I lived out of my backpack and I slept on couches and floors for three years. Um, I couldn't escape the cycle of poverty that I was stuck in and no one knew. Um, people don't know what they can't see. But with this, we have an opportunity. The proposed outdoor space is important for shelter staff and clients well-being. Um, I think that we can all agree that access to outdoor space is important for everyone. Um, and I think it's also important that we recognize like prioritizing well-being over parking is important. Um, having loading space and waste disposal areas at the rear of the building makes sense. There are lots of businesses and restaurants and residential buildings that have this. This is something that's very doable in Toronto. So, a shelter can have this, too. it will create space for safety in and around the building. Um, and the additional floors just provide space for people. It seems really contradictory for people to say that they don't want to see people on the street and then also oppose additional floors at a shelter. Um, there's so many women and gender diverse people in our city who share a story just like mine. And sadly, it's it's not a unique experience. There are so many women and trans and non-binary folks without secure permanent housing. The median age of death of an unhoused woman in our city is 36 years old. And that's devastating. That's systemic failure, not individual failure. And I fully appreciate that shelters are only one key element of preventing homelessness in our city. There's so many moving parts, but it's an entry point for permanent housing. and these proposed changes that makes that possible for so many women. You have an opportunity today to demonstrate what true leadership is, right? Prioritizing and championing for people in Toronto, not just some of them, but all of them. And our neighbors who are seeking safety and shelter are just that. They're our neighbors, and they're no less worthy of compassion and care. So, I'm asking you to please support the shelter project at 3838 West, Blur Street West, and prioritize the safety and dignity of women in need. Thanks so much for your time. >> Thank you so much, B. Are there any questions, Councelor Myers? >> Again, not a question, just to thank you for coming and sharing your story. Uh yes it it does matter when people come and share their lived experiences with the committee and I thank you for your bravery and courage. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much be that was very helpful. Uh we'll move to the next deputent uh Callum Houston. Good morning, Callum. If you swipe your the button in front of you till it turns green. >> Oh, there we go. >> Okay. >> Um, good morning, uh, chair and committee members. Uh, thank you for uh, listening to me speak. My name is Callum Houston. I'm from uh, Dawn Valley East and I'm speaking I'm here to speak in favor of the zoning recommendations. I support any shelters that are going uh, especially those to help uh, women who are are looking for need shelter and to escape uh, domestic violence. the shelter is already uh permitted. It's now just getting rid of getting rid of the real estate uh part of it. So I support uh again the recommendations and I urge council to or committee to continue uh expanding these shelters. Uh the more we have the better it is. It allows people to get back on their feet uh to get supports uh for whatever issues that they may be facing. Uh I don't expect I don't understand how we can expect people to do everything on their own. Um when th so much is thrown at us. A lot of people uh are benefit from the the shelter system when housing continues to become more unaffordable and uh the price of groceries are going up and jobs are withering away. So yes, I again once for the fourth time I support the recommendations here in the report and uh I'm going to sue my time because there's probably more qualified speakers to talk. >> Thank you so much. Are there any questions for Callum? No. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today. Uh, Rachel Chen, >> Rachel, I understand you're online. Um, >> yes, >> there you go. Hi. Welcome. >> Hello. Hi. Thanks again for having me. Um, I'm Rachel and I am here as a member. Oh, I am here as a member of More Neighbors Toronto, which is a volunteer organization of housing advocates. Wearing this shirt. There we go. Um, I'm seeking in favor of this official plan and zoning bylaw amendment because as the chair emphasizes, this isn't a meeting about whether or not a shelter should be built, but a resoning application. As another More Neighbors volunteer has said in their letter, Toronto has too many contradicting policies, adding layers of confusing, unnecessary bureaucracy that are supposed to make it easier for us to build things, but instead keep leading to meetings like this one that seem to allow for more tension to build within the city between people who do and do not support building shelters. This leaves people who need housing waiting um and it's a life or death sentence for so many of them. So given the existing policy mixed east land area that this is in the Tobago center area and also PMTSA I have no other words to describe this bureaucracy but as silly and so I please urge the um committee to approve this motion so the shelter can be built as soon as possible with four stories without the need for um retail etc. Like we we create our own rules and going forward I would like the city to stop getting in its own way to become a better city. Um and that is all. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Uh are there any questions for Rachel? No. Seeing none, Rachel, thank you for your deputation today. Uh next I have Peter Martin. I saw Peter. There he is. Hi, Peter. Welcome again. So, uh, I'm sure it will come as no surprise that the Toronto Alliance End Homelessness is fully in support of this proposal. Um, I'm the housing solutions manager for the organization. Uh, there's a number of things that need to be recognized here in relation to both the uh, official plan and the zoning bylaws and the amendments which are before you. Um the shelter itself is a permitted use in this uh on this site and the use itself is a compatible use with the commercial and re residential uh neighborhood that it's in. Um, I'd also like to point out that um, it's the opinion of staff that there is not necessarily a need for this official plan amendment that the uh, current use is compatible with the uh, with the official plan uh, with regard to the community space uh, that's going to be incorporated into this building. But out of out of an abundance of caution, the recommendation is that there be an OPA for this. Um, I'd also note that the uh the proposal before you conforms not only to the official plans housing policy uh but also with regard to its built form. Um, in terms of the height of the building that's being proposed, the the increase of height to four stories, I'd note a number of things. One is that this is an it's not non it's non-trivial but it's not a significant increase in height when you look at the uh the permissions as of right uh on this site. Um, for example, up to six stories for uh the residential component, let alone the additional height on the uh the front part of the site where the the uh the avenues uh zoning is uh is is relevant. I'd also point out that uh it is in a protected major transit station area and the city in following the direction of the provincial government is moving to amend the bylaws to allow even higher density on sites such as this. And I would suggest that uh that a fourstory building on this site is far less of a has far less of an impact on the neighborhood than a 20story building which would ultimately be permitted under the uh under the major transit station area uh zoning that's anticipated. There have been some concerns uh about uh privacy but these are I think uh visiated by the design elements with regard to the rear portion of the building. Uh there will be uh few windows. There will be uh light wells to provide light but not direct oversight of uh residential neighborhoods. and also the fact that there was a long-term care site uh as a previous use long-term care uh uh building as a previous use on this site. My understanding is it had approximately 16 residents. And I would just make the point that uh when you look at staff to resident ratios for a long-term care home compared to a shelter, it's a little over twice the number of residents. But the uh the staff to uh to resident ratio is not going to be doubling. It's probably going to be quite similar. And as such, the issue of congestion is not necessarily a novel one. We're replacing one use with a certain level of congestion with another use with a similar level. Uh also, I'd point out that there's also a difference between uh a long-term care home and the shelter. we're not going to be having visitors uh using the space and uh the staff are generally going to be using transit to uh to come to their uh their place of work. Um finally, I'd just like to to highlight something that was in the more ne more neighbors Toronto deputation about some of the concerns about the tensions between newer city policies and older secondary plans. Um, as a recovering lawyer, I can tell you that statutory interpretation is that the new ousts the old. And I think that there needs to be um a recognition at while we're going through these transitional periods when um when uh these changes are being implemented and amended that the general intent with regard to this type of site and zoning part pertaining to shelters uh should be recognized and taken into consideration. Notwithstanding the fact that those amendments have not yet reached council. Um unless there are any questions, those are my submissions. >> Thank you, Peter. Uh councelor Nunziata has a question for you. >> Yeah. So, just a question. So, previously it was a long-term care facility. Okay. And I didn't hear how many beds. Uh >> um from my understanding of doing some research online, there were 16 beds and 14 washrooms. So we I assume that there were 16 residents uh and that's the minimum anyway. So >> and then family of course coming to visit, right? >> Yes, exactly. So you have people coming to visit and they're and and now that's not necessarily going to be happening in relation to the shelter. So, um, was it a private private long-term care that was there previously or like I do not just leave or do you know what? I do not know the nature of the of that but I I would just point out that irrespective of the ownership we're talking about people coming to the site u whether it's one or the other and that those um those visits as visitors will decrease by definition and as I was uh stated earlier the the ratio of of staff the number of staff I should say that will be in the shelter it would probably be a fairly reasonably equal number or equivalent number to the staff for the long-term care home. Even though there's 40 as opposed to 16, the ratio of staff would be higher, I would I think reasonably expected for a long-term care facility. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions for Peter? I see your recovering lawyer joke counselor Myers out of the room. >> Thank you. Um, the final deputent I have listed is Leslie Gash. >> Good morning, Chair Perks and members of the Planning and Housing Committee. My name is Leslie Gash and I'm the executive director of the Toronto Shelter Network. TSN connects and supports Toronto's homeless homelessness service providers and prioritizes working alongside people with lived experience of housing, ensuring their voices, insights, and needs shape how services. Oh, sorry. Okay. How services are designed and delivered. Together, we support emergency shelters, respbits, and women's 24-hour dropins across Toronto to more effectively meet the needs of people experiencing homelessness. This is one of six municipal shelters put forward in July 2025 as part of the homelessness services capital infrastructure strategies 10-year plan to deliver 20 new purpose-built shelters containing 1,600 permanent beds by 2033. All six sites are already zoned to permit municipal shelters as of right. The amendments for 3838 blower are required to accommodate sight specific standards such as height and removing the requirement for retail at grade. We need to continue to expedite the redevelopment of city-owned sites and acquire new sites in all wards of the city. We're encouraged to see that the amendments have been drafted to ensure each site can be repurposed to become supportive or affordable housing as community needs evolve in the future. I'm here to speak in support of the zoning bylaw amendment for 3838 Blur Street West, which is necessary to enable the proposed shelter operated by Street Haven to function effectively on this site. From a planning and operational perspective, our member agencies have consistently seen that adequate indoor and outdoor spaces are critical to how shelter sites function on a day-to-day basis. When buildings are designed with sufficient common areas and programming space, activities are able to take place within the site rather than in surrounding public areas. This supports a more efficient use of the site and helps reduce pressures on sidewalks and nearby properties. The proposed additional floors are important to make the building function well. They create space for indoor common areas for clients and staff along with properly designed outdoor space. By locating the outdoor space on higher levels and orienting it toward Blur Street rather than nearby homes, the design helps reduce reduce overlook and limits visual impacts on the surrounding residential area. These spaces support daily activities and help create a sense of community on site, keeping activity within the building rather than the surrounding public realm. Just as importantly, they allow the building to function as a complete well- functioning site where programming, recreation, and social connection can hap happen in appropriate dedicated spaces. From a planning standpoint, these design choices contribute to a more predictable and well-managed site. For the surrounding community, this means fewer impacts in adjacent public spaces, reduced con uh congestion at the front entrance, and a building that is better integrated into its contexts. For residents, it means access to spaces that support routine connection and stability, elements that are directly shaped by the physical design of the building. The site layout further reflects good planning practice, locating, loading, locating, loading, servicing, and waste areas at the rear of the building, reduces visual impact along Blue Street, and helps maintain safer, more consistent traffic flow while keeping these functions out of primary public view. Overall, the requested zoning changes support a development that is well organized, functional, and responsive to its surroundings. They help enable a building that fits well within its context, operates effectively, and minimizes impacts while creating well-designed, meaningful spaces for the people who use it. We support the recommendations in this report and urge the committee to adopt them. This is a sound process and sound planning. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for Leslie? Seeing none, Leslie, thank you so much. Um, that completes our list of deputants. Are there any questions of staff? >> Council, >> thank you. May I proceed? >> Y, >> thank you. Uh, to staff, um, can you confirm you can open a shelter at this site today? Is that correct >> through the chair? Yes, you could. >> Why have you not opened a shelter today? to you, chair. Um, this site was acquired. Uh, we could open a shelter there uh today. However, we're undertaking uh redesign and redevelopment so that we can accommodate more people on the site um to adhere to our shelter guidelines and assist more people getting out of the shelter hotels that we are desperate to leave. >> So, Mr. Tanner, this site was acquired with the intention uh to build something bigger from day one. Is that correct? >> The site was acquired uh with an understanding of of of what could be possible on the site. It did meet our requirements in terms of space uh and and that's why it was acquired. >> Thank you. Um can staff tell me and I'm sorry I don't know who to direct the question to. If the building is proposed at 13.9 m in height, why is the permission being granted for s for 19 meters? Through the chair um as we were evaluating the uh proposal, we were looking at um the route the city has taken in terms of um a certain number of factors. So for major streets for apartment buildings, one of our standards that the city has brought forward is that 19 meters is appropriate um on those sites. Uh I would also say that if you were to look to the front portion of the site that um is mixed use there, we actually could support taller heights along an avenue of a onetoone relationship with blur uh up to 27 meters, but we decided to keep it at 19 um because it was consistent with that major streets directive. It's also in a >> the presentation to the public through the consultation process was for a 13.9 meter building. Is that correct? >> Through the chair, the plans show a 13 or a 14 meter building, but our zoning bylaw has been consistently at 19 m since uh the first round of revision. >> I know, but I just I I want to be clear. The proposal that was shown to the public was 13.9 m >> through the chair. That's correct. And uh a reminder and it's in our staff report that the height permission on the site is 15 m today. >> Thank you. But I just want to make sure the committee understands what was shown to the public. So it was 139 >> in terms of the uh architectural drawings. That's correct. And in terms of the bylaw which was the subject of the proposal that was at 19 years. >> Um can someone confirm the procedure uh that is envisioned to deal with waste? Number of speakers told about waste at the rear of the building but I think this building is up on stilts at the back where it connects the lane. So how does the waste work that's stored in the rear of the site >> through the chair? There's uh the proposal is for private pickup um which would come be able to function underneath the portion that's elevated. So it would come into the rear lot. Um I would say though that uh garbage pickup is something that we're going to continue to evaluate at site plan. It isn't fixed through this process. uh should uh there be a change in the waste pickup arrangements, do I understand it correctly that that could mean that the waste would have to be carted through the lane and placed onto the adjacent side street nowhere near actually this building >> through the chair. Uh there's several options for pickup. Um right now the way the plaza functions uh pickup is off of Blur Street West. So another option would be to have pickup off of Blur Street as well. And so finally the last question, could you help articulate a little bit more to the committee about what the secondary plan asks for at ground level with respect to retail and why the secondary plan would envision that those requirements >> through the chair. I'm just trying to pull up the exact language, but essentially um what the mixeduse B area designation does is um and specifically to our um official plan amendment. It's looking for a continuous pedestrian retail strip. Uh again, the existing condition of this building is not one that provides that continuous pedestrian retail strip. We evaluated this proposal very carefully to um assess whether an official plan amendment was necessary. Out of an abundance of caution, we've gone this route, but again, reflecting that existing condition and not just of this building, but of adjacent buildings along this strip, there are other uses that aren't just predominantly retail. And I think uh the proposal here to include that community space um at the front of the building also serves to animate the public realm and satisfy that policy. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Are there any other questions? No. Seeing none. Does anyone Oh, Councelor Croanti, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, just a couple of questions for clarification. So, the site was, I heard, was acquired, um, of course. So, but when was it acquired? Um, how long have we owned it and is it under any due diligence if if this is a current acquisition? >> Thanks through the chair. the site uh was acquired uh sorry one second we closed June 27th 2025 >> okay >> the acquisition is fully completed and there are no existing uh open conditions or requirements related to the acquisition >> right so we're looking to add two more stories uh is it currently being used right now for a shelter of any kind >> no it's not what have we been dealing with this since 2025 with the with the building. >> So the building has been vacant uh between those time periods as we undertake uh community consultation design um and before the committee uh today seeking zoning approvals to move towards construction. So the capacity will be uh once this is approved um for a maximum of um how many units in total? >> 60 uh women in shelter beds. >> 60 women in shelter beds and um and the there was a question about parking is what is the current parking on the site now? Is there some parking available currently >> uh >> through the chair? There's three parking spots in the rear of the building. >> Three. And for a two-story building. Okay. And um so with with 60 occupants, uh is there an uh is there a plan to increase the number of parking spots >> uh through the chair? I'll just speak to um the bylaw first and say that through section 341.1 of the planning act in a protected major transit station area, we're not allowed to impose uh any parking standards. So there's no minimums here. Um and then perhaps I'll pass it over to our colleagues. >> And to you, chair, there's no plans to increase the number of parking spots at site and many of our shelters have no parking spots um at them. >> Okay. So there's an an assumption that uh with 60 uh uh with 60 people living in the shelter that there won't be a requirement that no one's going to have uh additional vehicles of their own to require parking. Very very rarely uh are we working with people that have access to their own vehicle. Um, in the rare event that we were to encounter that uh issue, we would we would make arrangements for a longerterm parking uh elsewhere. Is there um currently uh any retail space operating on the first floor? There is not. There is not. Okay. So, that requirement the the other part of this recommendation is to remove any requirement for any retail. Is that correct to >> the chair? That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you, chair. >> Question, >> council. >> Yeah. Ju just to go back to the parking. We have towers going up to 30 stories and we have no parking. Correct. In the city >> through the chair. That is correct. In any circumstances >> and because I have a number of towers in my ward over 30 stories and they don't have one parking space. Um is the is the reason uh for the uh to go uh to go up uh two stories is to provide more amenity space and and indoor community space um for the the tenants for the residents and uh to have opportunities for cooking and you know is that the reason? >> Yes. two chair. Uh, additional space for sleeping, additional amenity space, uh, programming space, life skills programming, that kind of thing. You bet. >> Okay. So, it it would it would occupy well, let's just say the two Buttonwood that I'm going through, which is eight stories, uh, women's shelter, uh, there's space for, uh, computer rooms, community space, kitchens, and, you know, so that's the reason you you want to go up to two stories. Correct. >> Two chair. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Now, there's been a number of consultation meetings. Now, at any of the consultation meetings, was there a verse suggestion uh to have have a community lay on committee like we did for two Buttonwood? >> Uh so to you, chair, uh yes, that's a a core part of when we have these meetings is to talk about, you know, what are the future opportunities to be involved as this shelter is developed and before it opens. Uh and we will be opening or or establishing a a community lison on group uh similar to what we're doing at Two Buttonwood >> and that will be with local residents and okay and um they will be involved with the design and and uh uh you know the community space and doors and whatever other issues uh that the community has >> there will be opportunity active in that >> to you chair. That's correct. Yep. >> Thank you. Are there any other questions of staff? No. Seeing none, does anyone wish to speak? Councelor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I would like to make sure that the committee knows as the local counselor, I can tell you that my experience in speaking to people about this shelter on balance is that the majority are opposed to the changes that are before you. Now, I know you had a number of deputations today and many people uh frankly that don't live in the neighborhood uh and maybe with an affiliation to the sector came out and made the case for shelters in the city. And I don't think uh anyone here is debating um those statements uh because that's not what is in front of you. It is whether or not the expansion that's proposed on this site is appropriate. The other thing that the committee uh is is clearly aware of because of the answers to the questions in his plane is uh it it does not seem to be a successful site unless the city has the opportunity to expand it. Otherwise, they would have opened a shelter already. And that puts the city in an incredibly awkward place to make a decision and some would say conflicted. And I think you see that in some of the materials that were posted um regarding this decision that's before the committee. the city is both the developer and the uh governing authority that that uh grants the land use changes and um you know these processes are fraught with concerns over public confidence and decision-m and that is one key element that I want you to think about um in terms of parking I think it's important to talk about a few details on this this is a larger expanded use on the site more people um you can imagine how many workers there may Could that be about 15 uh for a shelter this size? You know, we didn't have time to go into those questions, but one can draw reasonable conclusions. Um a person with uh just any critical thinking could understand that there will be some demand on parking. Um some people have said, well, the clients won't use parking there. I don't know how anyone can say that. You know, shelter users may have cars. uh they may need them to go to work or uh to take care of the tasks that they do especially in a suburban location. Uh so to assume that no one has any uh is a concern. Um to assume that all the workers won't drive to work and take public transit I think is a concern. But the reality is unlike other urban locations, there are very very few parking options uh for a longer term near this. And what I mean by more than a couple of hours, more than a casual visit and uh I believe the the check I did was it was in and around a kilometer away. And unlike urban locations, you can't just leave it on the street uh or look for some green pee for uh you know your shift. So to me that is a big flaw in the the the site and a flaw in considering a larger more intensive use. If you want to know what the existing parking conditions are to serve um a retirement residence that is much smaller in scale uh just look on the uh the aerial views and you'll see that there was parking right across the front of the building and I think there's even some some imagery of cars into the rear. The other really important thing before the committee is a is a an official plan change. This is not just a zoning um a few extra inches here or there, some changes and setbacks. This is a fundamental change to the vision of Blure Street. And Blure Street has been thought of uh as a retail walkable street, a main street type area that is absolutely necessary to sustain the future growth envisioned for the Six Points Etobico Center secondary plan area. and uh putting a uh a residential use which is a shelter which is very private and inward facing violates that vision. It's not an active use on Bluer Street. And so that's why that's before you as an official plan change and the committee and council is going to have to consider whether it creates an exemption and what that means for the overall site. I think you've heard from the community members and most certainly in the correspondents that on balance people are concerned about making a larger building and a more intensive use work on this site. So the question is not whether uh shelters are needed around the city. The question is is whether an expanded use is appropriate on this site. And I think what you should pay attention to is what the local community is telling you because they know the building, they know the site, and they're telling you not to do it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the item? Uh, Councelor Nuniata. >> Okay. Um, thank you. Um, well, I'm I'm pleased to hear from staff that, uh, they will have a community lison committee. I think that's very important. um when uh we're going through uh my shelter, my ward, which is on the main street, it's eight stories, women and children, and we've had a number of meetings, and it's been very successful. Um we actually um involved with the design, the colors, and you know, and so the community feels that they're very engaged, and you know, they're they're offering some space for the community as well. So, that really works. And I and I'm glad that the staff are going to be doing that with this site. And um no, I I know it's difficult when when uh there's a shelter going in in uh anybody's ward, but I I think what's really important is if you work with the community and you get the residents uh involved, I I think that uh they the community comes together and they support and they understand the need. And so the I I think this site I mean you can go up six stories on this site actually if you wanted to. Um but you're going up four stories. So um I will um um move the recommendation. >> Thank you. Uh councelor Nunziad has moved them. Does anyone else wish to speak? No. How about we do a recorded vote on this one? All those in favor? Councelor Meyers, Councelor Perks, Councelor Nuni, Councelor Croanti, Councelor Bradford, Councelor Matt Matlo. So that's unanimous. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Okay, that takes us now to uh PH30.6, Building Toronto's Housing Future Housing Development Office, 2026 annual Toronto Builds Update and three-year work plan. We have a couple of deputations. Mark, I thought I saw you. Is Mark Richardson here? There he is. Hey, Mark. Come on up. All right, council. Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you. Uh, I'm Mark Richardson. I am the volunteer technical lead with Housing Now TTO. Uh, we've been tracking affordable housing projects in the city of Toronto for the last seven and a half years now. Um we're generally quite happy with uh the work plan and everything that you're seeing before you today. Um our one concern is with some of the tracker materials. Uh as members of council who are also members of the createto board, you will be remembering that there is uh something called the milestone report that create produces which has quite a lot of detail in it. That data also gets shared out and moved over into the open data systems here at the city of Toronto, which then feeds your housing data hub for tracking purposes. So, one of the ways that we sort of, you know, help to um keep an eye on some of these projects and make sure that they're meeting your targets is by tracking that milestone report. in the new three-year work plan. Some of that data is being lost from this report, and I think that may have happened due to staff changes and reorganizations. We're just really hoping that there is still the open data that contains all of the information like the first time you applied to CHC for a particular site, the initial dates that you talked about uh proposing this site to start construction or start occupancy. Um, there's going to be probably some changes around council this year. We want to make sure that the whoever's at council next year has the most accurate data available and has some of that history and can compare what we were doing in 21 with what we're doing in 2026. Um, so in general, we are, you know, we're very supportive of this. We've noticed a couple of typos in here. There's one site that says that it's looking at occupancy in 2026. You only just broke ground on it with TCHC 3 months ago. It's not going to happen in 2026. By putting this data into the public domain, letting the community look at it, we will help to improve the communications and the quality within government and between governments. I was in Ottawa the other day sitting with folks from Minister Robertson's office sitting with folks from the prime minister's office who are trying to figure out Toronto housing solutions and how best to work their new programs like Build Canada Homes with entities like yours. Open, transparent, proactive disclosure of your data and your information makes all of that communications easier. It let us help you. So we would like to uh ensure that there's some sort of motion to make sure that the housing development office and this plan more closely aligns with all the work that was done with create the open data community and the housing uh data hub. That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for Mark? Councelor Myers. >> Uh thank you through your chair. Thanks Mark. Uh just a quick question. Um generally, you sort of talked about this generally, but specific, can you give specific examples as to why it's important to track the data consistently? >> If you put the information of this is when we first submitted a site to CHC, when we go to Ottawa, we can poke the Ottawa folks about why CHC is taking 5 years to respond to a submission. When you post something about a expected construction start date and you don't get to that construction start date, sometimes it's an internal challenge here. Sometimes it's a challenge with another level of government where you're having to do an easement for a hydro line or something like that. We can help nudge those things along. and transparency. You know, sunlight is the best disinfectant, but it's also the best way for stopping miscommunication about affordable housing projects. We're going into an election cycle this year. There are some people who are going to use the the proposal of affordable housing or the success or failure of meeting certain numbers of affordable housing to create crazy pages on Facebook and various websites. The more you have accurate data that's publicly available, the better it is for everybody involved because we have a single source of the truth. >> Thank you very much. Any other questions? I just want to highlight Mark gave very good advice. Don't take voting intention advice from Facebook. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh >> next I have Peter Martin. I was thinking of speaking on the mayor's multiplex thing, but I think twice is enough for you today. Um, first off, I I just want to say this is a really great milestone for u development and growth services area. to have uh the housing development office up and running so quickly is is something to uh to be proud of. Congratulations to you. And um and we think it's it's really important to uh to recognize that in holding the Toronto Builds policy framework. Um, one of the things which we found really important about the Toronto bills framework is the emphasis on not only affordable housing but supportive housing. >> I understand. >> Um, one of the things that we're very happy about is that there's been a bit of a sea change at at the city in the last couple of years to recognize that supportive housing is its own creature, its own beast and can't really be subsumed within affordable housing in terms of tracking. We're really happy to see it's now being tracked on its own. Um hoping to get towards that 18,000 goal by 2030. We'll see how close we get. Uh but the fact that we're, you know, speaking uh reinforcing what Mark was just saying, having these things as uh active trackers makes it much easier for us to see where the problems are, what we can do to to to facilitate um the city and the not for-profit sector together working to achieve these targets and goals. Um, one of the things that's really great about the Toronto Builds Policy Framework is the recognition of the uh the importance of collaborating with the Toronto Alliance Homelessness in working towards uh achieving these goals. And I point out that there was a reference in the report uh for action on this item about a very successful series of workshops that uh the Toronto Alliance put on with both the housing secretariat and the housing development office recently to um to go over the um the history of city not for-profit partnerships and to look at things that worked, things that weren't so good and to come up with some new ideas and positive feedback for the city to use in generating new a new policy framework for city-led projects and city supported projects with the not for-profit sector. Um we look forward to building on that initial collaboration um very much so. One thing I will point out that I'm really happy about is the work plan uh but not perhaps for the reasons that you think. uh we've been looking for a long time in the sector to have some clear uh guidance as to where we are going in the future with regard to the sequence of uh of of RFPs moving forward that are going to be of interest to the affordable and supportive housing sectors. Um because of course we don't want to have un unnecessary competition. uh we it's costs a lot of money and time to do an RFP and if we in the sector can look at this timeline and have some reasonable conversations about you know allocation within the sector as to which is the more appropriate uh project uh we can then have I think a much more efficient process because by definition there'll be less a fewer number of RFPs for the city to go through so we get to that next stage quicker and as I said before the cost uh and the time expended which is uh is a really salient factor in the not for-p profofit sector will be uh will be regularized in a better way. Um finally in regard to regularizing the process, we're also looking forward to working with the housing development office um building on the work we did in that workshop uh to provide some feedback and and a foundation for a conversation with the sector on ways in which we can um do for the whole development process particularly with regard to not for-profit housing that the city did in creating the development review department itself. self. It can be very frustrating and time consuming and costly um for uh our develop the developments in the not for-p profofit sector. Um delays which we feel are systemic u and not projectbased where we could have a a smoother uh communication system between the different departments on specific uh applications and uh move things through more quickly. So I'm very much looking forward Hugh to uh to working with you and Avivra in the future on these things. Uh unless there are any questions those are my submissions. >> Thanks Peter. Uh I I just wanted so you raised an interesting thing which is uh the working relationship between the public service and social housing providers and uh I take your point that that relationship has to continue to improve. I just want to get a sense like where we were say 5 years ago to where we are now. What kinds of moves that we have made have improved that and where could we do better? >> Well, the the rental housing uh fund uh approach has is is has made a big difference. Archie is good. Um, I actually applaud some of the innovative uh approaches that the city has done to um to try and build more purpose-built rental. The the solution to the problem is not just to build more affordable and supportive housing, but to build more housing overall. We recognize now from from some very interesting data out of Europe that uh even building high-end rental accommodations results in vacancy change where vacancy chains where people move up to what they prefer to get to and even by the third or fourth link in that chain you're opening up affordable housing to people on low incomes. So everything the city is doing in the last few years has really made a a sea change from our perspective on facilitating uh building more housing in general but also focusing on supportive and affordable deeply affordable housing. Um and uh some of the uh the ideas are innovative and exciting and uh we're looking forward to continuing to work with the city uh from a position of optimism. We may not reach the targets that were set in uh for the 2020 2030 housing action plan, but we are certainly going to support the city in doing all we can to achieve them and if possible to to exceed them. >> Thank you. Any other questions for Peter? Peter, as always, thank you so much for your advice. >> Thank you. >> I believe that completes the deputations on this item. >> Are there any questions of staff? Councelor Myers. >> Uh, thank you through you, Chair. Uh, I guess my first question is just looking through the three-year work plan, I noticed that there were no projects proposed for all of North Scar Bro, which includes Scarbor Agent Court, Scarbor North, and I guess the portion of Scarbor Rouge, um, that is north of the 401. So could staff just give an explanation as to why there's no projects in this entire catchment area >> through the chair. I can't give explicit uh explanation why that particular area wasn't uh chosen. Uh but we did look in creating the prioritization uh of projects to try to diver diversify where we are allocating capital. >> Okay. Just I'm going to pause your time. We just have to be a little careful. There's some confidential stuff that lists the public. >> Yeah, I just reminding the rest of the members of the committee. >> Keep going. >> So, I guess what are staff doing to prioritize or get projects in this area for these residents off the ground? uh we would evaluate all of the projects across the city uh using a variety of criteria uh and should a project in that particular ward fit high on that list then we would allocate capital accordingly. So is there not a staff I guess consideration that geography has to be a criteria in terms of affordable housing should be evenly spread so that people don't have to leave their communities in order to live there. >> Staff definitely does consider uh the diversa diversification of capital allocation across the city especially where the city is indicated where they intend to have growth. Uh so I guess what would be the plan going forward to make sure that in the next three-year update that there is some affordable housing located in this area? >> Uh I cannot at this moment describe the process to identify particular sites in that ward on how we would push that forward. >> Not that ward that catchment area Scarbor Agent Court Scarbor North and Scarbor Rouge Park. I can't describe a process at this moment to uh necessitate that uh capital be allocated to that catchment area. Mr. >> Chair, if I could assist a little to say that I certainly agree with the executive director uh the but we are from a staff perspective looking at the opportunity to create more opportunities in in areas that are where we don't have quite as much development happening from an affordable housing perspective. that is something that we are actively looking at and considering is how we could create more opportunity. >> Thank you. Um, and turning gears a bit, I just want to go back on uh May 21st and 22nd, 2025, uh, city council directed the DCM development and growth services to work in consultation with the ED of social development to achieve the 10% equity targets in all Toronto builds projects and to develop criteria informed by community benefits framework best practices for including mandatory equity hiring targets in small-scale Toronto building projects and to report back by the third quarter of 2025 as part of the implementation report. So I guess where is the where are we on this reporting work >> through the chair I'll uh assist as much as I can on this. What I know is that we do have that requirement built into uh any developments that the city is uh participating in. I I don't have the data specifically that I could draw on at this point and answer your your question completely but what I know is that that is a number that not only that we are tracking but ensuring that we are requiring as part of any cityled uh developments. >> Thank you. Um so I guess in sort of keeping with uh some of the questions I was asking Mark when he came, how are we tracking the number of community benefits that are created in these projects? in terms of jobs created, in terms of whether or not they're reaching their equity hiring targets >> through the chair. Uh as part of the Toronto Builds framework, uh we do have uh specifications on targets that each proponent must be must achieve. Uh so it would be built into the agreements with those proponents. Uh and then we could be able to uh collect the data from that information. And is this information publicly reported? And if so, where? >> I I I could not answer that question at this moment. >> However, and through the chair, uh, we can look into that and get back to counselor. >> Thank you. Is anyone here from the public, uh, benefits group that can maybe answer that? >> You're at You're at time, counselor. No, >> we you can set up a second round if you have more, but >> No, that's it. through the chair and I'll just reinforce that we can uh look back at the information and report back to you on that question. Counselor, I don't think we have the information to give you a wholesome answer at this point though. >> Any other questions of staff? >> Seeing none, does anyone wish to speak? Councelor Bradford. >> Thanks uh Mr. Chair through you. Um, I have a motion here I submitted to staff, uh, which is to request that the list of projects that were included in our build Canada home submission be shared with counselors when this item goes to council. So we have partial information on a few of the projects but I think it's important that we have all of the information all of those details uh to inform our deliberation and consideration of the recommendations in the confidential report. >> That's it questions of the mover? >> No. Okay. Uh anyone else wish to speak? Councelor Myers. >> Thank you. I'm just moving a motion uh that city council request the ED housing development office to work with create Toronto Community Housing Corporation, the chief technology officer, technology services and industry and civic tech and community benefits experts to ensure all data related to the Toronto Builds and the Toronto Housing Data Hub is produced and provided to the public in alignment with the city of Toronto open data policies. And this is just consistent with the questions I had regarding community benefits reporting and also the questions I had to Mark Richardson questions of the mover. Seeing none, anyone else wish to speak? No. Uh why don't we take the amendments in the main item all as a package? All those in favor? Post carried. Okay, we are moving along. Lost my place. Uh, redevelopment framework for 835 through 841 Queen Street East. We have a deputent. Why heavens, it's Mark Richardson. It's a rare 3P day for me. >> I just need to get them all in before you stop being chair of planning and housing. Um members of the planning and housing committee um our housing tto.com project volunteers are happy to provide general support to the start of this new redevelopment framework for the existing wood green community services site which is located at 835841 Queen Street East which as you can see from this map on the screen is less than 150 m from the Leslieville station on the Ontario line which God willing is expected to open in the early 2030s. This is a well-located site. It is a rare opportunity where an experienced nonprofit housing provider owns a prime site located inside a provinially protected major transit station area. These are unicorn sites. Our only concern with this item is that the city of Toronto staff comment based on analysis completed by create on behalf of the housing development office a building of six to 10 stories is being explored for further review on this site. >> While we agree that rapidly developing new affordable and workforce housing projects um near existing transit services are vital to the future well-being of our city for all Torononians. We are concerned that some local considerations politically and some very old legacy planning policies on Queen Street are unreasonably restricting the potential opportunities available to Wood Green and the housing development office to propose a more substantial affordable housing redevelopment solution inside this prime protected major transit station area site. In fact, we would encourage the council, direct the housing development office and create to work with Woodrin Community Services to develop a model at 835 Queen Street East in Leslieville that much more closely align with the current Parkdale Hub phase 1 site, also known as Parkdale People's Place, that they are developing with nonprofit partners at a 16 stories and 175 new rental apartments. Thanks to the good work of Chair Perks, uh the Parkdale site is also located on Queen Street in a traditionally low-rise section of urban Toronto. But the main difference is the site in Parkdale is not located within 150 mters of a brand new transit station. It is not inside a PMTSA. You have a great opportunity in Leslieville. You need to let staff free of local constraints to see what they can actually do on a on a site like this inside a PMTSA. As always, our open data and civic tech volunteers are happy to answer any questions the committee or city staff may have on affordable housing development best practices on how to make effective use of transit oriented lands like this fantastic site to help alleviate Toronto's rental housing crisis with nonprofit partners. Thank you. Thank you. Uh I have a question for you, Mark. Sure. Okay. So, if we can keep this up. Y >> So, in the foreground there is, uh the Parkdale Hub proposal. What's the pink thing behind it? >> The pink thing is a taller building is a TC8 seat building that was built in the 1970s. There are taller buildings and apartment buildings that have been built in Leslieville, not necessarily on Queen Street at around about the same era. >> Right. And I don't know if you you read the zoning report on on this site, but it was explicit that because the adjacent building was a tall building that we could build uh if you notice it steps back, steps back. That back piece was because there was already a tall building adjacent. Is that the case in front of us? Is that the case on the site? >> It's it's a different site, but this site is also inside a PMTSA. It's out owned outright by >> I'm not asking about PMTSAs. I'm not asking about that. I'm saying for both the one you've got on the screen now and the one under consideration, the what we're doing in terms of planning is looking at the site context. Is there a tall building behind this site? >> No, but the next building over on Queen Street is fairly substantial and it was done 12 years ago. The context of planning in the city has changed in those 12 years. So it's not the southside buildings are not tall, but the adjacent buildings on Queen Street, I think, are in the 10 to 12 range, but they only have a little bit of affordable housing. If you want to deliver a lot of affordable housing on this site, you're going to have to superersize your fries as always. >> Okay. Thank you, Mark. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other questions for Mark? No. Seeing none, uh, does anyone wish to speak to the item? No. Okay, I'll just move it. All All those in favor oppose. That carries. Okay. Uh item number eight, midrise housing implementation init initiative proposals report. Uh we have a couple of deputants. Claire Malcolms is first. >> Welcome Claire. >> Thank you very much. Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Still morning. >> Okay. So, I'm uh Claire Malcolmson. I'm a representative of the Midrise Advocacy Group uh which is a collection of architects, planners, and citybuilders who are working together to advocate for reforms uh for mid-rise buildings as described in the mid-rise manual. I actually have some printed. I just picked them up. if anyone wants some copies of our mid-rise manual. >> Uh, which advocates for changes at three different levels of government in order to help get midrise built. Uh, so we're focusing on the city of Toronto because this is a progressive planning uh environment and we're uh happy to see the progress that's been made so far. Uh the mid-rise uh manual was written by LGA and S uh FBN planners and architects commissioned by Bob Eisenberg and environmental defense who are also um submitting something to you today. Um so thank you for the work that staff and council have done to move Midrise forward so far. Uh the mid-rise implementation reports report that's on the agenda today details many of the issues that the mid-rise manual has asked to be addressed. H I'm here in support of that direction. Um the city has already taken some really important steps by expanding the avenues framework, removing the avenue segment study requirement and updating midrise design guidelines and moving towards as of right permissions on major streets uh and major quarters and avenues. These are really important changes and staff and uh council deserve credit for that. The items on the implementation report today um speak to changes to amenity space requirements and bike parking um specifically and weo support both of those proposed changes. The the amenity space requirements uh are for four stories and 60 units or less. uh the builders and architects that we're working with are noting that wherever they have permission to build a six-story building, that's what they would prefer to do because the economics of building small buildings are really tight. And so I just question why the cut off at four. We would recommend uh that that be a six be permitted for a six-story building as well. Um I have lived in a bunch of different mid-rise buildings myself that had no amenity space, had no bike parking, had no car parking. These kinds of buildings are actually really popular in the city of Toronto. And what it it just means that the residents of the building uh they would be more likely to explore their neighborhood uh gym or club or something like that rather than use an indoor uh gym. And the staff have looked into this reporting on how amenity spaces are used. It it doesn't look like this is going to massively affect people's quality of life. And I would argue that it might just um contribute to some more local retail um support which is needed, right? Um it can also translate into $20,000 savings for just $1,000 unit. And this is significant when we're trying to be really sensitive to price and cost cost uh sensitivities right now. I think this is an important change. Uh the bike parking change proposed makes sense. It's the kind of flexibility that allows builders to choose uh what is going to work best for their product. I mean, if you go around, you see there's still lots of mid-rise buildings that have units for sale or for rent. They're still expensive. So, we do need to be able to chip away at some of the rules and regulations that are making it uh prohibitively expensive. if the city wants to realize the the e-hon vision with a lot more mid-rise. Um, so to do that, I think the city's going to need to work on expanding the zoning for avenues and major streets. And I hope that the pause in the roll out of Wby byword zoning is used to clarify the hierarchy of um different community plans uh so that the next roll out can be quicker. Uh the city needs to make the approval system genuinely easier for projects that comply. So there's still more the city and utilities can do in particular to reduce delay, simplify submission requirements, and create a clearer path for compliant projects. These are ways that we bring down the costs of building. And I just want to point out in this staff report, um you're showing this development cliff. The city has objectives for how much housing they want to build over time. If no one is building in 2028 and 2029, we need to keep working on making the conditions right for building. And I think that the public appetite and acceptance of mid-rise uh is relatively good compared to other housing forms in the city. And I just encourage us to to keep an eye on that. Um finally, it this is really just about feasibility and not just permissions. So, a project that's still too costly to build is not really unlocked. Um, and so the loading, the garbage, the technical standards, these are all still important things um to work on. >> I'm going to have to stop you there your last time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Are any questions for Claire? >> No. Thank you so much for your deputation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, next I have Jeff Catel. >> Good morning, Jeff. Morning uh chair, members of the committee and my local my local counselor. Well, thank you Rachel. Um the Federation of North Toronto res associations which I'm co-pres to express our concerns regarding the the directions outlined in the proposal report. We obviously support the goal of increasing housing supply in Toronto. However, this particular report, we're deeply concerned by an apparent fundamental shift in the city's land use planning methodology from sound designled principles of the 2024 midrise guidelines to a framework dictated primarily by short-term economics and private sector profitability. The Pascal economics report explicitly states that his goal is to quote inform how mid-rise projects could be better positioned to achieve financial feasibility. The report acknowledges that even the most aggressive combination of levers, including total removal of amenity spaces and loading requirements, only reduces the target sales price by an average of $60 per square foot compared to a market rule of thumb pricing of about $1,000 per square foot. This would result in projected savings of 6% to pro prospective buyers, perhaps incentivizing some uplift in total sales. Whether these marginal cost efficiency estimates will be passed on to the home buyer or the tenant depends entirely on the appetite of developers rather than being a structural requirement of the policy. The this approach treats essential residential infrastructure such as indoor amenity space, contiguous outdoor space and secure bicycle park storage as mere levers for profitability and shifts responsibility to address the housing issue onto the taxpayer. There's a a number of elements to this economics planning. The city has pivoted from land use planning to land use economics using pro- former profit metrics rather than design excellence as the primary driver for zoning changes. Private sector gain and public cost. The initiative focuses on marginal improvements to developer profit margins that may not change the trajectory of housing starts yet will have a profound impact on community livability for the next 25 years. The threat to the public realm proposals to remove type G loading and waste collection requirements to increase a build a building's salable floor area that transfers private operational costs onto the public. The emission of architectural expertise. The financial feasibility analysis by parcel economics was conducted without involvement from architecture resulting in test fits that lack qualitative rigor regarding livability and the physical reality of construction. Stakeholder engagement imbalance. There is a disparity between the intensive technical engagement with the development industry through this project and the sparse surveybased engagement with the public. Procedural concerns. The interim report presents substantive policy directions without disclosing the full research findings or providing the public with technical briefings required to evaluate complex economic claims. The report makes the tacid assumption that mid-rise development is inherently private marketdriven whereas in fact there's a significant sector comprising public housing create and so on and not for-profit organizations like co-ops and life lease. These alternative tenure models tend to focus on meeting the needs of the occupants to live there not just profit and the dictates of the proformer. Were these organizations, these tenure types, were they consulted? We don't know the um so fundamentally uh the approach neglects what economists call externalities. These reforms quote unquote aim to c curb internal costs to sellers and buyers. But that internal saving is at an external expense. It costs neighbors and the physical environment and the whole city in material and immaterial ways like aesthetics, reputation, tourist draw, civic and social life. Unfortunately, it's very hard to cost out the impacts of the the negative impacts of that. We all share building the goal of building a livable vibrant city for all residents. We recognize the urgency of the current housing crisis. However, the solution should not be the systematic dismantling of the very standards that were built up over the last 40 years that ensure to Toronto remains a world-class city to live in to live in. >> Can can you please wrap it up? >> Yeah, we recommend that planning and housing committee defer approval of this report and the tacid endorsement of the 15 items. It's not free actually, it's 15. Thank you. recommended for action until full findings and data sets used by parallel economic. >> Thank you. Thank you. We do have a question for you. Councelor Matlo question. >> Hey Jeff, I I'm just I'm I'm conf over here. I'm just confused by uh by something that you requested and perhaps there's just a misunderstanding. I'm just I I I've been rereading the recommendations to the committee over and over again >> and I I hear that you don't want the committee to approve the report today. the unless I'm reading this wrong, the the only thing that I'm seeing here is an approval to undertake consultation and and then that would give us an opportunity to have that exactly what you're requesting, which is that the consultation with our communities and and and FODRA and then arrive at a place uh that that we're that we're satisfied with. Is it >> we're saying we have a fun there's sort of been a shift here from from land use planning where you're concerned about architecture design impacts and so on in a in a you know a comprehensive manner to one that only looks only to looks at it from a pro-former perspective. How can I, you know, shave off savings by, you know, making um design changes that that will have longerterm impacts and and but the the details there um through parcel economics is are not provided um exactly you know what the the consultations that we we do in the city on on you know with a public meeting um you know one four across the city that's not going to really elucidate the the kind of detail. May I ask you in this report? >> So that okay. So that's important. So so the consultation needs to be genuine. It needs to be earnest. It needs to be uh provide details. Uh there needs to be it needs to be iterative. Are there specific things that you would want to see as part of this consultation process that would be meaningful to you? Well, there's I think there's a need for more analysis of what of what the heck's going on here, but there's a we have a fundamental concern with the stance taken by this report. Why isn't it a balanced report? It's it's a it's a it's a offbalance report, right? So, so as part of the process, you're saying you would want other details or perspectives to be shared as part of the consultation. Is that my hearing? No, I mean it's it's only it's it's it's it's making the assumption that you can reduce the use of of type G. Um and we we heard, you know, so the garbage ends up on the on the sidewalk and the the residents have to deal with it, >> you know, issues from these proposals. >> So if there was an amendment uh that I understand is coming to uh to clearly address that that specific concern, would that be helpful to you about not having the garbage in? No, I think it's the the issue is bigger. The stance of this report is is um is getting away. We built these requirements up over a number of years for climate reasons, for environmental reasons, from you know, resident impact issues, and all of a sudden now it's time to do away with them, right? Let's cut them back. Um well, you know, like that's that's unfortunate. >> Okay. Thank you. Any further questions for Jeff? No. Seeing none, Jeff, as always, thank you. Uh, that takes us to our next deputent, John Caliendo. Is John online? No. Okay. Ian Carmichael. Not. Okay. So, I believe that completes the deputants on this item. >> There's a new >> Oh, there's a new one. Brian Brian Chung, how are you, Brian? >> You're well, thank you. >> Welcome. >> Thank you very much. Thank you, chair. Thank you, counselors. Um, my name is Brian Chung. I'm a board member of More Neighbors Toronto, which is a pro-ousing advocacy organization. Uh we basically want to take this time to to very much thank staff, city staff, for continuing to work towards this very important aspect of in some ways reforming what we we need for more housing, cheaper housing, uh more diverse housing throughout the city of Toronto. Uh also very much looking forward to the mid-rise performance guidelines report which I believe would be coming up against uh coming up in the next meeting in June which uh perhaps may also provide more details specifically technical details on some of these suggestions being made about reducing requirements for amenities as well as shared usage. Uh I am going to also uh repeat from a a previous speaker um Claire Malcolmson where she said that it would be very important to expand permissions for these from four floors to six floors. We we have given the permissions on in the zoning to go up to this level of density and this level of height. Um if we are focused on actually building the things that we say that the city wants to build, I think it's important to make these consistent. uh important to make these easy to understand. Uh important to basically have a common grounding and discussion base on this. Um I I I don't think that this is going to be any surprise to anybody, but as more neighbors Toronto, we we think that it is important to have the conversation about economics and whether it is possible to build the things that we are permitting to build. Right? So the city is going forward and saying that we want to have these formats, these typologies and we have given permission to to do so. But if we don't also match that with the fiscal and financial ability to do so, um I I think we're we're basically giving a false promise there. Um yes, there are definitely externalities that are going to happen with some of these suggestions that we have had um with reduction of shared amenities in these mid-rise buildings. But I would also point out that there are some very clear and existing externalities that have happened with single family housing that we've done over decades and decades and decades. And those externalities have been baked in to a certain extent and have affected the terrain of what kind of housing um as well as transportation costs, environmental costs, uh loneliness, access to amenities in terms of city and shared amenities. Um, with the additional density behind this mid-rise housing, I think that also adds additional arguments for creating of community level amenities, things like libraries, things like community centers, um, shared neighborhood retail. I I think all these things are what we consider very important to our quality of life here in Toronto. and having higher density in neighborhoods in a more compact space adds to that argument as well as adding to the tax base and the revenues would provide us for being able to do that. So, just to close out, uh very important work. Glad to see that it is continuing to happen. It it wraps up a lot of the things that the city has been doing in the past few years. Uh and look forward to seeing what comes of it and the consultations that hopefully will progress after this is approved at city council. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Any questions for Brian? No. Seeing none, Brian. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we'll bring it in. Uh, are there any questions of staff? >> No. Does anyone want to speak? Councelor. Oh, councelor Channis Lynn. >> I don't have to I don't have to go first just because I'm I don't know if that's your >> Oh, you're the only uh member of council who's here who's not a member of the committee. So you go first. >> All right. Um I guess we don't get that many guests at uh environment and infrastructure. So I'd invite my colleagues to come to that. Sometimes I don't even know the protocol, but I I have been here the last two meetings. So I must I must uh like this committee. Anyways, I just wanted to let you know I have submitted a letter to the committee uh and I am uh very much in support of uh the letter from Diane Saxs, Councelor Sachs. And my concern um I just want to put out there I am in support of uh having different types of housing. Mid-rise housing I think is as someone who has uh many 50 60s story towers going up. I I yearn for more mid-rise. uh but I am concerned about some of the impacts of that and want to make sure that we address those uh in the most um not just practical but um creative and desirable ways and in particular I am concerned about the way this report leans towards uh getting rid of um full G-type loading space um and and I want to make sure that um We're supportive of expert of um exploring options that are both innovative uh and that are alternatives to waste collection that ends up along the white right of way. I have a number of um mid-rise buildings uh and certainly many more coming. And I'm concerned about the idea of having um dozens and dozens of waste bins all over the sidewalk. And I'm concerned for a variety of reasons. I look in my ward, I have Holland Blur View, I have the CNIB, um, and I have a lot of accessibility challenges. And then you add to that snow. Uh, and I am worried that our residents are going to have trouble navigating the sidewalks, particularly in some of the smaller, narrower lots where we are starting to see some of that mid-rise development. Uh so I I am concerned about the idea to raise the number of units uh to get rid of um type G loading and I really would urge a reframing of that question as the um as as you go out to consult with the city because I think that's really that's one of the ways that would make mid-rise um buildings and that gentle density that's coming more appealing to people. And I want to make sure that we're doing it in the most productive way and and pragmatic way forward. Uh and when I think of things like towards a beautiful city, a more beautiful city that uh councelor Mlo brought forward that our council has endorsed, I think these are these are things that we really need to think deeply about as we're going out to consult. So I would urge the committee uh to adopt uh that recommendation that councelor Saxs brought forward uh and uh look forward to the consultation. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, councelor Matlo. Uh so I I want to thank uh councelor Shonuslin for a very thoughtful uh comments uh because um I I I couldn't agree more that you know what we what we need to achieve what I believe we all want to achieve are you know more more housing opportunities and recognizing that when we um when we create policy and we reform zoning and we recognize that we want to address the housing crisis uh and we want those who grow up in our neighborhoods to be able to continue to afford to live in the very neighborhoods that they grow up in. Uh that we can't just say, "Hey, that's our new policy without recognizing that if the perform uh that we can say to we're blew in the face that we want uh housing in our city, if they can't build it, it won't happen." So we have to that has to jive. That being said though, it's the these decisions are often kind of uh characterized as sort of binary choices between do you want to build housing and do you want great neighborhoods that have uh school capacity and social services and infrastructure and parks and yes uh sidewalks that aren't uh cluttered with with uh with bins everywhere. uh our successes striving to get that all together. That's in my opinion what is called good planning. Um I would I would add that um I've had a lot of conversations about this with both uh residence groups and builders that the word character is often used as um a euphemism for no change. >> Yeah. That being said, yes, you've heard that too. But um I think there there actually is an earnest like a very genuine um argument for character when it comes to uh beauty. I know that's subjective, but design, materiality, and often, you know, if you can get over the fight over exactly how many people will live in any one building, but everyone can agree on maybe it being having a gable and bricks or something that kind of feels like the neighborhood that they love, people can shake hands and go, "Okay, I'm I'm good with that." Um, in other words, we don't always have to debate how many people live in a building. It can be just we like the building and those people who live there will be great contributors to the community. Um that's how we kind of get to resolution. And so I really like the idea of having um a consultation about how to I mean mid-rise by the way is the future of the market and and uh there there will most likely be fewer in the coming years very massively tall buildings and more mid-rise. That's that's certainly uh where where I think many are predicting the market's going and um uh and and type G loading if it's just sort of universally like you always have to do it. Well, there are contexts where it'll actually be a lot easier for the builder to move forward without having to do that. But yes, there has to be a solution to figure out figuring out how to make sure that the sidewalk isn't just cluttered. So, um the motion that councelor Sachs uh and I believe is are you moving? Oh, Jamal is moving. uh councelor Myers is moving I think is I I think it's a thoughtful uh uh contribution to this discussion that we're going to have with the communities because we can figure out how to make mid-rise work without without being obtuse to negative consequences of doing the right thing. Um, so, um, you know, I just want to give some some comfort to to to Jeff and others who might, uh, be worried about where the report's going that I would I would see this consultation as something that is is a is a real consultation and there has to be different perspectives heard and there needs to be some debate and an iterative discussion. Uh but ultimately we can't not have a conversation about how to ensure that mid-rise can work in the city because again we've been talking about midrise for years. You know those of us who have had concerns about you know towers everywhere have often said we want to build Paris in Toronto. Well we can't do that without without midrise. So I look forward to that conversation. And then hopefully, I mean, if this works, we'll have a report back after a good consultation process that will address the perform challenges of builders that we can have a a very vibrant and and and renewed industry that uh is not struggling the way uh they are today. um where there's uh economic development, there's more housing opportunities, there's more affordability, but at the same time, we build a beautiful city with beautifully designed buildings and sidewalks that are navigable, safe, and that we're really happy to see. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I'm just going to pause on this uh item for one second. Uh I've just uh received a request from the mayor to add a new item to the agenda. So this would be item 13, I suppose. It's entitled zoning regulations for places of worship in residential and mixeduse communities. Uh I'm going to move that we add it to the agenda. All those in favor of adding it to the agenda. All those opposed. So we will add that to the agenda and it will go to the end. I wanted to do it now so that members had plenty of time to read it before we consider it. Okay. Um, next I had councelor Myers I believe. >> Thank you uh and thank you to our colleague uh councelor Turner Flynn for coming and thank you for our other colleague councelor Sax for putting forward her very thoughtful motion. I've worked with staff uh to get uh some language to address some of the concerns raised by uh council and councelor Matllo on just >> moving something. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> On moving an amendment. I'm setting it up. It's it's uh that the planning and housing committee request the chief planner and ed city planning to prioritize public and stakeholder consultations on options for managing and collecting waste, recyclable materials, and organics that do not require curbside staging. And I think this addresses some of the concerns you had chair perks. Uh and I'm happy to take any questions. >> Um I'm going to ask you a question just so that it's clear to everybody. This is slightly different than uh the letter we received. Uh but uh I think it's different because it doesn't override the previous council decision and it doesn't uh decide what the consultation will say result in but rather encourages staff to put forward to to prioritize certain uh ideas. >> Correct. Then the previous motion, the way it was worded would have required the item to go to council for decision whereas here it stays within the committee and that it's already it's just giving further direction to the consultations that will be underway. >> Okay. Any other questions of the mover? Nope. Does anyone else want to speak? Okay. I'm just going to speak very quickly. Uh, first of all, uh, thanks to councelor Myers for working with the clerk and I to make sure we weren't contradicting council's previous direction, but nevertheless, we're giving some advice uh to staff about how to conduct the consultation. So, that's a good outcome. How did my time get there? Okay, I I I want to though step back a little bit. I think uh Jeff raised a really important question which is you know what's the cart and what's the horse? Are we are we designing uh our planning policies uh for the convenience of land owners and and their you know financial interests or are we doing it in the public interest and I think that's a very important question. I I've supported uh reviewing the way we do midrise not because uh I think it's really important that uh we make it cheaper to build but rather because I think it's really important for us as uh you know a quasi regulatory body to from time to time review uh the rules we have in place to make sure that we're not putting regulatory burdens on for no purpose. If there's a way of uh meeting people's housing requirements that doesn't create uh undue burden on the surrounding community uh or externalize uh some of the impacts of of that new housing into the neighborhood. uh we should from time to time go out and ask members of the community, professionals, builders, look at other jurisdictions to make sure that yeah, we're are we're not creating pointless uh regulatory burden. And that's what what this is for. If I could have a little quiet, guys. Yeah. Um but on the other on the other side of the the the debate, we we get folks saying, "Oh, no. regulation just always increases the cost of housing and you should have as few as possible because uh you know we want to create market conditions so we build more housing faster and and I equally reject that point of view. Um, first of all, anyone making the claim that local planning rules are somehow the most significant uh barrier to new housing uh getting built hasn't actually been following how the housing market works. If you have heard of the term real estate bubble in anywhere in your life, you know that uh just the market does not produce logical uh outcomes in the housing space. It just doesn't. Historically, it is very very very very clear that ownership and control of land and the the speculative almost casino style uh investment system in land has always produced discontinuities and breaks and market failures and so on that overwhelm anything a local municipality does. So I reject outright the idea that the purpose of doing this is to make some marginal change in land economics that's going to result in housing. That's just not going to happen. What is happening and I think is very exciting and where we should turn even more of our attention is the report we dealt with earlier, item three, where for the first time in almost 40 years, the city of Toronto has dragged other governments to the table to say the only places in the world where you have a healthy and balanced housing market are places where the state actively participates in supporting co-ops. not for profofits and directly building public housing. Areas in the world that rely completely on the private market to house people always have market failure, always create conditions where a significant portion of the population either is homeless or has to leave. So this is not to me an exercise in in um us trying to uh you know play around with the the land use economics and and getting different outcomes. Rather, it's us recognizing that mid-rise is a good form, in many ways, a preferred form. That building a wider variety of housing types means that a wider variety of people have access to housing at different phases in their life, and that it's incumbent on any government to review its regulations from time to time to make sure there's no unnecessary burden. And based on that, I really look forward to uh folks in Toronto having this conversation. There you go. Okay. Does anyone want else want to speak? Nope. Seeing none, uh we have the one motion and the items. So, I'm going to suggest we take them as a package. All those in favor? Opposed, if any, that carries. All righty. Where are we now? Item >> item 12 is the new item. >> Okay. So, the next one is the uh new business item that the mayor put on the agenda or that we voted to put on the agenda. This is the one about making it easier to build multiplexes. Uh we circulated that uh first thing this morning. Uh do any members have questions of staff on this? Nope. Does anyone want to speak on this? Nope. So, I'll just move it. All those in favor? Opposed? If any, that carries. Thank you, Mr. Connect. We're really glad you came down for that. Um, and I guess that just leaves the other new business item, uh, which I don't have in front of me. >> It's 13. Yeah, this is uh zoning regulations for places of worship in residential and mixeduse communities. Uh it's a request to the chief planner to report back next year with updated zoning regulations for places of worship to consider how they can best fit within Toronto's residential and mixeduse communities. Are there any questions of staff? Councelor Myers. >> Thank you. Uh so just having seen this what's the purpose of this more specifically? Mr. Chair, we have been made aware of some instances where places of worship that exist are seeking to expand and are running into some challenges with uh local zoning rules. And so this motion requests us to look at the zoning rules that are in place and consider where whether any need to be updated. Most of the rules that apply to p places of worship are um somewhat dated. They date from prior to amalgamation. Um I'll note that when city council adopted the harmonized citywide zoning bylaw in 2013, um uh the regulations that apply to places of worship were appealed and they remain under appeal. And so we would use this opportunity to um understand um the issues that the appellants have brought forward on those appeals and whether there's any need to update the existing zoning regulations previously adopted by council to reflect current realities. I'm going to note the motion very specifically um looks at mixeduse areas and residential areas. There there have been sort of historical issues around potential conflicts between places of worship and employment uses. And so the focus of this is not to look at uh permissions for places of worship in the city's employment lands. >> Okay. Uh and then for the mixed use areas, those could also include uh former employment lands though. Correct. If those employment lands have been redesated and are now designated mixed use in the official plan, then that would be covered uh in this motion. So is this motion also looking at the issue of you I know we're sick of tired and talking about it but this is a real issue parking in that what I get a lot of complaints about is that a lot of businesses can't operate on certain days when worship service is in place because the parking is full uh and none of the customers are able to actually visit the businesses. Yeah, I think this motion doesn't specify which standard should be looked at or whether I think the first step would be to identify issues. I'm aware that parking is an issue. Um, sometimes it creates conflict. Sometimes it also limits the ability of places of worship to to grow or expand or to locate themselves. Obviously, a bal the right balance needs to be struck there um to make these function successfully. >> Yes. And then I guess the other issue that I get a lot of complaints about is parking on residential streets. when uh again big ceremonies or uh days of worship and that residents can't actually get out of their driveways. So is that going to be looked at as well? >> I would I would put that in the bucket of of issues related to parking. I think the reality is places of worship function in some ways like places of assembly. They're places that attract large um attendees, large numbers of attendees, not constantly and consistently every day of the week, but at times. And when that happens, it it creates impacts for um community members that sometimes create conflicts. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions of staff? No. Does anyone want to speak? No. Okay. So, I'll move the recommendations in the mayor's letter. All those in favor? Opposed? Carried. We have completed our agenda in the morning. Well done all. pretty. Well,