Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Uh it's 9:31 on May 6. Uh this is uh W 6 local council me and I'm the chair of the committee of the whole meeting today. Now I'm calling the meeting to order. Uh we have quorum with only uh no regrets. Maybe council will be coming. So to start the meeting any of my colleagues have council announcement council syllabus. >> Thank you Mr. Chair and welcome to the seat. Um May is Jewish Heritage Month and I just wanted to make note of that. Um I want to thank uh Mayor West uh for his support uh where that where where uh the recognition of that is concerned. Um may according to the the canada.ca news site mayor's Canadian Jewish heritage month an opportunity to discover and celebrate Jewish culture, faith and history as well as the tremendous contributions of Jewish communities to our country's social, political and economic fabric. The month of May has special significance for Jewish communities around the world. It often coincides with the holiday of Shabot or the feast of weeks which celebrates the spring harvest and commemorates the gift of the Torah. So it's my true honor to announce that and um uh that's it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you for Mayor West. Well, thank you very much and welcome uh councelor Shu to the big chair and uh I I only have one thing to say today and and uh that is go habs go. >> Yes. What? Yes. Yes. Have to. >> Okay. That's all your announcement. May West. >> Yeah. >> That's all I have to say. I'm going to leave it at that and just >> I I'm going to now reflect on what I've said. Okay, clear and now so uh we have uh >> oh sorry Mr. Okay. So we have a deputy mayor govern chair. Good morning uh everyone congratulations uh councel shield assuming the chair for the next uh couple months uh uh for the committee of the whole uh it's exciting time it's uh month of May first meeting and uh thank you for everyone who's coming here on uh maybe watching us uh on the internet um May actually has a lot of celebration um it's uh thank you council civilitz is also heritage uh of the Jewish uh uh month uh also uh in Ontario uh the Armenian uh as well as uh I'll be remiss of Asian heritage not to mention May is Asian heritage month in fact this week is also celebration of many uh worthy courses including mental health week youth week uh how many youth in the audience not okay um as well And um something I really excited to announce uh is only 17 days to go to the 2026 spring fair that will take place at Richmond Green Park at 1300 Elen Muse Road East at from noon to 300 p.m. Um there will be complimentary uh hamburger uh vegetarian plus beef and hot dogs uh popcorns and thank you for supporting. I appreciate that uh public service allianceman. I'm just kidding. But uh anyway, for people who come u there will be actually entertainment for all ages, live music and last year it was very popular for families to enjoy. Uh I would just call it trackless cho train. They give you free rides around in the park for a short while. And in fact um there are also um many public service and nonprofit community based organization also set up booths to provide you with information uh including um many of our departments from here. Uh as well this is the 2026 we also recognizing um the 100 years of Royal Canadian Legion as well as 80th anniversary of a local branch 375 supporting veterans and also working with on intergenerational issues like supporting air cadets and so on and therefore also honoring the uh recognizing the local safety heroes. uh if they're not good enough, some of you may be know the fewer World Cup soccer is coming to Canada. And so only for this year on May 23rd, there will be a somewhat infraable um uh uh soccer like or football like uh uh booth where you can try your kick on the football. So come one, come all from noon to 3 on May 23rd, Saturday, 2026, spring fair. Everyone is welcome. Thank you. >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor Chen. And we have uh councelor Thompson. >> Uh thank you very much and uh welcome to the chair, Councelor Chu. Um, in response to uh the mayor's uh observation, I I do have to say that I watched the NHL lottery last night and guess which team has the number one pick coming up, your Toronto Maple Leafs. So, um, something to to watch out for there. But again, the only Canadian team left I want to point of order. >> Sorry. >> Okay. Uh I retract. Um I do want to uh let everybody know that uh today is uh May 6, which is MCappy Day. I know that myself and some other colleagues here are going to uh try and support and get out to um uh individual franchises to uh help support MCAP day, you know, if we ever get past these morning announcements. Um u but it's a it's a it's a good cause and that's to support the uh uh Ronald McDonald House and uh you know those accommodations for families with severely ill children. So uh just remember proceeds from today go to the Ronald McDonald House. Those are all my announcements. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Thompson. Now we have regional counselor Joe Depalo. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Can Uh congratulations on your your first meeting. Um there May is a busy month and there's there's a couple other things I just want to mention. Uh on May 20th um there is the Richmond Hill Prayer Breakfast uh right right over in the Sheridan Hotel here from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. There's still tickets available. Um, on May 23rd, um, from 3:00 to 5:00 at Rouge Witch Community Center, I'm going to be hosting a a life-saving seminar where, uh, anyone in Richmond Hill that wants to attend can learn, uh, both CPR and, um, awareness about how to how to operate an AED machine. So, uh, there's those two things. And, uh, this is our our last chance to to wish, uh, happy Mother's Day that that we'll be gathering that's coming up on Sunday. I know my mother's always watching. So, happy Mother's Day to to my mother and all the moms in Richmond Hill. >> Thank you, Regional Councelor Joe Paulo. Any other council announcement? Actually, I have one. Uh, thank you so much for uh to all the neighbors and volunteers help out uh to clean up the night parks in my word over the past two weekends and uh this is our third year in a row and it it has been such a pleasure working with you all. I really appreciate your dedication and commitment to make this happen and also a big shout out to the staff for providing supplies and picking up garbage bags after works. So I truly appreciate everyone pitching in to keep our community clean. Thank you so much. So moving on if there's no any oh c tree >> sorry uh just want to acknowledge as well in work for in the past two week uh weekend uh we um mobilized lot of the residents and volunteers to clean up up to 17 parks and trails. Thank you so much for all the volunteers coming and join this event and clean up our community make our street more beautiful and clean. Thank you so much. >> Thank you councelor tree. There's no any council announcements. So moving on um introduction of emergency timesensitive matter seeing none. So moving forward adoption of agenda. We have 14 items on the agenda today. No public hearings, no presentation, five delegations and three of them share the same item. One committee meeting minutes and seven staff reports. And also we have two member motions. So I need a mover. Councelor Davidson. All those favored oppos. So moving on disclosure of a peculiar interest and general nature thereof. Seeing none. So identification of items requiring separate discussion as we have dedication for item 11.7 11.8 and member motion item 12.2. So we will pull those items out. Any other items? one that's to pull out. Councelor Thompson. >> Uh yes. Uh 11.2, please. >> 11.2. Any other items want to pull out? Seeing none. So uh going to the consent agenda we have uh 11.1 3.4 4.56. Yeah, just double check with the M cler. It's a consent and 11.9. Sorry. Ah, this a correspondence. Yeah. So, this is consent agenda. So, I need a mover. Mayor West. All those in favor oppose. Peranomously. So, moving on. We have no public hearings. We have no presentation today. Now we have a delegation and the first delegates is Mr. Raymond Lave for the items 11.7 is official plan and Sonia Baw amendment application Broadway hotels and commission center. >> Uh good morning and thank you for allowing me to speak this morning. My name is Raymond Lefave. I'm past president of the condo board at 9015 Lesley Street. uh the property just adjacent to the Parkway Hotel. Uh I attended the first OOLT meeting, the Ontario Land Tribunal on April 20 20th and was granted party status as an interested W 6 uh resident. I'm making this submission in opposition to the parkway's request to aband the official, excuse me, the official plan uh from a local development uh a local center to a key development area. Uh the density of this project is far too great for the size of the property. It includes eight towers, 39 to 49 stories high with 12,000 new residents and 5,500 cars. on top of the daily traffic that's already created by the hotel. In terms of traffic, the intersection at Lesley and Highway 7, the site of the proposed project, is the catchment area from uh for one of the busiest off-ramps off of the uh Highway 404 into the Richmond Hill community. At rush hour, the cars are stop and go for many kilometers. With the addition of 5,250 additional cars, the traffic will only be exponentially exacerbated. That is, as it is now, the parking lots for the hotels and restaurants in the area are mostly full. To make matters worse, the municipality of Markham is across the street known as Thorn Hill, where there's a major data center planned at East Beaver Creek and Highway 7. and the property at the southwest corner of Lesley and Highway 7 is also being developed. We're concerned that this development is being planned in isolation of the s surrounding municipalities plans. I'm not suggesting that Markham plans should supersede Richmond Hill plans, but in areas such as infrastructure, utilities such as sewers, water, electrical, and schools where municipal boundaries are transparent, there should be some coordination. For example, just picture if only uh 10% of the 5,250 cars move in and out of the development that's proposed daily. The streets of uh Markham, which are already congested, will be just impossible to pass. Another concern is the lack of parkland on the site to meet the needs of 12,000 residents. In May 2023, the Sheran first submitted their application and our planning department advised them that there was a requirement to provide at least 75 hectares or 1.85 acres in size for a public park. And according to the staff report, this public park shall be designed as a focal point and gathering space for people. The park block must be designed to be able to play uh to have a to fit a playground, basketball court, multicourt, sports, and outdoor fitness equipment. It's a great disappointment to the community that the Sheron amended the application twice in three years and failed to comply with this requirement. Adding 3,773 units will obviously draw many families. We feel the proposed park does not meet the requirements described above and that the elimination of the three towers along the property line would provide greater space for a a more appropriate park. Also, with the influx of these families, there will be a need for uh elementary and secondary schools. I am a former educator and high school administrator with the York Catholic District School Board, now retired, and the needs of the students in schools is very important to me. I've worked in many overcrowded schools, and it is not the best learning environment for students that are crowded. Christ the King Catholic School and Donest Elementary School, which service this area, uh is a halfhour school bus ride away, and they're both full to capacity. Thornley Secondary School is located at 8075 Bay View and it's a half hour away. It's crowded and the two York boards should be made aware of the scope of these projects, not just made aware of the plans to build. They need to know how many new residents and potentially how many new students they can expect to absorb. Having stated these objections, I don't want to give the impression I'm anti-development or we are. We're keenly aware of the government's housing targets and support these targets to solve our serious housing problem. It's the density of the project and by density I'm not referring just to FSI. I'm also referring to the total square footage of the footprint on such a small piece of land. If you compare that pro this project with the developments at 75 85 95 and 105 Onida Crescent which is just a short distance away. There are few four huge towers on that land uh where we propose to build a the towers along the common property line north of the parkway are particularly pro problematic and these lands should provide space for a large parkland area. We are especially excited that the parkway's original proposal included a Sheran hotel expansion. This would offer great opportunity for employment to the community. But to our disappointment, this project uh was deleted from the proposal. It is our belief, Mr. Can. >> It is our belief that this plan will have a serious negative effect on the quality of life for residents in this in this area and perhaps even overwhelm neighboring businesses beyond their capacity. As it is now, their parking lots are full at peak times and this will only exacerbate the problem. Thank you kindly. >> Thank you, Mr. Levy. So we have the next delegates winner one for the same item item 11.7 sorry good morning chairs mayors and other counselor my name is Winnie Wong I live in 9017 Leslie Street the staff report is excellent I I support it founding and recommendations I appreciate the pressure the profits the province has put on all munipacity concerning The land use planning munipacity have fewer of option to review or scale back developments even though we raise concern about overdevelopment. This is what that is why I support removing the three buildings planned for the front of our condo which is tower four, five and six in exchange for increasing the height of the towers along Lesley and Highway 7. If the the East Beer Creek secondary plan set a maximum height of 40 story along Highway 7 and Leslie if the density from the three towers is to redistributes to the remaining towers it will means that extra 10 to 13 story to each towers that is a minor change to a massing of this site. The developer keeps all the density and make the same profit. Then the planet towers to the south of our condos building can be scrapped and the park can be put there instead. It won't make a difference to us whether those towers are going to 40tory or higher because they are hide already. But what will really affect my neighbors and me is being confronted by a concrete building every day and having no sunlight in my home. A park will provide green space for us and our new neighbors in the towers. Everyone will benefit. As urban plan as urban plaza as mentioned in the staff report is not a park. Park have grass, trees and flowers. A urban plaza is just more concrete. A park will provide a place for my children to go out and play and get some exercise. Right now we have to take a car to get a park far away from my condo building. It will be so much better if we can just walk to the park and senior would also be benefit. In summary, please ask the developer to remove tower four, five and six. Just add like 13, 15 to the height of the towers along highway 7 and lastly and build a small park in front of our condos parkway hotel can keep all the uh proposed condo and we have our park. I understand that the Sheraton development project will not be completed for another 10 or 15 years. However, will this extended timeline means that tower 4, five and six will not impact the unit owner living in 9015 and 9017? Honestly, while I may not live long like I may no longer live in this neighborhood in 15 years, I still want but I still feel it is important to advocate for the community. Over 20 about 25 years ago, the condo at 9015 and and 907 Lastly Street were constructed disposed zoning regulation that did not permit residential buildings and the reason for those approval remain unclear. I now wish to to voice my concern regarding this substantial condo project not only for my own benefit but also for future generation and prospective unit owner who may choose to live in our condo. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. W. Now we have the next delegates Vincent Cheng for the same item 11.7. >> Good morning um Mr. Chair, um, mayor and counselors. Um, I'm Vincent Ching. I represent the condominium boards at, um, 9015 and 9017 Lesley Street. Uh, first of all, I wholeheartedly support the staff report, its conclusions and recommendation. It is a very comprehensive and well-ritten report. Um, I I downloaded a couple of pictures. doesn't Yeah. Uh from from actually it's from the application that the uh sheran submitted as you this is one of the picture that shows the nine towers and in the middle there's also the hotel uh municipal building here and the shops of the pathway. If you see at the back there, the two L-shaped reverse L shape is the 9015 and 9017 building that we will be confronting three towers right at the north parameter of this site. Um, as my colleagues or fellow residents at the condo stated, and this would be tall towers, concrete wall that will be faced with 24/7. And uh, the next picture will give you a a better idea. Again, the the the next picture is another picture provided by Sheran as part of the application. You see the nine towers as like a it's like a concrete jungle amidst in the middle there's a it doesn't show on the map because it's a lower the the uh height like the city hall as well as the shops of the pathway and also the uh convention center is all in the middle and at the back there you see that low two low low buildings I highlighted a little bit yellow and that's 9015 9017. You can see the whole our two buildings are dwarfed overshadowed by the towers at the back. I mean this is not good planning for for the community. Um I understand that now the application is at the Ontario land tribunal and it is out of your control. We the condo board have we obtained a party status at the OOLT and u if there's any mediation through the OOLT we fully expect to participate through mediation I hope we can find a compromise with the massing model used in this application I can tell you we are going to persuade the tribunal to change this massing model. There's a sun shadow study conducted by an engineer firm has confirmed the residents worries that the proposed towers T456 at this northern parameter contravenes the city's own uh uh uh sun shadow criteria uh official plan part of the official and and that is why we're going to propose to delete those three towers and put that density on the remaining towers. Having taller buildings over the rest of the site is a compromise we can live with in exchange for a park and no shadow on our buildings. We have sunshines in our homes today and to have it taken away after 25 years is not right. If those powers remain, we would not only we would not get sunshine for most of the day. We look forward to having shops at our doorsteps, but not at the cost of having no sunlight in our homes. You have heard from residents from Ry and Winnie that the residents need a neighborhood park for outdoor sports and recreational activities. I don't think it would be too much effort for us to convince the OOLT that there is a need for a public park for a community of 12,000 people. After all, this the city's own dedic park land dedicated bylaw already requires this applicant to convey to the city a community park block of 1.85 acres. And we are very disappointed that the applicant has so far chosen not to comply with this Bland dedicated bylaw. We will leave it with the OOLT to decide whether a community park is needed as part of this development. >> Mr. Chain, can you wrap up in >> Okay. In summary, I would like to be part of the solution. Please consider our request of deleting towers 456, redistribute that density to the remaining towers and have a pocket in its place. So go a little higher along highway 7 and lastly that is where the space is and it's free. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Mr. Chen. So we have a next data case Christopher Linski on the item 11.8 gate. Oh, sorry. >> This is for 11 head-on gate, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, hello. Yeah. My name is Christopher Lozinski. I live at Six Crystal Drive, which is 250 meters away from the site in question. and I'm just here to express some of my concerns with the proposal to reszone the site uh for private school usage. Currently, the site is zoned as a NMU or a neighborhood mixeduse site. NMU sites are supposed to be commercial, community and residential uses whereas a CU or community use designation is meant to be schools and childcare centers. Head-on gate is a small threelane road including the left-hand turn lane that connects from Major McKenzie onto Carrington Drive near where I live. But a gate is an entry onto a court. It's a small road. It's not meant to be an arterial road. In fact, the fronting of this school is only 55 m from its solo entry point onto head-on gate to Major McKenzie. As well, a neighborhood designation is permitted. And as the staff report shows, these are the requirements that the building has a minimum of two access points which this proposal seeks to bypass. It has a minimized impact on the residential areas by pro providing adequate parking which this proposal again seeks to bypass and has adequate on-site pickup and drop off zones which I will argue is not the case. Again, the fronting is less than 100 m. The road itself is barely around 100 m. um 55 meters, one entrance onto a gate road is not enough for school buses, emergency vehicles, what I would consider schools, the required infrastructure for schools to operate as well. According to this proposal's own website, they've been operating as a private school since 2024 in violation with the zoning code that already exists. I'm concerned with the fact that if they've already been operating out of zone, what would happen when they do get zoning? Would there be more people than the building permits? We have no idea. And as well, would that part of Major McKenzie that it fronts where there is no access point? Would that have to become a school zone with reduced speed limits with traffic calming? I would hope so for the safety of the children. But that is already a huge traffic area like right next to B to Major McKenzie. I can almost never turn out of there at any time of the day. So reduced speed zones and continued traffic flow is just not wise. If you're making exceptions to the rule, we should ask why we have to create it. Is it because there's a need in the neighborhood? I would say no. We have Pleasantville Public School. We have Kuman across the road. We have we have St. An's public school, Alexander McKenzie. All of these are within a few kilometers nearby. Is the site ideal? I mean, clearly no. There's no fire lanes. There's no school pickup or dropoff zones. There's a short gateway street that's going to be severely impacted by traffic. And I've already noticed people just turning in U-turns blocking the ability to turn right, to turn left. There's no large parks like for soccer or other sports. The parket that it's backed on to is small for preschoolers. The designation on their website says they already provide high school classes to these people. I would assume anyone in middle school or high school would need more space, more area. There's no gymnasium. There's no ability for these kids to be active. I just wonder what the reason for granting this exception really is um when the existing zoning laws for all other schools are followed in the area. They all have the proper emergency vehicles. They're all aren't arterial roads. This site is just not built to provide this type of service and I cannot see a valid reason other than just an increased amount of traffic and increased profit for the business. Thank you. >> Thank you. So we have the next and the last delegates today uh Mr. Steven Nightingale for the item 12.2 which is a member motion regarding the development charges deferral. Mr. Nightingale good morning Mr. Chair, mayor, committee members. My name is Steve Nightingale and I'm vice president of development at Oxford Properties, owners of Hillrest Mall where we have a proposed 630 unit purpose-built rental project at the northeast corner of the shopping center that was approved in 2023. Oxford would like to thank this committee for considering the motion to match the region's 40-year development charge deferral for non-luxury rental buildings to incentivize and support the delivery of new purpose-built rental housing in Richmond Hill. As the committee is well aware, we have seen very little new purpose-built rental housing built in York Region or across the GTA over the past 30 plus years due to the financial challenges associated with rental development. And for the last two decades, we have relied on the condo market to supply the vast majority of new rental product by way of investor purchasers renting out their units. However, after four straight years of significant declines in new condo sales, that market remains severely challenged. In fact, Q1 of 2026 was the first quarter in 30 years where not a single new condo project launched for sale across the entire Greater Toronto and Hamilton area. This will result in a significant decline in new housing deliveries in the coming years, further compounding the supply demand imbalance for municipalities that already lag in rental housing stock. This should be very concerning. According to CHC, Richmond Hill has just over 1,800 purpose-built rental units in its inventory, only 111 of which were built since 2000. This translates to a rate of 8.9 rental units per 10,00 residents, which places Richmond Hill well below the average of 20 units per 10,00 residents across York, Durham, and Peele region. York Region adopted the 40-year deferral for non-luxury rental buildings almost a year ago, and in speaking with the region within the last two weeks. They have yet to enter into a single agreement with a rental developer to secure the deferral. That's how hard it is to make the numbers work in the current economic environment. However, they also said that several rental developers have recently expressed interest in moving ahead with a rental project in York Region because of the deferral. I can say unequivocally that without this deferral, it would not be economically feasible for Oxford to continue advancing our project at Hillrest Mall. We need more rental housing in Richmond Hill. We need it for young professionals who are not yet in a position to buy a home or may never be in a position to buy a home. We need it for newcomers who rent at much higher levels than the Canadian-born population, especially in their first few years. And we need it for our aging residents, many of whom will no longer uh need or wish to maintain a large single family home or whose physical needs may make it too difficult to remain in their two-story house. That is why we believe it is critical that Richmond Hill continue to build on previous previous efforts to support the expansion of rental housing by matching the region's 40-year development charge deferral incentive. This policy will have a meaningful impact on reducing the cost to deliver new rental housing and combined with the previously approved 35% reduction in the property tax rate will help rental builders like Oxford move projects into construction and support the growing and evolving needs of the residents of Richmond Hill. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Nightingale. Uh so that's exhaust our delegation list today and now we are getting into the business and following the order of the delegates. Uh now we are going into Item 11.7 uh this regarding the proposed uh official plan and soon bol amendment submitted by Parkway Hotels and Commission Center. Uh as this item is in my word and I'm going to move it. So I would like to pass the chair to the vice chair councelor Silifus for this item. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Chair with my pleasure. So we have in front of us agenda item 11.7 which is SRPBS 26026 request for direction for official plan and zoning uh boiler amendment applications Parkway Hotels and Convention Center Inc. City files OPA23003 and ZBLA250018. So if I could have a mover please so we can move it onto the floor for discussion. Go ahead council Chu. >> Thank you so much. Um actually thank you for the staff report and it's very comprehensive and clearly outlines where we stand on this application. Uh and overall I support the staff recommendation not to support this application given the concerns uh related to planning conformity uh land use compatibility and the overall appropriateness of the development in this current fall and also I thank you so much for the delic case to express your concern about this application. I totally support and stand with you and I just want to emphasize that uh this is not about opposing to this uh to to to the development rather than it is about ensuring that development is doing properly aligned with our planning framework and protective of the public interests and also the contributing uh positively to the surrounding community. Um I understand some argue that uh there's a KDA at the intersection at Yang and Bernard even north of our city. Uh but why this this intersection is not KDA because it's Lesley EBC and and Highway 7 why not is KDA at this intersection? Yes. Uh to the certain extent it doesn't make sense and I would say yes and no. It may not make any sense, but because it did not make any sense because I was always wondering why the city has made an exception to allow two residential building on the employment land 20 years ago. That's a really a bad decision and I think it's a wrong decision 20 years ago. Why there are two residential building on the employment land? So why we are stuck here always and and the time has come now and we have to deal with the reality for that decision. So that's why we cannot make it as a KDA because we have to take care and also take into consideration for that two buildings and the nearby residents for their well-being and also to maintain the life of quality there. That's our job too. not only to comply with the provincial requirements and to build a tower whatever we whatever it takes and also I understand in in in Asia I have a question in Asia like uh uh Hong Kong, Singapore um uh southern China the typical practice is the government or the or the applicant buy out the existing buildings demolish everything there and the applicant can redevel develop the entire area what they like. This is a usual practice in Asia. I have no idea why we have that's not the case here. So, and make things so complicated now because there are still two buildings on the north side of the application and also the hotel is still there. The conference center is still there, the shopping mall is still there. So, it makes things so complicated. It's not a pure development for residential uh development project. This so mixed and complicated now. So we have to take into consideration there are the two residential building there and we have to care their well-being as well and um I think it's it's not the fault of the developer and the applicant. The applicant is only talking about business. Yes, that's fine. But from the perspective of the city and the council, we also have to look after the daily commuters and also neighbors well-being as I mentioned before. So I'm happy to see the city is working on the secondary plan because it's for the entire area from the 404 and to the west of uh east uh west of Lesley and it's rather cons is a it's rather under planning under a super local center rather than just simply consider the application under the KDA destination. This is a good move and I support this move. So I would say this application compared to the secondary plan this application is not a good application. Um so also I would like to highlight two points in the staff report. Uh referring to the sub report just want to highlight two points on a staff report page eight. It states that uh the proposed development provides insufficient setback distance which fall to effectively reduce impact on the nearby properties particularly with respect to privacy access to sky wheels and sunlight. Very good point. A fair comment, very fair comment. And the next point I want I want to highlight is page nine in the staff report. The development proposal does not provide sufficient lands to accommodate a municipal pocket as com as contemplate in the city's park plans nor does it setifies the land allocation requirements in accordance with the plan and the planning act. I think those are the fair comments in the in the staff report and I can't agree more. So I do support the recommendation by the professional planning staff uh this is not a good application and that we should not support this application and that's my comment and I will leave my question in second round. Thank you madam chair. >> Thank you councelor. Next person on our speakers list is deputy mayor Godwin Chan. Thank you very much uh vice chair and thank uh thank you uh staff for and I think coding a delegates work comprehensive report and thank you for that. Um this has been um a project with controversy and thank you everyone um the uh residents by who you can walk here and thank you uh here in the chamber as well as the correspondents uh that you've sent to us and whoever is listening and watching. If that's a one single issue that would govern the residents of these two buildings, I think this is it. And if this is not what you call unifying, nitroening the community in terms of their collective in this case opposition to the proposed planning or development. I don't know what is. I'm not going to uh repeat that. um the local council shield have been saying I concur with all of it but I want to also to focus on a few things that number one I'm in full support that um the recommendation uh seeking direction from staff this is the project uh we ought to oppose in front of Ontario land tribunal for all the reasons that's outlined in the 16 and a half pages of report traffic has been mentioned in addition to other things by the first delegate actual view or delegates and it was clear in the staff report our professional transportation engineers the do not support was proposed and if you're looking for reference I think that was right on page 13 in the middle road network and transportation I'm not going to repeat it I just want to make the And the other thing too is park I kind of I can't agree with more with everyone who either have appear a static game you all have touch on it and that's a common theme if you look at that one acre uh that is the pocket in the middle of all the towers should they be built in the way is being planned is going to be shadow by um you know all those concrete block Mr. ing the last delegate talking about concrete wall. I I couldn't agree more just looking at um the massive impact on the bill form. So perhaps um that something can be looked at and um certainly uh at OLT and also the applicant may want to look about it look at it. I'm just give you an indication why I feel um strongly to support that the recommendation from staff to oppose it. I haven't seen so many use the word not and I give you an indication. I start counting on page five page three that's beginning of the report. There's only five such word not by the time I progress to page 15 unless my count is not accurate. There's 12 NOT not now I'm not suggesting progression from page three to page 15 but not not not is a common word I've been seeing in this report and this is from our professional staff whether it's traffic engineering where it's from urban design. So I can't say more and the other word is s significant exceeding substantially something inadequate. So with those not words as words that strong support for the motion that have been put forward. Uh I think the um I I'm take comfort by particular last gate Mr. Mr. chain was talking about they're open for compromise and I hope the applicant also think about that word that in the end I hope both parties or all parties don't have to engage in really protracted um particulars kind of situation like this um and hopefully come to a plan that community can live with not that they necessarily like but they can live with and those are my comments and thank you vice chair for me to make it just lie in under 20 seconds before the five minute duration. Thank you. >> Well done, sir. Thank you, uh, Deputy Mayor Chen. Next person on my speakers list is Councelor Carol Davidson. >> Thank you. Um, dear you, Madam Chair, and thank you to for the staff report, and thank you for all the residents who speak here consistently. Um, completely understand your perspective. Um, I want to go back and ask staff. Um, on o in October 2024, this council approved $2 million to expedite negotiations with the applicant. What did we get for that money? If we're ending up at the OOLT, what how did we get here, I guess, is my question. Through you, Madam Chair, to the counselor. Um, there are two separate issues here. the the $2 million that you referred to was to actually undertake the East Beaver Creek secondary plan study. It was not specified for this application. Uh the application and the secondary plan are proceeding concurrently and what we're getting uh for that money is a comprehensively planned community for the East Beaver Creek area. This is just one part of that area. >> Thank you. And um can you explain through through Madam Chair what I I understand um the residents in this area wanting a comprehensive plan that involves Markham man Richmond Hill working together but is there such cooperation does that exist >> through you madam chair to the councelor uh there is cooperation between the two municipalities uh we we do uh confer with them on what they're actually planning for their side of the PMTSA in this area um uh they are at a different stage engage in their development with their official plan update. They're quite behind where we are at this time, but we do have discussions with them. They are also keen to know and get information about what we're doing on our side of the PMTSA as well. >> Thank you. Um and through you, Madam Chair, can you just explain for folks who might not understand? So, now that this goes to OLT, while we are open and want people to come and tell us how you feel, where does this council stand in having control over this application? >> To you, Madam Chair, to the counselor. Uh the actual decision with respect to the application is in the hands of the OOLT at this time. The reason we are before council today is to get council's position on the matter which the OOLT is seeking obviously. Uh there is a case management conference. Uh second one uh the first one identified the parties. The second one is to basically put positions forward and get ready for the actual hearing. So one component of that is to actually get council's position on it which will have weight at the hearing. >> Thank you. Um, I think we I through you, Madam Chair. Um, I'm going to say I do think I do hear residents asking for more space, more green space, and I think the city is trying to take control and say what kind of community we want to create. So, I I support um I support staff going forward and and representing this council at the OOLT and representing the people. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Next person on our speakers list um is regional counselor Joe Depala. >> Thank you very much. Um Madame Chair, uh Mr. Clerk, if we could see the motion that has been made that's that's on the floor. It it sounds as though um the the intent of the motion is to deny the application and and defend a position against this application at the OOLT. I haven't seen the wording. Okay. Um I'll speak generally to this without having a chance to read this motion that's just come forward. So um I'm quite surprised that we're we're here and at this stage and and um you know it's it's really been a six-year process. It it began with the uh the applicant coming and you know unveiling its intentions and and pursuing a a case at the York Region Council as part of their MCR to remove the lands from strictly employment uses and and to allow for a mixed uh use designation that would enable them to enhance the hotel and conference center into a worldclass conference center as as evidenced by their original development proposal that it was here in in 2023. And um the resistance that the the application had at that time um when they were told to wait for a secondary plan process uh well is the only I can state to be the cause of why a 2025 new application came in that um that's less desirable for the community. uh left out the component of that hotel and convention center and um you know went from 42 stories to 49 stories and and um now that was you know that's what we're considering today. I don't have any faith that um going to the OOLT in in light of all the provincial uh declarations and and and determinations about how planning is is to be and especially in major transportation corridors such as uh Highway 7 and the 404 uh that we're going to and you know end up in any different position. Um I I I think it's only it's it's only right to manage expectations to let people here know that are anyone who's against this this is it's very likely I I mean that that this this type of density would will be approved here. There's there's going to be condo towers. I mean, if you if you look at any analysis of what the province is is has is allowing for planning on roads like Highway 7 where there's a major investment of um you know public infrastructure that you know this this is going to happen regardless of what we do as a council. I I really think we miss the opportunity to work with the applicant to get to get concessions for the community. Um I'm encouraged by by the fact that this site is is going is the this proposal allows for 5,200 parking spaces. It's just to it's probably very very hard to contemplate what what that's going to look like or what's going to mean, but we're going to have over 5,000 parking spaces underground and there will be an underground uh networks system that's greatly enhances what uh what is existing today. And I you know I I I I think if if we were had to pick a place in Richmond Hill to have this kind of density, this would have been the spot. And because they didn't we we first chose key development areas and then the request came to remove this from employment land. So at the time we decided where the three key development areas were going to be. It wasn't considered that this may be a an appropriate place for a key key development area. But I I believe the province will view it as as as a good place. I think this council has to consider if we're we're forced to accept a certain amount of population. Um where where is the right best spot or the right spot? Would um I don't think residents of Ward One would would would welcome anything like this at all. Wards two and four are over overburdened I believe with Young and Bernard and what's proposed there. I think Young and Seven can can can handle it. Uh I think this Highway 7 corridor is the right place and um you know I I'm I'm not not able to support was suggested course action here. Uh but I'll speak again on a second round. >> Thank you Councelor Depalo. Next person on my speakers list is Mayor West. >> Oh thank you. Um, okay. So, can I just ask a question before I get started? What is the total park land dedication for the entirety of the area? Because we're not talking in the secondary plan. We're not talking about any specific location. We're talking about the whole the whole of the secondary plan area. It's It's okay if that's an ambush. I'm sorry if I that's a detailed question, but what I'm getting at is does the the amount of parkland that's required for this particular spot, is it dictated for this particular spot or is it spread out over the entirety of the area due to our secondary plan uh work? >> Commissioner, >> through you, Madam Chair, to the mayor. Uh the the way the uh planning act works is uh in order to allow you to plan for parkland, there is a rate that's provided for each development application. We're in a unique situation here where that may be the requirement. We may not ask for that total requirement here because we're doing a comprehensive plan that's going to allocate for parkland throughout the secondary plan area. So uh to to answer your question, there would be a minimum requirement that for the property and we would perhaps take part of that in physical land and part of it in cash and mood depending on the larger need for park in the secondary plan area. >> Okay. So so essentially what you're saying is the parkland is going to be distributed throughout the entirety of the area in one form or another >> through you madam chair. Uh the way the secondary plan is shaping up now uh that is correct. >> Okay. All right. I just want a couple of statements. So, um, councelor Davidson asked a couple of good questions. Um, the value of I'm going to be a bit more blunt than the commissioner. The value of the secondary plan uh, and spending that money and going through that effort is so that we actually have a better way better policy basis to defend this. So, there is huge value in the work that we've done so far. Um, the second thing is um, the coordination that used to happen between municipalities was set in stone when the region had planning authority. the province took that away. So now we're left doing the coordination with our planning staff and Markham's planning staff. But before that was substantially assisted by the region and that's now gone and that is not something we did. That's the province. Okay. So, I understand your concerns everybody in this and and we've been working on this for quite some time and um I know yesterday we had a very frank uh conversation about this and I know that there were some things that I had said that uh didn't make you very happy, but I was being very honest with you and I'm going to continue to to do that. Um I I um because I think we need to work together on this and I'm really glad that you're a party in this because that is the best way to get your specific uh needs heard. Um because the needs that you have are not all the exact same as the city. So I'm I'm really glad you're doing that. That's great. Um I do agree that we do need to go to the OOLT on this and as unfortunate as this is and it is um I mean there's the staff report clearly defines why this particular application is too big. Um, but I want to be very clear and I I do agree to a large extent with re uh regional counselor depo on this that I would be lying to you if I said that we can expect very little density in this area because that's not realistic given the plans that the province has given us. Um, I I do agree that it would be I think it's important to make sure that we have adequate parkland on this site and in the entirety of the area because one of the biggest problems with us a long time ago approving those two buildings, oh actually it's more than two because there's stuff on Norman Bthune as well, but is that there's really not adequate residential infrastructure in that area. And and I agree. I I'm not sure that that ever should have been approved, but it was. We're here where we are. Um, but at the end of the day, we need the parkland. We need all the other amenities that go with a a vibrant residential area. And the good news is that when this is all settled and done, I have no doubt that there will be a lot more of that amenity than there is right now. So, that's a good thing. Um, I do would would like staff very much to consider the possibility of doing what we can and that's important realistically to reposition or do something with the buildings that are there now and combine that with the idea that we do need the parkland in this plan. But I I want to be honest and temper that with it is at the OOLT right now. This is not our decision specifically to make and uh I would like staff to make that case. But I also understand and respect the fact that there's a lot of balls in the air. That's one of them. It's an important one, but it's it's one of the balls in the air. >> The separation between the buildings is obviously very important and the shadow impact is also very important. I'm not sure that raising another 10 stories on Highway 7 is going to make your shadows any better when the sun is frequently coming kind of from a southerntherly direction, but you know, at least in the winter. Um then finally with the time that I have remaining um and I'll probably have to actually I'll probably have to go to a second round but the site plan which comes after this is the time where all of the details about where the buildings are going to be and all that other stuff gets taken care of. This thing that we have in front of us right now is mostly an OP uh uh discussion as to how much density are we generally going to allow on that on that land. The specific locations of all the buildings. We'll get into that, but it but it will be a conversation that will primarily happen after the fact. So, I have a few more points I'd like to make, so if you can just put me down for a second round. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor West. Next P person on my speakers list for round one is councelor Castro Louu. >> Thank you very much uh madame vice chair. Um thank you for coming today. Um and thank you staff for the comprehensive reports. I I agree with uh deputy mayor that you know when you look at page uh 5 to 15. So there's a lots of does not conform, fail to demonstrate, does not contemplate, does not satisfactory address, not in keeping with a lots of not. Um and and and I have to agree that you know we have no choice but to support the staff recommendation that uh we need to fight this at the OOLT. Um the only thing is you know what frustrate me is um that the $2 million of the secondary plan um that we spend um I don't know how is the OOLT outcome the OOLT decision will impact our secondary plan process >> um through you madame vice chair to staff >> through you madam chair to the counselor So, as I noted previously, there's there's a couple of processes that are happening here. So, the secondary plan itself, um there's going to be a key directions report that's coming to council in July. So, that will give us give staff direction on uh perhaps an option that will be chosen, a preferred option for the development of that area. That will go in lock step as a policy direction to the OOLT. So, it will play a role as part of the hearing. It will inform part of the hearing. I think I informed this council previously that the staff report will inform the secondary plan and the secondary plan will inform the staff report. So they do work in lock step together. >> I know I we kind of like interrelated. I understand that. But I I I really hope that, you know, I remember last year when council approved that $2 million, you know, is mainly because, you know, we want good planning in in in in in the East Bea Creek and in particular um you know, we can have a better bargaining position with Sherin. Um but uh I I really still hope that you know that $2 million is uh is is the money well spent. Um and the other thing is um one point that I would like to make is that the role of of of this council I understand that we have to fight this but when I look at the the verandering Mr. Vincent Chen showed us um that's the concrete jungle and don't forget we are part of it. You know what role do we play as the owner the land owner of this city building? We we also being affected by that so-called concrete jungle. Do we play a role as a land owner or we're just as council representing >> through you madam chair? It's the latter. Uh we are the uh we are the regulator in this particular case. Uh we taking direction from council. Whatever concerns you may have and comments as the mayor has put forward uh for staff, we will take those forward. Whatever you want to put forward to us. But in this particular case, we are the regulator and we are acting in that regard in uh recommending to council a position. >> Thank you. All right. So that's all my comments. I'm in support of the um the staff recommendation and uh hopefully we can get an outcome that you know satisfy everybody. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Lou. Next on my speakers list for round one is councelor tree. >> Okay. Thank uh thank you so much madame chair. So uh you welcome all the residents come here to voice your your concerns. So I just want to acknowledge all the council members comments here as well seem as most of us. So I do have concerns about the uh the traffic issues uh also the education system the enrollment also the the concrete the heights the sunlight etc. So uh from my personal experience I drive to here in the office in the earlier morning 9:00 a.m. when I turn from the 404 to highway 7 just for now don't consider other traffic. So it's very challenge for me just turn into our building as well. In the future if we have more 5,000 just for this pro project maybe after uh maybe few years more we're going to have more project. Imagine the traffic right. So it's going to be a very very high turn into uh office to just join our regular meeting will be challenging for counselor. So that is something for all of us have to consider. So just one echo e echo one more time. So the report submitted by the the staff here already. So from city's perspective I think we have our voice and our stand here. So thank you. >> Thank you councelor. So I don't have anyone listed here on the first round any further on my last call here. Anybody else wish to speak on the first round? Seeing none. Okay. So I'll give my comments. Um I want to thank all this the delegates who spoke here today. Thank you. As um a couple of my colleagues have mentioned, we've come to know you very well over the years and we thank you for your participation. It is incredibly important. Um I will support uh the recommendations and I think it's very important to to note that um uh B in the recommendations states that the Ontario Land Tribunal be advised that council does not support the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment applications submitted by Parkway Hotels and Convention Center Inc. for the lands and then it describes all the lands for the primary reasons outlined in staff report SRPBS 26.0. 02s and then C is equally important that appropriate city staff and external consultants be directed to appear at the Ontario Land Tribunal in support of council's position concerning the subject appeals including participation in the OOLT mediation. So we as a council we uh we have to give our staff instructions on what they must or must not do when it comes to an OOLT. This is a you this is it's not so much a unique case but a different case where I would say um going uh going to the OOLTs is actually beneficial to the city remembering of course that it is the proponent who appealed this uh to the OOLT not the city was the proponent. Um, I would like to see and I urge the proponent on this on this one to please work collaboratively with our staff on this one. There's going to there's not going to be a satisfactory middle line here. No matter how we look at it, there is going to be development here. As has been stated very eloquently by my by my colleagues, it's what do we finally end up with? I absolutely support the necessity for a a park for some kind of parkland here. And I I understand and totally acknowledge what the residents of the two um uh uh buildings are saying in that the application as it is does not show a respectful consideration for the uh residents who already live in those two condo buildings. And there was a hope that we could get to that, but we didn't because the applicant appealed this. That's their right. Um, this is an identified PTM PMTSA. So, this is going to be developed. Um, I hope that, um, discussions for our, um, overarching secondary plan become very relevant here as well. um because that is very important to the whole area not necessarily to just this one particular space. So again, my my thanks to everyone. I I definitely support um the recommendations from staff that this particular um this particular application absolutely needs to be uh discussed at the OOLT. And as your council, as your elected officials, all we can do is hope that we get a decision that comes out of the OOLT cuz it's not ours. A decision that comes from the province that is at least satisfactory to most of us. So, thank you. I'll go to the second round now. And the first one on my speakers list is um councelor Shu or would you like to be the last to wrap up? >> Okay, >> I will be the last one. >> Got it. Therefore, my next person on the speak second round speakers list is councelor regional councelor Jodapala. >> Thank you very much madam chair. So um you know I ultimately will um will will comply with the decision of this council whatever whatever it is uh you know uh once the decision has been made. But I'll I'll just want to make one uh last last effort to to appeal to my colleagues here. I think the, you know, the fact that we're we would be turning down this application and instructing our staff to to fight at the OT, I think it's it's it's the the wrong thing to do. I think we should have been approving this. Uh, as it came forward, I have a question through you, M, Madam Chair. Um I is are are is is this applicant um stuck at it its 2025 revised development proposal when when it goes to the OLT does it have any latitude or ability to change what what they apply into that OOLT hearing? >> Commissioner, >> can they adjust anything that it's been applied for >> through you uh madam chair to the counselor? Uh there is flexibility. Obviously, they put in a revised plan and that's the plan that they that they're going forward with. But, uh, from what we understand with the, uh, proponent at this time, they are also seeking mediation. So, things could change. Uh, it won't be, um, that proposal or nothing. There is room for change. >> Room for change. Well, um I I I have to be optimistic for the state of the city, for the residents that live in the area and and that that um you know, some something can be worked out. There can be some some mediated uh solution that comes back to this council for approval. But in and you know, in the absence of that happening, um you know, I I I think you you know, you either take what you have or or you're rolling the dice. It could could get worse. U the fact that they've applied for to have the minimum number of parking spaces. We could approve it right now and and lock that in. But in an MTSA, they're not required to have any parking spaces for they're they could come in um without any concern whatsoever for the for the wants and needs and concerns of the community and and go to a very pro-development, you know, provincial body right now that's that's in a housing crisis and looking they're in incentivizing this type of development. uh in in other neighboring municipalities almost doing away with development charges to to try and incentivize this kind of thing. And um you know, for us to for us to to to roll the dice and and and have an applicant at the OOLT that that could be going for something that's maybe even worse than what they've applied for as far as the community is concerned. No, it's it's it's difficult for me to support that. I I can't believe as I, you know, go and talk to residents across Richmond Hill and everywhere everywhere else that, you know, I I I can't fight against uh, you know, high-rise development on Highway 7. And with this proximity to the 404, that's that's where, you know, if you go down the 404, you see all all sorts of uh, you know, high-rise buildings because that's that's uh the best place for it, close to transportation. And um you know I I I'm I'm going to vote against taking this action and you know I I I don't blame my colleagues and their desire to to to do otherwise. But I think it's I think it's it's just not it's not prudent as as the budget chair that to spend money fighting against something that we're we're trying to incentivize at the region and here and and just just makes so much sense. But at the end of the day, we're we're going to we're going to have this regardless. This is, you know, um it's that I if if I lose this vote, I'll be cheering for the city to win, but my guess is um you know that that um well, I don't want to prejudge an outcome of an OOLT. I just just first first sat up here 29 years ago and I've never seen something like this go uh you know I I just have an instinct when it comes comes to where we're going to land and um I I I don't think spending the money to fight for this one is the right thing to do. Thank you. >> Fair enough. Thank you, Regional Counselor. Your your comments may be different from the rest of council, but they are certainly valid. Uh, next person on my second round speakers list is Mayor West. >> Well, thank you. Um, so I mean, first of all, I'd like to say, you know, yet again, this council has, uh, given a very wholesome discussion and very well-rounded discussion on this, and I thank everybody for being so respectful. Um, so, uh, I I actually I just want to say that I found councelor Leu's comment interesting that, uh, you know, we're, interestingly enough, we're also a a stakeholder in in another way. um we don't live here. Although sometimes I'm in my office for a long enough in the day that I feel like I do. But um but I will say though that you know again uh I can see as a person that's here quite a bit that you know having the kind of amenities to you know go out and uh you know do the things that you do you know on your lunch break or whatever. um and they don't really exist that in large quantities right now, but they might I if you if we had a more um uh wholesomely and wholesomely developed um area in this in this area and that's ultimately what we're trying to achieve here. Um, you know, language is important and I I did in the discussions that we had yesterday. I mean, we we ran across the the term good planning quite a bit and I just want to be clear, good planning a when it's applied at the Ontario Land Tribunal is different than good planning to the general public because good planning to the general public is, you know, not having the things that they don't want and having the things that they do want. But the definition from the planning community which is being used at the OOLT is different and uh it considers a whole myriad of uh things that need to be uh done in a positive way in order for it to be defined as good planning. So that will be the definition that you're going to be seeing a lot more of as the OOLT um uh proceedings go forward. Just a couple remaining question or comments. Um, Mr. Lefay, the school board makes the decision on schools, not us. And and you would know that if you were like given your past role, but um what I would suggest on that note is um you know, we have school trustees. I mean, I'm not sure how much power they have anymore, but um if you you know, probably you should be reaching out to them. I mean, we're we're obviously important to reach out to, but um in that particular case, I don't disagree with you. I also was a teacher at one time. Uh, I know what overcrowded classrooms look like, but at the end of the day, we do not make decisions on where schools are and how big they are and what the areas that take kids in. So, I would suggest in your advocacy work that you guys might want to talk to the school board. Um, the uh I I just I just wanted to say too that um you know, and this has been touched on in various forums throughout this discussion. um this type of density, the level is debatable, but the type of density that we're talking about with having multiple buildings on a in a given area, that is the thing that you're going to see more and more. And as a matter of fact, we have approvals for that level of density in a number of different places in Richmond Hill right now. In fact, some of those approvals are far higher than than what you're seeing here. They haven't necessarily been built yet, but the approvals are there. So you are going to see more of that type of thing being built. And again, in all cases, we want to make sure that we're dealing with all the infrastructure needs, the transportation needs, and the livability needs in all of these different areas. And that will always be our goal. And if you look at the staff report, you'll notice that a lot of those issues are being covered in the staff report. So any I'll leave it there. Um I think I've made myself clear to staff on on what I I would like to see them do. um you know over the the course of the OOLT proceedings, however they end up progressing and uh we will go from there. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor West. Next on my speakers list for round two is Deputy Mayor Godwin Chan. >> Thank you, Madame uh Vice Chair and Chair. Now, um I wasn't thinking about speaking, but uh but but I honestly hearing something I I think I would say my piece. Um I take great exception to um hearing that this is kind of give people impression done deal um it's not uh it is in the hands of Ontario land tribunal they are the body that is charged or responsibility by the government to make decision on matters when there dispute between a land application and the manage party and other parties who might sign up for the hearing. So, uh, as a citizen, um, also as well as a council member, I fully respect the due process that partners have allow us to have PE parties put forward the best case for this professional, experienced uh h uh um people sitting on the OOLT who are going to make decision based on the evidence evidence and that is being our submissions by all the parties. So honestly I take with exception because um it's almost sounds like OLT is not really a process that or respected um particular opetration body. I I I I I I don't want to to be uh part of the um uh really being um that kind of uh thinking. Having said that, so we should we should fully respect that all parties make the best arguments why fall or not fall or what modification can be thought about. Um and um but I think the integrity and the and and and the professionalism of the OOLT should be respected and rather than jump to conclusion is a foregone conclusion. Yes, there might be some development and I'm glad to hear I don't hear any delegate or there any correspondents receive from the community saying they opposed to development. On the contrary, they're saying they're not against development, but something perhaps uh through goodwill um then of all parties eventually that would be a plan development that all parties kind of um would be um satisfied with and it's not necessarily hopeless in a sense. I mean there are certain cases and I'm not going to say all cases but there's one incident that has been um that one I was a local counselor um the epic applicant would like to have eight over 800 units at the end is only about 531 units now it's still lots of units but it's certainly it's almost a discount of 40% of number of units so there are decision that make by Ontario board or now might actually look at all the circumstances. Now I do want to say yes I totally concur. If any particular high density buildings are to be built, it will be along those corridor particular regional corridors where there is u the infrastructure there's a capacity of public transit young street highway 7 and to a certain extent maybe in the future in some other uh key development area and we already see it in Richmond Hill and 16 cowville and even fur up in Yana Bernard and it's a 37story building going up there in Yanga Bernard And that might not be something some of us may be necessarily um thinking that might be the best site but this is what the what it is and um yes so there will be high density tall buildings along those corridor that's going to happen no doubt and I can see that um now but I think that PS OM and also OLT they also have been encouraging media mediation by that meaning that all parties don't have uh necessary have to spend all this time or all the expenses until the hearing um there are situation that would be settlement that's the word settlement that's got me to the point when I make my first round all parties come to well and actually I believe the second delegate were mentioning maybe instead eight towers put it into five towers taller building same number of units So potentially I think she might even say make the same money or something like that. I'm not going to touch on that. But but I think that if all parties are exhibiting goodwill and try to some uh some kind of mediation ra than engage in a protracted kind of like negotiation I think there is hope and on that note I remain uh hopeful and in support. Uh I cannot vote any other way with so many not um that was indicated in the report I said earlier. Thank you very much for um give me a chance to voice my view. Uh thank you madam chair. >> Thank you sir. Is there anybody else who wants to speak on the second round? Councelor Davidson. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I I I really do appreciate the respectful discussion and I agree with councelor Dupola in that I do think that there's going to be probably more developed here than what residents want or what fits the city plan. But the way I look at it is that um, you know, the city spends a lot of time doing an official plan and they take they try to take everything into consideration like what do residents want? Will there be shopping? Will we be able to grow? And it I feel we have a duty to defend those plans when they're challenged. We can't just roll over and say, "Okay, well, we'll probably lose, so we shouldn't try." So, when it goes to the OOLT, it's like this this sort of challenge. And I think we are all seeing that the province tends to side with the higher densities, but that's not why I'm sitting here. I'm sitting here to represent the city, to represent the residents, mostly the residents. And I really feel like developers have a lot. They have the lawyers. They have the money. But we're here to tell whoever wants to build and we want building here in Richmond Hill that the community should have a strong voice. So we'll go to the OOLT and maybe it will go our way and maybe it won't, but I do think we have to try. So unfortunately it's going to be expensive. It'd be great if we could figure this out without the OOLT and I know we'll continue to work at it. But that's sort of my my feeling. Otherwise, why have a planning department? We we'll just ask all the developers what they want. So anyway, I feel like this is the way to go and we'll have to see how how it rides. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Next person on my second round speakers list is councelor Castro Leo. >> Thank you. Um just uh very quick um I heard about um how money how much are we looking at in um going to the LT on this one through you madame vice chair? uh through you Mr. Chair. It's difficult to quantify in terms of the total cost depending on how many days this is a complex one. So that the cost can definitely will be in the tens of thousands in terms of for the legal fees as well as potentially the external consultants on the complicated issues that may come forward. So there there will be a significant cost in terms of going to the OT for sure. Diff difficult to quantify the exact amount though. >> I understand. Thank you. Um, my other question is, you know, I I keep scratching my head. You know, it's been mentioned that it's been going on for almost six years why the applicant chose this time to appeal to the OOLT through your madam vice chair. I don't I don't know if you have an answer, but I'm just really really curious. Right after we spent $2 million to do a secondary plan and they all all of a sudden go to the OLT that >> through you, Madam Chair. Um obviously the applicant has not disclosed why they chose this time to do this. I I think working with developers in the past, you see that uh this is a path they often choose just to protect themselves and uh you know putting in an appeal is not a costly uh endeavor for them in terms of an application to the OOLT. Uh funding a hearing is a totally different case obviously. So um I think they've just done it to protect themselves. That's that's what I feel >> and they should have done that like years ago >> to you, Madam Chair. They could have, they chose to, you know, we've been working closely with them. They've they followed the process along and then they made a business decision uh to to file an appeal. >> All right. Thank you very much. And uh Okay. >> Thank you, councelor. Next person on my second round speakers list uh who's speaking for the first time, Council Scott Davidson. Scott Thompson, I apologize. Councelor Scott Thompson from W 2. Who's that? >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, actually, I I just want to follow up on councelor Leu, what what he's mentioned here, and what we're talking about is on the the process side, and I and I want to make sure that we all understand typically what uh a process uh may be, particularly when it comes to the OOLT. And yes, I I do believe as the commissioner mentioned that uh the you know it's not uncommon to make a business decision uh to protect themselves in that sometimes it could take a long time just to get to the OOLT. So you know a lot of developers want to get in the queue. Um, but what I'd like to u make sure that we understand is that in general we're usually continuing to negotiate along with the uh uh proponent right up until you know it it does get to a potential hearing because as the commissioner pointed out that that can be a costly endeavor when you get to the hearing side. So, um, maybe maybe it'd be good to hear from staff just to say in in general, is that typically what continues to go on or do we get situations where developers just say, "Nope, I'm I'm I'm done negotiating. I'm going to wait for the hearing." You know, >> Commissioner, again, let's talk >> to you, Madam Chair. Um typically, um in these circumstances, uh it's very rare that I've ever seen a developer not want to have discussions and certainly the municipality has reached out to both the proponent and the parties now to the hearing. We've been trying to keep everyone informed. We take questions, we provide answers. So, it's an ongoing process as we go through this process itself, the multiple processes we're going through and before the OOLT. I think in speak again I can't speak for this developer but he's been open to discussions and talking about next steps in the process be it mediation or a hearing whatever it may be right and thank you for the answer because I I really believe that well I I shouldn't say I believe but we would certainly hope that that's where we're going to land because we want to keep as much control as we possibly can. the moment it goes to a hearing that control is completely lost. It's whatever the decision is made we have to abide by. So we're trying to make sure that uh you know we get the best that's to happen here but but right now we can't support and I certainly feel the same as staff that we can't support um uh not defending this at at the OOLT should it actually end up there. So those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Thompson. So, before I go to um councelor Shu for his wrap-up, pardon me, as vice chair um who had to take the chair here, just want to thank my colleagues for this excellent discussion. As Mayor West said, um it is collegial and it is respectful and it is very very important for us to have these discussions in the same way as our delegates stepped forward and had very respectful discussion themselves. Uh that's very important and as someone in her previous life before she was an elected counselor did go to a very very important mediation which took years to get to and ended very well for um both parties all parties involved. I will say that the fact that mediation is on the case management's uh uh agenda is very very important. Mediation at the OOLT is super super important and going to the OOLT is very important as far as I'm concerned in this respect or in any respect because it gives the public your voice. You are a party and the province has changed many many rules and regulations with regards to the Ontario Land Tribunal as opposed to when it was the OM. So, but you can still be a party and you can still stand up and you can still give your peace and that is extremely important. So, um what we do um as as your council and as your city is our job is to define policy and that is what we do. We do that all the time with everything from something very large to something very small and our staff who are involved with that as well are incredible. We ultimately as as your council approve or or not of the policy but it's that policy that our um staff members from legal to planning and everything in between will take to the OOLT. It's those policies that they are able to defend and that is very very important for us as a council and for you as our residents. So um that's all that I have to say uh and I will hand it over to councelor Shu for your wrap-up sir. Uh go ahead. Thank you madam chair and uh thank you all my colleagues for your comment and that was a very good conversation and I still think this application is not a good application and not a good planning. Uh as I mentioned before this not a pure residential development because the hotel the shopping mall and also the conference center still there and the tall buildings around. I think this application is not friendly and even offensive to the nearby residents because they are too uh residential building on the north side of the subject land. It's not friendly to the nearby neighbors and even it's not friendly for the tourists. You can imagine if I live in a hotel there's a tall buildings around and just like feels like trap. It's not welcoming to a city. is not a good sign for a city because this is a landmark in our city and I think this is not a good planning like this and it's not making any sense. So uh also I recall the council had unanimous vote for uh the secondary plan last year to direct the staff work working on the secondary plan. So I just want to confirm and and clarify if we not oppose this application right now. So and we let it go. So we have to stop everything for the secondary plan. Is it right? Can I interpret like this? >> Commissioner through you madam chair. Uh if council were to theoretically approve this proposal again as I've referenced in the past it would inform the secondary plan process but it would not stop it. that process would continue on and reports would be brought to this council to approve a preferred option at some point. >> Okay. So we have to consider if this application is a good application and opposed or not. So I still believe this is not a good application because it's not comprehensive enough to take all these factor I mentioned before into consideration. It's not comprehensive enough is regardless of the uh green space is regardless of uh the shadow impact something like that traffic something like that. So I don't think is a good planning and I prefer getting back and would put more effort on our second year plan instead. And also uh regarding the OOLT appeal I would like to have a few questions. I understand uh the staff mentioned before there will be a significant cost to the OLT appeal. So, is it all from the tax base money? >> Um, for you, Mr. Chair, and subject to the treasur's comments, but it is from a um is generally yes. The answer is yes. I'm just trying to think in my mind what budget it would actually come from. But there is a corporate account that has been framed as the OM account that funds significant um litigation in terms of going forward and it is uh it is topped up uh over time. Um again subject to the treasur's comments on that. That's where it would be funded from. >> Thank you Mr. Dealta. Uh Madame Lee from your perspective Mr. Madam chair to councelor Shu that that is correct. So it is the tax base that funds the OOLT reserves. >> Okay. So um is it possible is is it possible to reach in a settlement before the hearing to avoid any hearing >> through you madam chair? >> Uh yes indeed it is. Um, as I said, the next step is there's a case management conference to uh set out the next steps to inform them of council's decision and uh there we'll have to wait and see if everyone agrees to mediation at that point and it could be settled before then and if anything is um settled uh by the parties, it would be brought back to council for comment and review uh before it actually is finalized. So uh has the city has any conversation uh with the applicant recently for this OT appeal >> through you madam chair. Uh there has not been a lot of dialogue recently since the appeal went forward. There has been some but uh I think everyone's sort of waiting for this process to sort of bear itself out and then for the next case management conference to come and I think uh discussions will pick up quite a bit after that. >> Okay. Thank you. So my last question is in in worst case also if the oil appeal rules the applicant wins. So we have to stop everything including the secondary plan here. So just go for this application and no secondary plan anymore. >> Just want to clarify this >> through you madam chair. My previous answer is the same. Uh the secondary plan will not stop regardless of what decision comes forward. It would be basically uh become part of the secondary plan if you will whatever the decides but but you know by the time we get an actual hearing uh perhaps our secondary plan will be done by then. We don't actually have a date for a a formal hearing yet. So the two will merge at some point. >> So that means the diff the um the main difference between the OLT rule win or lose is the uh the zone the zoning that destination. If the OT uh rule the applicate wins that will go to the KDA destination if it lose it will go to the super local center destination. Am I am I correct? >> Uh again through you madam chair that's really to be determined in terms of what the actual designations were. We're really going down the rabbit hole here into getting the into the details. We're not at that point yet is really to talk about the proposal. Um they would have to the applicant would have to then submit a site plan application for us to finalize the details where the buildings are going to go, what heights are going to be exactly where and then the zoning bylaw will cater will be sort of crafted around that final proposal. >> Yeah. uh but because there's a totally different definition uh between our secondary plan and also the this application because this application is KDA the tallest building will be up to 49 stories but according to our plan is only 40 stories something like that so there's a totally different how can we merge that decision into our secondary plan I'm just wondering for this >> commissioner >> through you madam chair uh again the the the way these things will merge will really depend on what the what the final sort of proposal comes out and we would have to then see how uh if if we are told that it's going to be densities that really don't follow our urban structure, we're going to have some difficulty there and we'll have to look at land classifications as to whether it's a KDA or a local center, but we're not there at this point yet. It's it's very preliminary. >> Okay, let's wait and see. So uh actually those all my comments and I look forward to uh all my colleagues to vote unanimously because we have to respect what we vote last year to support the staff to keep going on the second plan rather than this application. So I I think at at this point we have to oppose this obligation and let the staff keep working on the second plan instead is more making sense. That's my last comment. Thank you. >> Thank you counselor. So, we're going to call the vote. In front of us, call recorded vote is being called by Deputy Mayor Godwin Chan. In front of us is agenda item 11.7. >> Thank you. Uh through the chair, voting on the motion of councelor Shu, regional local counselor Chan. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Councelor Silhouettes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Davidson. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Thompson. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mayor West. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Tree. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Leu. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Regional Local Council Depala. >> No. >> Thank you, Councelor Shu. >> Yes. >> Thank you. That motion does carry. >> Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And again, thank you to everybody who came into council today for this. I will now hand the chair back to its rightful owner, councelor Shu. >> Thank you, councelor surface. Now we are going to the next item going to the 11.8 uh following the order of the delegates is should be 11.8. This is uh official plan and son bal amendment application at 11 Hen gates. So is in what for? So cry floor's yours. So uh thank you so much uh who are our delegation come here to discussing this private school issues here as well. So I do have a few questions uh uh asking for city staff. The first one, how many years this practice school already been running? >> I should be used to this by this point in my career. Uh through the chair to uh counselor tree, the school operation has been there since December 2010. Um it only occupied a portion of the building at that time. And in about 2020 the uh the existing school expanded to occupy the entire building on the site. >> My next question regarding to the traffic. So I I know this location is right in front of the uh very close to community to uh magic. So I'm imagine so there are going to be tons of traffic. So from the perspective of traffic, have you seen a dramatic changes from a traffic perspective especially in Raj Harbor? >> Through the chair council tree, I've I um spoke to my colleague uh the director of development engineering and we've had no uh reported uh known reported traffic concerns uh for this area. In addition, as part of the uh evaluation of the application in front of us, uh a trans uh transportation impact study was reviewed um and accepted by our development engineering staff identifying that there are no concerns from a traffic perspective for the continued operation of the school on this site. >> Okay, perfect. Next question. Because this is only one in and out uh one single exit from here. So um in case of fire trucks or emergency situations is this facility can support that type of the issues through the chair to council tree as part of the review of the application. All of those matters were considered. Um fire and emergency services are also uh circulated the application for any concerns and there have been no concerns identified with the access. >> Okay. Another questions for the space cuz you know normally school do have a gymnastic for this uh specific private school. Do we have any space for kids to come play with >> through the chair to counselor tree? Uh there is an indoor gy gymnasium available on site and they do use um for outdoor amenity area the adjacent public park uh next door. So for the exit I've seen the maps. So from a school perspective they do have a back door and gate connect with the public uh community park. Is that right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So I don't have further concerns. Thank you so much. >> Thank you councel tree. Uh I are you going to move it? >> Yeah. >> Just want to make sure that's okay. So the next speaker is councelor Thompson. >> Thank you uh for uh acknowledging my last name there. Um uh I do want to just follow up with staff in regards to the uh um access where it's just a single access. So if I'm uh in reading the report, it it would seem that typically you you would have two access points u when we're talking about a school. And in this particular case, we're looking at the amendment uh that would allow one access point. And I understand that, you know, we did uh there was a study that was done and it determined that um there did not appear to be any conflict uh occurring based on how they got the 24 parking spaces so that you know for drop off and and uh pickup. So people come in and come out. However, the delegate has noted that they've observed uh situations where perhaps that isn't uh actually happening. So I guess my question is uh about the study, was it actually uh you know, did it uh occur during those drop off and pickup times? And um was it our staff that did that study or is this somebody else's study and we had to validate it? I'm I'm a little concerned how we got to where we are. >> Uh through the chair to councelor Thompson. So the uh the transportation impact study was done by a consultant uh in support of the applications with by the applicant. We review and validate uh the transportation study. uh as part of that transportation study actually uh took a look at a potential second access point and reviewed that um alternative and it actually was determined to be not supportable because of the impacts that it would have on the neighboring properties. Uh like I like mentioned previously the the school has been in operation for some time uh with without any known incident with respect to traffic complaints in the area. Uh further to that um the applicant is doing a rellining and repainting of their parking area to accommodate uh for some additional uh parking spaces and the p and to address some park uh drop off and pickup area issues. So that may assist in uh addressing some of the concerns that have been raised uh by the uh proponent uh by the uh resident in the area. Mhm. >> And so for that, appreciate that. Thank you through the chair. Um, so it sounds like we can trust if I I'm not sure I exactly heard this, but uh the study did occur during drop off and pickup times >> through the chair to councelor Thompson. Quite often that is a requirement to look at peak hour uh scenarios and the worst case scenarios so that we can determine whether or not uh the road network functions as uh required. Okay. Uh, those are all my questions. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, Councelor Thompson. The next speaker is Councelor Davidson. >> Thank you, Siri, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the delegate for coming. I appreciate it. Um, I think we all do when we hear from local residents. I I maybe this is a curveball and I don't know if staff can answer, but have there been many complaints to the city about the congestion caused by that one entry point from uh from the school >> through the chair councelor Davidson in speaking with uh the director of development engineering. No, we have not had a significant number of concerns or any for that matter related to the traffic impact in in this area as a result of the school. >> Thank you. The one entry point does concern me, but you can reassure that the uh that fire and other safety issues have been addressed. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Davidson. Any other comments for this item? Seeing none, uh Mr. Cler, can you show the motion on the screen to clearly show to the public and make sure that everything's going smooth? and council tree. Are you okay for the language and words? Yes. >> Motion. Yeah, I'm good about it. >> So, let's vote. All those favor opposely. Thank you so much. Okay. Following the order of the delegates, the next item is the member motion proposed by regional counselor Joe Dea regarding the >> No, there was a delegate. >> Yeah, those delegates. Yeah, those delegate first. And this is a memo motion 12.2 items. So, uh, regional councelor Dola. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Um, so I I I hope everyone had a chance to to look at this. >> Sorry. Point of information. Um, do we not go to 11.2 before the member motions >> delegation? My apologies. Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. So, so thank you. I hope you've u uh had a chance to re uh review this proposed motion. Now the um I I I do want to direct uh everyone's attention to the you know the the main reason it's here today um I I've included on as a part of this motion also the York Region development charges deferral for non-luxury rental buildings policy. So, so in that policy, one of the conditions that uh the the region has before they're they offer their incentive that they're they're proposing is is in section seven regarding local participation. It's a condition of of the region giving uh this indefinite deferral for non-luxury rental um apartments that the the region will only enter into development charges deferral agreement if the local municipality has provided a similar if not better incentive for the proposed development. So un unless we match what the region is doing, it's it's it's very clear and very straightforward. uh the region the region does not offer um this this deferral incentive. So um there there are so many reasons why we uh incentivize rental um especially in Richmond Hill where we have absolutely zero vacancy um and es especially in the case where people were willing to come forward now and and and build this type of project. uh the it it's it's unlike unlike a condo where you know you go through your three to five year process you build it and then you get paid in full. Um in you know once you go with a rental building you go through the fiveyear sometimes longer process and in in year one you start collecting rent but it takes a very long time to to uh recover or get any sort of return on an enormous investment of capital. And um because of the different incentives that have that have been given um there are some some people as we saw a delegation here today uh you know or um you know a longtime part of this community Hillrest Mall. Um you know we've we've approved their buildings. There's no question that we we want uh what they what what they're building there. it's in a KDA. There's no discussion as to what uh uh whether or not we want what's being built, but we're we're we're beyond that and looking to incentivize uh that. And the the region has has uh made the same determination that purpose-built rental is the the the most desirable um and the most lacking form of housing that we need in Richmond Hill. It's it's for for young people uh for seniors that want to downsize to have to have that option. Um and and it's for our our employment community. If when people want to hire our our Richmond Hill businesses want to hire employees, they they they're you know, the people that they're recruiting from all over the place don't even have rental options to to come to Richmond Hill. There's there there's a reason why we want and and and it's only in the case of nonluxury uh rentals, you know, um and and that's that's what we're getting on Young Street. It's an affordable product uh relative relative to what's being available. Uh the fact that it's rental, it's, you know, gives our residents an opportunity to to to find housing uh in a in an extreme shortage. So um the the region believed that this is the right way to to go about incentivizing uh non-luxury rentals and um you know I I agree wholeheartedly and anyone who's applying in in any other municipality is is is going going to get this but without without moving this motion that I' I've set up very simply to reflect a mirror image of of what the region is doing that if somebody qualifies for the regional program and qualifies for that incentive under that exact same criteria. Um we would also offer and match that that same um incentive. So I I I hope u members of council can support this. Um, you know, I'm I'm sure our staff can handle any any questions that come up and I can certainly help uh to to to answer any questions about the the intent of the motion and the the benefits that the our city will derive um if if it successfully incentivizes anyone to take advantage. Thank you. >> Thank you uh regional councelor Joe Paula. And the next speaker is deput Chen. >> Thank you. Um um Mr. Chair and um I first let me say yes, thank you for the delegate. You point out how you point out the statistics. We collectively, I I'm sure all of us would like to see more uh for rental purpose uh housing uh in particular non-luxury um that um and I I'm I'm happy to support the motion in front of us and uh and and I took comfort particular uh couple words. The two words is in principle because we obviously want to see okay well maybe I shouldn't say we but I for one at least I think my colleagues would be like to see the spray uh the uh uh uh um uh shovel on the ground that to really build it and yes uh not just Richmond Hill York region all across I quoting paraphrasing the delegates term quickly Toronto and Hamilton area we all need it no doubt about it and um I'm also taking comfort that I think the same restrictive confident uh that our which uh our city solicitor when doing it down the road when this is approved uh I guess at council next week is to have the 40year restrictive continent and I saw the nodding at least from the delegate uh that would be mirroring what the region is expecting because yes no doubt about it we need more um forpurpose rental housing And um and I'm glad that federal government and government are not only making noises now, they're actually putting up dollars on the table. So it's um it's some it's a time to really fully uh collaborate, work together in addressing this. Um the I don't need the answer now, but because we are not actually having a final adoption until next Wednesday. I did mention the treasurer Lee before she left earlier. I say I might have a question for you. Uh but if the answer is not here today um that I like to um leave the question here so you uh >> oh I'm sure my my apologies. >> I'm just preparing. >> Oh okay. My ap I'm looking I'm looking that way and no sitting where you are. Okay. Thank you. U I don't need to answer right now but if you do that's great. What um maybe using one specific example like the Hillrest, we know the number of units uh that the proposal that has been approved. What would be the estimate estimate in terms of uh for um the city could have received on the on the developmental charges had it not be uh in this case defer you um uh Mr. Chair? >> Yeah, Mr. Treasur Lee please. a ballpark. If you don't have it, I can wait till next Wednesday. >> It's through the chair to deputy mayor Chan. Based on the proposed development, uh it's roughly in the range of 12 to 16 million >> 12 to$60 million on this one project. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Okay. Got it. Uh thank you. The answer is uh thank you uh Mr. Chair. Uh but in principle uh uh I'm supporting this because this is any incentive we can we can have um I hope our local member federal parliament and and provincial member parliament also hearing we need help for um as mayor west mentioned and I'm sure the Ontario big city caucus saying to make it whole meaning with the city Richmond Hill parties are not collecting because we want to be a part resolution, please help the senior government. Uh, but I'm in support of the motion. Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Miss uh, Lee, for the answer. >> Thank you, Deputy Deputy Mayor Chen. And the next speaker is, um, Councelor Davidson. >> Thank you. Um, and thank you for bringing this forward. And I have quite a few questions through you, Mr. Chair. um to staff, what would the pot potential financial impact be to the city? This is just one one project, but obviously if we make this this DC deferral, uh I mean, can we even guess what this would cost the city over say the I I don't know since it's a 40-year deferral, I guess it's hard to guess, but like we're talking millions and millions of dollars. Is that right? through the chair to councelor Davidson. It's difficult to quantify the number right now uh because the the region's policy for non-luxury rental buildings is applicable to developments um that achieve building permit issuance before December 31st of 2029. So essentially, we're looking at any potential development that will come in between now and have their building permits pulled by the end of 2029. So it's it's difficult to quantify that right now. Thank you. In today's dollars, can we guess how much per unit the city will lose in DC charges or what will subsidize I guess have to make up? through the chair to councelor Davidson. We're looking at prevailing rates for small or large apartments. They're roughly in the range of 22 to $33,000 per unit. So it depends on the composition of the development, but on a per unit basis, we're looking at between 20 to 30 >> through you, Mr. Chair. So, we're looking at I don't know what to call it except a subsidy because we're not if we don't collect the DC charges, the city will somehow be expected to subsidize let's say $25,000 a unit just to be safe. So, is I know that the province and the federal government have said they are going to have a uh a program to help pay back uh municipalities that do this. But is there any indication how this is going to work or that it would make us whole that if we forgave in this example 12 to$16 million that we would be granted that money to make us whole 100% or what how much of it would we get back? Do we even know that yet? >> Through the chair to councelor Davidson. So, we're still waiting on clarification on that federal provincial partnership program. Um, just based on what's been announced, there is an expectation that there is a municipal contribution to that program, right? So, there there is that expectation. And I I would also add that that program is intended for municipalities to lower their DCs by a certain percentage. What we're looking at here within this motion is different is that it's a deferral. So I I wouldn't compare those two programs together because they're they're ultimately two different things >> through Mr. Chair. Sorry. So I'm confused. I thought the incentive for the municipalities to do it is that the other levels of government will give Mr. Chair, if I may, I can probably answer that due to some work that I've been doing in the last little while. >> Sure. >> Um the the details of that program have not been finalized. I'm going to talk about this in my in my comments in a minute, but um it is highly unlikely from what I've heard that we will be made whole. And um in fact there's through different discussions that I've had there's it ranges anywhere from nowhere close to be ma made being made whole to somewhat close to be ma being made whole but we don't have um uh clarity on that yet and I'm getting different uh answers as they work through the details of this program. Um, but we've talked about this at the Ontario big city mayors and various uh other conversations that I've had. And uh apparently the details of that program are going to be made official uh toward the end of this month. Oh, there. Um, so assuming we're not going to get made whole and we're not going to receive grant money back or whatever we're calling it, where's the city supposed to find the money to cover these DC charges if we're not collecting them? >> Yes, Mr. Lee. >> Y through the chair to councelor Davidson. So essentially the lower collections will lead to a reduction in financial capacity at the city to fund capital growth related infrastructure. So in order to continue to fund these um council will need to make a decision either to defer them or use other funding sources i.e. tax or reserve other reserve funds. >> Thank you to you Mr. Chair. So to continue with capital projects in the city as a whole we'll either have to reduce them or we'll have to raise property taxes to cover it. >> And we have no idea how much we'll be in the hole for because we don't know how many applications there will be over the next three years. Is that accurate? And we don't know how much we're going to get from other levels of government. >> Through the chair, >> that would be my understanding. Yes. >> Thank you. Um, can you explain Richmond Hill already has a number of incentives for purpose-built rental buildings? Would the region consider any of those things to reach their criteria to that they're enough that we don't have to change what we're already offering? I mean, specifically 35% property tax reductions, um, grants, affordable housing, conc, all the stuff we're trying to do to fasttrack these purpose-built rentals. Does this what we're already doing not meet the regional criteria without having to get rid of DC charges for 40 years through the chair to councelor Davidson? So, the city does have an approved DC deferral program for affordable housing rental projects that actually meet the local contribution requirement of the region's non-luxury rental buildings DC deferral policy. So, we do have that in place and our staff have had discussions with regional staff and they have confirmed that our existing DC deferral offer is sufficient to meet the intent of the requirement for a similar or better contribution. So really, in other words, there is no administrative um barrier to housing developers in Richmond Hill to receive that deferral program from the York Region. >> Thank you through you, Madam uh Mr. Chair. So, but it doesn't reach the does it reach the criteria that we can consider that we're working with the region as per this plan that that we're trying to align with? Will it be enough? Is it enough? through the charity counselor Davidson as I mentioned earlier regional staff did confirm that our existing policy does meet the requirement their requirement for a similar or better so so yes we don't have to match the 40 but they do consider our policy to be sufficient for them to grant their program >> so three manager I mean it's starting to get in the weeds but so we're already there we we don't officially need this policy, right? Because we're already doing what aligns with the region. Is that in a nutshell right? H how about I change it? I think we meet the criteria based on what you said. So there's no reason to go any further with deferrals. That would be my guess. Anyway, moving on. Um how are we collect mechanism to collect money in 40 years? How's the city ever going to get the money back? through the chair to councelor Davidson. I think we we spoke a little bit about that earlier. So essentially, sorry, as part of this process, there is either restrictive covenant or there is a mortgage, there is a bond or letter security. So the financial security is in place through the agreement process. In the event there is a trigger event um then we would draw on that financial security. So we're protected in that sense. >> Thank you. Um is it accurate to say that anyone in Richmond Hill who bought off a plan they paid for DC charges through the whole process of buying a house that went into the next like development was meant to support development. So I bought my house off a plan. I'm I paid for the sewers and the development charges for the next development, right? It it was sort of I've already kind of paid some because I I bought my house here off a plant. Isn't this essentially asking people who already paid for DC charges through their own purchase to now cover purpose built rentals? I feel like we're getting away from development paying for development. We're going back to the same taxpayers and saying, "Oh, you can pay again." And I I get it. We need these rentals, but I don't see how this city can afford it. >> I guess the question is up until now, have have has development not paid for development? H has DC charges not covered infrastructure for the next thing coming along? And now we're saying no, that's not going to be included in this development or future purposebuilt rental developments. through the chair to councelor Davis and perhaps I answer it this way. Um the philosophy is growth is intended to pay for growth, right? Um but over the years with the number of legislative changes, I would see the gap is increasing in that growth is no longer paying for growth and that we're now having to shift some of that to other sources or existing taxpayers. Thank you. Uh quickly I'll just say to I I get it. I everything costs more and purpose-built rentals, I'm sure, are a bit of a headache compared to selling off things that are a one-time sale. But we have property taxes. The federal government, provincial governments have sales taxes and all other kinds of sources of revenue. And I just don't support this because I don't see how we can do more than we already are and still be a sustainable city that grows with the people we already have. Thank you. >> Just make Thank you, Councelor Davidson. The next speaker is Mayor West. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um so um I'll start off thank you very much to councelor Dpollo for bringing this forward. I think this has again been a good discussion and I think I I totally acknowledge uh the need for rental uh purpose-built rental in Richmond Hill. I mean, we we acknowledge that so much that the half funding that we got, we used to uh uh incentivize a bunch of purpose-built rental, and I think that's great. And and we need a lot more because I think that would really help uh with uh our affordability concerns in Richmond Hill. Um you know, obviously collecting DCS is important. I won't even bother uh going uh on about that right now. Uh but it is important. Um, so the thing that I'm concerned about right now is, you know, at C at regional council tomorrow, we're going to be looking at a a a staff report that outlines about $5 billion at the region that have been uh that we've had to take on because of decisions that the province has made, including and mostly because of uh deferrals to DCS. That's B5 billion. Okay, that doesn't include what Richmond Hill, Vaughn, Markham, Stoville, and so on and so on. Uh it is it is crippling cities the amount of money that we have been asked to forego. And and to answer your question, um councelor Davidson, you know, growth maybe kind of used to pay for growth, but it we're at a point now due to provincial direction that it we're getting away from that and that is very problematic in my mind. Um, but having said that, I mean, we still need to to incentivize the right kinds of developments and what you're proposing is, in my mind, a very important part of that mix. But I think the thing that I'm concerned about the most, I'm not suggesting that we necessarily don't do this um because it is a choice that we can make based on all of the information and the costs for doing this, which we don't have right now. Um, but what I'm also concerned about is this new program, this provincial federal partnership. If if we if cities are to be made whole, knock yourself out. We're doing this in a heartbeat. Absolutely. Because it's it's frankly what the federal and provincial government need to do in order to support cities given what the amount of DCs that we've already had to forego. and and but I don't think that we can afford uh a much greater burden of DCS going away because ultimately at the end of the day if we're not collecting enough DCS we either don't build community centers and new fireh halls and parks and all that other stuff which is totally unacceptable or we raise taxes which is at least if not more totally unacceptable. So, I think what council needs right now is to look at the details of this new federal provincial program. If they come out and say we're funding uh the the DC reductions in cities, then fine, we're going to we're almost certainly going to say yes to this. If they say we're going to fund only a portion, then I think we need to have a conversation. And if they say, you know, we're you're only getting 10 cents on the dollar, then I think that's a whole different kettle of fish. And until we have the details of that program, I I would recommend that we don't make a decision on this. And the details of that program are coming out I I've heard at the end of May. So, I think what I would like to do at this time is def uh refer this back to staff and in anticipation of the details of this federal provincial program, which I'm sure we would get a staff report on anyway, but take this program and the federal provincial program, report out to it on it at the same time, and let and when we have all of that information at our fingertips, then I think we can make a much better and informed and responsible decision. Um, and I'll just finish off with the one minute that I have left to the applicant. I would suggest that your homework might be that you might want to go to your provincial and federal representatives and say that, you know, we really need a program that supports both of our needs, the building industry and us. We are not, I repeat, not able to do this without the support from the province and the feds. And right now, like if you look at the report from the city of the uh region of York about the amount of money that it's already cost us in provincial decisions over the last four years, I think most of the developers that I've talked to, if not all of them, will understand that it more than ever, we're actually in the same boat right now. So, I'm sure you have a lines of advocacy to to the decision makers in this process. And I would strongly suggest that, you know, it's not just me saying this. I'm sure it's most of the Ontario big city mayors would agree that you know it a lot is riding on this program whether we're going to be able to afford to be able to do the things that we know we need to do to incentivize housing. So that would be my motion. Mr. Clerk, I would uh ask that we refer this to back to staff with the report and uh the the timeline. I'm not sure we can give you an exact date, but sometime the end of this month or perhaps the very beginning of June. So now we have a motion to deferral. Okay. Yeah. Good. You're welcome. to the chair. Uh I would ask the mayor to confirm that I have captured his intent effectively in that motion to refer. >> Okay. So just get back to Mayor Wales. Are you okay for the language for the motion? >> That looks great. You're you're amazing at condensing all those words into this words. Thank you very much. So now uh on on the floor we have the motion to referral. Any speaker for the referral? The first one is uh councelor Leo. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Um and thank you Mayor West for uh moving this referral motion. Um so that I don't have to ask my list of questions anymore. Um it's really good. Um um the only thing is uh with all due respect um I I totally support this referral. Um it's uh a reported bracket prior to summer recess. Okay. So what if before summer recess there's still no details uh through you Mr. Chair? >> Well I mean I can't speak for the federal and provincial government but I think actually that I I think we're being generous by saying summerus because I understand from the conversations that I've had and I've had a number of them that they're looking to finalize the details of this by the end of May. Thank you. I appreciate that. You know, the point that I asked is because um I have a feeling, you know, does it are we supposed to refer to the budget instead of of a report back from staff? You know, because what I'm hearing from and thank you for councelor Davidson for lots of very good questions. Um what I'm hearing from the treasurer is is kind of redundant. and we already have something in place and as much as I appreciate the intent of this motion um I totally agree that we need affordability but you know the price for paying affordability to the future residents by putting or creating a big burden to the existing residents um I'm pretty struggling with that so I don't know if this is a budget issue or is is I I don't I don't have a problem. I'm just putting the question out there. I'm in support of this and um and and that's all I have because uh >> if we Yeah. If the referral motion failed and I I'll I'll start asking my question. So, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, councelor Leo. The next speaker for the motion to go. Yep. Mr. Cler, >> thank you through the chair. I just want to clarify and I think councelor Leo's comment was whether this should come back to committee the whole or budget committee the whole. Um I I would just comment that this is really about a policy decision. Obviously there's financial implications and committee of the whole uh certainly always has the right to weigh in on those. It's not specific only to the budget. So it's totally appropriate for here. >> Okay. Clear. So the next speaker for the motion to referral is uh regional counselor Joe Deal. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um so so I I have a question through you to to our our our treasurer. Um and I think this this is really important and this is what we keep missing. How much how much revenue will the city get if if this deferral is not put in place and nobody nobody builds any um non-luxury rental? How much revenue will the city get if nobody builds luxury rental? Mr. Lee >> through the chair. I believe the question is if nobody's building >> nonu non-luxury rental in Richmond Hill, how much does the city collect in that case? >> Development charges >> is zero related to >> Thank you. Thank you very much. And in the case where we do do this and this this motion is passed, we we mirror what the what the region is doing in their incentive program and it does incentivize someone to build um and they take advantage. How much revenue will the city get in development charges from that project? >> Still zero, >> right? Okay. So, so we're not there's absolutely no difference. Um there's no financial implications of doing this to the city. We we keep we keep talking like as if development charges are something that we're losing if we discount them. The the purpose of this is an incentive. There is no one going to build a non-luxury rental building in Richmond Hill without without significant incentives. It's only the incentives that are are bringing them to the table to even discuss building in this environment in this market today. And we're we're down to one entity. There's there's not a there's not a a private company u that that has been building in Ontario and and there's very few institutional companies that are large enough. We we've got um we're we're we're down to only enormous companies whether with with pension fund holdings that have to be out and um have to find a way in which to generate some some return and and they're saying it just it does not make sense unless they're they're um able to take advantage of these incentives. So I I'm I I'm proposing my motion is to mirror the what the region is doing. So the region has has taken securities in place and they the the biggest thing at the beginning of this discussion was how can we ensure that that we're getting purpose-built rental because it at you know at some later stage they could condominiumize and and and sell the units and and this this uh regional policy addresses that indef on an indefinite basis but but uh a security bond is is is is given taken by the region the the city would do the same take a letter of credit and um you know they they they will be responsible for these development charges. It'll be added actually added to the tax tax role and it will it will acrue and be compounded and at you know uh uh if if anything does change in the in the in the non-renal capacity that means there's an affordability criteria that they have to maintain for those 40 years in order to receive this this benefit as well. So u the you know the region went to great efforts to to do it. I think it's the right thing, but if we don't do it, if they don't if they don't get the incentives from the region and here um then you know that that's the only the only reason they're at the table and there's no problem limiting it if you don't want to go to 20 to January 29 like the region has. We could go to January uh 27. We you know we could we could just put this out there here. you know, you've got you've got till the end of the year to take advantage of this if you step up now because, you know, we we need it now. We could do 27, 28, 29. I don't mind the referral. I don't mind waiting one month, but I think I think one month is about the max that if if we're not back here in June giving some certainty because when these decisions are made to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into a project like this, they they you know there there needs to be certainty because we have um we have builders in Richmond Hill that are at that they're at that stage of you know they have all their approvals. are going to be applying for building permit and whether they apply for building permit is going to depend on what what the cost of the DC is going to be if any and if we can match what the region is doing then then the the the bottom line just barely makes sense enough to just barely get over that threshold for us to finally get some buildings in Richmond Hill. We we desperately need rental. Um, and you know, the it takes the pressure off all of the existing rental when there's a little bit of competition. Uh, you know, we it's it's um a a built form that we've we've approved and we've and and it will not happen without this incentive. So, we have to decide, do we really want it or not? the regions made their decision and I'm I'm hoping that we can we can see the wisdom in that and and and match what the region's doing so we can we can finally get something done so we can point to what we've done with our incentives this term of council. Thank you. >> Thank you regional counselor Joe Dealo and I hope the following speaker will will be focusing on the referral or not but not the motion itself. Uh so the next speaker is uh councelor Service. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Focusing on the referral which is on the floor in front of us. Um I do support this. Um and I echo councelor de Paulo's words in that it's it's just a month. I think that it would be prudent for us as elected officials and as members of the board of the corporation of Richmond Hill to ensure that we have all the details in front of us and I believe that that is what uh uh Mayor West's referral motion is going to enable us to do. Uh so I really look forward to to whatever is going to come back to us um so we can uh re-examine this and um and and go back to the original motion probably. But for the for the referral I definitely support this and um uh we do have in W 5 and Oxford Properties at Hillrest is in W 5 as well fully support anything we can do and give incentives for the building of purpose-built rentals. We have one at the moment that is currently under construction, two buildings um at Elman Young. So I am all for this. Um but I I absolutely support this um referral motion. Just one thing, Mr. Clerk, it says member motions. I think according Mayor West, it should be motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Uh any other comments on the motion to referral? Uh I have a comment on the wordings on the motion as I see there's a timeline because we have to refer back to the staff for the report before summer recess. So there's a timeline here. So I'm just going to make sure that is it referral or defer because we have a timeline here. >> Thank you uh through the chair. Uh a referral is to send it somewhere else or in this case to staff. A deferral is just to delay it. So if you can't just delayed it, it would be automatically for instance put on a future committee the whole agenda without any staff report. So it is referral. Okay. So there's a referral. So there's no for this. So um there's no any other comments. So let's vote for this motion to referral. Okay. So uh the mover do want to record or just raising hand. >> Okay. Just by raising hand. So all those in favor uh okay only except uh region council >> oh sir oppose okay so there's one post and carry majority okay so uh I think it's about time to have a lunch breakfast >> no okay >> just one >> okay >> no we have two items left yeah thank you Yeah, >> normally we would absolutely suggest motion, but it my sense is that these other two items might not take significant amount of time. So, uh it might not be in anyone's benefit to take hopefully. >> So, we have two items left actually >> and the next item is 11.2 pulled out by councelor Thompson. So, the floor is yours. >> Uh thank you very much uh through the chair. I just want to thank staff for the report and the work that's gone into this. It appears that the intent here is to strengthen our financial safeguards and better manage risk. Uh that said, I I do have a few quick questions and that is I'm wondering how the 10% threshold came about and how it compares with other municipalities through the chair to councelor Thompson. the the threshold for 10 to 50% was essentially uh set up by uh development engineering our department specifically and what it's intending to do essentially is um build in that risk factor or that protection against risk to the city and where where I'm going with that is the the developer who's building a particular piece of infrastructure is already going to be reimbursed through the DC so rather than have them pay uh or post an additional letter of credit which actually now is double securing the project. Uh what we're saying is we don't think that that's a prudent way to um free up money for developers to be able to secure other projects. So what we're saying is in the event something were to happen and a developer were to default and we would take over the project we would do the work through the or with a DC funds we would use somewhere between 10 and 50% as the administrative cost for us to now take on the project that the project and that's bringing in a consultant or whoever else we whoever else we might need like a peer reviewer. Um and we would look at the complexity of the project uh depending for example if it's something um a small infrastructure project or something as big as a bridge we may be closer to a 50% um uh LC holdback in that case where we know we might need a more um specific consultant or if it's something more simple we'll be closer to the 10%. And the idea here is really to to free up funds for developers so that they can um secure other projects and not have everything all in one basket. >> Okay. Um thank you um through the chair. So in in the report you talk about uh exceptions or alternative forms for um securing um uh for a security being approved and I guess my question is is that something that is supposed to come back to council or how is that intended to work? No, >> I don't believe that was sorry through that through the chair to councelor Thompson. I don't believe that's intended to come back to council. It's really just to advise that there are different means of securities. They could be through shy bonds, letters of credit. Those would still be in place and they could be both ways. They could come both ways. >> Okay. And just to tap into what you were talking about earlier, I is there any risk uh that this could unintentionally disadvantage u say smaller builders because you know I can see where some of them just won't have that capital uh to to bring forward like a 10% security requirement could be challenging for some of them. So I'm just uh I got to throw that out there. >> Yeah. Through the chair to to councelor Thompson. I I don't think there would be any real risk even to a smaller uh developer or builder. This is really meant for um larger projects where there are um uh large sums of DC funds that would be coming back reimbured to a builder to a developer and then having to further secure that. Again, it's essentially double securing. If I can use the analogy of a bridge costing $10 million and that developer having to then go and number one build it with his own funds, secure it through an LLC, knowing full well he's going to be paid through a a DC credit anyway. It's it's just too much money being tied up. So, we don't really see this as a risk to any party. >> Uh much appreciated. Uh I'm willing to move that motion. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Thompson. Is there any other comment from my colleagues? Seeing none, so let's vote it. All those in favor? opposely. So the last item is uh the member motion raising the bride threat for the month of June proposed by councelor service. The floor is yours. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um once again I'm putting this motion forward as I have done previously. Um uh the support Richmond Hills uh support of our 2SLGBTQ plus uh community is um apparent and very very much in place. So I believe uh with that and also in accordance with our DEI policies and we've done this before um I I urge my colleagues to to please vote for this uh to have uh the pride flag flying on public property uh on the community flag pole uh wherein another flag is does not have to be flown there uh for the month of June which is known as pride month. Um, I look forward to uh York Pride Parade on June the 13th and to all of uh all of my colleagues and members of staff hopefully who could join us. Uh, we are as we have a City of Richmond Hill um uh uh uh we are we are registered as a city of Richmond Hill uh to march in the York Pride Parade as we have done every single year. So, um I I I hope that uh this will pass unanimously and um I want to thank um the clerk's office for helping me bring this forward now and um I I look forward to any comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, councelor Sus. Any other comments from my colleagues for this? No. So, let's vote. All those in favor oppose carry unanimously. Thank you so much. We have no emergency timesensitive matter. Oh, the most exciting item a German any move. >> Oh, I can go to >> cancel is free. Okay, that's it. Thank you so much. >> Very good job. >> Good. The motion to adjourn. Oh, okay. Oh, no. I I missed my raising hands already. I'm friends.