What did members of the community have to say?

A presentation was delivered by David Stonehouse, the city’s waterfront secretariat.

• “This report/decision is not about closing the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport,” he said.
• The goal is to reduce severity of damage to the aircraft if it overshoots or overruns the runway. 
• RESA compliance is the responsibility of airports, but approval from the city is required. YTZ is operated by Tripartite Agreement between PortsToronto, City of Toronto and Transport Canada.

• Compliance by lengthening the runway requires infill into the lake, which needs city council approval.

PortsToronto is conducting an environmental assessment, which is evaluating three options for implementation to adhere with guidelines: 

• Option 1: Meet minimum landmass (by building additional runway space in the airport) to meet regulatory requirements. Cost estimate is $61-64 million. 
  • Staff found that this is the most efficient and recommended option for compliance.
• Option 2: Have minimum landmass and additional taxiway. Cost estimate is $93-97 million 
• Option 3: Have minimum landmass, taxiway, additional airside roads, sound barrier and underground corridor. Cost estimate is $169-175 million.

There was mainly a discussion about the cost, environmental impact and the special connection of the airport to the queer history of Hanlan’s point, a gathering point for the queer community since the early 20th century. There was also a broader discussion about the airport’s lease and whether or not to renew it in the long-term.

Deputy Mayor McKelvie asked the staffer from PortsTO about whether or not there are technical reasons to object to the other features of options 2 and 3 (i.e. objections to soundproofing). 

Coun. Moise asked PortsTO about the noise of the planes, and why it wasn’t factored into all three options. Stonehouse responded that this is still a large outstanding question and is best addressed through the airport master-planning process, so potential solutions can be reviewed with a larger group. 

Coun. Pasternak said there are not enough diverging opinions within the report. PortsTO staffer responded that the team reported and recorded what they heard from the community. 

Coun. Morley asked about safety considerations regarding school buses that use the same area during the winter and about considering varying public opinions. She asked about funding for this project and about examples of successful financing pathways. 

Many city councillors were asking where the finances are going to come from, and the timeline for amortization. 

Coun. Bradford asked more about funding and how that will be paid back within the terms of the lease. He also asked about the presentation that Stonehouse showed, which said this proposal is not really about the future of the airport; but then he added that without the runway and lease extension, the future of Billy Bishop is at risk. 

Coun. Bravo asked Stephen Conforti, CFO and treasurer of the City of Toronto, about regaining investments in the project through revenues. Conforti said this is a possibility. 

• Bravo asked city manager Paul Johnson about the impacts of a potential high-speed rail corridor and how shifting modalities might have an impact on the airport. Johnson said this was just about the safety requirements and not about these other issues.

Coun. Saxe asked Johnson about whether or not the recommended proposal meant that Billy Bishop would continue to occupy that area past 2033. She also asked about lead toxins from the fumes of planes and the environmental and health impacts of this exposure. 

• Johnson said the environmental concerns are a major consideration within their proposals. 

After the recess, Mayor Chow said the city is not closing the runway, and has to bring it into compliance with RESA. Option 1 is the safest, lowest-risk, cheapest, quickest and does not destroy Hanlan’s point. Other options would take more time, massive landfilling of Lake Ontario and more complex construction. This all needs to start next summer in order for them to meet the deadline. 

• Motion is to lead with Option 1. Extending the lease for Billy Bishop to get the financing necessary to complete these upgrades is something that the city would support. 
• Still need to decide the future of the airport, especially since there are going to be 100,000 more residents in close proximity with Villiers Island and the other portlands. 

Chow was asked by Coun. Holyday for her long-term view for Billy Bishop. 

• Chow said it is developing rapidly, and pointed out that it is an important question for experts to consider. 
• Holyday questioned if that means she thinks flights should continue into the future.
• Chow responded that the airport should stay where it is. Holyday said the city should make investments now, and that it should do better than option 1 since the other options are more comprehensive.

Coun. Mantas asked about the probability of these runway problems occuring, and why option 1 was determined to be the best fit. Chow responded that it was not up to her, and that Transport Canada decided to make these policy changes. 

• Chow said the residents did not say they needed new roads or a sandwall. They were pushing for option 1. 
• Mantas asked if they could conduct a citywide poll. Chow said that could be conducted when they are talking about the future of the entire airport, but this is really just a consideration of the RESA. 

McKelvie said this is a federally regulated project and that council should “cede to that advice” from the feds.

• Coun. Colle questioned if options two and three would meet the regulations, or to go beyond them.
• McKelvie responded that, yes, these are additional measures (i.e. safety, sound, etc.) that PortsTO has identified. They have not been required by the federal government. Colle said McKelvie was “dragging the puck” (i.e. not letting him speak) and they had some back-and-forth.

Councillor Colle highlighted the locality of the airport and said, “It is a quirky airport; it is a unique airport — by no means is it perfect like Pearson airport is but it's our airport,” to laughs from the chamber. “You can actually see people walk to go to their airport.”

Bradford said Chow signing the existing tripartite agreement would lock the airport into using an outdated model of a plane that is no longer being manufactured.

Coun. Fletcher said, “I’ve not seen a lobbying effort like this for a long time.” She accused the other councillors of having been lobbied and told them to grow up. 

• “You want a megamall, you want a ferris wheel, a minirail? Do you want that? That was the last time we did this on the waterfront, and we had to stop it. It's the central waterfront; it's a very delicate place.” She pointed to the mass housing developments on the waterfront, access to the Toronto Islands and new ferries as being reasons why it is important to really consider what is going on at the airport location during this decision-making process. 
• She advocated for option 1, and pointed to decades-long and city-wide efforts to develop the waterfront to meet everyone's needs. 

Coun. Perks rebutted Bradford’s previous comments on the terms of the lease being outdated since they are from 40 years ago. He said it doesn't make sense to criticize the fact that people in the 1980s didn't have the foresight to know all the intricacies of what would be needed at the site today by then proposing another 40-year lease.

Deputy Mayor Malik advocated for all stakeholders to be engaged in the long-term planning process, while making sure that the federal safety requirements are met in an efficient manner.