Committee of the Whole Meeting - Wednesday, May 21, 2025 - 9:30 a.m. - City of Richmond Hill

Summary

In the Committee of the Whole meeting in Richmond Hill on May 21, 2025, local governance matters like the forthcoming spring fair, new community safety initiatives, urban garden projects, and housing developments took center stage. Council discussions focused on addressing community concerns about proposed housing developments, supporting affordable housing through tax incentives, and other community-building initiatives. Various community events and projects aimed at enhancing local life were highlighted, along with recognition of civic contributions and cultural observances.

Highlights

• Deputy Mayor Chen announced the 2025 spring fair with exciting performances and attractions. 🌼
• The community is invited to a safety exposition to discuss public safety matters with officials. 🚔
• Annual music fest event to debut indoors, featuring local talent and community camaraderie. 🎶
• Urban farm projects aim to create a community hub for sustainability and food sharing. 🥕
• Residents voiced concerns over a new 15-story condo proposal impacting local traffic. 🚗
• Rental housing solutions took a step forward with regional tax adjustments. 📈
• Civic pride was apparent as local milestones and heritage were celebrated. 🥳

Key Takeaways

• Richmond Hill is gearing up for an exciting spring fair featuring live music and performances. 🎶
• Community safety expo with hands-on discussions is scheduled to bolster local security awareness. 🚨
• New music festival event set to charm residents with talented artists in May. 🎤
• Green Hills Collective Garden Project aims to promote food security and biodiversity. 🌱
• Councillors discuss a controversial housing development plan which raised community concerns on density and traffic. 🏗️
• Rental housing incentivized through proposed tax changes to address housing crisis. 🏠
• Richmond Hill recognizes local heroes and cultural observances to unite the community. 🇨🇦

Overview

The Committee of the Whole meeting in Richmond Hill illuminated a vibrant community agenda, emphasizing local events, civic initiatives, and engaging discussions around urban developments. Among the standout events, Deputy Mayor Chen stirred excitement with the upcoming spring fair. This festivity, packed with live entertainment and kid-friendly activities, promises to be a joyous celebration for families looking to engage with their community.

In tandem with community events, safety and sustainability were keywords of the day. A slated community safety exposition echoed the city’s commitment to public well-being, whereas the Green Hills Collective Garden plan hinted at a brighter, more sustainable Richmond Hill. Here, citizens can look forward to gathering in verdant spaces, contributing to both food security and biodiversity.

However, debates flared over new housing proposals – emblematic of broader urban planning challenges. The proposals for a new high-rise development sparked intense debate amongst city councilors and residents concerned about urban density and traffic issues. Amidst these discussions, regions' incentives for rental housing stood out as a progressive move towards more affordable living solutions, reflecting Richmond Hill's adaptability and foresight in growth management.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 10:00: Call to Order and Opening Remarks The chapter begins with the call to order and opening remarks by the chair, W3 Councilor Castro Louu, at a committee of the whole meeting held on May 21st. The meeting starts at 9:30 AM.
• 10:00 - 30:00: Council Announcements The chapter titled 'Council Announcements' features Deputy Mayor Chen. In this section, Deputy Mayor Chen makes an exciting announcement about an upcoming event. The council has been invited to the 2025 Spring Fair, which will take place on Saturday, May 24th, at Richmond Green, from noon to 3 p.m. The event will feature live music and is open to everyone.
• 30:00 - 40:00: Introduction of Agenda Items The chapter discusses the introduction of various agenda items for an upcoming event. The event will feature entertainment performances and, for the first time, a fashion show if conditions allow. It will also include a choo-choo train ride for children and an electronic animal ride. Complimentary food such as burgers, ice cream, and hot dogs will be available while supplies last.
• 40:00 - 130:00: Delegations and Discussions on Item 11.2 (107 Hall Street Development) The chapter discusses delegations and discussions on item 11.2, which involves the 107 Hall Street Development. In addition, it highlights the 25th anniversary of New York Region Paramedic Services. The David Dunup Observatory Defenders are organizing a special exhibit to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the David Dunup Observatory, now a Richmond Hill destination park and national historic site. The event invites everyone to Richmond Green this Saturday for the celebrations.
• 130:00 - 200:00: Discussion on Item 12.1 (Purpose-built Rental Motion) The chapter focuses on the announcement by Counselor Shu regarding a community safety exposition. It highlights an upcoming event scheduled for Sunday, May 25th, at the Land Staff Community Center. The event aims to address public safety issues, with participation from the Richmond Hill Board of Trade, York Regional Police, and other stakeholders.
• 200:00 - 220:00: Discussion on Item 11.4 (Marsha Jina Amini Memorial) The chapter discusses Item 11.4, which is the Marsha Jina Amini Memorial. There is a mention of a Watch Committee and gratitude expressed towards Mayor West and panelists including elected officials from various government levels and officers from York Regional Police. The focus is on public safety, and the chapter will conclude with a Q&A session where attendees can participate and discuss methods for maintaining community safety.
• 220:00 - 225:00: Conclusion and Adjournment The conclusion and adjournment of the chapter discuss a community event featuring several local industries, including home and auto security, insurance, and legal advisors. These industries will set up and speak on stage to introduce the latest technologies for property protection. The expo will run from 12 to 5, with a panel discussion from 1 to 2, inviting neighbors to join for an informative experience.

Committee of the Whole Meeting - Wednesday, May 21, 2025 - 9:30 a.m. - City of Richmond Hill Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 residents resent. [Music] [Music] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the May 21st committee of the whole meeting. I'm your chair, W3 councelor Castro Louu. I'm going to call the meeting to order. It's 9:30. First,
• 00:30 - 01:00 we have council announcements. Deputy Mayor Chen. Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. Um, I'm very excited to, uh, announce, as some of you may already know, uh, my colleagues been invited, uh, this Saturday, May 24th, uh, at Richmond Green, between noon and 3 p.m., you're all invited to the 2025 spring fair. um which will be featuring um live music uh
• 01:00 - 01:30 entertainment performances and also uh for the first time hopefully whether cooperate we have fashion show as well uh children will be delighted with the cho train rides and also I was told uh not life animal but some kind of electronic type of animal rice that kids would enjoy in addition to complimentary burger ice cream as well hot dog while quantity
• 01:30 - 02:00 slots. So, uh also this year is to also recognize the 25th anniversary of New York Region Paramedic Services as well. Um the uh David Dunup um observatory defenders will be uh putting on a special exhibit in recognition of the 90th anniversary of David Dunup observatory now a Richmond Hill um destination park and also national historic site. So come one come all Richmond green this Saturday and um
• 02:00 - 02:30 between noon to 300 p.m. and u you're all invited. Thank you. Thank you. Next is coun councelor Shu. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh good morning everyone. And I'm excited to announce that I will be hosting a community safety exposition along with a panel discussion uh on public safety this Sunday afternoon, May 25th, at the Land Staff Community Center. And at this time, I'm happy to work with uh Richmond Hill Board of Trade, uh York Regional Police, and Road
• 02:30 - 03:00 Watch Committee. And uh also a special thank you for uh Mayor West to be one of our panelists uh along with elected officials from federal and provincial uh level of government as well as um officers from York Regional Police and they will share their valuable insights on public safety and also following the the discussion there will be a Q&A section um where we welcome all attendees to ask questions and engage in a conversation about keeping our
• 03:00 - 03:30 community safe and also uh several local industries such as a home and auto security doors and windows insurance and legal advisor will have both set up and speak on stage to introduce the latest technologies to help project our properties. So the expo uh runs from 12 to 5 and the panel discussion from 1 to 2 and I invite all neighbors to join us for this informative event and look forward to seeing you all there. Thank
• 03:30 - 04:00 you so much. Thank you, Council Servants. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to everybody in council chambers. And um otherwise, um excuse the mask and the voice. I'm recovering from CO again, but I'm doing much better. Thank you. Uh just wanted to remind everybody that this Saturday is my the first part of my uh annual music festival event. This year we are doing both of them indoors
• 04:00 - 04:30 at the Richmond Hill United Church at 10201 Young Street. Starts the first one starts um Saturday night, May 24th at 7:00 p.m. And we have two amazing uh musical artists who will be with us. Greg Lawless who um is an incredible singer songwriter and um the the soul matraees a trip a trio of incredibly incredibly gifted um musicians all
• 04:30 - 05:00 original uh music and um there will be a an intermission in the middle of the two the two acts. It's catered and the whole thing is free. So come on down, join us, have a wonderful evening of music and uh camaraderie with community and um I look forward to seeing everyone there. The next one is on October 25th, so we're still quite a ways. So come and enjoy some music on s on Saturday night at the Brit United Church. Thank you. Thank
• 05:00 - 05:30 you, Regional and Local Counselor Depala. Uh thank thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just uh want to give a a shout out and a thank you to York Regional Police uh who uh assisted with a community safety seminar that I held um on the weekend at the Rouge Woods Community Center. Uh was extremely well attended, very informative. Uh there's there's a lot that our residents need to to know and learn to help the police do their job and um to
• 05:30 - 06:00 prevent crime in our areas. And uh I I plan to continue to host more community safety seminars uh to get to to get out information across Richmond Hill, how our residents can best protect themselves and their property. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Thompson. Uh thank you very much through you, the chair. I'm pleased to announce uh that the nonprofit urban farm initiative has been selected to establish and manage a new collective garden in Harrington Park
• 06:00 - 06:30 on Devonsley Boulevard. Uh the Green Hills Collective Garden, as it will be called, will support food security, pollinator protection, and biodiversity and will feature a vegetable and herb garden along with a dedicated pollinator garden designed to attract monarch butterflies and other essential species. In addition to growing food, the garden will serve as a hub for knowledge sharing, community building, and giving back as a portion uh of the harvest will
• 06:30 - 07:00 be donated to local food shelters. The urban farm initiative group first applied through the city's community garden program for a garden in 2024 and has since been active at the Phyllis Rollinsson pilot site while awaiting a permanent home. So, I'm thrilled to say that home has now been found in Ward 2. Thank you very much. Uh, ground work has already started with the site tilled and water line installed and planting expected to begin as early as right
• 07:00 - 07:30 away. Uh, I want to give a big shout out to our public works staff, especially those in urban forestry, natural environment, and horiculture for making this possible in ward two. Did I mention that already? Yes. Um, anyway, sometimes good things do grow in war. I'd also like to uh mention that today is a national weight staff uh day. So, if you're out dining uh tonight, show your
• 07:30 - 08:00 gratitude for the vital role that they play in catering a positive dining experience and don't forget to tip. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. What to counselor Scott Thompson. Next is Mayor West. Uh thank you very much. Uh thank you to everybody and u just a couple quick announcements. The uh I just wanted to give a shout out to my young myang taekwond do on Elgen Mills. Uh we were invited uh with with uh to help to um uh
• 08:00 - 08:30 mark their 20th anniversary and uh I have to say I I don't know a ton uh about Taekwondo and a lot I learned yesterday. Uh but uh I really think it's uh the accolade of Master Fong and the number of things that he's done and the the number of people that he's trained in taekwond do including very very high level athletes uh at the kind of the world uh level is unbelievable and uh quite extensive and very uh I was very proud to see uh a person like him uh
• 08:30 - 09:00 being in that business for 20 years right here in Richmond Hill. And uh thank you to um councelor Leu for being there. And I understand that uh you've had a connection with him when he was in W three, not W 2. And uh and uh and now he's in W 2 and Councelor Thompson was there. And I just want to say that uh I I did as along with councelor Thompson earn a honorary black belt and I was able to break a very thin piece of wood. I felt very good about that. Um, but I
• 09:00 - 09:30 will also say that um I was in amongst a bunch of people, some of which were much much much younger than I am that were real black belts and they really earned it and uh the skill and and uh and tenacity and and athleticism in that uh room last night was quite amazing. So, welcome or welcome to war two, I guess. Uh and happy 20th anniversary to Master Fun and uh it's great to have them in in our community. Uh oh, and I guess the the final thing is uh we had a just came
• 09:30 - 10:00 back from a great prayer breakfast uh put on by a bunch of uh dedicated volunteers and uh thank you very much for doing that. It was great to see the Christian community coming together uh this morning uh to uh to pray for our leaders in our community and uh this has been uh the 21st year that this has been going on as well and uh proud to be a small part of that and uh and bring that community together today. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor West. Any more council announcements? Seeing none, next is
• 10:00 - 10:30 introduction of emergency time-sensitive matters. Seeing none, adoption of the agenda. We have no committee regrets, seven agenda items today, no public hearings, no presentation, six delegations, and one member motion. Can I have a motion to adopt the agenda? Councelor Davidson. Second by councelor Silvitz.
• 10:30 - 11:00 Oh, sorry. It's coming of the whole no second. Okay. I got deceived. Okay. Anyways, u councelor Davidson. All those in favor carry unanimously. Thank you. Disclosures of pecunary interest and general nature thereof. Also, seeing none, identification of items requiring separate discussion. Uh, Deputy Mayor Chen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to pull item 11.4. 11.4. Marsha Jina Amini Memorial Tree
• 11:00 - 11:30 and Bench. Thank you. And uh I assume 11.2 and 12.1 already been pulled. Any more seeing none so going to the consent agenda is 11.1 11.3 11.5 6 and 7. Can you confirm that Mr. quick. Thank you very much. Okay, so adoption of the remainder of the agenda items.
• 11:30 - 12:00 Okay, councelor celibates. All those in favor carry unanimously. Thank you. Okay, so we go right to delegations. We have four delegations on item 11.2. So first uh welcome Mr. Frank Lu that's joining us online.
• 12:00 - 12:30 Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. You can go ahead. You have five minutes. Mr. L. Hey, good morning. C. Uh so what we're talking about is the uh permanent plan for 107 hall condo. Uh I think such condo built in this area is too big for the area. Uh driving up from the 16 down
• 12:30 - 13:00 street near Major M and uh say down low it's a huge congestion. Doesn't matter what time of the day you go and especially during rush hours. I don't think a project this size with this traffic congestion is appropriate for the area. And also I looked at historic builds. Uh nobody has really built a condo near a school or like literally right beside it on a
• 13:00 - 13:30 property by the school. Uh I don't think our roads are particularly set up for this kind of traffic of being kind of outgoing school, church, and downtown center. Uh I mean a lot of people complain about the towns they're building. I understand it's a high-rise. uh maybe the developer can consider mid-rise or lowrise to uh better uh congregate the neighborhood and be
• 13:30 - 14:00 part of the neighborhood. Uh reading the plan, it also shows that they decrease the distance between the neighboring boundary line which seems uh I mean convenient for for the developer but not so good for neighbors. Uh lastly, um we want to attract the right people in the area. I don't think there's already numerous condos project that has been proposed and on the way on Young Street uh north of Elgen
• 14:00 - 14:30 Mills and like the council has also adopted numerous condo project in the past but none have ever started yet. Anyway, this is my opinion uh and what I think we should make the developer build something that's better for the area. Sort of like the Stack Houses near Arno and Elizabeth or maybe Mid Rice to
• 14:30 - 15:00 accommodate both side of party. Uh that is all I got. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you very much. Next we have uh Miss Agnes Par. How does this work? Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, go ahead.
• 15:00 - 15:30 Okay, I'll start. Dear committee um members, committee of the whole members, my name is Agnes Parr and I am the president of York Region Standard Condominium Corporation 991 representing the unit owners of 125 Hall Street and we are 24 units there. We the owners are opposed to the development at 107 Hall Street in the form in which it is presented and wish to outline a number of different issues that will directly affect us as well as the negative impacts on the wider
• 15:30 - 16:00 neighborhood. The application proposes a condominium which will reach up to 15 stories in height. It also proposes having two levels of underground parking. This is to encompass the entire circumference of the property and will require digging immediately adjacent to the property line at 125 Hall Street. With the use of heavy equipment and all the noise and vibrations that this will produce, the foundations and walls of the unit at 125 Hall Street
• 16:00 - 16:30 will likely sustain some forms of damage. Additionally, this will have adverse effects on the physical and mental health of the residents. Next, the application proposes an access road with the only entrance and exit via Hall Street, which is a residential street that is not designed to accommodate the volume of vehicles that will be coming and going 24/7. While a traffic study was done June 21st, 2023, this study is completely inadequate due to when it was
• 16:30 - 17:00 done and that it does not take into account the numbers of cars that are parked on Hall Street when the performing arts center is running a full slate of events. The volume of traffic that will be created by the development with this access row will be a disaster waiting to happen. This building is not on Young Street and has no access to it. The placement of this access road has a very negative impact on 125 Hall Street as it is proposed to be running past the rear of many of our units which will be
• 17:00 - 17:30 the equivalent of placing it in our rear yards and the backs of our homes. As a result, there will be constant activity and noise 24/7. The placement of the visitor parking will add to this situation. The garbage area of the building has been placed right opposite our units. A building like this with this number of units and people is going to require garbage pickup every day. As such, with constant comingings and goings of garbage trucks that will occur, our homes will be devalued. And this is a very serious concern to us.
• 17:30 - 18:00 With the increase in the size of the building, the design has shifted the footprint further to the west on the property and thus increasing its footprint over 125 Hall Street. Hall Street itself and the heritage home. Should this be allowed to go forth, this will be the equivalent of allowing a condominium tower on a residential street that is neither equipped nor designed to handle this. It has also been noted in the drawings that a transformer platform is to be beside the property line adjoining 125 Hall Street.
• 18:00 - 18:30 While at this time we do not know the exact size and form of what this transformer will be, we do know that it carries electricity, makes noise, and can have negative health effects. and we the owners object to having this placed right beside our homes. We request that this be relocated to a more suitable place on that property. The proposed height of this building will grossly overshadow our homes and create a situation of having no sunlight from November to March inclusive. In addition, tall buildings create wind
• 18:30 - 19:00 tunnels causing further negative impacts on immediate neighbors. There has been no revised sun study shadow done nor wind study. In May 2023, a council public meeting was held regarding this very project. Council specifically stated that it was too big and gave instructions that the project be revised and downsized. The revision has come, but with an even larger building that increases the units from 265 to 300. The proposed density of such a building is far too immense for a neighborhood such
• 19:00 - 19:30 as Mil Pond and the village core. This building will tower over everything and everyone around it. And if such a propose was allowed to happen, it will be precedent setting and will destroy the neighbors and the surrounding community. On behalf of the owners of 125 Hall Street, comprise of 24 units, we collectively oppose this development. We ask that the committee take into account the negative impacts that this will have on our homes and our lives and
• 19:30 - 20:00 ensure that what is built is an appropriate fit for the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Parr. Next is Mr. Mark Zang. Can I share my screen?
• 20:00 - 20:30 Well, hi everyone. Uh my name is Mark
• 20:30 - 21:00 Zong from uh 57 Hall Street. Uh I just uh know this new proposal uh just one week one week ago from my neighbors. So I did I just did some um
• 21:00 - 21:30 did some onsite study of the traffic and uh of the uh residential density. So I just I have only five minutes so I I just show you all the all the pictures. Uh this one is I I take the road picture uh last Friday. So you can see you can see how many traffic on the whole street
• 21:30 - 22:00 and the red street and then the Benson street. Um on Saturday it's much worse. You see this uh this is a whole street south and whole street north. And on the right street because the performing arts center is fully opened. So you can see the road is all parking with a car. The first picture is on the red
• 22:00 - 22:30 street and the second one I show the uh the parking of Richmond Hill Art Performing Center and uh and the small parking across the street. So this there is full of cars and this one is is the parking of the uh of the school. So uh in the front front side and back
• 22:30 - 23:00 side. Yeah. This is the car situation. [Music] Um my neighbor told me that on June 21, 2030 uh 2033 the traffic study was only done for one day in two twohour slots. No, no surprise they professionally pick a day during summer break when school were closed. The performing arts center
• 23:00 - 23:30 wasn't fully opened because of COVID rules. So the proposal traffic study isn't real and doesn't show that traffic is uh is really like the real road situation is what you see um in my picture here. And my second point is about a decent study.
• 23:30 - 24:00 There are four uh resident res residential building built uh here nearby the 107 hall street you can see how many how many unit here there are three buildings built in 1970s and 1980s they are all uh less than 100 units and the last condo built on Benson
• 24:00 - 24:30 street is this one. is only 39 units and the Benson Street uh condo have direct access to the Young Street but 107 host rate they don't have it on the other side of the new pond community there's all single house semi house or townhouse there's no no highrise there and uh the proposal from the
• 24:30 - 25:00 developer they assume that uh a crossby road will be uh built to that new building but I think that is not possible because they did not own own the land and uh the last project uh I use for com comparation is the latest
• 25:00 - 25:30 uh townhouse per product per product per day uh at uh 60 unordered crescent. Uh the land of this new product area is almost the twice of 107 horse rate. But they only build but they only build the the
• 25:30 - 26:00 threetory townhouse with 80 units. Uh so this is the fact that the uh 1500 high-rise building is not suitable in muound community. This is what I'm doing the study in in in
• 26:00 - 26:30 uh in past few days. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Mr. Murray Athens. [Music] Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
• 26:30 - 27:00 committee. My name is Murray Evans. I'm here on behalf of the proponent of this uh development as you are without well aware really has been in the cycle for several years. To the mic please. Yeah, it has been through the program or through the review process for several years and as your the staff report which is supportive of the applications uh it's to allow a a two tower
• 27:00 - 27:30 residential development one tower being 15 stories another tower being 10 stories uh offering accommodation for 300 units in the downtown area and part of this program is that the uh Dr. Langstaff home known as Homewood is to be uh relocated, protected and integrated into the development which will be part of a amenity space for the residents of this building. And as the staff report says,
• 27:30 - 28:00 this is in a in the downtown local center which is current and soon to be the village center. And this is as we all know in these centers and corridor uh jargon and theory this is where we want people to live. This is the areas where intense development should be happening particularly in this area being in the the downtown area uh through as many members on council may recall or certainly through the
• 28:00 - 28:30 amendments. But when the official plan was developed back in 20ou and adopted in 2010, many of the workshops were held to say what do we want to achieve in the in this area and virtually everyone that I attended at was we want a thriving successful active downtown area. So how do we do that? Well, we put people there so they can take advantage we of the amenities that are in the mun or in the downtown area, the shops, the financial institutions, the services, the the
• 28:30 - 29:00 medical practitioners and the like. And that's how you do it. And particularly in this situation in the downtown local center, the village center, people can now walk to these locations. So, we're trying to support the the economy of the downtown area through placing people in a location such as this. And in addition to this, as the staff report says, if I Karen, can or Miss Rley, can I get you to Oh, actually, sorry, that is a the on
• 29:00 - 29:30 the plan in front of you, the purple area is the MT is an MTSA. It's a area where development is not only encouraged but minimums are established as far as density and also interestingly enough and you're no doubt aware of this the province is saying in MTSA parkings are not parking requirements are not to be provided that we want development to take place in intense form. So this is where the area
• 29:30 - 30:00 uh this is the area that we're proposing this building to fix those those qualities. To that end, the municipality has designated this in it in amendment 18.6 which is under appeal is showing it as being in an MTSA maintaining those minimum density targets and also provides for the height that's before you today. 15 stories is in the the document that you have the council has adopted and put forward for approval and
• 30:00 - 30:30 also if I can just take one side step that you've recently adopted the comprehensive law which is 30-25 in that document the minimum height is two stories but there's a permission for 15 stories so effectively the application before you is not for height and as you can see in the draft official a plan amendment before you it's attached to the staff board. There's no mention of height. It's perenned. So the matter now becomes how
• 30:30 - 31:00 do you create what in this particular location how high is high and how big is big and we we what typically is one has to look at is this the the design and how does it fix how does it fit into the area? How does it relate? In this particular case, the 15story tower is moved farther to the east, farther away from the neighborhood area. There is the the Dr. Lancath house has been moved forward towards Hall Street to create a
• 31:00 - 31:30 transition and also the building itself maintains the angular plane which is often seen as the uh the bible of how to protect comm adjacent developments in communities. So an angular plane in accordance with the official plan is being provided. So what we have come up with is a plan that takes that first step and I guess as council when we think back to 2010 when the centers and corridors was first adopted what's happened in the downtown
• 31:30 - 32:00 area took place before the OPA was adopted. So I'll be thank you very much. I'll be wrapping up. So this is an initiative to put people where we want people where we where they can support the community that comply or conforms with the official plan as far as height. And what this particular application before you is to have zoning standards to reflect the intricate design of this building but also allow a modest
• 32:00 - 32:30 increase in density from 3.5 to uh to 3.8. So I'll leave it at that. I have tons of answers to any questions you may have and uh I'll leave it for your consideration. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Evans. Next on the delegation list is uh Mr. Daryl Chong regarding item 12.1. Let's go like this.
• 32:30 - 33:00 Thank you. This I guess it just Okay. Good morning. Thank you very much. You have to speak into the head. I put it like this. Stand way back here. Yeah, it's better that way. All right. Thank you. Should maybe be a little shorter. Um, good morning. Thank you. I'm Daryl Chong, president of the Greater Toronto Apartment Association. Uh, our association represents the owners and managers of more than 150,000 units of multif family purpose-built rental units across the GTA. We've been around as an
• 33:00 - 33:30 organization for close to 30 years. Thank you, Councelor Depala, for tableabling this motion. Um, we're in the midst of a housing crisis. Purposeville Rental is under supplied. New development of all housing has been stalled and initiatives need to be activated. Purposeville rental is critically important to the housing system and provides many benefits. Rental provides flexibility, which is really important, especially for our aging population whose needs will change in their later years due to loss of a
• 33:30 - 34:00 spouse, reduction in mobility. In a rental, you can just move with two months notice. Rental is more affordable, which is great for those who can't afford more or don't wish to own a home. Rental provides security of tenure. The owner won't sell it and ask you to vacate, so you can make longer range plans about employment, schools that your kids are going to, neighborhoods that you want to live in. Rental provides another choice of housing because there's not just a one-sizefits-all. But purpose-built rental is extremely rare across the
• 34:00 - 34:30 region. According to York's Housing Matters 2020 report, there are only 11,424 purpose-built rental units across the entire region. And that's based on CHC's data. In Richmond Hill, New York, although they've grown tremendously in the past 25 years, since 2000, only seven purpose-built rental buildings have opened across the whole region. One of those seven is the 64 unit Picasso Place, which recently opened. It's the
• 34:30 - 35:00 only new rental building in Richmond Hill in decades. In all of York, just 1,247 new rental units have opened in the past quarter century. That's an average of 50 units a year, one building every seven years or one building every three years. For a rapidly growing town and region, this is grossly insufficient, especially in light of the the fact that the entry cost into ownership according to Treb in uh earlier this year in New York is $1.2 million to buy a home with 20% down,
• 35:00 - 35:30 which is close to a4 million. That's a mortgage of just under a million dollars. At today's rates, that carries for about $6,000 a month based on a 25-year term. Looking at Urban Nation's most recent data, there are only two rental projects currently under construction in all of York. Both are in New Market. The Redwood's three 534 units on Young Street accounts for most of that. This is a large project and is slated to finish in about three years from now. It
• 35:30 - 36:00 takes two to four years to construct a large tower. So, between now and early 2027, York Region will see only 51 new units. That's not enough. The rental proposal pipeline always looks good, but many, perhaps most, will never get built. A large development will of several towers will seek approval at the same time in a single application, but it takes over a decade to construct due to the logistics and capital requirements. A big tower is a
• 36:00 - 36:30 quarter billion dollars right now. The economics will oscillate and each tower's viability will be determined in time. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Purpose bill rental development has been absent here for decades because the financial numbers don't work. Without reasonable return, CHC and lenders won't finance a rental project. Investment capital is very mobile and will shift to other jurisdictions, other regions across the province or country, even internationally. Or it'll shift to other
• 36:30 - 37:00 asset types. Currently, industrial malls are are the all the rage. Reducing the expense side of pro- forma will help. Reducing expenses will generate more rental in Richmond Hill. Today's motion is definitely a step in the right direction. In March of 24, the province announced that upper tier municipalities could adopt a new multi-res property subclass and provide a property tax reduction of up to 35%. I hope Richmond Hill can encourage the region to adopt
• 37:00 - 37:30 this and I hope you will consider more financial incentives to truly make rental happen. GTA's members want to get shovels in the ground and provide new rental homes for families across Richmond. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you today. Thank you very much. Next on the delegation list is uh Mr. Steven Nightingale. Also regarding item
• 37:30 - 38:00 12.1, I think we're good here. Uh good morning committee members. My name is Steve Nightingale. I'm a vice president of development at Oxford Properties, the owners of Hillrest Mall, uh where we are focused on the future development of mixeduse residential, including a 640 unit purpose-built rental project at the northeast corner of the mall. Oxford would like to thank councelor Depala and the committee for considering a request to the region of York to create a new property tax classification for new purpose-built
• 38:00 - 38:30 rental projects in Richmond Hill. This is a positive first step in the implementation of a reduced property tax rate for the city to incentivize and support new rental projects as permitted by the province in their March 2024 budget. As the committee members are well aware, we have seen very little purpose uh very little new purpose-built rental housing built in Richmond Hill or across the GTA in the last 30 plus years due to the financial challenges associated with rental development. And for the last two decades, we've relied on the condo market to supply the vast
• 38:30 - 39:00 majority of new rental units through investor purchasers that rent out their units. However, after three straight years of sign of significant declines in new condo sales, that market is effectively frozen. In Q1 of this year, only 497 condo units started construction in the entire greater Toronto and Hamilton area. That's the lowest number since 1996. The city of Toronto saw a mere 218 new condo sales in the same quarter. That's the lowest since
• 39:00 - 39:30 1990. And as multif family residential projects can take anywhere from 2 to four years to complete, the sharp reductions in new condo sales in 2023, 2024, 2025 will result in equally sharp reductions in new unit deliveries over the next four to five years, possibly more. This will no doubt exacerbate the housing crisis in the years ahead. These data points are concerning, but there is another way to deliver the housing needed to support our growing population and the changing needs of the
• 39:30 - 40:00 people that are already here. We can choose to put a renewed focus on purpose-built rental to minimize the further constraining of future supply. One of the key benefits of new purpose-built rental housing compared to condo is we don't have a pre-sale test prior to starting construction. We just need to make the numbers work. But unlike ownership housing, new rental projects must consider both the development costs and the operating costs in determining the financial feasibility of a new project. And while the GTA has seen a recent rise in new rental construction over the last 5
• 40:00 - 40:30 years, the data shows this is also now falling away. In Q1 of this year, the number of new purpose boat rental starts fell 60% year-over-year, a 40% decline over the 5-year average. Higher interest rates, increasing construction costs, and rising operating costs are all making purpose-built rental developments difficult to activate. This is where bold action is needed to help get new rental shovels in the ground. Some municipalities have already taken significant steps, such as Vaughn and in particular Missaga, where
• 40:30 - 41:00 a 35% property tax reduction was recently implemented with the region of Peele. Given property taxes represent a large share of the rental building's operating expenses, we believe the new property tax classification and ultimately a reduced property tax rate for new rental developments is crucial in helping ensure we can still get started on badly needed new rental housing apartments and provide hundreds if not thousands of families with a place to call home in Richmond Hill. Thank you. Thank you very much. So that conclude our delegations
• 41:00 - 41:30 list and then we're going to discuss about uh 107 Hall Street item 11.2 is in W four councelor tree. Let's go ahead. Yeah, thank you so much Mr. Ch. So I'll move this motion on the table for discussion. Uh I'll say thank you so much for our res coming here and I I believe this notice sent out around one week ago but luckily you know uh we get
• 41:30 - 42:00 a lot of the feedback the voice coming back to this council member again from our community. I remember 2023 we had a similar discussion regarding to that original proposal from history perspective this piece of the land was approved for townhouse buildings. The council member already approved that one. But unluckily we we wait for many many years was nothing. And from 2023 which is last no one or two years later
• 42:00 - 42:30 in the sudden it pop up a proposal like a 200 more uh units and last time we discussed the proposal there are a lot of feedback from community and also different voice from uh council members as well. So I did not see uh our builder listen to the voices of our community. Uh on the opposite way and this error being intensified. So I say this really unlucky and for our community and no one
• 42:30 - 43:00 listen to us at all even for the voice from council members. As a local counselor I'm kind of disappointed to hear because when I received the notice around two weeks ago I don't have any preparations. it in a sudden it's really dramatic change. So uh let me confirm with our um planning team. I read the report in the report it said uh for the east side the ISIS is 3.5 on west side
• 43:00 - 43:30 is 2.5 if I look at back to the OPA 18.6 for vage core I remember for the II along young street in the piece of London is 2.0 zero. So I just want to confirm which number is more accurate for 3.5 and this is really my first time seeing it. Which number is correct? Uh through you Mr. Chairman. I'm going to defer the question to uh director Gianetta
• 43:30 - 44:00 through the chair to councelor tree. Can you just repeat the portion that you're asking me to confirm? Everybody I remember along the Benson Street area young and Benson Street that pieces line is 2.0. I never say 3.5 whenever in any discussion or the OPA 18.6. So for that
• 44:00 - 44:30 number it's kind of surprise for me through the chair to councilor tree. So I just actually have up on my screen but I don't know if it'll be able to show. Um, so the area surrounding the subject property is actually 3 1/2 FSI and this was approved as part of the official plan amendment 18.6. So surrounding the property on Hall Street, the density um that was approved as part of the official plan amendment was 3 and a half FSI. Okay, I apologize for I'm missing that part. So
• 44:30 - 45:00 my second question is uh if I remember there going to be uh um a cross-sight uh street extension to this area. What is the time for that street extension through the chair to council tree? I'm going to defer those questions to uh commissioner Misero with respect to Crosby Street through the chair to councelor tree. The timeline for uh that street extension is dependent on future development
• 45:00 - 45:30 application. So the feasibility studies that are done as identified through the transportation master plan are done uh in advance of because they're identified in the transportation master plan but implementation is contingent on the uh um development applications that come forward to the city for review. Okay. So uh if you look this side uh also the plan map here. So the purpose of city is trying to intensify the artery road
• 45:30 - 46:00 including young street and major road. If you look this map actually I did not say this is really the pension to facing to the young street. If I look at the map, at least half of this is really line far away or half away from the Young Street because on the Young Street we do have a few condominiums and also the apartment and over there. But at this back all the low density uh either school area or school backyard,
• 46:00 - 46:30 playground or the town houses. This is land opening the parking lot which is now intensifying the young street. From my observations they are trying to intensify house street. The house is really far from the young street. So what is really we are trying to intensify young street or the house street through the chair to counselor tree. So if you take a look at the OPA uh 18.6 six. It could provides a kind of a
• 46:30 - 47:00 cumulative plan for the area. So, um the Young Street frontages are intended on intensifying up to three, three and a half, three depending on the context of that portion of Young Street with respect to the PMTSA that this this property is located. Uh the city is mandated to achieve minimum density targets for the area. So, 18.6, six. If you take a look at the plan, it actually disperses the intensification to meet
• 47:00 - 47:30 those uh targets and kind of and it does provide for intensification when those properties want to develop, right? So, we we also have the component that it we make plan for the area and we allow for uh properties to develop in time. So, notwithstanding the back portion of this property was in identified for intensification and that's why you see the there's two densities. There's a lower density to respect the context of the Hall Street frontage of the property, but the higher density is
• 47:30 - 48:00 actually attributed to the rear which is again part of the larger plan for intensification moving it closer to Young Street. Okay, so I got point. I think this intensifying is or this proposal or buildings if they are facing Young Street they open their exit inside or house street just go to the new crossby uh street extension that might works because no no no more traffic
• 48:00 - 48:30 loading to the house street also nearby Benson right street m street also the circles behind it but the problem here design I see the big problem is all the traffic We are leading to the internal community inside facing if the design in the future if there is a fi intensifying and that building exit should facing to east side not west side this traffic should not come to our community. So uh that is uh part of my discussion. I also
• 48:30 - 49:00 ask a few question coming from uh ry as well. So for the safety purpose this proposal really bring lot of the vehicles inside for parking purpose is there I I heard uh someone mentioned already is there any uh regulations or requirement for parking or this area is no requirement from province saying parking is mandatory so through the chair to counselor tree so
• 49:00 - 49:30 because it is in a PMTSA there's no no minimum parking requirements. However, the proponent is proposing uh 328 parking spaces for to support the building. Is my time off? I'm going to go to the second round. Thank you. Next is uh Councelor Davidson. Thank you and uh through you, Mr. Chair. Thank you everyone who came, everyone who sent a letter. Would I want this in
• 49:30 - 50:00 my backyard? No. I'm going to be honest, but the truth is the province is propelling planning in this city and everywhere in this province. The province is telling every city we have to increase density. Would I love this area to stay quaint as it is? That Mil pond area is a gem. Absolutely. But we don't have that choice. This is an MTSA area which means it has transit and the province has specifically said these are the areas that have to have development.
• 50:00 - 50:30 I'm out. I'm sure all of you agree we don't want to develop green space. We don't want to develop natural areas. The outcome of that is that we develop where there already is services and transit. And I know it's unpopular for us to say yes to this building, but the province does not give us any choice. If we say no, the developer goes to something called the Ontario Land Tribunal and they can ask for more and we're out of the equation altogether. I mean, I I I'm
• 50:30 - 51:00 happy to see the staff say that this builder has made changes because of what the um public and the council have suggested. It's been a very long process. What we can't say is, "Well, we want we don't like this, this, this, and this." They change it and we go, "Okay, well, wait a minute. Now, we don't like this, this, and this." Something is going to be there that is bigger than what the neighborhood wants. And again, the province has decided that the cities have to increase density. And if we say
• 51:00 - 51:30 no, it could be worse. Um, I think to be a good business partner with developers, we can't say these are the things we don't like. They work with the city staff and then we say, but we still say no. Um, through you, Mr. Chair, to staff, are there some affordable units in this proposal? Designated affordable affordable units? director
• 51:30 - 52:00 the chair to councelor Davidson if you take a look at appendix number there's actually um the applicant to the report there is an appendix that actually outlines what the applicant is doing with respect to housing affordability. uh they've provided a diversification of units. So, they do meet the um they've provided for the accommodation of uh three-bedroom units
• 52:00 - 52:30 and they actually um in this particular proposal have units that actually can convert up from two to threebedroom units and they've also they're also looking at a uh mortgage uh lending program uh for the uh project as well. Thank you. Um you Mr. chair. Um, the housing crisis is real. The only way we're going to solve it is to build more units. I know not in my backyard. I feel the same way. I don't want a big
• 52:30 - 53:00 building in my backyard either. But unfortunately, I can't say it enough. The province has pretty much taken a lot of the planning out of the city's hands. I I I would encourage you to talk to your provincial members of parliament. Um, I think with transit, the city has to make things work. If the city doesn't grow and invite people to live here, the city dies. And um, I'm going to support this this plan. Thank you. Thank you. Next is
• 53:00 - 53:30 Councelor Selivitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and thank you to everybody who has stepped forward to speak today, everybody who sent in letters. Um, I look at all your faces in the chambers here and I see the sadness, the nonunderstanding. Let this No, this is me talking. This is the council.
• 53:30 - 54:00 I see the sadness in your faces. I see the fear. I see the aggravation. And I share it 100% exactly as councelor Davidson said. Whatever councelor Davidson said is what I was about to say. So I'm not going to repeat that. But we are beholden to the legislation
• 54:00 - 54:30 that comes down to us from the province. It is downloaded to us so that here at the municipal level we have to take care of this but it's downloaded to us from the from the from the province through the planning act and the municipal act through bills 109 and bills bill 23. It is beholden by us as a municipality that we have to exceed to
• 54:30 - 55:00 whatever legislation comes down the pipe from the province. Do we want this here? Sorry. So there's no questions. Do we want this here? Of course not. Would we have preferred the townhouse complex? Absolutely. But the land owner and the developer, the proponent are entitled to put this development proposal in as was stated by Miss
• 55:00 - 55:30 Janeda. It conforms with our OPA 18.6. This is an in place policy that this council voted on. So just just a few a few things. The proposal is almost compliant from a policy perspective. Where it's off is by the
• 55:30 - 56:00 FSI and it's off by 0.3. So my ask to the developer and the proponent and the land owner, perhaps you could look at jigging your design, your urban design to bring it down to that 3.5 so that it's not an ask outside of the envelope because this council, all councils across Ontario
• 56:00 - 56:30 constantly have to look at situations like this where the envelope has to be expanded expanded expanded. So I always say to developers to proponents keep it within the regulations and the policy because then we can understand it and we can present it to our residents as what it is. the fact that these lands are within
• 56:30 - 57:00 a PM PPMTSA. This is very very important and as councelor Davidson said, if we refuse this, if we decide against what our staff is propos is is suggesting, recommending that we accept, this will go to the Ontario Land Tribunal. There's there's no question.
• 57:00 - 57:30 and they will get exactly what they're asking for if not more because that's what the Ontario Land Tribunal will do. So by keeping it in house we keep a lot of the discussion a lot of the decisions that still have to be made urban design site plan all all of that we keep it in house we make those decisions not the province the province has made enough decisions that has made a huge problem
• 57:30 - 58:00 for Richmond Hill and all the other eight municipalities in York Region if not the 444 municipalities in in Ontario. So um I I I appreciate the discussion at this bench. I appreciate everything that you're saying. You know who I am totally against overdevelopment. This is not overdevelopment according to policy and in place legislation and as a council we are beholden to make the
• 58:00 - 58:30 decisions for the greater good of the city. So I know that's hard. I know you're shaking your head and I know that's hard, but um that is where we are. I will support I will support this ultimately when it comes to the final decision as councelor Davidson said because we must. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Next is councelor Thompson.
• 58:30 - 59:00 Uh thank you very much uh through the chair. I want to thank all the delegates for coming out and speaking up this morning. Uh also when you speak of anger, I I get it. Believe me. Uh you know it this is the type of stuff that gets me angry as well. Um but as both councelor Davidson and councelor Silivitz have said, the anger should be focused someplace else. Every
• 59:00 - 59:30 staff report that I seem to be getting lately talks about another bill that has come from the province. We started out with bill 23, then bill 109. You look into this report, bill 185. It keeps coming at us at a rate that we've just never seen before. you know, we were forced into putting making what should have been maintained as a historic village core into a
• 59:30 - 60:00 PMTSA. You know, yeah, this stuff makes me angry, but at the same time, I'm not going to spend your tax dollars fighting a losing cause. If I was to try and turn this down and convince enough members to turn this down, we're going to go to the OOLT, spend all kinds of dollars trying to fight this, and we're not going to win because who do you think? You know, I better be careful how I say this. The
• 60:00 - 60:30 OOLT falls under the province and the province has been the one bringing all these bills to us. So, do you really think we have a chance at winning if we turn this down? I don't think so. The the thing that I see about this particular application is that they're putting the cart ahead of the horse. You know, they we talk about if Crosby is
• 60:30 - 61:00 going to be extended and come in from the other way, then yes, you could have, you know, uh a different alternative or access to Young Street. But it's not there and we don't know if and when it ever will be there, you know. So, you know, I know that it's wrong. You know, that access onto Hall Street being the only access is completely wrong, but it's not enough to win this at the OOLT.
• 61:00 - 61:30 And I I I'm I'm not sorry. I'm not excuse me. I'm not this isn't a debate in council here folks but I I'm not going to go there okay I'm just talking about thank what the problem is here and again you know yeah I'm just as angry that that we're in this position in the first place. So those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh please uh this is our time to talk so
• 61:30 - 62:00 please no interaction. I'm sorry, but it's not allowed. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. But but you still have to hear us. All right. Thank you very much. And uh I appreciate Thank you. All right. So, next is regional and local councelor Deputy Mayor Chan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think it's obvious. I I honestly believe all nine of us sitting here, we hear the concern. We hear your
• 62:00 - 62:30 particular reasoning for people who have make the our delegation sending us the letters like my colleague said we got it and Carol Dson is being uh council D is very honest do we want it to own backyard answer is probably no uh the reality is I'm not going to repeat what my court have said uh I do want to focus on things that we now do have control because once it's getting out of the hands of the city Then my colleague is
• 62:30 - 63:00 saying it go to Ontario land tribunal then it's our hands we have no control so within the whims that the city does have control through him Mr. Chair, I do have a few questions to our staff, particularly planning staff um because I hear the concern about president setting. I hear the concern about traffic. I hear the concern about parking. So, first dealing with perhaps uh setbacks on uh the star report. It
• 63:00 - 63:30 has been noted that page 12 trial page 13 a number of those proposed um new showing standard would have a different setback actually less than what is now so through uh you Mr. chair uh to uh our staff or planning staff how how does the planning uh rationalize that to have the setback reduced like some as much from 12.5 meters to 9 mters on the rear yuck
• 63:30 - 64:00 setback as an example help me understand and help the committee understand so that it's not president setting through you Mr. share just a moment. Staff are checking uh the actual setbacks. So I I can just open by saying the the new zoning bylaw 3025 established setbacks and their general setbacks to guide development um in a broad area. So this the the proponent
• 64:00 - 64:30 has come in with uh more focused setbacks for its property and that there's been a review of the proposal and they've been found to be accessible but I I'll defer to uh director Getta to speak to those specific setbacks. Thank you Commissioner Director through the chair to councelor Chen. So, the comprehensive zoning bylaw is actually a much more progressive, much more uh advanced uh zoning bylaw that
• 64:30 - 65:00 that really facilitates development. It facilitates and implements the official plan. So, for in this case, it's it implements 18.6. With respect to the reduced setbacks, um it only applies to the tower uh component of the development, not necessarily to the development as a whole. And it really is to respond to the context of this area. There's the Crosby Street extension. There is the school. So it really uh we we considered kind of reduce setbacks in this regard because of the context of
• 65:00 - 65:30 the area. But it's no in by no way shape or form precedenting per se. I think we have the flexibility as the municipality to really look at applications on a site-by-sight basis and make those adjustments as it relates to the context. So in this regard uh with respect to the tower um the reduction in setbacks it's only related to the tower component of the building. Thank you response. And um so if I get it correctly is not president setting but
• 65:30 - 66:00 rather very much context based sight specific and only pertaining to the tower. That is correct. I don't know how much difference to the comfort of people but I just want to seek the clarification and I think uh council tree the local council already asking about the 3.8 FSI and I think he might be coming back second round. I'm going to not to spend time here but just raise the issue uh as well on the affordability and I'm in some way
• 66:00 - 66:30 impressed with the uh beings put in appendix C whereas the in fairness to the applicant put in a number of options uh one to three vendor tick back and uh also working along with uh um is not uh negotiate successfully yet but maybe talking with one um but through you Mr. Chair help me understand that uh from the planning staff how how does it really in a way that um fulfill or
• 66:30 - 67:00 comply with our uh city's affordability in terms of housing um because this might happen or might not happen is that not the case through him Mr. here. Okay. Do the chair to council Chan. So, um, as we've we've discussed before at council, there are a number of things that we can and cannot do to secure um these types
• 67:00 - 67:30 of commitments. Um, you know, for example, we can secure the number of three-bedroom units in the zoning bylaw. Um, these things are commitments from the applicant. We we we negotiate in good faith and we hope that they will implement these initiatives. Um I have we have developments across the city uh that have followed through with these affordability housing initiatives. Case in point Bay and Algen Mills they offered a rent to own program. Notwithstanding there was min minimal uptake. They came to us and said hey
• 67:30 - 68:00 listen we've been you know pushing this program as per our commitment to the city. So there is a little bit of a a business relationship with the developers that they will that they will um fulfill these commitments. Thank you. Um I I gather this not the time to talk about it. I presume my city solicitor can help and actually make it agreement um whether side agreement whatever the case may be. But my point is we need commitment and I
• 68:00 - 68:30 think the community needs commitment. Um um in terms of uh value some of the people might not see as value but if we truly believe in addressing housing affordability we need commitment not just an appendix or letter at the time seeking approval. Um so that's my point there and the last one actually I have maybe council tree is going to touch on it um and later on is that I already mentioned once and how how does it come
• 68:30 - 69:00 about from 265 units to 300 units and also one additional story um I mean it might be a challenge to explain it but but uh at some point in time I'm just raising it but you have an answer I would like to hear that too Mr. chair uh through the chair to uh councelor Chen. It's just a redesign of the building, right? The the the podium height was bigger. They moved some of the density over to one of the towers. It's just a redesign of the building that they were able to achieve number of units. Also,
• 69:00 - 69:30 if you redes uh redistribute the size of the units more onebedroom versus two and threebedroom, you're able to achieve a higher yield. Thank you. So the only comment I would make that based on what the years I've been here um so what I'm hearing from planning staff in the professional opinion regardless of some of the things that we have mentioned uh our residents have mentioned it would constitute as good planning was that what meant through you Mr. chair to the
• 69:30 - 70:00 chair. That's correct. U planning staff are are satisfied. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Mayor West. Thank you very much and thank you at everybody that came out today. Um so this this is definitely uh a situation which I think is less than ideal. Um in fact I you know on a personal level and I think most of you in the audience can relate to this. Uh a number of years ago when I was the ward counselor, we had uh an application which I spent a lot of time with the
• 70:00 - 70:30 community um getting uh town houses approved and this was a number of years ago and from a planning perspective and a provincial legislation perspective. It was a lifetime ago. But it is irritating that we went through all of that and that that thing that we finally got approval with and we worked really hard to, you know, get it to where the community was, you know, accepting of it. um uh ended up not getting built and but we we are where we are today and um I I just had a couple of questions that
• 70:30 - 71:00 I wanted to ask just to for clarity um Miss Jenetic or planning staff can can you give us an idea I mean just in a general term what is this appro uh in front of us uh in terms of the height and the density and all that other stuff versus what would be allowed if they if they complied with all of the other things both in the legisl like in all of the the package of legislation that we have to comply with both our own legislation and the provincial legislation.
• 71:00 - 71:30 So, so through the chair to uh to Mayor West. Um so from a provincial standpoint um like I mentioned before it's the subject lines are within a PMTSA. So we are trying as a city to make sure that we meet the uh minimum density target for that area which that OPA was designed to do. So the densities that we've set out in OPA 18.6 are designed to achieve achieve the minimum density target as prescribed by the province. So
• 71:30 - 72:00 there's that component and then separately you know the province does give us an ability to uh create plans um that really do respond to the local and more granular context of the area. Um that's why we have 18.6 6. So 18.6 notwithstanding it implements the provincial um mandate of uh for PMTSAs. It also you know responds to okay so what does the community need and that's where you have the 18.6 the village local center plan and that kind of is
• 72:00 - 72:30 where we're at today. So in terms of height and density the heights that were are permitted are on this property are up to 15 stories. Um, so the property is split split in terms of density with two and a half uh FSI for the front half and three and a half for the back half. Um, if you take a look at the density schedule on 18.6, you'll actually notice that the 3 and 1/2 FSI density is about 2/3 of the property and the 2 and 1/2 FSI is about a third of the property.
• 72:30 - 73:00 And that really was to kind of show transition from the Hall Street context which is relatively low uh lower densities up to four stories and moving into the higher density to the rear and towards Young Street. So that's how the density was allocated and that's where you see the development today as it's designed. It took a lower density um and lower height towards the Hall Street um frontage and it moved into the higher intensification along the rear. And
• 73:00 - 73:30 again, if you take a look at the density schedule, you'll see the distribution of density really does um move upward towards the Young Street frontage. With respect to the site in itself, because it's um split uh with in terms of density, uh we took a blended density across the site. So with 2 and 1/2 and 3 and 1/2, you know, you're generally in the RA range of 3 FSI. if you took it just split half and half um the density is proposed at 3 and a half at the
• 73:30 - 74:00 highest end and the applicant is at 3.8. So if to translate I mean I I actually I don't mean this you know in a disrespectful way but to translate that into kind of terms that everybody can understand. So if if this was if this application realistically came to us and we were to be really really strict and and to the point where um you know it complied even more so than it sounds like it's complying now. Am I right to say that you know there might be a couple less units and there might be
• 74:00 - 74:30 possibly a less one less story or a half a story in one of the buildings. I mean this is like it's that close to compliance. Is that correct? Through the chair to Mayor West generally speaking. Yes. Okay, so here's the problem and and it's been said, but I I want to illustrate this in a slightly different way. Um, we don't have full control over some of the things that you folks are concerned about. And I get that and I totally do. We deal with this all the time on this council and it's frustrating. But the problem is it we
• 74:30 - 75:00 could turn this down today and if we do turn it down today, it it certainly will be appealed to the OLT. I I can pretty much guarantee that. Um, but when it goes to the OOLT, we are we for are almost certainly going to lose. And the reason I know that is that we had a situation earlier this this term of council. And it was very unpleasant for us uh to be on that in that council meeting that the residents were really angry. And I was made it very clear to the residents, it was very unpopular, but I made it very clear to the
• 75:00 - 75:30 residents that if this gets appealed, we we will lose. It was a 28-story building. We got them down to 25 stories. Uh we approved it. The community at that time was allowed to appeal it and they did and they lost. And not only did they lose, but they also got a 28story building instead of the 25story building because the developer went in with 28. But the problem is they got a bigger building than what we had approved. It cost the city and I guess the developer too a bunch of money to get it um to you know
• 75:30 - 76:00 to go through that process. But this is the where we're at, you know, from a practical point of view. Like I hear what you're saying and I understand the concerns. Um I I don't live very far from that area and I will say there is a big building on the end end of my street and you know it's been there for almost well for longer than I've been there and it it functions fairly well. Um, so I mean staff has done their due diligence and they've worked with the developer and they've create they've, you know, trimmed and cut and and and made it fit
• 76:00 - 76:30 better into the community and that's what they do with every application, but that's where we are today. The one thing I will say that I do like about this uh application is the affordability component. And I know this is still not going to be cheap housing, but it's going to be more affordable than, for example, the houses that many of us actually live in right now that are are ground related. Um, and getting back to the trimming and cutting, like if we cut a few units out of it and and maybe there was a one floor less, you'd still be concerned. I mean, if I was in your
• 76:30 - 77:00 position, I would still be concerned. But what that translates to is that those units that were in those spaces are now gone. And I can tell you right now that the developers will cut the affordable units first before they cut the other units. So I think what we need to do at this point realistically is work with the applicant. There is still a site plan process that needs to go through and and Miss Parr you had mentioned about the the uh issues like the a transformer or whatever it was that you talked about and the garbage issue in the site plan process. Correct
• 77:00 - 77:30 me if I'm wrong, Miss Janetta, but in the site plan process, the details of what this uh building will eventually be will be looked at uh again in a more granular kind of way and there may be an opportunity to to look at some of those details more carefully. But I think at the end of the day, um I I believe that it's important that we recognize that if we, you know, the the the downside of us turning this down is that it's still
• 77:30 - 78:00 going to get approved. It just won't be approved by us and all of those details will then be out of our hands. They'll be at the OOLT's hands. So those would be my comments. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak on the first round? If not, I'm going to go to the second round. Council the tree, you want to go first? Okay. Councelor Silitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's just a
• 78:00 - 78:30 couple of things I want to add here. First of all, I want to thank our staff for this very very informative and concise and comprehensive staff report. they are also working under the press pressure and stresses of what the municipal of what the Ontario government demands. So, thank you. Just a few things I wanted to say. Um, as Mayor West just said, there are
• 78:30 - 79:00 other opportunities for comment here. We do go to council next week and there is site plan. So there is further public comment that that can be taken into account when it comes to the manner in which we have to deal with what is in front of us. Just to give you an idea of how much we are regulated and controlled by the provincial government in years gone by. And I know
• 79:00 - 79:30 this because I was one of those residence groups many, many, many years ago about the DDO. In years gone by, residence groups and residents could appeal decisions, could become parties or participants to the OM. That is no longer allowed. Residents can no longer become a party or participant to an OOLT. Is that correct, Mr. Commissioner? Through
• 79:30 - 80:00 you, Mr. Chair. through you, Mr. Chairman. Uh to the councelor, that is correct. Third party appeals are not allowed within PMTSA areas. So, so what I'm trying to illustrate here is is the control that the province has over everything, but that's their prerogative. They're the province and we are children of the province and we have to do what we are told. So, is it fair? Is it is it good? No, it's not. Absolutely not. As I believe Mayor West
• 80:00 - 80:30 or one of the other counselors said, I can guarantee that every person's oh, I think it was regional counselor Chan, nobody sitting on this bench wants to approve this. However, there's something also very important to understand. Not only can residents no longer be party to an OOLT hearing, but because we have in front of us a staff report which recommends
• 80:30 - 81:00 approval, that means should this council, and this is very important when it comes to the finances of the city, should this council go against staff recommendations and deny this, as we've said, There's no question this is going to go to the OOLT. That means that because we are going against staff recommendations. We as a council, you as residents, we are going to have to get outside
• 81:00 - 81:30 planners, legal and everything that goes into the necessity of an OOLT hearing because our recommend because the recommendation that comes from staff is is is to approve this. So once again that puts us in a very very difficult situation and it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to do such. So like I said before we have to always be aware of the greater picture.
• 81:30 - 82:00 So um again in a direct directed point to our applicant and the proponent and perhaps you could work to together with staff and stay within the boundaries of all the policies. That at least will show this council and our residents that you are prepared to
• 82:00 - 82:30 work for the betterment no matter how bad it may look for the betterment of society. That's all I wanted to say. I just felt I needed to bring a few more points into this because they're very very gerine and pertinent. Thank you. Thank you. Second round councelor tree. Okay. Thank you so much. So I still want to echo a few points here. So the first one is the safety. I know this is really the condominium building. Think about it. I think Arie already mentioned that
• 82:30 - 83:00 if this under construction noises because there are two underground parking it definitely going to impact the inconstructions and nearby houses. So I do have a concern that too. also garbages. Uh I believe snow services is another one because you know this last year 2024 how many how many complaints I got from Mil palm street right so tons of them coming from regarding to the snow sources also I want add another comment here is you know you live in
• 83:00 - 83:30 there Lucas street we don't have traffic coming there right you drive there lot of people taking that a shortcut drive crazy so we put the bump over there on Lucas street which is very close to hall it's only one street behind also another street Mill Street we also put bumps and also com polar there close to the pleasant view public school why because people drive crazy and this 2025 we're
• 83:30 - 84:00 going to put another traffic coming here at the Y street which is just right around maybe 100 meters away from how street so in this small piece of land there are three locations we put traffic coming solution there. Why? Because we see tons of traffic. You see tons of vehicles. So from my understanding, I agree we need some development. But this street, this plan is not intensifying young street is really trying to
• 84:00 - 84:30 intensify how street and intensify our internal inner community. So uh for the purpose of time manner perspective uh uh to be honest I I don't like this plan. So uh hopefully because this is really tough position you can hear the different words from our council members. Well I want to put a motion here. I don't want everybody make a decision right away this week. I want
• 84:30 - 85:00 four decision to next week. So at least give one week buffer to all members or council to rethink about it. Also permit our residents and also our applicant to think about as well. So can I put a motion to defer the decision of the motion decisions to next week? Uh councelor tree actually you already moved this motion. Um you cannot move a deferral unless you withdraw your
• 85:00 - 85:30 motion. Um, if you want to refer this, you have to rely on other members of council to to refer it to next week. Okay. Let me ask if anyone one members of council trying to defer this one to next week. Let's just wait for next week. Make a decision. Um, pardon me. Thank you. Um, I it it was my understanding, if I remember correctly, that councelor tree moved it forward for discussion. I don't know that he actually moved the motion, but whatever it is, it was on the floor. Oh,
• 85:30 - 86:00 it is moved. Yeah, it was on the floor. So, I will do that. I will I would like to put a motion on the floor to defer um any any further discussion and decisions to the council our council meeting next week. Okay. Thank you. Uh you still have next week to if you want you can make a registration to delegate to next week. Uh so on a deferral motion by councelor Selivitz uh you want to discuss? Okay. So yes
• 86:00 - 86:30 through uh Mr. Chair, these what we decide here at at cow is not binding. We've often changed our mind between this week and next week and I don't think it needs a deferral. We just vote and really lock it in next week. Am I wrong through you, Mr. Chair? I guess I'm asking the clerk. This is our vote today is more an intention, but the actual vote happens at a real council meeting next week. Is that correct? Mr. Cl. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That would
• 86:30 - 87:00 be correct. So, anything made at the committee hall today would go to council for final ratification. Mr. Chair, but it means there's one more vote on this issue if we wanted to raise it again next week. We don't have to have a deferral because we can change our mind and raise it and pull it out next week and talk about it again. Is that right, Mr. Clerk? Uh, thank you. Um, through the chair, that's correct. So, um, again, voting on
• 87:00 - 87:30 the motion that, um, sorry, the initial motion would go to council. Um, I do have something on the screen that I think I can pull up that would indicate what's happening right now. But basically, it would be a referral to next week's council meeting without a recommendation for council and then this would essentially start again in terms of the conversation. Yeah. So, this is more a referral motion than a deferral motion. So, it makes more sense if it's a referral motion because we're going to
• 87:30 - 88:00 refer it to next week anyways. Yeah. Sorry, I'm confused why we're making a motion for what we do anyway. No, no. When when we refer a motion to next week, we still have one week for council members, residents, staff, you know, to engage with each each other. Don't we have that right anyway? Something here has sparked me theoretically. Yes. But uh council member has the right to to make a referral motion that that's sorry to be. So that means we're not going to vote. We're just going to vote
• 88:00 - 88:30 that we've discussed it and it moves to next week. We're going to vote on the referral motion. If it's got defeated, then we will vote on the original motion. Thank you. Uh speaking to the referral motion, councelor Thompson and next uh and then deputy mayor Chen. I just uh through the clerk if I could just or sorry through the chair to the clerk just for clarification with the the referral motion it means that
• 88:30 - 89:00 automatically this will get pulled for discussion next week. Would that be correct? Yes. So the the difference here is that if we didn't have the referral motion if nobody pulled it next week it would get approved by consent. Would that be correct? So I think the advantage here is if we want to ensure that this comes up for discussion again and gives uh the uh public another chance to speak
• 89:00 - 89:30 further on this, the referral motion would be uh in my opinion the the best option to move forward at this point. Thank you. Deputy May, you're next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, I have no more issue. I have the same similar question like council Thompson spoke uh before me. I'm just um concerned there may be risk if the way is no recommendation nobody pull it and then what happens we left in a vacuum but they already been answered so
• 89:30 - 90:00 it will be discussed next week that's why thank you I understand your concern councelor Davidson but it does it doesn't hurt to refer you to next week so u councelor Shu thank you Mr. Chair, just uh clarification. What's the difference between to refer to next week and if we put this item out next week and just vote just vote again for next week? So, what's the difference between to refer to next week or just put it out for the next council meeting?
• 90:00 - 90:30 Thank you, sir. Chair of the council shoe. Uh as was just previously mentioned, if you refer it to next week, it will automatically get pulled. Um whereas if you didn't move a motion to refer and it just went like it was just carried today, it could go on consent next week at council unless a member of council pulled the item for discussion. That means is we put it out for separate discussion in advance now. Yes. Okay. Got it. Thank you. All right. Any more
• 90:30 - 91:00 discussion on the referral motion by councelor celibates? Seeing none, all those recorded vote. Thank you. Uh recorded vote on the motion to refer. Councelor Silvitz, yes. Councelor Tree, yes. Regional local counselor Chan, yes. Councelor Thompson, yes. Councelor Leu, yes. Mayor West, yes. Councelor Shu,
• 91:00 - 91:30 yes. Regional local counselor Depalo, yes. Councelor Davidson. Yes, that carries unanimously. Thank you very much. So, this item has been referred to next week. So, uh if you want to register as a delegate, you you still have a chance to do that. All right. So, thank you very much. This concludes uh item 11.2. Moving forward is item 12.1.
• 91:30 - 92:00 member motion by is 12.1 because there's a delegation on 12.1. All right. So, all right. So, uh region and local counselor um depala. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Uh now um I concur with a lot of councelor sentiment about some some difficult
• 92:00 - 92:30 challenges in and provincial legislative changes, but I think they have made one uh one provincial legislative change that that will uh will benefit municipalities and allow us to to help to incentivize the type of um housing that we need. you know, there's there's a housing crisis that we're we're not going to solve the entire crisis, but as we chip away and and take positive steps towards um helping the development
• 92:30 - 93:00 community to to bring forward the most preferable type of of housing. Um I I I think we have an opportunity to really to to really to turn turn back the clock. I mean it was 30 years ago um the trend of building condominiums where you built the building and you turned it over. Oh, you turned over ownership uh when it was complete and and walked away um became prevalent and uh people
• 93:00 - 93:30 stopped building buildings that they would they would rent out to individuals and um and the government at the same time stopped building subsidized uh housing. stop stopped providing community housing uh much around the same time in the '9s 30 years ago. So uh that I thank the delegates for coming forward on this motion and providing some great data and some some relevant information about the fact that purpose-built rental housing has has uh
• 93:30 - 94:00 se significantly and severely diminished in um over the past quarter century. And at the region, uh, we had a discussion about development charges and and, um, how to solve the the affordable housing crisis. And there was a lot of different opinion around that table with 20 regional counselors. But um one thing that we all agreed upon was that purpose-built renting rent purpose-built
• 94:00 - 94:30 rental housing was the one type of housing that's the most beneficial to the community in um is the the uh the the best option for affordability and the one thing that should be incentivized over all other um you know types of housing. So in order to do that here in locally in Richmond Hill um we we currently aren't able to but now the province has allowed for a a reclassification of multi
• 94:30 - 95:00 multi-residentidential housing. So currently multi-res is is one classification and we charge one property tax rate for for all multi-res units. Now um the region of York has the authority to change these classifications. We can't do it here. We can't create a new classification. But what I'm proposing in this motion is that we ask the region of New York as has been done in the in the region of Peele. Appeele has already created a new classification. Um, and what this what
• 95:00 - 95:30 this classification would be is as of today, if you apply for a purpose-built rental and under under, you know, strict conditions that require you to keep it as a purpose-built rental, um, you uh that that that will form a new tax classification and that class can be can be taxed differently from other types of multi-residential housing. So um we are not here today with this motion uh changing our tax rate. We're just asking
• 95:30 - 96:00 for the creation of that class. So we'll have the flexibility in the future. In the future, this cl this council can discuss whether we're going to lower um lower property tax rates to incentivize purpose-built rental. And I I definitely think we should, but uh there's nothing in this motion that's doing that today. But um as was said by the delegation, it costs a quarter million billion dollars per tower. $250 million uh is invested and you're you're
• 96:00 - 96:30 not recovering everything uh once once the project's complete. You're not selling it. You're incrementally year after year after year developing developing a very very small return on that very large investment. And um if if we can help to uh effectively make that return just just marginally and incrementally larger then the decision to build purpose-built rental will will be uh you know will be
• 96:30 - 97:00 made and that's that's the way in which we can encourage getting back to purpose-built rental here in in uh in Richmond Hill. And I think we're it's exciting because I think we're going to be leaders. I think we are going to stimulate and spur on a real return uh because unfortunate location on Young Street and in transit corridors and some of the land owners we have. So um maybe I'll reserve right to continue on a second round of this and if here if there's anyone has questions. Thank you.
• 97:00 - 97:30 I have a speaker list. So next on the list is Mayor West. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh thank you uh regional local counselor depollo for bringing this forward. I I actually forgot to mention this to you this morning when I spoke to you, but I wonder if we could put a small amendment in there and I would I would do it as a friendly amendment to just um send this also to other um York Region municipalities as well as the region as a whole because um I think this is something that they would probably be interested to know that we're doing given that we're going to be uh advocating to the region. Um happy to
• 97:30 - 98:00 add that. Okay, thank you. I I um I in support of this. In fact, you know, I I think as municipalities, I get very frustrated as mayor to know that we have very few financial tools in our toolbox to use for anything quite honestly. And uh but you know, I think you found something here that we can use. And you know, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel, guys. I'm just telling you that right now. Um you know, we don't have a lot of extra money sitting around that's not earmarked for something, but this is
• 98:00 - 98:30 something that that we can do to help. Um, you know, but what I would ask, and since I have a captive audience with you two gentlemen in the audience, no, you're the only two, so it's about you. Um, I would ask, please make sure that you're applying as much vigor to your advocacy efforts to the province and the feds because, as I said, we got nothing right when it comes to incentivizing the kinds of development on the scale that we need. And really, it needs to be at the provincial and federal level. I'm happy to support this. I'm happy to do
• 98:30 - 99:00 this kind of thing. and and there there may be other little things that we're we're looking at doing, but to know that the big things that we need to do to push rental and affordable rental and affordable housing in general over the line are going to come from the province and the feds. And I have to say that sometimes when I talk to industry groups, not you guys, but when I talk to industry groups, I get the sense that, you know, they're attacking DCs and they're attacking all kinds of other things that and it, you know, it seems to be kind of vogue to, you know, be going after municipalities all the time,
• 99:00 - 99:30 but I'm just telling you it I we want to help you as much as as anybody wants to help you, but we need the help in other forms. So, I'm seeing nodding, so thank you. Um and and I I think that this is a you know the kind of thing that with given the right instruments and tools that we would then have available we could probably do more. I I will say and I'm sure you're aware of this but we have refer deferrals of development charges and so on already in place at the region. We've done all kinds of work both here at the city and at the region
• 99:30 - 100:00 around incentivizing um affordable rental and I will say I jumped on the opportunity to get the housing accelerator fund money when it was available and we are using that money to incentivize the exact kind of building product that we're talking about today. And quite frankly, that tool in our toolbox is what I'm referring to. It's good. It gives us the ability and the financial resources to do the things we need to do. The only challenge that we're having and again
• 100:00 - 100:30 this is maybe something you should maybe take some notes and work to your advoc advocacy is we need that program to be extended and expanded because and whether that be at the federal level I and I think that's the most appropriate place given that the framework is already in place but also at the provincial level we need programs like that where we can get this this happening because in the grander scheme of affordability in the crisis that we're in in the moment afford affordable rental is actually the lowest hanging
• 100:30 - 101:00 fruit, right? Like we can get that stuff built. We can get people in there that can't afford a down payment or or just don't want to own a home. And there and there are people out there like that. But for the people that do want to own a home, if they can get affordable rental, they have a much much better shot at being able to save up some money, eventually get into a uh an owned home. And it's not easy. I'm not suggesting it it is, but it's it is the kinds of things that we need to see happen while we're doing other things all around too,
• 101:00 - 101:30 but we are as uh regional local counselor Dalo said, desperately short right now of rental in Richmond Hill for sure and across York Region. So, thank you for working with uh Regional Local Council Depollo. Councelor Depalo, thank you very much for bringing the mo the motion forward. Um, as you said earlier, councelor Depollo, this is not a fediccom plea, but it's uh it's making our position as a council in Richmond Hill known to the York Region Council as we are now embarking on discussions very
• 101:30 - 102:00 similar to this. So, I think it is a a useful advocacy tool to uh have in our toolbox at the region um you know to ultimately get the job done. So, thank you very much and I'm happy to support the motion. Thank you. Next is uh Councelor Davidson. Thank you. Um, and three, Mr. Chair, I think we're all in favor of incentivizing affordable housing and even subsidized housing. And so I agree with this premise of of giving tax breaks. I I I have more of a of a
• 102:00 - 102:30 procedural question. I was looking at the regional meeting tomorrow, G1.5, and it says the region's about to vote on this tomorrow. So three, Mr. Chair, to staff, is that binding to us? Are we essentially asking the region to do something that would if approved yesterday would affect would would effectively put into place what we're talking about what the does the region decide what the region decides affects Richmond Hill? I I believe the the mover already
• 102:30 - 103:00 said that it's a treasurer. Would you like to take that? I think the treasurer would like to take your question. It's through the chair to councelor Davidson. That is correct. Um, so under the municipal act, the the region will establish tax rates and policies for the region as well as all of the local municipalities. So the fact that it's going to regional council tomorrow for approval once it's approved, it applies to us as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we're
• 103:00 - 103:30 respectfully, so we're going to ask region to do something. They're voting on tomorrow. I'm wondering if we could refer it for a week because if they do it, we could rewrite it to encourage other municipalities to do it, but I feel like we're going to ask the region to do something they're already planning on voting on tomorrow. I don't know if that bothers anybody or if I I don't quite see I'm totally behind this giving 35% different tax, but we're we're going
• 103:30 - 104:00 to vote and ask them to do something. by the time they get our request, they will have already voted on it. So, could we refer it till next week and then maybe the mover would like to change it so that it's something more encouraging to other municipalities? I don't know. Can I I'll put on the floor um you can always referral, I guess, because I'd like to see what the region decides tomorrow. Okay. So, is that a referral motion you're making? That's the one that puts it off till next week. Yes.
• 104:00 - 104:30 or you want the uh the move the motion to respond first or you moving a referral motion? I talked to jumble there. I'm going to say refer to next week because if G15 passes tomorrow, it's already supports a 35% municipal tax rate discount and it applies to us the city. I'm not it doesn't Okay, I'm open to discuss. You tell me. I need more information. I guess that's what I'm asking for. Yeah. Okay. So I I'll let uh regional counselor dep Paulo respond first and then you decide
• 104:30 - 105:00 whether or not you want to move a referral motion. Thank yeah I I understand and appreciate the concern there. Um no this is you know intended to go this way for a reason. Um what what's being discussed there is is very different. There's there's regional charges and there's local and the region's going to do what they do but I'm hoping the local also does the same. So having this uh passed today, albeit just a recommendation to council, um I I'll be
• 105:00 - 105:30 able to reference tomorrow that, you know, our council discussed this and you know, after a discussion, we were unanimously in agreement that that uh the the the region should create this new classification. So that that helps me to put the position forward. It helps me to helps those other counselors to understand that okay, Richmond Hills on board with this. Uh but but the two things are it's two separate things. We we've got to do our own thing here and and we have to once the region gives us
• 105:30 - 106:00 permission to do so and then the region is also going to implement it on their portion of property taxes. Does that it does sorry through Mr. Chair. So to our treasur I'm confused. Sorry. So when you said that if the region passes it, it's binding to us. Do you mean just binding to us in terms of the regional portion that comes out of property tax bills? Like it doesn't actually affect our
• 106:00 - 106:30 rates through the chair to councelor Davidson. It actually does impact our rates as well. As I mentioned earlier, the region sets the tax policies and ratios for both the region and the local municipalities. So the the 35% discount that's contemplated in the recommendation once it's approved by regional council tomorrow we must adopt as well at the city. Thank you.
• 106:30 - 107:00 Do you have the floor? Yeah, I know. I'm confused. So let me think about it. Okay. Got to win that vote tomorrow. So I got to point to our discussion here. So, now's the time to weigh in before the three of us go up there and vote. It doesn't really matter to be honest. I'm done. Okay. Thank you. Next is uh councelor Celitz.
• 107:00 - 107:30 Uh thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the gentleman for presenting to us. Thank you to um regional counselor depala for bringing this forward. I think it's an excellent idea. fully supported uh fully support what the mayor has said. Um I Oxford Properties is in my ward. I'm sorry, but it's on a personal note, Stephen. Whenever I look at you, I see your father. I'm sorry. Harvey Nightingale is Steven's
• 107:30 - 108:00 father. He used to be a he used to be a um a trustee in Thornhill. And um um it's just incredible that this is just the a younger version of his father. Please say hello to your father and your aunt Marsha. I know him very well. Um, so, um, I I fully support this and I think that because not only is Oxford properties in my ward and I fully support what what we've already put
• 108:00 - 108:30 forward for that um, and I have others in W 5, my Elm development going up at May and Mayan Young, that's also purpose-built rental and I have others. So I am a huge proponent of purpose-built rentals and um if this is going to help us um get troubles in the ground quicker and actually get these buildings built like you said within 2 to 3 years then um it's a win for everybody. So, um, so let let's hope that we see this actually coming to
• 108:30 - 109:00 fruition and it's something that we can all get behind and cheer. Um, and and thank the province cuz sometimes that's difficult, but in this particular case, I think we can. So, um, fully supported and, um, again, thank you for bringing it forward and and speaking to it. Uh, and thank you, Regional, uh, Councelor Depalo. Um this is uh very very germanine and pertinent right now. Thank you. Thank you councelor Shu. Thank you
• 109:00 - 109:30 Mr. Chair and thank you uh regional councelor Depalo um to bring this motion. And I think this is the u a well-intentioned motion that addresses a barrier to the builders of rental housing and it definitely encourage rental housing development and incentivize applicants to build more affordable units while submitting application. But on the same time I can see there some disadvantage like uh revenue implications. Um I would say a lower tax rate would
• 109:30 - 110:00 lead to reduced municipal revenue unless offset elsewhere. So my question to treasurer Lee as well and do we have any potential areas that we can offset this potential revenue loss through Mr. Chair? Um treasurally treasurer. Okay. Okay. Okay. She's thinking. Okay. Yeah. just thinking okay
• 110:00 - 110:30 through the chair to councelor she so um the the discounted amount is the legislative maximum of 35% which is what's being presented as a recommendation at regional council from staff um they the region has sent the estimate the financial impact is minimal um same with the city the financial impact will be minimal the the discounted amount it's recovered from other taxpayers. Um but when we're talking
• 110:30 - 111:00 about one potential property or maybe two or three in in the grand scheme of things, it it is still a very um small amount. So when we um redistribute that, it is still a the the impact to other taxpayers are are not significant. Okay. Yes. Okay. uh my and and my comment is uh from the planning perspective uh at the end of
• 111:00 - 111:30 the day is not a guarantee it encourage uh rental housing development but it's not a guarantee and is still an unknown and uncertain because there's no precedent in nine cities within York region we are the pioneer to try asking this um I'm not sure that if builders may still prefer making typical condos due to high higher short-term returns instead of making more affordable units. So for me is an unknown and uncertain
• 111:30 - 112:00 still and it depends on how low the tax break is. So uh if there is a motion on the floor to defer uh to refer to next week, I will support it. If uh councelor Davidson still put the motion on and I will support it because I we need more time to talk to the planning staff. uh if this um uh this practice can encourage more applicants to put more upload units I'm not sure it is is is still unknown. So, uh, if there's a one
• 112:00 - 112:30 more week I can talk to the staff offline, that would be great for me. And also, I'm just, uh, wondering how to define the purpose-built rental buildings to determine which building, uh, qualify as this can be challenging. I think it needs a clear criteria and ongoing oversight to prevent misuse. So my question is is there any clear definition of purpose-built rental buildings for how many years are
• 112:30 - 113:00 purpose-built rental buildings required to remain as rental housing through Mr. Chair through you Mr. Chairman, I I'll take a try at this one. I mean, there's various initiatives that have been put forward with respect to affordability, but uh generally a purpose built rental building is one that is exactly that. It would be for purpose-built rental units over a time horizon. That's usually anywhere from 20 to 25 years. But uh that that's basically the criteria that we've been working with.
• 113:00 - 113:30 Coun uh regional counselor dep I'll let you finish because I want to respond to everything. Okay. Okay. Actually um if there's a 20 to 25 years so are there any restriction on converting them to other types of housing during that period through Mr. If they convert they turn into a condo they they become taxed as a condo. This is this is the tax not development charges here talking about the taxes
• 113:30 - 114:00 they pay. If it changes from a rental to a condo then they start paying the the other the property taxes consistent with a condo. Yeah. bracket. Yeah. Oh, got it. Uh I think um I will support the referral motion to next week if there's a motion on the floor now. And actually I will most likely to support this motion, but for me I need one more week to talk to the staff offline. So that's why I will support the referral motion. That's all my comments. Thank you. Thank you.
• 114:00 - 114:30 There's no referral motion on the Actually, Councelor Shu, you can move a referral motion if you want. Oh, I'm just realized that there's no motion anymore on to refer it. Oh, okay. That's a member motion on the floor. Councelor Davidson didn't move a referral motion. If you want, you can you can move a referral motion just as you know. Okay. You don't have to wait for councelor Davidson. I think it's not harmful for us because we need one more week. At the end of the
• 114:30 - 115:00 day, there's no harmable art. So, I will refer it to motion. I will put the motion on floor. Yeah. Okay. Okay, there's a motion to refer to next week council meeting by councelor Shu speaking to the referral motion. Anybody? Councelor Selitz. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I I want to refer back to what regional uh councelor Depalo was saying about this being necessary for us to vote on today as the
• 115:00 - 115:30 motion. And um if I may through you uh Mr. Chair, councelor, regional councelor de Paulo, can you repeat that, please? I think it's germaine to whether or not this is referred. Okay. Well, thank you. Yes, it's it's really important. We're going to have this discussion tomorrow with the region. It's regional council. The council is going to make a binding decision and it's important to know where Richmond Hill stands and um I'm going to vote against the referral because I I think we need to have that position. Um, if the consensus is there,
• 115:30 - 116:00 it would be nice to at least have this recommendation going to our council. Yeah, I I agree. Thank you. Um, I wouldn't I would regretfully not be able to support the referral uh for that reason. Thank you very much, Mayor West. Okay. I I can't support the referral. Um, I I mean, in fairness, I I don't think it's going to make that much difference one way or the other. Uh, you know, as it as was with the last uh referral, deferral, whatever we did. Um, but I I think there's a couple of
• 116:00 - 116:30 things. You still have time to talk to staff, right? So, again, regardless of whether this passes or whether it doesn't pass, I think I in my in my opening comments, I I mentioned that there are very few tools in the toolbox that we realistically have available to us. But and and you know, and we can get creative and find maybe a few more little tools to use and this is one of them. But if we don't take action on the things that we can take action on that, as the treasurer said, will have a
• 116:30 - 117:00 minimal cost to the city. What's going to happen is when the province looks at us, they're going to say, "Well, you guys aren't doing what you're going to be doing." And as as your mayor and as somebody that advocates to the province, I need to be able to go out to the province and say, "Look, we're doing this. We're doing this. We're doing this." And it's not easy, but we're doing it. And you know, then I say, "And we need you to do this, this, this, and this." And they say, "Well, you're already doing your part. We'll do our part." That's that's what I need in my
• 117:00 - 117:30 toolbox. This motion, I mean, it's not going to change the rotation of the earth, but it is a step in the right direction. And it's one more thing on the list of things that we stand for. And I think, you know, you know, there's a cost to cities that that don't address the affordable housing crisis as well as they need to. And it's a lot more than the cost of this deferral. So, and I think we need to do that. And I would just ask and and again, I appreciate this discussion as I do with all the
• 117:30 - 118:00 discussions that we have on this council. Thank you very much, colleagues. But at the end of the day, I think I appreciate your concern and your caution and the diligence that you're doing, but I think we need to be bold on this. We need to be taking steps that say we are serious. And you know, our residents demand that. I mean, again, we hear this in one form or another. You know, my son, my daughter can't afford housing. I want to downsize. I'm, you know, getting retirement age. I want to I want an affordable house in Richmond Hill. Affordability is top of mind in
• 118:00 - 118:30 people. And the elephant in the room when you're talking about affordability is probably the biggest cost that almost any family incurs, which is the cost of housing. So, you know, some of the actions that we're going to be taking or that we will need to take, municipalities will need to take to move the needle on affordability are not going to be particularly popular. It's it's it's a bitter medicine that needs to be swallowed. But folks, we need to
• 118:30 - 119:00 swallow it. if we're, you know, doing what we need to do to respond to what, you know, people are telling us about affordability and and rightly so. I agree with them 100%. And this is an example of a very very small bitter pill that we need to follow to to swallow. There are bigger ones. Um, you know, but anyway, I those are my comments. I I actually do like the the the point that Councelor Davidson brought up and councelor Depalo responded to that, you
• 119:00 - 119:30 know, with uh an approval of this. Now, granted, it's not a final approval because it does go to council anyway. Um it does give us as regional counselors uh one more thing to say tomorrow that in fact, you know, Rich Hill is is doing its part as well. And and I think this is something that other municipalities probably could consider whether they do it or not. Everybody's uh uh free to choose their own way, but I think in Richmond Hill this particular thing works. Okay. Before I go to the next speaker, Treasurer Lee would like to um comment.
• 119:30 - 120:00 So I'll let Treasurer Lee to go ahead to the chair, if I may, in an effort to be helpful. Um, I do want to clarify the the motion speaks to the request for the region to create a separate property class that already exists. So in 2024, the region already created that subclass. What's going to regional council tomorrow? It's about setting a
• 120:00 - 120:30 discount rate for the subclass. Okay. So the the the the motion is requesting to create this. It already exists. The motion tomorrow is because what what happened in 2024 was the region created the subclass with a discount of 0%. What's coming to regional council tomorrow is that they're going to change that 0% to the 35. So when we look at this motion, it's requesting for something that already
• 120:30 - 121:00 exists. So I I my my suggestion would be if it is to help support the discussion tomorrow, perhaps we may want to consider updating what's what's actually within the motion right now. So So it corresponds to the 35% that's being tabled. Okay. Thank you for the information. Okay.
• 121:00 - 121:30 Um, so we're still on the referral motion. Um, regional and local counselor, Deputy Mayor Chen, it's your turn. U, thank you. Um I I did not anticipate this to me is critical information but but I I I want to thank my regional colleague Paulo moving it and also um mayor um mentioned about the friendly amendment because um councelor Davidson I was just thinking back
• 121:30 - 122:00 initially uh before refer motion we're going to make a decision at council meeting at your origin tomorrow. Um but certainly in principle anything we can do as the mayor said to insensitize that um the uh the owner of the land to move towards building more uh for purpose uh building uh rental units is certainly something I totally support and as mentioned by the two delegates they they show us all the dismal number in both
• 122:00 - 122:30 GTA and so on so on. So I'm for it. So I would prefer to make a decision now. However, I sense that also by next week that council um may be respectfully um the mover may want to think about modifying the motion actually to be finally adopted at council taking consideration of what treasurer Lee just mentioned and also the outcome of tomorrow uh regional meeting. Uh
• 122:30 - 123:00 presumably we will have a public spirit discussion at the region. Uh but um one last point um is uh mayor and also councelor Thompson talk about we are dealing with a very activist bins government. I mean just last week and now bill 17 uh but although it suggests it touches on more on development charges there's a whole scheme of things. So um I have I have no issue supporting the motion as is now which
• 123:00 - 123:30 meaning uh maybe not referring but on the other hand based on the latest information treasury said maybe we need a a subject to removal a modified motion. So those are my comments. All right. Thank you. Next is councelor Davidson. Thank you um through Mr. Chair. Thank you um madam treasurer for clarifying. I I thank miss uh councelor Shu for bringing this. It's not that I don't agree that the 35% discount
• 123:30 - 124:00 categorization is worthy. It's that I don't understand what we're voting on. I just want to make that clear. The the referral deferral is so that I can understand what we're voting on. It's not that I don't believe in incentivizing affordable housing. It's not that I don't think Richmond Hill should do its part. It's me understanding what I'm voting on because if the council tomorrow regional decides yes, this is what we're doing. We're getting dragged along anyway, I don't know what we're voting on. So, I support this motion. Thank you. Anyone would
• 124:00 - 124:30 like to speak on the referral motion. Okay. If uh uh let No, you're the mover of the referral motion. I don't think referral motion has a second round. Uh Mr. Clark, am I correct? Thank you, Chair. Um, councelor Shu would be allowed a wrap-up. A wrap-up is okay. You can wrap up before me. All right. After me. Sorry. After me. Um, you know, in fairness, I I think
• 124:30 - 125:00 this is really tough for I I think um the the the members on the regional council, they have more understanding of what's going on as opposed to the W counselor. When I look at this motion, I was like scratching my heads like everybody else. Um, I understand the intent, but um, you know, more information, more background um, would be appreciated if if if you know if
• 125:00 - 125:30 something like this happened next time. Um, but after listening to the treasurer, no matter is a referral motion or the original motion, it doesn't make sense to me because according to Treasury Lee is already been approved and last year. So a referral motion obviously doesn't make sense to me but when we go back to the original motion um I don't think that's right
• 125:30 - 126:00 too. So uh my suggestion I don't know if someone can make an amendment. I think the original mo original motion which we are all intended to do to go to tomorrow's council uh regional council's meeting is to support the 35%. Not suggesting that they create another tax bracket because it's already
• 126:00 - 126:30 done. So that's my suggestion. So I'm not going to support the referral motion because if it's got referred to next week and it is is is is it's not going to make any difference. So all right. So uh councelor tree. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair. So I I I believe I understand the u the the potential um um um thinking about why this motion is on
• 126:30 - 127:00 the floor. So I as a counselor Leo I already mentioned this one whenever it's referral or is original uh I would maybe pull this back to the movers to think about it is really necessary to to discuss or we wait a little bit until more information coming down from region so we have a better uh visions and then also understanding then we can have a new motion for for supporting region decision for me is a little bit earlier
• 127:00 - 127:30 so I I would suggest most maybe both mowers think about it again. Thank you so much. All right. Um for wrap up councelor Shu. Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you for treasur for your additional information. Uh if if the content of the motion has been approved in your regional council already. So I I do believe even my motion to refer doesn't make any sense
• 127:30 - 128:00 because it's stick to the original motion that already exist. So um what can I do? I'm I'm a bit confused now. Could I withdraw this motion to refer first to make easier to manage for the next step? Absolutely. Yeah, you can I would like to draw this motion and we'll talk about uh the the feasible to modify the rings for for this motion. All right. So okay, that's a good try. All right. So, uh, the referral motion has been with withdrawal. So, going back to
• 128:00 - 128:30 the main motion, um, the next speaker is regional and local counselor deputy mayor Chen. Oh, thank you. Um, the context what I was about to or the message about uh to to uh to say is probably quite different uh based on the revelation by treasurer Lee. So I did say it earlier on um I respect uh my colleague uh council Paula of the motion
• 128:30 - 129:00 but it sounds as if well not as if we've already have the separate property tax created uh classification uh I think it been suggested would the perhaps up to the mover because I don't see any more sense to even vote on this because we already got it the city already got that classification. So maybe the to move a friendly suggestion is that uh as suggested maybe we as B is saying we're
• 129:00 - 129:30 seeking York region uh to be aligned with them with the X number of% whatever it is uh for uh for the discount. I think that's something that I feel comfortable voting on uh but on this one is almost like a mood with all due respect uh uh uh to vote on this. All right. So, thank you. Um, but but I respect the mover and uh
• 129:30 - 130:00 perhaps the mover might wish to amend or make changes. I understand. Thank you very much. Um, so this is the this is still the first round of the main motion, right? Okay. Um, councelor Thompson. Uh thank you very much through you the chair uh to treasure Lee. Um when you talk about um a a
• 130:00 - 130:30 subclassification within um the uh the current classification. Um are they defined in such a way that currently that they will have uh different rates or are we still talking about um you know the larger classification having a rate
• 130:30 - 131:00 through the chair to counselors Thompson. So there are different property class classifications as well. They have their own tax rates. So for example, uh residential, multi-residential, commercial, industrial, etc. So they all have their own rate there. uh through the provincial budget that was tabled in 2024, the province allowed
• 131:00 - 131:30 municipalities to adopt what's called the new multi-residential rate, which essentially is the um another class that we're looking at right now, which will provide um property tax relief to multi-residential that are purpose-built. So that was done in 2024. So shortly after the province tabled the budget um the region adopted the new
• 131:30 - 132:00 multi-residential property class. At the time it was with a discount rate of zero which means a new multi-residential property was paying the same as everyone else as a residential. What the region is proposing now is that starting in 2025 there would be a 35% discount for this class. Now what we need to be aware
• 132:00 - 132:30 of as well is it's actually EMPAC that classifies so not the municipalities it's impact. So, so if EMPAC puts a multi-res new multi-res classification to a property then they would be eligible for that discount. Uh thank you through you the chair. So the new
• 132:30 - 133:00 multi-res classification um it Is it still encompassing a number of different types of um you know so where we have um you know purposebuilt and you know you could pick a few other subclass are they still encompassed within
• 133:00 - 133:30 that okay so I'm still struggling a little bit here because it sounds to me that we still have a larger class that has the rate established whereas the subclasses don't have the subclasses uh established other than to say that it follows the lead of the uh larger group
• 133:30 - 134:00 through the chair to councelor Thompson. Um so the the larger rate applies to the subclass as well, right? So let's say if the residential rate is set at 1%. The multi-residential rate is also set at 1%. And so is the new multir subclass. But what's available to this multi-rest subclass is the 35% discount.
• 134:00 - 134:30 So effectively, yes, you still looking at the 1%. But now this purposeuilt, this new subclass that's created for multi-res purposebuilt, they will be eligible for that 35% discount. Okay. So I think I I've got it. It's it's broken down in such a way now that uh you can define specific subclasses
• 134:30 - 135:00 um you know based on what you feel is the appropriate rate. Okay. Um in that particular case then I think the question's got to go back to the mover. Um, in regards to I guess your second whereas is this something that you know between now and next week would we be looking at a change in some way, shape or form?
• 135:00 - 135:30 You asking the mover? I'm asking the mover. Okay. Yeah, that's it. The second whereas um is technically incorrect because they've created this distinction uh but they haven't discounted it and so you know it's it's unnecessary. I mean, happy to withdraw the motion and simply have it be that the city the city of Richmond Hill supports eliminating the property um implementing a 35%
• 135:30 - 136:00 municipal property tax rate discount for eligible new purpose-built rentals via the new multi-residential municipal subclass to encourage additional built purpose-built rental supply. I consent it to the clerk. Um, I would withdraw my motion and just uh re restate it that this this council supports that action.
• 136:00 - 136:30 Uh, Mr. Clerk, just uh procedurally, if a mover or withdrawal um the motion, can he make a new motion right away? Um, thank you. Uh sir the chair certainly the member is able to withdraw the motion any time. Perhaps he would like to do an amendment to amend what is on here right now so that it would I think so just because of the member motion you know we needed a week before
• 136:30 - 137:00 and that sort of thing but there is something here I think amendment would be in in order and then can the mover amend his own motion. Okay then go ahead region local council to pol. Okay. So, um strike the second whereas you got to amend that as well. Okay. Um and then amend the therefore be resolved. City of Richmond Mill
• 137:00 - 137:30 Council supports implementing a 35% municipal property tax rate discount for eligible new purpose-built rentals via the new multi-residential subclass to encourage additional purpose-built rental supply. and and that's just word for word from what's up at the
• 137:30 - 138:00 region and it's through you Mr. chairman, the the treasur is certain that this um if if this were passed by the region and took effect, it would it would apply to us. There's nothing more need be done by Richmond Hill to or or could be done. Okay, you're pretty good, Mr. Clerk. And then uh well, yeah, continue to forward it up
• 138:00 - 138:30 there because that's the whole purpose to let them know we're in favor. So this is an amendment, right? Okay. So speaking to the amendment, um, Deputy Mayor Shen, thank you. I I I'm I'm in full support because that this fully align as my colleague just saying. I'm reading on what York Regional Council tomorrow morning would be voting on 2025 property tax policy. And the point number two is exactly
• 138:30 - 139:00 that. York Region approve a 35% may as well tax rate discount uh for the new multi-residential blah blah blah and so on. So I'm in full support so that I trust that all three of us representing the city of Richmond Hill at York Regional Council, we can say hey uh regional colleagues, we do have a motion uh hopefully adopted uh at this uh recommended by this committee. Uh, so I'm in support and this is fully aligned with what region council is expecting to
• 139:00 - 139:30 vote tomorrow morning. Thank you. Well, maybe I shouldn't say morning. We'll see. Thank you. Anyone would like to speak to the amendment. Seeing none, I'm going to call the vote, which is the motion moved by regional and local counselor depola on the screen. All those in favor oppose carry unanimously. Thank you. Thank apologies to the chair. So um just
• 139:30 - 140:00 for procedural purposes. So I have to vote again. Right. Okay. So now it's on the main motion with the amendment. All those in favor oppose carry unanimously. Thank you. All right. Moving forward. 11.4. Deputy Mayor Chen. Uh thank you very much Mr. Chair. Uh I'd like to thank uh staff for coming back a report on a motion uh basically that I moved
• 140:00 - 140:30 back in 2023 and adopted by uh council and thank you for finding uh the location because uh u the task was uh um directed staff to look for an appropriate location. Uh I would have to say this might be not necessarily a location that uh uh everybody would 100% agree to but nonetheless uh that is the I want to recognize the efforts and uh for staff and diligence for responding back and I'm happy to move um the uh
• 140:30 - 141:00 motion uh to the um recommendation A and B. Uh there's only two comment I want to make um or actually one is a question uh through you Mr. care to staff or maybe commissioner still can help. Is there any particular timing for the planning of the tree as well as the installation of the memorial um I guess the chair or bench through you Mr. Chair?
• 141:00 - 141:30 Through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we're looking to plant it this spring either within the next few weeks. Okay. So, um hopefully that might be a a notice in advance to uh council members and things and so on. That would be appreciated uh through you, Mr. Chair. We weren't planning an event or anything for the planting. We just planting the tree so that it um it would be in place for September at the anniversary if
• 141:30 - 142:00 something wanted to be planted. Maybe I I will follow up off offline. uh the the the comment I do want to make and I want to recognize a correspondence item 11.7 we already adopted and uh my sense is I did have a a discussion with the commissioner still before um what we have today for the recommendation A and B is in response to council motion back in September of 2023 but it does not necessarily preclude uh committee
• 142:00 - 142:30 members coming forward we propose and whatever to be considered uh by the city and the staff. I take it is a comment. Um so uh my motion is to adopt A and B. Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. So we have a motion on the floor. Anyone would like to speak to it. Mayor West. Thank you. I I think it's just worth saying that um you know many of us on on council were there when when um you know
• 142:30 - 143:00 we had that those that enormous uh gathering in Richmond Hill. It was definitely a defining moment for our city. Uh and you know this this memorial I think is very fitting. It'll be in in a place that's very close to where all of that took place. And I think, you know, there's no question that at at that time and I'm I'm sure even at this time um you know, this council recognizes, you know, the importance of Masamini and all of the things that uh that movement stood for. And you know,
• 143:00 - 143:30 one of the things that has happened in a in a more on the ground and concrete way in in a in so many sad ways is the downing of flight PS752. And you know, I I just want to remind council and uh everybody that, you know, we are working hard with the families of flight PS 752 uh to create an and memorial in Richmond Hill at Unity Park. And and that is not an easy process, I might add, because
• 143:30 - 144:00 it's a very sensitive uh topic and and there's a lot of things that we need to maneuver and work around. But um you know myself and staff and and councelor Thompson whose ward it's in have been actively involved in in um you know bringing that to life and bringing it to fruition and doing it as quickly as we can um with all of the other um things in place. But I think that you know um this this tree and this bench is is an another part of of the the the greater
• 144:00 - 144:30 acknowledgement that we have as a community towards what's happening in that part of the world. and and uh and our support for the the families and the victims of of particularly flight PS 752, but also the other families that whose lives have been impacted by the things that are happening uh in Iran very sadly right now. So, thank you very much. I look forward to seeing that and um and that's a as I said, I'm pleased that it's there. It's a really nice little corner. I drove by it the other day and tried to picture it with that uh
• 144:30 - 145:00 tree in the bench in there and I think that'll work out quite nicely. So, thank you very much, Councelor Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support this as well. I do just want to say for um Mr. Kashani who wrote us a letter about a bigger plan. That is the first I've heard of it and that kind of plan would be something that would come to council as a motion. Um I'm sorry if if he got the impression that more something different was going there, but that is honestly the first time I've heard of it. So, I support what this council has
• 145:00 - 145:30 passed so far. And I think it's it's going to be a lovely spot. Um that's all I wanted to say. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor. 11.4 staff recommendations. All those in favor. Okay. Carry unanimously. Thank you. And then motion to adjurnn. Mayor West. All those in favor carry unanimously. Thank you.