TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 8

1. Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -2 Bloor Street West (Cumberland Terrace) (Midtown)

2. Committee of Adjustment Application -204, 212 Eglinton Avenue East (North Toronto)

3. Settlement Report - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments - East Bayfront (Downtown and Don River)

4. Illegal Operation of Building Supply Business -2055 Danforth Avenue (East Toronto)

5. Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision -1947- 1997 Bloor Street West (High Park)

6. Appeal of Denial of Application for a Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit - Leslie Street, East Side, at Unwin Street (Don River)

7. Ronan Avenue, East Side from Snowdon Avenue to Golfdale Road - Prohibition of Parking from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. Monday to Friday (North Toronto)

8. Provision of a "Student Pick-up/Drop Off" Zone in Front of St. Clements Early Learning School, 70 St. Clements Avenue (North Toronto)

9. Isabella Street, Between Yonge Street and Gloucester Lane -Prohibition of Standing from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. (Downtown)

10. Intersection of Lamb Avenue and Felstead Avenue -Installation of "All Way Stop" Sign Control (East Toronto)

11. Wellington Street West, South Side, Between Yonge Street and Bay Street, East Side, Between Front Street West and Wellington Street West - Provision of On-Street Loading Zones for Disabled Persons (Downtown)

12. Amendments to Former City of Toronto By-law No. 379-80 - Designation of Employees as Provincial Offences Officers Under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, CH.P.33

13. Area Bounded by Lawrence Avenue West, Yonge Street, Glengrove Avenue West and Chatsworth Drive - Reduction of the Speed Limit from Fifty Kilometres Per Hour to Forty Kilometres Per Hour (North Toronto)

14. Customer Service Improvements to the Residential Permit Parking Program Serving Residents of Wards 19 Through 26 Inclusive (All Wards of the Former City of Toronto)

15. Glenlake Avenue and its Intersections with Prince Rupert Avenue and Dorval Road - Implementation ofAll-Way "Stop" Sign Control (Davenport)

16. McCormack Street - Request for All-Way "Stop" Sign at Maybank Avenue; and a "No Heavy Trucks" Prohibition 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Davenport)

17. Lansdowne Avenue from Queen Street West to Rideau Avenue - Proposed Road Narrowings (High Park)

18. Installation of Speed Bumps in Public Laneways (Davenport)

19. Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (Davenport, Don River, East Toronto, Trinity-Niagara)

20. Installation of an On-Street Loading Zone for Disabled Persons - Front No. 262 Grace Street, West Side,(Trinity-Niagara)

21. Implementation of Parking Regulations- Burnside Drive (Midtown)

22. Rescindment of the "No Parking, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday" Prohibition - East Side of Ossington Avenue, from Hallam Street to Davenport Road (Davenport)

23. Implementation of Alternate Side Parking Silverthorn Avenue and Blackthorn Avenue (Davenport)

24. Naming of the Proposed Temporary Street -and Authorization of Traffic and Parking Regulations- Simcoe Street (Downtown)

25. Construction of an Underground Pedestrian Tunnel Connecting the Building at 11 King Street West and the Existing Pedestrian Tunnel at 21 Melinda Street (Downtown)

26. Rescinding of "No Parking Regulation" - Montrose Avenue West of North Beatrice Street (Trinity-Niagara)

27. Lifting of a Ban Respecting Special Occasion Permit Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes -Ted Reeve Community Area and the Toronto East Arena Gardens Incorporated (East Toronto)

28. Request for Stop Signs - Emerson Avenue at the Intersections of Armstrong Avenue and Millicent Street (Davenport)

29. Change of On-Street Overnight Permit Parking Hours on the West Side of Christie (South of Barton Avenue) (Davenport)

30. Pilot Project to Provide for More Garbage Cans to be Placed on St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)

31. Interim Appointment to the Ralph Thornton Centre Board of Directors

32. Tree Removal at 2022 Davenport Road (Davenport)

33. Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 291 Jane Street (High Park)

34. Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 199 Richmond Street West (Downtown)

35. Residential Demolition Application -133 Roxborough Drive (Midtown)

36. Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code(High Park, Downtown, East Toronto, North Toronto)

37. Modifications to Plan of Subdivision - 44 Norwood Terrace (East Toronto)

38. 794 Bathurst Street - Court of Appeal Decision (Midtown)

39. Extension of King-Parliament Façade Improvement Program (Don River)

40. Location of Banners - St. Clair Avenue West Between Westmount Avenue and Winona Drive (Davenport)

41. Waiving of Temporary Street Closing and Sidewalk Sale Fees for the Junction Gardens Farmers Market (High Park)

42. Hillcrest B.I.A. - Appointment to Board of Directors(Davenport)

43. Residential Demolition Application -33 Gloucester Street (Downtown)

44. Installation of Speed Humps -Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue, and Barton Avenue from Brunswick Avenue to Albany Avenue (Midtown)

45. 510 Spadina: Roadway Changes to Improve Safety(Downtown)

46. Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - Broadway Avenue Flankage of 2387 Yonge Street (North Toronto)

47. Appeal of Denial of Commercial Boulevard Parking Application - Massey Street Flankage of 937 Queen Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

48. Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, to Permit Front Yard Parking for a Second Space at 85 Crescent Road (Midtown)

49. Appeal of Denial of Application for a Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit - King Street West, South Side, 74.5 Metres West of Charlotte Street (Downtown)

50. Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, to Permit Driveway Widening at 60 Russell Hill Road (Midtown)

51. Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe -832 College Street, Ossington Avenue Flankage (Trinity-Niagara)

52. Espressimo Caffebar - Request to Extend the Hours of Operation for the Boulevard Cafe, on the Roxborough Street West Flankage of 1094 Yonge Street (Midtown)

53. Construction of a Wrought Iron Fence and Stone Pillars - Fronting 49 Forest Hill Road and on the Heath Street Flankage (Midtown)

54. Application for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit - John Street, East Side, 9 Metres North of Richmond Street West (Downtown)

55. Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 200 Annette Street (High Park)

56. Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 58 Sherwood Avenue (North Toronto)

57. Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 548 Gerrard Street East (Don River)

58. Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 2928 Dundas Street West (High Park)

59. Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 30 Edwin Avenue (Davenport)

60. Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

61. Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 8

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

1

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

2 Bloor Street West (Cumberland Terrace) (Midtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends:

(1)That the Draft By-laws attached to the Report (June 18, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto, provided that prior to such introduction:

(a)i)the applicant has entered into an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, in accordance with Recommendation 4(a) of the Final Planning Report in a form and with content satisfactory to the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to secure the facilities, services and matters set forth in the by-laws and requiring amongst other matters that prior to the issuance of any Building Permit pursuant to the implementing by-laws, the conveyance or a new lease of the Parcel A lands must have been completed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

ii)the applicant has provided the City Solicitor with such postponements as are required to ensure the Section 37 Agreement will be a first charge on the subject lands; and

iii)the applicant has provided a Letter of Credit satisfactory to the City Treasurer in the amount of $250,000 to secure the cash payment required by the implementing by-laws; and

(b)i)the applicant has entered into an Agreement to Purchase or Agreement to Lease the lands identified as Parcel A in the Final Planning Report (May 13, 1998) with the City, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and

ii)the applicant has agreed to relinquish any existing rights to build over the 10-foot strip of land on Bay Street and two 0.16-foot strips of land on Cumberland Street and Mayfair Mews which are owned by the City;

(c)appropriate staff meet with the applicant, in consultation with the Ward Councillors, and report to the Toronto Community Council on the amount of the increase in the proposed cash contribution to be set forth in the Draft By-laws and whether the applicant is in agreement with increasing the amount of money to be paid to the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act an on any amendments to the Draft By-laws which may be required to implement same;

(2)That Recommendations 1 to 13 of the Final Report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services dated May 13, 1998, be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor, to report to its meeting to be held on July 22, 1998 on Section 37 of the Planning Act, and the flexibility the City has to use such section, in particular, the definition of "local".

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on June25, 1998 and Ms. Cynthia MacDougall, McCarthy Tétrault, addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 18, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to implement the proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 27-storey mixed retail and 305-unit residential building at 2 Bloor Street West, as recommended by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in his Final Report of May 13, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has positive financial implications for the Corporation in that certain benefits, including a cash payment to the City by the owner are required by the implementing by-laws pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. It requires no funding by the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

(1)That the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it could recommend:

(2)That the Draft By-laws attached to the Report (June 18, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto, provided that prior to such introduction:

(a)i)the applicant has entered into an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, in accordance with Recommendation 4(a) of the Final Planning Report in a form and with content satisfactory to the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to secure the facilities, services and matters set forth in the by-laws and requiring amongst other matters that prior to the issuance of any Building Permit pursuant to the implementing by-laws, the conveyance or a new lease of the Parcel A lands must have been completed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

ii)the applicant has provided the City Solicitor with such postponements as are required to ensure the Section 37 Agreement will be a first charge on the subject lands; and

iii)the applicant has provided a Letter of Credit satisfactory to the City Treasurer in the amount of $250,000 to secure the cash payment required by the implementing by-laws; and

(b)i)the applicant has entered into an Agreement to Purchase or Agreement to Lease the lands identified as Parcel A in the Final Planning Report (May 13, 1998) with the City, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and

ii)the applicant has agreed to relinquish any existing rights to build over the 10-foot strip of land on Bay Street and two 0.16-foot strips of land on Cumberland Street and Mayfair Mews which are owned by the City;

(3)That Recommendations 1 to 13 of the Final Report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services dated May 13, 1998, be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the Final Report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (May 13, 1998) recommending a proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment for 2 Bloor Street West. Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 of that report request that the City Solicitor prepare Draft By-laws to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law in accord therewith.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Draft By-laws Nos. 1 and 2 attached implement Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 of the Final Report (May 13, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

This report, prepared in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report. As the applicant has agreed to continue to provide a pedestrian connection at-grade to the concourse level on Cumberland Street at the east end of Parcel A, in response to concerns raised by Carson Woods in his correspondence to the Toronto Community Council (Item 45(c)), this connection has been incorporated in the draft by-laws.

Conclusions:

Not applicable.

Contact Name:

Sharon Haniford, Solicitor

Telephone:(416) 392-6975

Fax:(416) 392-0024

E-Mail:shanifor@city.toronto.on.ca

_______

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To adopt an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto

respecting 2 Bloor Street West.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.The text and map annexed hereto as Schedule "A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto.

2.This is Official Plan Amendment No. 124.

________

Schedule "A"

1.Section 18 of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto is amended by adding paragraph 18.475 and the attached map 18.475:

"18.475

1.This Section applies to the lands shown as Parcel A and Parcel B outlined by heavy lines on Map 18.475.

2.Despite any of the provisions of the Official Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands, known in the year 1998 as 2 Bloor Street West, shown outlined by heavy lines on Map 18.475 attached hereto, to permit:

(1)on the lands comprising Parcel A on such map, a mixed retail and residential building including above-grade parking, provided the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 48 145 square metres, of which:

(a)not more than 32 610 square metres of residential gross floor area is erected or used for residential dwelling purposes;

(b)not more than 9710 square metres of residential gross floor area is erected or used for above-grade parking purposes; and

(c)not more than 5825 square metres of non-residential gross floor area, is erected or used, provided such floor area is used only for street-related retail and services uses, and publicly accessible pedestrian connections; and

(2)on the lands comprising Parcel B on such map, the commercial-office and retail building in existence thereon on June 1, 1998, provided that:

(a)the non-residential gross floor area of such building, excluding below-grade areas, does not exceed 48 760 square metres; and

(b)a continuous publicly accessible pedestrian connection through the lands comprising Parcel B to the lands comprising Parcel A, is provided and maintained;

provided the owner of the lands comprising Parcel A, at its expense and in accordance with and subject to the agreement referred to in paragraph (vii) herein:

(i)pays to the City a sum of not less than $250,000.00 for off-site streetscape and parkland improvements in the vicinity of the Parcel A lands;

(ii)provides and maintains works of public art in publicly accessible portions of the lands comprising Parcel A or on lands owned by the City in the vicinity, of a value not less than one per cent of the cost of construction of all buildings and structures erected on Parcel A;

(iii)provides and maintains continuous publicly accessible pedestrian connections on Parcel A from Bay Street and from Cumberland Street at-grade to the concourse level of any building erected on Parcel A and connecting to the TTC subway station entrance access below Bay Street;

(iv)provides and maintains a continuous publicly accessible pedestrian connection through Parcel A at the concourse level, which connects to the continuous publicly accessible pedestrian connection located on Parcel B, the TTC subway entrance access located below Bay Street and the pedestrian connections required in paragraph (iii) herein;

(v)provides and where applicable maintains any collateral matters required by the City in connection with the development of Parcel A pursuant to this By-law, including providing space within the lands for transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes;

(vi)implements the facilities, services and matters set forth in this By-law within the time frames provided for each such facility, service or matter in the agreement required by paragraph (vii) herein; and

(vii)enters into an agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in paragraphs (i) to (vi) herein, and consents to such agreement being registered on title to the lands comprising Parcel A as a first charge.

For the purposes of this Section, the term owner shall not include the City of Toronto."

(Map 18.475 to be added)

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend By-law No.438-86, the Zoning By-law, and to repeal By-laws

Nos. 310-70 and 140-82, all of the former City of Toronto, with respect

to the property known in the year 1998 as 2 Bloor Street West.

WHEREAS Council, at its meeting held on the and days of ,1998, adopted Clause of Toronto Community Council Report No. ;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Council of a municipality may in a by-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize increases in height or density of development beyond those otherwise permitted by the by-law that will be permitted in return for the provision of such facilities, services or matters as are set out in the by-law;

AND WHEREAS Subsection 37(3) of the Planning Act provides that where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services or matters in return for an increase in height and density of development, the municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with the facilities, services or matters;

AND WHEREAS the owner of the lands hereinafter referred to has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters as hereinafter set forth;

AND WHEREAS the increases in density and height permitted hereunder, beyond those otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lands by By-law No. 438-86, as amended, are to be permitted in return for the provision of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law and are to be secured by one or more agreements between the owner of such lands and the City of Toronto, hereinafter referred to as the City;

AND WHEREAS Council has required the owner of the aforesaid lands to enter into one or more agreements dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increases in height and density in connection with the aforesaid lands as permitted in this By-law;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:

1.This By-law applies to the lands comprising Parcel A and Parcel B shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 1 below and known municipally in the year 1998 as No. 2 Bloor Street West.

2.Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", shall continue to apply to the lands comprising Parcel A and Parcel B on Plan 1.

3.Pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act and despite the provisions of Sections 4(2)(a), 4(5)(b) and (h), 4(14)(a), 8(3) Part I, 8(3) Part III 1(a) and 8(3) Part IV 1 of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, the erection and use of a mixed-use building containing residential gross floor area, retail uses and above-grade parking on the lands comprising Parcel A on Plan 1, together with the continued erection and use of the building in existence on the lands comprising Parcel B on Plan 1 on June 1, 1998, for commercial office and retail uses, are permitted provided:

(1)the aggregate amount of the residential gross floor area and the non-residential gross floor area erected and used on Parcel A does not exceed 48 145 square metres, of which:

(a)not more than 32 610 square metres of residential gross floor area is erected or used for residential dwelling purposes;

(b)not more than 9710 square metres of residential gross floor area is erected or used for above-grade parking purposes; and

(c)not more than 5825 square metres of non-residential gross floor area is erected or used, provided such floor area is used only for street-related retail and services uses and publicly accessible pedestrian connections, of which not less than 2285 square metres is used for street-related retail and services uses on the concourse level and not less than 1805 square metres is used for street-related retail and services uses on the ground floor level, of such building;

(2)not less than 244 above-grade parking spaces are provided for the residents of the building erected or used on Parcel A;

(3)not more than 305 dwelling units are erected or used on Parcel A;

(4)subject to the provisions of Subsection 3(5) of this By-law, no portion of any building or structure erected or used on Parcel A is located above the height limits shown on Plan 2, exclusive of roof top structures and elements permitted pursuant to Section 4(2)(a)(i) or (ii) of By-law No. 438-86;

(5)no portion of any building or structure erected or used on Parcel A penetrates the angular plane shown on Plan 3;

(6)the non-residential gross floor area of the building erected on Parcel B, excluding below-grade areas, does not exceed 48 780 square metres;

(7)a publicly accessible pedestrian connection having a width of not less than 3.0 metres at its narrowest point and providing continuous access from Yonge Street to the building on Parcel A is provided and maintained on the concourse level of the building erected on Parcel B;

(8)despite the loading requirements set forth in By-law No. 438-86, an at-grade loading facility comprising 1 loading space - type G and 2 loading spaces - type B is provided and maintained on Parcel A for the shared use of the building erected on Parcel A pursuant to this By-law and the existing building located on Parcel B;

(9)despite Section 12(2) 259(ii) of By-law No. 438-86, at least 40 percent of the aggregate length of the Bay Street frontage of Parcel A shall be used for street-related and service uses;

(10)the owner of the lands comprising Parcel A, at its expense and in accordance with and subject to the agreement referred to in Subsection 3(11) of this By-law:

(a)pays to the City a sum of not less than $250,000.00 for off-site streetscape and parkland improvements in the vicinity of Parcel A;

(b)provides and maintains works of public art in publicly accessible portions of the lands comprising Parcel A or on lands owned by the City in the vicinity of a value not less than one per cent of the cost of construction of all buildings and structures erected on Parcel A;

(c)provides and maintains continuous publicly accessible pedestrian connections on Parcel A from Bay Street and from Cumberland Street, at-grade, to the concourse level of any building erected on such lands and connecting to the TTC subway station entrance access below Bay Street;

(d)provides and maintains a continuous publicly accessible pedestrian connection through Parcel A at the concourse level, having a width of not less than 3.0 metres at its narrowest point, which connects to the continuous publicly accessible pedestrian connection located on Parcel B, the TTC subway entrance access located below Bay Street and the pedestrian connections required in paragraph (c) herein;

(e)provides and where applicable maintains any collateral matters required by the City in connection with the development of Parcel A pursuant to this By-law, including providing space within the lands for transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes; and

(f)implements the facilities, services and matters set forth in this By-law within the time frames provided for each such facility, service or matter in the agreement required by Subsection 3(11) herein; and

(11)the owner of the lands comprising Parcel A enters into an agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in Subsection 3(10) of this By-law and such agreement is registered on title as a first charge against the lands comprising Parcel A.

4.Definitions

(1)For the purposes of this By-law, the terms set forth in italics shall, subject to Subsection 4(2), have the same meaning as such terms have for the purposes of By-law No. 438-86, as amended;

(2)For the purposes of this Bylaw, the terms:

(a)"art" includes works of plastic art, works of graphic art, sculptured landscaping, fountains, and artistic treatment of walls or other building elements clearly visible at all times from public areas, including flooring, structure, lighting and furnishings, provided such elements or works have been designed by or in collaboration with artists;

(b)"height limit" means the level above-grade for each area shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 2;

(c)"owner" does not include the City of Toronto; and

(d)"street-related retail and services uses" shall, in addition to having the same meaning as in By-law No. 438-86, as amended, include a post office, except for uses on the concourse level the provisions of paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of such definition shall not apply.

5.By-laws Nos. 310-70 and 140-82 of the former City of Toronto are hereby repealed on the coming into force of this By-law.

(Plans 1 to 3 to be attached)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 27-storey, 305-unit residential building, which includes retail uses and above-grade parking. The proposal, by Hammerson Canada, will replace the existing Cumberland Terrace retail mall, located on the south side of Cumberland Street, between Bay Street and the CIBC complex on Yonge Street.

Funding Sources; Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to the Official Plan respecting the Toronto Community (the former City of Toronto, prior to January 1, 1998), for lands known as 2 Bloor Street West, substantially as set out below:

"Notwithstanding any of the provisions of the Official Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands, known in the year 1998 as 2 Bloor Street West, which is divided into Parcels A and B as shown on Map 1 attached to this report, to permit:

(a)on the lands comprising Parcel A, a mixed retail and residential building including above-grade parking, provided the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 48,145 m2, of which:

(i)not more than 32,610 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(ii)not more than 9710 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for above-grade parking purposes; and

(iii)not more than 5825 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes and publicly-accessible pedestrian connections;

(b)on the lands comprising Parcel B, the commercial-office and retail building in existence on May 1, 1998, provided that:

(i)the non-residential gross floor area, excluding below-grade areas, does not exceed 48,760 m2; and

(ii)the continuous publicly-accessible pedestrian connection through Parcel B to Parcel A continues to be provided and maintained;

provided that the applicant for the lands comprising Parcel A:

(i)pays to the City the sum of at least $250,000 for off-site streetscape and parkland improvements in the vicinity of the lands;

(ii)provides and maintains One Percent for Public Art in publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(iii)provides and maintains a continuous publicly-accessible pedestrian connection through Parcel A, which connects to the continuous publicly-accessible pedestrian connection located on Parcel B and the TTC Subway entrance access located below Bay Street;

(iv)provides and maintains an at-grade publicly-accessible connection from Bay Street to the Concourse Level;

(v)provides space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development; and

(vi)enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in (i) to (v) above."

(2)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, a draft by-law to amend the City's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) as it affects the lands known as 2 Bloor Street West so as to:

(a)exempt, the lands comprising Parcel A on Map 1 attached to this report, from the following Sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:

4 (2) Height Limits: Buildings and Structures;

4 (5) Parking Spaces (b) and (h);

4 (14) Setbacks from the centre line of a Public Lane (a);

8 (3) Part I - Density;

8 (3) Part III - Open Space 1. (a);

(b)permit, on the lands comprising Parcel A, the erection and use of a mixed retail and residential building including above-grade parking, provided that:

(i)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 48,145 m2, of which:

(a)not more than 32,610 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(b)not more than 9710 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for above-grade parking purposes; and

(c)not more than 5825 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes and publicly-accessible pedestrian connections, of which not less than 2285 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes on the Concourse Level and not less than 1805 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes on the Ground / 1st Floor;

(ii)not less than 244 above-grade parking spaces are provided for the residents of the residential building on Parcel A;

(iii)the maximum number of dwelling units does not exceed 305;

(iv)the height of such building does not exceed 82 metres at its tallest, exclusive of the parapet and an 8.5 metre tall elevator room measuring 5.0 metres by 14.0 metres in area, and the lower heights as shown on the plans and drawings submitted with this application, including a 44 degree angular plane at 10 metres in height along the eight-storey Cumberland Street street-edge. However, this provision is not intended to prevent the erection or use of other structural elements permitted by Sections 4 (2) Height Limits (a) (i) and (ii) of the Zoning By-law which may extend vertically beyond such building envelope;

(v)a publicly-accessible pedestrian connection of a width of not less than three metres is provided and maintained on the Concourse Level, and such connection provides continuous access from the existing building on Parcel B to Bay Street and the TTC Subway station entrance access located below Bay Street; and

(vi)an at-grade publicly-accessible pedestrian connection is provided and maintained from Bay Street to the Concourse Level and connect to the TTC Subway station entrance access below Bay Street;

(c)permit, on the lands comprising Parcel B, the commercial-office and retail building in existence on May 1, 1998, provided that:

(i)the non-residential gross floor area, excluding below-grade areas, does not exceed 48,760 m2;

(ii)a publicly-accessible pedestrian connection of a width of not less than three metres is provided and maintained on the Concourse Level, and such connection provides continuous access from Yonge Street to the development on Parcel A; and

(iii)notwithstanding any loading required by the Zoning By-law, an at-grade loading zone is provided on Parcel A, comprising one Type G and two Type B loading spaces, for the shared use of the proposed building on Parcel A and the existing building on Parcel B;

provided that the applicant for the lands comprising Parcel A:

(i)pays to the City the sum of at least $250,000 for off-site streetscape and parkland improvements in the vicinity of the lands;

(ii)provides and maintains One Percent for Public Art in publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(iii)provides and maintains a continuous publicly-accessible pedestrian connection through Parcel A, which connects to the continuous publicly-accessible pedestrian connection located on Parcel B and the TTC Subway entrance access located below Bay Street;

(iv)provides and maintains an at-grade publicly-accessible connection from Bay Street to the Concourse Level;

(v)provides space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development; and

(vi)enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in (i) to (v) above.

(3)That site-specific By-laws 310-70 and 140-82 be repealed, on the coming into force of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments recommended in Recommendations 1 and 2 above.

(4)That, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(a)(i)the applicant enter into the above-referenced Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(ii)the applicant provide the City Solicitor with any postponements as required; and

(iii)the applicant provide to the City a Letter of Credit satisfactory to the City Treasurer in the amount of $250,000 to secure the cash payment for the off-site streetscape and parkland improvements in the vicinity of the lands; and

(b)(i)the issue of the requirement for the applicant to enter into an Agreement to Purchase or Agreement to Lease the lands identified as Parcel A from the City be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

(ii)the applicant agree to relinquish any existing rights to build over the 10-foot strip of land on Bay Street and two 0.16-foot strips of land on Cumberland Street and Mayfair Mews which are owned by the City; and

(iii)the Section 37 Agreement provide that, prior to the issuance of any Building Permit pursuant to the subject amending by-laws, the conveyance or a new lease of such lands must have been completed to the satisfaction of the City.

(5)That the Commissioner of Corporate Services (Facilities and Real Estate) be requested to report to the Toronto Community Council, at the public meeting pursuant to the Planning Act, on the status of the purchase or lease negotiations referred to in Recommendation 4. (b) above.

(6)That the applicant submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Noise Impact Statement and Vibration Study, and be required to:

(a)have a qualified Architect / Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement and Vibration Study approved by the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services; and

(b)provide, maintain and operate the noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services.

(7)That the applicant submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan, and be required to provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services.

(8)That the applicant submit, to the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services, at least three weeks prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(a)a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto; and

(b)dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing the site-specific exemption by-laws.

(9)That the applicant submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, which may include, but is not limited to:

(a)a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects on the site; and

(b)a Site and Building Audit for identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the existing buildings.

(10)That the applicant submit, and have approved by the Toronto Transit Commission, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:

(a)Site and Foundation Plans, which include:

(i)shoring drawings;

(ii)a plot plan, showing the subway structure;

(iii)structural calculations showing loads;

(iv)a soils report; and

(v)excavating, de-watering and landscape plans; and

(b)enter into an Agreement with the Toronto Transit Commission specifying, among other things, the developer's responsibility for provision and maintenance of pedestrian connections to the subway stations.

(11)That the applicant submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:

(a)a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan; and

(b)be required to implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

(12)That the applicant enter into a Statement of Approval of Plans / Undertaking, delegated to me under Chapter 165, Article IV, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to secure Site Plan Approval, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

(13)That the applicant be advised:

(a)of the requirement to pay a Parks Levy, in lieu of a conveyance of land, pursuant to Chapter 165, Development of Land, Article I, Conveyance of Land for Parks Purposes, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit;

(b)of the comments of Metro Planning respecting the requirements of the Toronto Transit Commission for approval of the development;

(c)of the comments of the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services respecting the shared loading zone;

(d)of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out with the street allowance; and

(e)to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services, prior to submission of an application for a Building Permit.

Background:

(1)Applicant:

The application and revised plans were submitted by Stephen Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers and Solicitors, Suite 4700, Toronto Dominion Bank Tower, T-D Centre, Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1E6, on behalf of Hammerson Canada Inc.

(2)Site:

No. 2 Bloor Street West contains the 34-storey CIBC commercial-office tower on the north-west corner of Bloor and Yonge Streets, and a connected two-storey and below-grade retail and office mall on the south side of Cumberland Street, known as the Cumberland Terrace, built in 1974.

The applicant's redevelopment proposal relates to the Cumberland Terrace portion of the site, not the whole 2 Bloor Street West site. (See Proposal section of this report.)

(3)Surrounding area:

The north side of Cumberland Street, between Bay Street and Yonge Street, contains a mix of commercial and retail uses, including an above-grade Parking Authority garage. A variety of retail uses, and some residential uses, are located to the west in the Village of Yorkville. A large 12 times coverage commercial-office building at 60 Bloor Street West and the Holt Renfrew building at 50 Bloor Street West are located immediately south of the site.

(4)Proposal:

The applicant proposes to replace the existing two-storey Cumberland Terrace portion of 2 Bloor Street West (Parcel A on Map 1) with a terraced 27-storey, mixed-use building, having a total gross floor area of 48,137 m2. No. 2 Bloor Street West has frontage of 200 metres along Cumberland Street. The proposal affects 161 metres of frontage, east from Bay Street. (Note: Parcel A has a site area of 3970 m2, exclusive of a 10-foot wide strip of land abutting Bay Street and 0.16-foot wide strips of land along the length of the site, which are owned by the City. The architect for the applicant advises me that their proposal will not be constructed over or beneath the above-referenced City-owned lands.)

The revised proposal, received March 20, 1998, shows 5823 m2 (or 1.5 times the area of the lot) for retail and pedestrian connection uses; four levels of above-grade parking (with a gfa of 9709 m2 or 2.5 times coverage); and 305 residential dwelling units (with a gfa of 32,606m2 or 8.2 times coverage). The total density of the project is 12.1 times coverage. (See the Application Data Sheet and Maps attached to this report.)

The proposal reaches a height of approximately 82 metres (27 storeys) to the main roof line. However, the proposed elevator room is large, and does not qualify for exemption from being included in the 'countable' height of the building. Accordingly, the building is by definition 90 metres tall. The lower eight-storey component of the building along the Cumberland Street frontage will be 10 metres in height at the street-edge, then terrace back within a 44 degree angular plane.

(5)History:

This application was originally received on May 24, 1990. At that time, the applicant proposed to demolish the Cumberland Terrace and replace it with a predominantly residential development with two 13-storey tower components above a four-storey podium containing new street-related retail uses.

Since 1990, the applicant has submitted several redesign proposals to the City. At times, and at the request of the applicant, the application went on hold to allow the applicant to consider revisions to the project.

On December 28, 1995, the City received revised plans which abandoned the two tower concept and showed a larger single tower scheme, with most of the massing situated on the Bay and Cumberland Streets end of the site. The December 1995 proposal contained a terraced 22-storey tower, containing 175 residential dwelling units. The December 1995 scheme had a density of 9.0 times coverage, calculated on its own portion of the lot (ParcelA).

On February 17, 1997, further revised plans were received which increased the number of dwelling units to 222 and the total density to approximately 10.2 times coverage, but the height remained at 22 storeys. The Department did not report on the February 1997 proposal.

Later in 1997, the applicant hired new architects. Significant modifications were made to the February 1997 proposal, culminating in the revised plans, received March 20, 1998, which are the subject of this report.

(6)Public review:

Between 1990 and today, two public meetings were held in the community. These meetings occurred on December 17, 1991 and May 29, 1996.

Approximately 35 people attended the May 29, 1996 public meeting, which was held to discuss the 173-unit, 22-storey proposal, submitted in December 1995. Generally, the proposal was well received. Concerns related to potential shadow impacts, traffic congestion in the area, and the possible negative effects of the actual construction of the project on existing businesses on Cumberland Street.

Although it is larger in size, the current proposal is conceptually similar to the proposal discussed at the May 29, 1996 public meeting. However, the latest plan revisions have not been subject of a public meeting.

Comments:

(7)Planning Controls:

Applicable Official Plan policies:

The Official Plan designates the site a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area B. As discussed in Section 13.12 of the Plan, a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area is largely built up with tall, high density commercial and residential buildings. According to the Plan, these areas should be developed to help realize the housing intensification objectives of the Plan and high density residential buildings in these areas generally contain retail uses at grade. In a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area B, the maximum permitted total gross floor area is 7.8 times the area of the lot.

The site is also within the North Midtown Part II Plan area, and is affected by the provisions of the related Design Guidelines for North Midtown.

Applicable Zoning:

The City's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) zones the site CR T7.8 C4.5 R7.8. This high density mixed-use zone permits a mixed-use building with a maximum density of 7.8 times coverage. The governing Height Limit is 61 metres.

(8)Owner / Applicant:

In 1990, when the application was submitted, the owners of 2 Bloor Street West were identified as the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the CIBC and the City of Toronto. Except for a 10-foot strip of land at Bay Street and two 0.16-foot strips of land along Cumberland Street and Mayfair Mews, Parcel A was owned by Metropolitan Toronto. As I understand it, CIBC leases the Parcel A lands from Metro Toronto, and Hammerson Canada sub-leases the lands from the CIBC.

At the time of the submission of the application, Metro Toronto had not signed the application for amendments. In 1991, Metro Toronto consented to the submission of the application.

Metropolitan Toronto and the former City of Toronto are now one entity. The applicant has been engaged in on-going negotiations to purchase the lands, but to-date, the lands have not been sold to Hammerson.

The City Solicitor had advised me to include a recommendation in the report which states that, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, the applicant be required to enter into an Agreement to purchase or lease for the lands on Parcel A from the City based on the redevelopment proposal and on terms satisfactory to the City. The applicant's solicitor has indicated to the City Solicitor that they would like to have further discussions with civic staff with respect to this issue. Accordingly, in order to allow for the discussions and not prejudice the City's position, I am recommending that prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, this issue should be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. I have consulted with the City Solicitor on this recommendation.

The City Solicitor also advises that the Section 37 Agreement provide that, prior to the issuance of any Building Permit pursuant to the amending by-laws, the conveyance or a new lease must have been completed.

(9)Planning considerations:

Density:

The maximum total density which is permitted on this site by the Plan and base Zoning By-law provisions is 7.8 times coverage. As previously noted, the applicant proposes to construct a 48,137 m2 mixed-use building on a 3970 m2 parcel of land. The total density of the redevelopment proposal is approximately 12.1 times coverage on its own lot (Parcel A). A portion of this 12.1 times density figure results from locating all the parking above grade, because the Bloor-Danforth TTC Subway line is situated below the property. The above-grade parking comprises 2.5 times coverage.

The total densities of other buildings in the immediate area are similar to the proposal. As examples: 60 Bloor Street West (on the north-east corner of Bloor and Bay Streets) has a density of 12.1 times coverage; 1200 Bay Street (on the north-west corner of Bloor and Bay Streets) is 11.5 times coverage; 55 Bloor Street West (Manulife Centre) is 10.2 times coverage; and 2 Bloor Street East (the Hudson Bay complex, including the former Workers' Compensation Board tower) is 11.5 times coverage.

Given the density context, and based on other considerations as discussed in this report, I am recommending amendments to permit the densities being sought.

Height and Massing:

The proposed building is terraced in two directions. Firstly, the bulk of the massing is located on the Bay Street end of the site, where is reaches a height of 27 storeys. From Bay Street, it steps down to an eight-storey spine towards the centre and east end of Parcel A (See Map5). Secondly, along the eight-storey spine of the building, it steps down to Cumberland Street with a four-storey street-edge (see Map 4).

During the last week, the architect has redesigned the mechanical penthouse of the tower component to incorporate roof-top outdoor amenity space, which will reduce the size of the mechanical penthouse now shown on the March 20, 1998 plans. I have been provided with the new mechanical penthouse dimensions and height. However, formal revisions to the plans must still be submitted. The tower component will be 81.68 metres tall at the main roof line. A 1.07 metre parapet is proposed. Also, while the mechanical penthouse will be reduced in size, a portion of the elevator room will be 8.3 metres in height. The 8.3 metre height is needed to allow elevator access to the proposed outdoor amenity space.

Along the eight-storey spine of the lower component of the project, the applicant has incorporated a 10 metre street-edge, with 44 degree angular plane, to allow sunlight access onto Cumberland Street (see Map 4).

Section 10.3 (c) of the Design Guidelines for North Midtown states that "New buildings should be located and designed to minimize overshadowing of the public sidewalk on the north side of Cumberland Street by ensuring that 60 percent of the sidewalk is in sunlight at noon on March 21/September 23."

Urban Design staff have reviewed the shadow impacts created by the proposal. The proposal does not meet the strict requirements of Section 10.3 (c) of the Design Guidelines for North Midtown. However, staff are satisfied that the proposal's massing allows for acceptable sunlight access.

Overall, I believe that the height and massing of the proposal reflect the surrounding context and address sunlight access concerns.

Section 37:

Not unlike other large projects which require amendments for significant increases in density and height, this application includes a cash contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The applicant has stated that they will provide $250,000 towards off-site streetscape and park improvements in the general vicinity of the project, including a possible access staircase to the Rosedale Ravine. I am recommending that the applicant enter into a Section 37 Agreement to secure the cash contribution and those facilities, services and matters referenced in Recommendations 1 and 2, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council.

Parking, Loading and Access:

The applicant proposes 244 above-grade parking spaces, plus two tandem parking spaces, on Floors 2 to 5 (see Map 4). Most of the above-grade parking spaces are located behind residential dwelling units which face Cumberland Street. The gross floor area of the proposed above-grade parking is 9709 m2. The proposed parking spaces are allocated to the residential dwelling units. The application does not contain visitor parking spaces or parking spaces for the proposed retail uses.

Buildings' and City Works and Emergency Services' officials have advised me that the proposal meets the Zoning By-law parking requirement (of 185 parking spaces) for the proposed residential dwelling units, but the project does not meet the Zoning By-law parking requirements for 18 parking spaces for visitors to the residential building and 41 parking spaces for the retail component. However, staff of City Works and Emergency Services have reviewed the application, including area traffic and parking information provided by the applicant's traffic and parking consultant, and concluded that the parking supply being proposed is satisfactory.

Currently, no on site parking is provided for the existing retail mall. The Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services has advised me that, when compared to the existing Cumberland Terrace retail mall, the proposed retail uses will result in a net reduction in the parking demand generated by this component of the project, and the non-provision of parking for the proposed retail uses is not problematic.

The Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services advises me that there is sufficient residual capacity in the Parking Authority public garage located across the street to accommodate the visitor parking demands generated by the proposal. Further, the site is also located at the intersection of the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth TTC Subway lines, encouraging visitor trips by public transit.

Based on the assessment and conclusions of the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services, I am not recommending that the applicant provide visitor and retail parking.

The revised plans show loading spaces (one Type-G and two Type-B) located off the rear lane known as Mayfair Mews. The Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services has advised me that the proposed loading arrangement is satisfactory; however, he is recommending that the loading zone (which is situated within Parcel A) be shared with the existing CIBC tower complex on Parcel B. The Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services also recommends that the operation of loading facilities be co-ordinated by a dock manager whose responsibilities will be to ensure that the loading spaces are efficiently managed in order to minimize disruption to traffic flow on the public lane.

The ingress / egress to the above-grade parking garage has been appropriately located on Cumberland Street where the street is two lanes wide.

Streetscape:

The applicant's proposal will remove the existing at-grade mall-form retail uses and introduce street-related retail uses to Cumberland Street, which will greatly enhance and animate the street-edge, meeting an important planning objective.

Staff have reviewed the applicant's streetscape Landscape Plan. I advise that the Landscape Plan has been prepared in accordance with Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area standards.

When the application was submitted in 1990, the then Land Use Committee requested that I report on how the proposed development could provide a more direct connection to the Bloor-Danforth TTC Subway line. In a report dated October 29, 1990, I explained that the applicant proposed a new entrance and escalator down to the Concourse Level from Bay Street. I commented that the design would facilitate better pedestrian movement and be visible for pedestrians on Bay Street. The current plans do not show this connection. I believe this connection is still an important planning objective and I am recommending that the applicant be required to reintroduce this connection.

Amenity Space:

Plan revisions are expected which will meet the Zoning By-law requirements for Indoor and Outdoor Amenity Space.

Public Art:

Section 10.11 of the Official Plan states that it is the policy of Council to enhance opportunities for establishing public art by achieving a contribution of public art in all development proposals exceeding 20,000 m2 of gross floor area, the cost of which is equal to one percent of the project's gross construction costs. The gross floor area of the applicant's proposal exceeds 20,000 m2, and is thereby subject to this provision.

Conclusions:

The revised proposal for this site will bring new residents to the Yonge and Bloor Streets area with direct access to the TTC Subway. Also, the proposal will achieve an important urban design objective by replacing the existing retail mall with new street-related retail uses and introduce a better animated street-edge to Cumberland. Further, I am satisfied that the proposal has been designed to minimize shadowing impacts.

Some revisions to the plans will be necessary to address needed modifications, such as the proposed redesign of the roof level of the tower to accommodate additional outdoor amenity space and the re-introduction of the pedestrian connection at Bay Street to the Concourse Level. I am recommending that the completion of the Site Plan Approval process be delegated to me.

At this time, I am recommending the approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments discussed in this report.

Contact Name:

Maldwyn Williams, Manager, City Planning Division, North

Telephone: 392-7333 Fax: 392-1330

________

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Confirmed Municipal Address:2 Bloor Street West.

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

PROJECT INFORMATION

________

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

1.Comments from Urban Planning and Development Services, Plans Examination, North-West Section, dated April 21, 1998.

"Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced.

1.The proposed building height of 87.96 metres, which includes the mechanical penthouse level, exceeds the maximum height of 61.0 metres by 26.96 metres. (Section 4(2)(a))

2.The by-law requires a minimum of 18 parking spaces to be provided for visitors. The number of proposed parking spaces for visitors is 0. (Section and 4(5)(b) and 4(5)(h))

3.The by-law requires a driveway, within a distance of 6 metres of a street, to have a maximum slope of 5% (driveway should be located no higher or no lower than 0.3 metres of the level of the street abutting the driveway). The proposed driveway slope within 6 metres of the street is not shown. (Section 4(10)(a))

4.The by-law requires a driveway, beyond a distance of 6 metres of a street, to be inclined at a slope no greater than 15% (3 metres vertical to each 20 metres horizontal). The proposed driveway slope beyond a distance of 6 metres is not shown. (Section 4(10)(c))

5.The by-law requires 610 square metres of indoor residential amenity space and 610 square metres of outdoor residential amenity space. The proposed indoor residential amenity space will be 440 square metres and outdoor residential amenity space will be 40.6 square metres. (Section 4(12))

6.The by-law requires at least 183 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building, 46 bicycle parking spaces for visitors to the residential component and 6 bicycle parking spaces for visitors to the commercial component. The proposed building will contain bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building, however the number of proposed spaces is not shown. Parking spaces for visitors (residential and commercial) are not shown. (Section4(13)(a) and (c))

7.The by-law requires a building or structure to be set back 3.0 metres from the centre line of the public lane. The proposed building or structure is set back 2.7 metres from the centre line of the public lane. (Section 4(14)(a))

8.The by-law requires that the combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area be not more than 7.8 times the area of the lot: 31004 square metres. The proposed building has 48137.25 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1)

9.The by-law requires that the residential gross floor area be not more than 7.8 times the area of the lot: 31005 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is 42314.5 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a))

10.The by-law requires the provision of at least 715.5 square metres of common outdoor space. The proposed common outdoor space is 0 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART III 1(a))

11.The by-law requires the main floor level of every commercial use to be within 0.2 metres of the level of the sidewalk opposite the door to such commercial use. (Section 8(3) PARTXI2(1))

12.The by-law requires all exterior commercial entrance doors to be directly accessible from the sidewalk by a level surface or a ramp having a slope not greater than 1 in 25 (4%). (Section8(3) PART XI 2(3))

13.The lot upon which the subject building is proposed and the lot upon which the existing building will remain (Phase 2 - the Easterly Wing) are not at least the lands described in s1 of Bylaw 310-70. (Section 2(1) of bylaw 310-70, as amended.)

14.The total floor area of the portions of the buildings designated for pedestrian passageways is less than 51, 500 square feet. (Section 2(8) of bylaw 310-70, as amended.)

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3.The proposal DOES NOT require City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

4.The property is under consideration to be included in a heritage conservation district.

5.The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

Additional Comments

1.The proposed retail uses at the ground floor level must be in compliance with s12(2)259 of bylaw 438-86 as amended."

2.Comments from Metro Planning, dated July 2, 1997.

"We have reviewed the above revised application in accordance with Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan polices and advise the following.

Our previous comments submitted by letter dated March 8, 1996 (copy attached) still apply. In addition, the applicant is required to obtain building location permits from the Metropolitan Transportation Department before construction of this project. Other permits associated with construction activities (such as hoarding, piling/shoring, etc.) may also be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the applicable permits and should be advised to contact the Road Allowance Control Section (RACS) at 392-4960 regarding the site-specific permit / licence requirements."

3.Comments from Metro Planning, dated March 8, 1996.

"As requested, we have examined the above proposal in the context of Metropolitan planning and development principles and policies. Our review of the revised development proposal has revealed the following.

Since the Yonge / Bloor subway station and the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth subway lines are adjacent to the site, it is necessary for the applicant to obtain the approval of site and foundation plans from the Toronto Transit Commission. Five sets of these plans should be submitted to the attention of Mr. Domenic Garisto in the TTC's Property Management Department (392-444). The Property Management Department also requires shoring drawings, plot plan showing the subway structure, structural calculations showing loads, soils report and excavating, de-watering and landscape plans. Subsequent TTC approval of the development is subject to any conditions specified to the applicant by Mr. Garisto.

With respect to the proposed pedestrian connection to the subway stations, the applicant should provide detailed drawings for the TTC's review. The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the TTC specifying, among other things, the developers responsibility for provision and maintenance of the connection facility.

The developer should be warned that noise and vibration may be transmitted from street traffic and transit operations into any building constructed over or near to transit facilities. The developer should apply attenuation measures in order that the levels of noise and vibration in the proposed development will be at the lowest feasible level. The developer should notify prospective purchasers and lessees of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions.

Storm and sanitary drainage from the property should be separated, consistent with the City of Toronto's programme of sewer separation. Also, the Metropolitan Official Plan encourages the incorporation of appropriate design, practices and developments. In this regard, we request that the developer investigate opportunities to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff by detaining flows for gradual release into the ground and to improve the quality of stormwater discharges."

4.Comments from Public Health, dated April 30, 1998.

"Further to our letter dated March 6, 1996 our Department has received additional information in support of the above referenced site. Staff at Environmental Health services (EHS) have reviewed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (June 13, 1997) that was prepared by T. Harris Environmental Management Inc (THEM) and offer the following comments.

Comments:

The consultant states that during their investigation, the following hazardous building materials were observed:

.Lead: suspected to be a component of solder on copper pipes;

.PCBs: fluorescent light fixtures are used throughout the building. Disconnected or upgraded fixtures have had the ballasts removed and are now stored in the Retail Transformer Room. Several hundred fluorescent light fixtures were noted in Storage Room 6, however, these fixtures are relatively new and contain no PCB ballasts. Two PCB containing transformers were also noted to be in use in the Retail Transformer Room and they are PCB containing with a total volume of 320 imperial gallons;

.Mercury: observed in some mechanical controls;

.Silica: likely component of cementitious building materials;

.Asbestos: suspect ACMs were observed in mechanical insulation throughout the building. Suspect ACMs were also observed in surface texture coat on ceilings, bulkheads and outside columns, sprayed on fire proofing on deck and beams in rooftop penthouse, the cooling tower ecology unit room duct insulation.

Stored chemicals were also observed on the subject site, which included in-use compounds for water treatment, descaling, desliming of building circulatory systems, and assorted cleaning and painting products. In addition, several steel containers of freon were observed in the penthouse. The report goes on to state that there was no evidence of an underground storage tank during their inspection or on any insurance plans.

Dust Control Plan:

The report did not provide details on measures that would be implemented during demolition/renovation/construction to control the generation of dust. This Department will require the incorporation of the following measures as a condition of the building permit that must be adhered to during all site activities:

-.The daily, or more frequently if required, wetting of all soft and hard surfaces and any excavation face on the site, with the addition of calcium chloride or any other recognized dust suppressant;

-.The daily cleaning of the road pavement and sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property to a distance of 25m from the property line;

-.The designation of truck loading points to avoid trucks tracking potentially contaminated soil and demolition debris off site. Such loading points should be on a gravel base to minimize tracking of soil onto the sidewalk and street. If the loading point becomes contaminated, it should be cleaned or replaced;

-.All trucks and vans leaving the site should be cleaned of all loose soil and dust from demolition debris including the washing of tires and sweeping or washing of exteriors and tailgates by a designated labourer. A daily log of each truck leaving the site should be kept by the applicant (developer) noting when each truck was washed and by whom;

-.Tarping all trucks leaving the site which may have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris;

-.An air monitoring program, if necessary, as determined through consultation with the Medical Officer of Health;

-.Supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified Environmental Consultant.

The report provides a series of conclusions and recommendation with respect to the handling of all identified hazardous and/or controlled materials, specifically ACMs, PCBs, mercury, silica and freon. This Department has reviewed these recommendations and is in agreement, and notes that these materials will require removal prior to the start of any demolition activities and handled/stored and/or disposed of in accordance with Ministry of Labour (MOL) and Ministry of Environment (MOE) Guidelines.

Based on the information provided, I would indicate to you that I have no objection to the issuance of a building permit at this time. By copy of this letter I have advised the owner/applicant accordingly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 392-7685."

________

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. Harry Lipton, J&S Holdings Ltd; and

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. W. Carson Woods.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2 Bloor Street West (Cumberland Terrace)

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2 Bloor Street West (Cumberland Terrace)

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2 Bloor Street West (Cumberland Terrace)

Insert Table/Map No. 4

2 Bloor Street West (Cumberland Terrace)

Insert Table/Map No. 5

2 Bloor Street West (Cumberland Terrace)

Insert Table/Map No. 6

2 Bloor Street West (Cumberland Terrace)

Insert Table/Map No. 7

2 Bloor Street West (Cumberland Terrace)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 2, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Attached are submissions received by the City Clerk respecting the foregoing matter:

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. Harry Lipton, J. & S. Holdings Ltd.; and

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. W. Carson Woods, President, Carson Woods Architects Limited.)

(A copy of each of the submissions, referred to in the foregoing communication, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Committee of Adjustment Application -

204, 212 Eglinton Avenue East (North Toronto)

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)Recommendation No. (1) embodied in the confidential report dated July 7, 1998, from the City Solicitor, be adopted, viz.:

'(1)That Council amend By-law No. 1997-0418 to provide that notwithstanding the provisions of By-law No. 1997-0418 development applications approved prior to the adoption of the by-law on August 21, 1997, shall be exempt from the consent requirement of the by-law.'; and

(2)the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, be requested to submit a report to the Toronto Community Council on amending By-law 1997-0418 to remove the obstruction to due process where agreement between two adjacent property owners cannot be obtained.")

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report directly to Council on the possibility of granting an exemption from Chapter 331, Article III, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the tree removal at 220 Eglinton Avenue East.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998 on:

(1)proposed amendments to Chapter 331, Trees, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which would resolve joint ownership issues and issues respecting applications which straddle property lines; and

(2)the following motion from Councillor Johnston:

"That, in respect to trees that straddle property lines, Council reinstate the former City of Toronto Municipal Code provisions that allow the owner of either property to make application to injure or destroy a tree that straddles a property line and allows the owner of an abutting property to make application to injure or destroy a tree on an adjacent property in respect to a development that would affect the roots or branches of such a tree."

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 10, 1998) from Councillor Johnston:

Recommendations:

(1)That the City Solicitor report to City Council at its July 8, 1998 meeting on the options available to Council to grant an exemption to By-law No. 1997-0428.

(2)Advise City Council on what legal agreement would be required (should Council grant an exemption) to absolve the City of Toronto from any liability should the construction activities at 204-212 Eglinton Avenue East injure the subject elm tree located on the abutting 220 Eglinton Avenue East property.

Comments:

I have discussed the foregoing issues with forestry personnel and with the planning department. It is obvious to me that we have placed the "applicant" in a classic Catch 22 situation.

On June 21, 1997, the former City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment granted a variance to accommodate the proposed development at 204-212 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto. Presumably, this placed the proposed development in the system under existing by-laws and regulations.

However, on August 21, 1997, the former City of Toronto amended the Municipal Code-Trees-Chapter III and passed By-law No. 1997-0418 which now prevents the "applicant" from even making an application to the City to "injure or destroy a tree" without the consent of the abutting owner.

The abutting owner, according to the "applicant', has no interest in agreeing to an application being filed. Consequently, unless City Council grants an exemption from By-law 1997-0418, this development remains forever in limbo.

________

(A copy of the following communication (May 13, 1998) from Mr. Peter Kelly, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-Decision of Committee of Adjustment dated June 4, 1997;

-Clause 17 of Neighbourhood Committee Report No. 11 of the former City of Toronto, titled, "Municipal Code - Trees - Chapter 331, Article III - Injury or Destruction of Trees in Defined Areas, which was amended and adopted by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting held on August 21, 1997;

-(June 19, 1998) from Mr. Flori Volpi, owner of 220 Eglinton Avenue East;

-(June 23, 1998) from Mr. John Arico, Davey Tree Expert Company of Canada, Limited; and

-(Undated) Petition (46 signatures) of residents of 220 Eglinton Avenue East.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Flori Volpi;

-Mr. John Laverty;

-Ms. Dale Juknevicius; and

-Mr. I. Meisels.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (July 7, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

It is recommended that Council amend by-law No. 1997-0418 to provide that notwithstanding the provisions of By-law No. 1997-0418 development applications approved prior to the adoption of the by-law on August 21, 1997, shall be exempt from the consent requirement of the by-law.)

3

Settlement Report - Official Plan and Zoning By-law

Amendments - East Bayfront (Downtown and Don River)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June10,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with TABIA, to report on the cumulative impact of big box retail development on the Toronto Community's retail strips; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on July 22, 1998 on the communication (June 23, 1998) from Mr. Nicholas T. Macos.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend actions that will resolve some of the issues raised by the appellants to By-law No. 1997-0183 (Official Plan Amendment No. 87) and Zoning By-law No. 1997-0184 - East Bayfront.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the curbside parking regulations on Richardson Street be amended to improve traffic circulation in the vicinity of 215 Lake Shore Boulevard East as follows:

(a)adjustment to the one hour maximum parking regulation from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily, on both sides of Richardson Street from Queens Quay East to Lake Shore Boulevard East, to apply:

(i)on the west side of Richardson Street from Lake Shore Boulevard East to Queens Quay East;

(ii)on the east side of Richardson Street from Queens Quay East to a point 46.0 metres north;

(iii)on the east side of Richardson Street from a point 100.1 metres north of Queens Quay East to Lake Shore Boulevard East;

(b)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Richardson Street from a point 46.0 metres north of Queens Quay East to a point 54.1 metres further north; and

(2)That appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to recommendation number 1, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required to authorize the work and amend the appropriate schedules of Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code accordingly.

(3)That City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to amend Zoning By-law 438-86 as amended by By-law 1997-0184 to require a parking standard of 1 parking space for every 18 square metres of floor area for entertainment facilities.

Background:

In 1997 the former City of Toronto passed Official Plan and Zoning amendments for the East Bayfront to create and promote a stable business environment by permitting a wider range of potential uses. Notices of appeal to By-law No. 1997-0183 (Official Plan Amendment No. 87) and Zoning By-law No.1997-0184 were received from 1227803 Ontario Limited and 1147390 Ontario Limited in May, 1997. The issues identified by the appellants were:

-The proposed zoning changes were being made without due regard to the traffic and parking problems which redevelopment will generate.

-The City should adopt zoning standards so to avoid the concentration of a specific use.

-The City should require parking and impact studies for all new development.

-Shared parking among entertainment, amusement and restaurant uses should not be permitted by the City.

-The City should not allow retail stores up to 4500 square metres in size east of Jarvis Street.

-The City should undertake improvements to the Cherry St./Lakeshore Blvd. East corridor prior to any new commercial development.

-The definition of "entertainment facility" should specifically exclude a "casino" to be consistent with the definition of entertainment facilities on Polson Quay.

At the initial Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) prehearing on the appeals (February 24, 1998), City staff advised the OMB that some of the issues raised by the appellants could be resolved prior to a full hearing of the Board. The two notable issues which could be resolved are the need for revised on-street parking restrictions along sections Richardson Street and a parking standard for entertainment facilities.

Comments:

City Works staff have advised that they are prepared to undertake adjustments to the signage in the vicinity of the intersection of Richardson Street/Lake Shore Boulevard East which will improve turning movements for vehicles exiting the property at 215 Lake Shore Boulevard East (Federal Express). These improvements were discussed with a representative of Federal Express on-site and are acceptable. Recommendations 1 and 2 give effect to these changes.

City Works and City Planning staff are also prepared to recommend that a parking standard of 1 space for every 18 square metres of floor area be applied to entertainment facilities in East Bayfront. This is the standard that the City recommended for entertainment facilities on Polson Quay in the Port Industrial District. The "Docks" restaurant, located at 11 Polson Street, has a site-specific parking requirement of 450 parking spaces. That requirement, and the specific direction that the spaces be provided on the property at 20 Polson Street was established by the Ontario Municipal Board at a hearing that concluded in April, 1997.

City planning staff will work with the appellants to try and resolve other issues prior to the commencement of the full OMB hearing.

Conclusion:

The recommendations in this report address some of the concerns raised by the appellants of By-law 0183-1997 (OPA 87) and By-law 0184-1997. These recommended changes will be presented to the OMB at a prehearing conference scheduled for August 4 and 5, 1998.

Contact Name:

Blair Martin

Telephone 416 392-1317, Fax 416 392-1330

e-mail: bmartin@city.toronto.on.ca

________

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (June 23, 1998) from Mr. Nicholas T. Macos, Barrister & Solicitor, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

4

Illegal Operation of Building Supply Business -

2055 Danforth Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor be instructed to seek an immediate injunction to prevent the building supply business located at 2055 Danforth Avenue from operating illegally by storing supplies in a residential zone.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council, in camera if necessary, on whether the City has the right to block an entrance on a City road allowance, which is being used for illegal purposes, particularly with respect to 2055 Danforth Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 15, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek:

For more than 20 years now a building supply business at 2055 Danforth has been operating illegally by storing supplies in a residential zone.

The matter was brought to the Ontario Municipal Board which ruled against the owners. However, despite the city, the residents and the Planning Departments objections the business continues to operate.

I am, therefore, requesting your support to instruct the Solicitor to obtain an immediate injunction to stop the operation or for the City to block off the entrance which uses a City road allowance.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (July 7, 1998) from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of Section 55(9) of the Municipal Act.)

5

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision -

1947-1997 Bloor Street West (High Park)

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by deleting from Recommendation No. (1) embodied in the Operative Paragraph of the Motion by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski, the words "and that he be authorized to retain outside planning advice, if necessary", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1)the City Solicitor be instructed to attend the OMB hearing in support of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment;".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion, placed by Councillor Miller and seconded by Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

"WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment denied an application made by Ontario Limited for variances at 1947-1997 Bloor Street West; and

WHEREAS this application is a very serious issue to local residents as a result of the history of the site, previous OMB decisions with respect to this lot, the proximity to High Park, and the soil contamination and related water issues; and

WHEREAS the Swansea Area Ratepayers' Association and local residents oppose the application and support the decision of the Committee of Adjustment; and

WHEREAS the OMB has set a hearing date in August, 1998 without the input of the City or local residents; and

WHEREAS it is it the interest of the City of Toronto to uphold the decision of the Committee of Adjustment;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1)the City Solicitor be instructed to attend the OMB hearing in support of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, and that he be authorized to retain outside planning advice, if necessary;

(2)the City Solicitor be requested, at the earliest possible time, to apply to the OMB for a hearing date in September or October, when residents will be available for the hearing; and

(3)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor report on the progress of the OMB Hearing to the meeting of the Toronto Community Council to be held on July 22, 1998.

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it, during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (June 23, 1998) from Ms. Dawn Napier, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

6

Appeal of Denial of Application for a Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending

Permit - Leslie Street, East Side, at Unwin Street (Don River)

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated July 3, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled 'Application for a Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit - Leslie Street (East Toronto)', be adopted, subject to granting:

(1)the original permit location on Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Avenue, to Ms.Tihomira Pachova; and

(2)the second location on Leslie Street, east side, 28 metres north of Unwin Avenue, to Ms. Mary Dimitropoulos;

so that the recommendations embodied in such report shall now read as follows:

'It is recommended that:

(1)City Council grant permission for a vending permit to Ms.Tihomira Pachova on Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Avenue, and the second location on Leslie Street, east side, 28 metres north of Unwin Avenue, be allocated to Ms. Mary Dimitropoulos; and

(2)the City Solicitor introduce a Bill in Council to amend Schedule B of Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to include Leslie Street, both sides, from Unwin Avenue to Commissioners Street.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)a permit to allow vending on the sidewalk/boulevard, on the east side of Leslie Street at Unwin Street, be authorized;

(2)a permit to allow vending not less than 300 metres from the location set out in Recommendation No. (1) be authorized; and

(3)Chapter 315 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended accordingly.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on which of the two applicants, Ms. Mary Dimitropoulos or Ms. Tihomira Pachova, should be granted each permit.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 5, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a sidewalk/boulevard vending application, which was denied because the proposed location is not listed with Schedule 'B' as required by Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

That, should City Council wish to permit Ms. Mary Dimitropoulos to vend on the sidewalk/boulevard, on the east side of Leslie Street at Unwin Street, which is not presently permitted under City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 315, it is recommended that the City Solicitor introduce the necessary bill in Council to amend Schedule B of Chapter 315, Street Vending, to include Leslie Street, both sides from Unwin Street to Commissioners Street.

Background:

Ms. Dimitropoulos, in her letter of April 28, 1998 (Appendix 'A') has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Leslie Street, east side at Unwin street.

Comments:

Ms. Mary Dimitropoulos, 30 Virginia Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4C 2S7, applied on April 14, 1998 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Street (Appendix'B'). Ms. Dimitropoulos proposes to vend sausages, hot dogs and cold drinks.

Before Ms. Mary Dimitropoulos applied and paid the necessary fee, staff cautioned her that the application would be automatically rejected because it did not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending. Leslie Street, both sides, from Unwin Street to Commissioners Street, including the proposed vending location is zoned industrial, and has recently been designated a City Street, therefore, it is not in the list of designated streets where vending is permitted, as set out in Schedule B of Chapter 315. All locations in Schedule B are in commercial/industrial zoned areas.

Conclusions:

As this application complies with the physical requirements of the Municipal Code, the application should be approved. If the proposed vending location is approved, then the City Solicitor would introduce the necessary bill to amend Schedule B to add this portion of Leslie Street to the list of designated streets for vending.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (June 15, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek:

Re: Request for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit from Ms. Tihomira Pachova - Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Street

I have enclosed herewith a copy of a letter from Ms. Tihomira Pachova, dated March 30, 1998, regarding the above noted matter.

Also enclosed are copies of letters from customers and a signed petition, advising that Ms. Pachova has been selling at this corner for the last six years.

I would kindly request The Toronto Community Council, at the next meeting on June 24, 1998, approve her application and issue the permit.

Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.

________

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Bill Dimitropoulos; and

-Ms. Tihomira Pachova.

________

(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report, and the letters referred to in the foregoing communication from Councillor Jakobek, were forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Leslie Street Vending

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on which of the two applicants, namely: Ms. Mary Dimitropoulos or Ms. Tihomira Pachova, should be granted a vending permit on Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council grant permission for a vending permit to Ms. Mary Dimitropoulos, on Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Avenue, and Ms. Tihomira Pachova, on Leslie Street, east side, 28 metres north of Unwin Avenue; and

(2)the City Solicitor introduce a bill in Council to amend Schedule B of Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to include Leslie Street, both sides, from Unwin Avenue to Commissioners Street.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of June 24, 1998, in considering a report (June 5, 1998) from the former Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, entitled "Appeal of Denial of Application for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit - Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Street", recommended to City Council for its meeting of July 8, 1998 that:

(1)a permit to allow vending on the sidewalk/boulevard, on the east side of Leslie Street at Unwin Street, be authorized;

(2)a permit to allow vending not less than 300 metres from the location set out in Recommendation No. (1) be authorized;

and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on which of the two applicants, Ms. Mary Dimitropoulos or Ms. Tihomira Pachova, should be granted each permit.

Comments:

Ms. Mary Dimitropoulos, applied on April 14, 1998 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Avenue. Ms.Dimitropoulos proposes to vend sausages, hot dogs and cold drinks.

Ms. Tihomira Pachova, applied on June 7, 1998 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit for the same location as Ms. Dimitropoulos'. Ms. Pachova also wishes to vend sausages, hot dogs and cold drinks. In a letter dated June 23, 1998, we informed Ms. Pachova that an application had already been received for vending on Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Avenue, and that her application could not be processed.

Ms. Pachova appeared before the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of June 24, 1998, contesting Ms. Dimitropoulos' application, indicating that she had been vending from the proposed location (illegally) for many years and that she should be given first choice for the location. She further indicated that she previously attempted to apply for this location but that her application was denied.

For Council's information, under Chapter 315 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, applications for vending privileges can only be processed for locations where they are dedicated as public highways. The southerly extension of Leslie Street was dedicated as a public highway on December 16, 1994 (By-law No. 1995-0030). Therefore, any requests for vending privileges prior to this date could not be accepted.

Inspection by staff confirmed that there are two possible locations on Leslie Street, east side, 28metres and 300 metres north of the proposed vending location. Staff met with Ms. Pachova in the field on June 30, 1998 to advise her of the two locations. At the site meeting she indicated to staff that she should be given first choice for the location on Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Avenue. However, if that is not possible she would prefer the location 28 metres north of the proposed vending location (Appendix 'A').

Staff also spoke to Mr. Bill Dimitropoulos, acting on behalf of his mother Mary Dimitropoulos. In an undated letter (Appendix 'B') received by this department on July 2, 1998, Ms. Dimitropoulos indicates that her first and main preference is the location she applied for.

Conclusions:

Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Avenue, was dedicated as a public highway on December 16, 1994. Application requests prior to this date could not be processed. Ms. Dimitropoulos applied for a vending permit on April 14, 1998 and Ms. Pachova on June 7, 1998.

Two locations have been identified as feasible vending locations, on Leslie Street, east side, 28metres and 300 metres north of Unwin Avenue.

Although Ms. Pachova had been vending illegally at the proposed location for many years, this should not be a factor in establishing a legal vending location.

This being the case, it is recommended that Ms. Dimitropoulos be granted a permit to vend on Leslie Street, east side, at Unwin Avenue and Ms. Pachova on Leslie Street, east side, 28 metres north of Unwin Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou

Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement

City Works Services, Toronto Community Council Area

Phone (416) 392-1525, Fax (416) 392-0816

e-mail "aantonio@city.toronto.on.ca")

(A copy of Appendices 'A' and 'B', referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Ronan Avenue, East Side from Snowdon Avenue to Golfdale Road -

Prohibition of Parking from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.

Monday to Friday (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June5,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the occurrence of overnight non-resident parking on the east side of Ronan Avenue, from Snowdon Avenue to Golfdale Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking be prohibited on the east side of Ronan Avenue from Snowdon Avenue to Golfdale Road from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., Monday to Friday; and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

Works staff received a complaint regarding long term non-resident overnight parking on Ronan Avenue from Snowdon Avenue to Golfdale Road. Parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours on the subject section of Ronan Avenue.

A check of neighbouring streets revealed that parking is only permitted by permit from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the block of Ronan Avenue from Glenforest Road to Snowdon Avenue, and on Snowdon Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Riverview Drive. On other streets in the neighbourhood the City-wide 3 hour maximum parking regulation applies. It is possible that motorists may be parking their vehicles overnight on Ronan Avenue between Snowdon Avenue and Golfdale Road to avoid paying for an on-street parking permit.

The introduction of a parking regulation that would prohibit parking from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., Monday to Friday in combination with regular parking enforcement, would effectively reduce the occurrence of long term overnight parking without adversely affecting short term parking by visitors or trades persons on this street.

Accordingly, I recommend that parking be prohibited as described in Recommendation No. 1, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

8

Provision of a "Student Pick-up/Drop Off" Zone

in Front of St. Clements Early Learning School,

70 St. Clements Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June5,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" in front of St. Clements Early Learning School, 70 St. Clements Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily" prohibition on the north side of St. Clements Avenue from Duplex Avenue to a point 65 metres west be adjusted to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday;

(2)That parking be allowed on the north side of St. Clements Avenue from Duplex Avenue to a point 65 metres west, for a maximum period of ten minutes from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday;

(3)That parking be prohibited on the north side of St. Clements Avenue from Duplex Avenue to a point 65 metres west, from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., and from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

(4)The appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Michael Walker on behalf of the principal of St. Clements Early Learning School, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of implementing a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" along the frontage of St. Clements Church, 70 St. Clements Avenue, which houses the St. Clements Early Learning School.

St. Clements Avenue between Duplex Avenue and Rosewell Avenue operates two way with a pavement width of 5.8 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. At present parking is prohibited along the frontage of the school on the north side of St. Clements Avenue, from Duplex Avenue to a point 65 metres west thereof, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily and parking is prohibited on the south side at anytime.

The Principal advised that there are approximately 190 pre-school children attending the school which has no scheduled school bus service. The majority of children arrive by car and are being dropped off by parents during three main periods throughout the day, namely between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. It is during these periods that parking is at a premium and a mechanism to encourage high turnover is necessary. To address this situation a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" should be established along the frontage of the church with appropriate signage indicating a maximum time limit for parking of ten minutes during the peak periods. There is sufficient area to accommodate approximately nine vehicles in the proposed zone. To avoid congestion in front of the church during off peak hours, parking will be prohibited at all other times between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. To accommodate weekend church activities, parking will be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday.

The above parking regulations will allow parents to leave a vehicle unattended in the zone for a maximum period of ten minutes during the peak periods to escort children into the school without the worry of being ticketed. However, given the narrow width of St. Clements Avenue (5.8 metres) additional signage will be posted on the south side of St. Clements Avenue along the frontage of the school indicating "No parking at anytime" to ensure that the south side is kept clear of vehicles. This is essential to maintaining an uninterrupted traffic flow past the church. Should parents park on the south side of the street, they would be subject to ticketing.

The efficient operation of the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" and the resulting impact of the zone on the area and its residents will be reliant upon parents' compliance with the parking regulations in front of the school during the peak periods. If parking occurs on both sides of the street during these periods, the result will create a bottleneck situation during the peak periods due to the narrow pavement width, and motorists will be unable to pass by the school on St. Clements Avenue without having to stop and wait. In addition, given the close proximity of the school to the intersection at Duplex Avenue, a two way collector road which carries a daily volume of approximately 9,000 to 10,000 vehicles, increased congestion in front of the school could also cause congestion on Duplex Avenue for vehicles waiting to turn onto St. Clements Avenue from Duplex Avenue during the peak periods of pick-up/drop-off at the school. Accordingly, staff will monitor the subject location to evaluate the flow of traffic and the effectiveness of the posted signage and will report back to Toronto Community Council should changes to the proposed regulations be required.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl, (392-7892)

Co-ordinator, Transportation Operations Section

9

Isabella Street, Between Yonge Street and Gloucester Lane -

Prohibition of Standing from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. (Downtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June3,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce traffic congestion caused by vehicles unlawfully parking/standing on both sides of Isabella Street, between Yonge Street and Gloucester Lane.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That standing be prohibited from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. on both sides of Isabella Street between Yonge Street and Gloucester Lane; and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Downtown Councillor Kyle Rae, on behalf of area business owners, Works staff have investigated concerns regarding unlawful parking or standing on Isabella Street between Yonge Street and Gloucester Lane.

Isabella Street from Yonge Street to Gloucester Lane operates one-way eastbound and has a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at any time on both sides of this street.

Traffic congestion and sight line obstructions occur in the late evening and overnight when vehicles park unlawfully on the subject section of Isabella Street waiting for patrons of after hours functions at a nearby premises.

Accordingly, in order to lessen traffic congestion caused by unlawfully parked vehicles and to improve sight lines, standing should be prohibited on both sides of Isabella Street from Yonge Street to Gloucester Lane from 10:00 p.m. of one day to 6:00 a.m. of the next following day.

Implementation of this suggestion would not impact on parking operation elsewhere on Isabella Street and is similar to other parking/standing/stopping regulations implemented near entertainment clubs in the Toronto Community Council's jurisdictional area.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Crocco, Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

10

Intersection of Lamb Avenue and Felstead Avenue -

Installation of "All Way Stop" Sign Control (East Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June3,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To enhance operational safety at this intersection.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That "Stop" signs be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Felstead Avenue at Lamb Avenue; and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Tom Jakobek on behalf of area residents, Works staff have investigated implementing all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Lamb Avenue and Felstead Avenue to enhance operational safety.

Lamb Avenue and Felstead Avenue form a T-type intersection. Felstead Avenue ends about 100 metres west of Lamb Avenue. A "Stop" sign is posted for southbound vehicles on Lamb Avenue at Felstead Avenue to define right-of-way at the intersection and sight lines across the northwest and northeast corners of this intersection are satisfactory for all directions of motorists approaching the intersection.

A search of the Toronto Police Service's collision data records for the period extending from January1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 (no information is available for 1997-98) has revealed that no accidents have been reported at the intersection which involved intersecting directions of traffic and which might have potentially been prevented by the presence of "Stop" signs on Felstead Avenue. However, one incident was reported in December of 1996 which involved a vehicle turning right from westbound Felstead Avenue losing control and colliding with several parked vehicles on the west side of Lamb Avenue north of the intersection. Although the action of the driver of the vehicle involved appears to have been a major contributing factor in this collision, had the vehicle been required to stop before making the turn, the probability of this incident occurring would have been less.

Having evaluated the Felstead/Lamb intersection against the technical criteria governing the installation of all-way "Stop" sign control which encompasses such factors as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian use of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic controls and safety experience, I have concluded that the intersection of Lamb Avenue and Felstead Avenue generally operates safely at the present time. However, given the proximity of nearby schools and recreation fields which generate a moderately high pedestrian volume and the presence for all-way "Stop" sign control at most other intersections in this neighbourhood, there is sufficient justification for implementing all-way "Stop" sign control at this intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

11

Wellington Street West, South Side, Between Yonge Street and

Bay Street, East Side, Between Front Street West and

Wellington Street West - Provision of On-Street

Loading Zones for Disabled Persons (Downtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June2,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to keep the areas fronting the pedestrian entrances to Premises No. 181 Bay Street (Bay Wellington Tower, BCE Place) clear of vehicles and to enhance pick-up/drop-off opportunity for disabled persons.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That a disabled persons loading zone be established on the east side of Bay Street, from a point 87.0 metres north of Front Street West to a point 9.5 metres further north;

(2)That a disabled persons loading zone be established on the south side of Wellington Street West, from a point 58.2 metres west of Yonge Street to a point 11.0 metres further west; and

(3)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of a representative of The Bay Wellington Tower, BCE Place and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Kyle Rae, Works staff have investigated providing on-street disabled persons loading zones on the south side of Wellington Street West, between Yonge Street and Bay Street and on the east side of Bay Street, between Front Street West and Wellington Street West fronting the pedestrian entrances to Premises No. 181 Bay Street (Bay Wellington, BCE Place) to facilitate Wheeltrans pick-up/drop-off of disabled passengers.

Bay Street is a four lane arterial road operating two-way on a pavement ranging from 20.1 metres to 25.0 metres in width. Stopping is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on both sides of Bay Street, between Front Street West and Wellington Street West and parking is prohibited at other times. This section of Bay Street is not within the area identified as the Bay Street Urban Clearway (which begins north of Wellington Street West). Wellington Street West, between Yonge Street and Bay Street operates one-way westbound on a pavement width of 12.9 metres and has special peak period streetcar service provided from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday. Stopping is prohibited from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and parking is otherwise prohibited on both sides of Wellington Street West.

A site inspection by Works staff has revealed that delivery vehicles and taxis frequently unlawfully stop or park on the east side of Bay Street, between Front Street West and Wellington Street West, in the vicinity of the pedestrian entrance on the west side of the Bay Wellington Tower and on the south side of Wellington Street West, between Yonge Street and Bay Street, specifically, in the vicinity of the most easterly pedestrian entrance on the north side of the Bay Wellington Tower. Wheeltrans buses must often stop to pick-up/drop-off disabled persons in front of these entrances but frequently cannot gain access to the curb. As a result, they must double-park, at times creating potentially hazardous conditions for moving traffic and embarking/disembarking Wheeltrans passengers.

Given the size of the Bay Wellington Tower (BCE Place) which encompasses 2.6 million square feet and is bounded by Yonge Street, Bay Street, Front Street West and Wellington Street West and the apparent number of Wheeltrans pick-ups/drop-offs required at this premises on a daily basis, two (2) on-street disabled loading zones should be established, specifically:

a)on the east side of Bay Street, from a point 87.0 metres north of Front Street West to a point 9.5 metres further north; and

b)on the south side of Wellington Street West, from a point 58.2 metres west of Yonge Street to a point 11.0 metres further west.

Implementation of this suggestion would discourage unlawful parking in front of the aforementioned pedestrian entrances and would enhance passenger pick-up/drop-off operations for Wheeltrans users at the Bay Wellington Tower of BCE Place. The impact on delivery vehicles and taxi pick-up/drop-off operations at both locations will be negligible.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771

12

Amendments to Former City of Toronto By-law No. 379-80 -

Designation of Employees as Provincial Offences Officers

Under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, CH.P.33

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June4,1998) from the Corporation Counsel:

Purpose:

To amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 379-80 - Designation of Employees as provincial Offences Officers under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, CH. P.33

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

1.That former City of Toronto By-law No. 379-80 be further amended:

(1)by adding the following City Works employee to Schedule "C":

GIEZEN, David

2.That authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to give effect to the foregoing.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On April 28, 1980, the former City of Toronto Council passed By-law No. 379-80, being a By-law to authorize employees of various City departments to be Provincial Offences Officers.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As a Provincial Offences Officer, the employee is authorized to enforce all municipal by-laws and all offences under related Provincial statutes and regulations thereunder, including the issuing of Offence Notices under Part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act.

Conclusions:

As a result of staff changes within Works and Emergency Services, it is necessary to appoint an additional employee as a Provincial Offences Officer.

Contact Name:

Lorraine Searles-Kelly

Legal Department 392-7240

_______

Authority:

Intended for first presentation to Council: July 8, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. - 1998

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 379-80 appointing Provincial Offences Officers.

WHEREAS by Clause ___ of Report No. ___ of the Toronto Community Council adopted by Council at its meeting held on July 8, 1998, it is recommended that former City of Toronto By-law No. 379-80 be further amended;

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 379-80, being "A By-law To appoint Provincial Offences Officers" as amended, is further amended:

(1)by adding the following City Works employee to Schedule "C":

GIEZEN, David

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

13

Area Bounded by Lawrence Avenue West, Yonge Street,

Glengrove Avenue West and Chatsworth Drive -

Reduction of the Speed Limit from Fifty Kilometres

Per Hour to Forty Kilometres Per Hour (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June5,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the maximum speed limit on various streets in order to maintain a standardized limit in the area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the speed limit be reduced from fifty kilometres per hour to forty kilometres per hour on the following streets:

a)Ansley Street from Glengrove Avenue West to Glenview Avenue;

b)Chatsworth Drive from Duplex Avenue to Yonge Street;

c)Cheritan Avenue from Duplex Avenue to Greer Road;

d)Chudleigh Avenue from Cortland Avenue to Chatsworth Drive;

e)Cortland Avenue from Cheritan Avenue to north limit; and

f)Glen Castle Street from Glengrove Avenue West to Glenview Avenue.

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Michael Walker on behalf of area residents, Works staff investigated a complaint regarding excessive speeding on Chudleigh Avenue from Duplex Avenue to Greer Road.

The speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour on the subject section of Chudleigh Avenue as well as on a number of surrounding streets bounded by Lawrence Avenue West, Yonge Street, Glengrove Avenue West and Chatsworth Drive. However, it was also noted that other streets in the area have a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour.

In order to maintain a standardized speed limit on streets in the subject area the speed limit should be reduced from 50 kilometres per hour to 40 kilometres per hour on the streets listed in Recommendation No. 1, above.

This proposal is in accordance with the former City of Toronto's Council policy to lower speed limits on local residential streets to 40 kilometres per hour (Clause 28 in City Services Committee Report No. 3, adopted by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting of February 25 and 26, 1991).

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator,

392-7771

14

Customer Service Improvements to the Residential Permit Parking

Program Serving Residents of Wards 19 Through 26 Inclusive

(All Wards of the Former City of Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June4,1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to respond to the communications from Ms. Babs Church, Asquith/Collier Association and Mr. Storm MacGregor.

Purpose:

To provide information on planned customer service improvements to the residential permit parking program in the former City of Toronto (Wards 19 through 26 inclusive); and to seek City Council's approval for those changes which require amendments to the City of Toronto Municipal Code before they can be implemented.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to initiate the proposed telephone and computer systems changes are provided in the Works and Emergency Services 1998 Operating Budget, as approved by City Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve the necessary amendments to Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto, governing Wards 19 through 26 in the Toronto Community Council district only, to

(a)permit flexible permit terms, with a minimum term of 3 months and a maximum of 24 months;

(b)permit over-subscribing a permit area by up to 10%, at the request of the Ward Councillors;

(c)eliminate the requirement that we charge customers to re-issue a permit when it is lost or damaged;

(d)remove the 1 month/$30 rate for visitor/temporary permits so that all visitor/temporary permits are sold in increments of 7 days for $10;

(e)amend the definition of a passenger vehicle to correspond with the Ministry of Transportation's definition;

as further described and justified in the body of this report; and

(2)The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

At its meeting of March 26, 1997, the former City Services Committee considered a report entitled "Permit Parking Review". This report was subsequently adopted by City Council on April 14, 1997 without amendment. One of the recommendations was that staff continue their efforts, in consultation with the Ward Councillors, to "minimize the incidence of waiting list situations and maximize the ease of using permit parking, by increasing the number of available spaces and adjustment of area boundaries and parking restrictions".

A comprehensive business review of the permit parking program was undertaken in the fall of 1997, with these goals in mind; and with the additional objective of finding ways to improve customer service and access to our services.

This report summarizes the planned customer service improvements we have identified as a result of this review, and makes recommendations to City Council on changes to the Municipal Code which would enable us to improve service by changing some restrictive elements of the current by-law. A further report on a proposed new fee structure will be submitted at a later date.

Staff have met with all Councillors in Wards 19 through 26 to review these proposals. Councillors support the service delivery changes, including those which will require amendments to the Municipal Code. However, there are differences of opinion on the revisions we proposed to the fee schedule and we have decided not to bring forward those proposals at this time, to permit further review and discussion.

Background:Why we need to change the way we serve our permit parking customers

Since the permit parking by-law was first introduced in 1961, the number of permit holders has increased from 17 to today's figure of 54,000 customers. However, while the client base has grown dramatically, the by-law, program design and systems technology to support the program delivery have all remained substantially unaltered.

Permit parking staff work hard and manage to serve a very high volume of customers as efficiently as possible. However, customers are still faced with long line ups at the counter during our semi-annual renewal; and cannot use the telephone with any ease to conduct routine business with us, although the technology to do this is well developed and commonly used elsewhere.

Our business review, conducted by a team of staff with assistance from outside consultants, has generated proposals for a new program design which would address these deficiencies in service, while at the same time maximizing the number of permits available at any point in time.

The balance of the report reviews the recommended changes, briefly discusses why they are beneficial, and notes where City Council authority is required in order to implement them.

Improvement #1:Introduce flexible permit terms

Change:Abolish the requirement for fixed permit terms of 6 months. Allow each permit holder to pick their own permit term, from a minimum length of 3 months to a maximum of 24 months.

Benefits:Will eliminate long line-ups which are typical of current system. Although 75% of our permit holders currently renew their permits by mail, approximately 13,000 customers still chose to renew in person, which creates huge peak loads during the last weeks in May and November, and significant delay and inconvenience for the customer. Further, the office will no longer need to be staffed to meet peak load demand.

Will maximize the number of permit spaces available at any one time, as customers will be able to chose the permit term which best suits their needs. For example, a student who only needed a permit until the end of the school term could buy a permit which expired on April 30th. This would free up one space during the month of May which under the present fixed terms would remain unavailable until the June 1st renewal unless the permit were returned for a refund .

Council approval required:Yes - to amend Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto.

Improvement #2:Introduce transferable permits which may be used in any passenger vehicle of the customer's choice

Change:We are currently testing the use of a transferable permit in Area 5E, which is in Ward23, Midtown. This experiment will operate during the permit term June 1 to November 30, 1998. Transferable permits are not issued to a specific vehicle licence and the permit holder may place them in any eligible vehicle. If the pilot is successful--based on feedback we will be actively seeking from our customers and Parking Enforcement staff--we will introduce transferable permits program-wide.

Benefits:This will provide customers with greater flexibility to meet their household parking needs. They will no longer need to visit our offices to change the plate number if they get a different car. Examples of how a transferable permit may be used:

-on a rental car, while the regular vehicle is in for repairs

-when a car is replaced with a new vehicle during the permit term

-when a family owns two cars but has one permit, to end the need to jockey cars in and out of the driveway

-to facilitate visitor parking

Council approval required:No.

Improvement #3:Design and install a Telephone Interactive Voice Response System to handle customer's inquiries and permit transactions

Change:To introduce interactive voice response technology, in conjunction with a new client/server based computer system, to permit customers to make routine inquiries and conduct permit parking business by telephone, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The funds to purchase the necessary hardware and initiate development of the software applications are included in the 1998 Operating Budget, as approved by City Council.

Benefit:The majority of customers who responded to our telephone survey indicated that the telephone would be their first choice as a vehicle for purchasing and renewing a parking permit. This change will meet this request and will provide a fast, cheap, and convenient way for customers to access service and information. Will free staff from repetitive transactions (such as giving standard program information over the phone); and will further reduce the need for over-the-counter service.

Council approval required:Council has approved the budget request; and this development work will be proceeding in 1998 and into early 1999.

Improvement #4:Oversubscribing an area to increase access to on-street space, in heavy demand areas

Change:We are seeking Council's authority to test over-selling an area, by 5 to 10% above the number of available on-street spaces, to see if this improves access to permits without creating other problems. This is similar to the airlines practice of over-booking flights, on the probability that not all passengers will need the seats they have booked on any given flight.

Benefit:Customers on waiting lists in some areas of the City frequently complain that there are empty parking spaces on the street each night, although we have sold all the permits for the area. Over-selling an area would recognize the likelihood that on any given night, for a variety of reasons, not all permit holders are parking their vehicles in the area. This would help to relieve the strain on waiting lists in high demand areas.

Council approval required:Yes - to amend Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto, to permit staff to sell up to 10% more permits than there are physical spaces in certain parking streets and areas, at the request of the local Ward Councillors.

Improvement #5:Selling a resident of Area "X" a temporary permit for adjoining Area "Y" if there is a wait list in Area "X"

Change:Sell residents on waiting lists for parking permits to obtain temporary permits in an adjacent area where space is available, subject to the terms and conditions that apply to temporary permits.

Benefit:This may be a viable alternative to remaining on a waiting list for some customers. It is another "relief valve" in high demand permit parking areas.

Council approval required:No.

Improvement #6:Suggest alternatives for customers on waiting lists

Change:We propose to develop an inventory of alternative parking options for customers on waiting lists, which they may choose to pursue while they wait for a street permit. For example, options might include monthly passes at Parking Authority lots; night-time parking in neighbourhood church, commercial and school parking lots.

Benefit:This represents a general improvement in customer service and responsiveness. At the present time, near the end of the current permit term, there are approximately 1,200 residents on waiting lists for parking permits in Wards 19 through 26. While our proposed changes to permit flexible permit terms, oversubscribing an area, and transferable permits should help a great deal, there may still be areas of the city where the demand for on-street parking exceeds the supply. Offering other options will relieve this pressure.

Council approval required:No.

Improvement #7:Make greater use of parking islands to increase the supply of permit parking spaces

Change:On those streets where island parking has been introduced as a traffic calming measure, two sided parking is permitted at various points or "islands" along the street. The additional parking spaces achieved are only available from April to November to facilitate snow removal. We are proposing to include these seasonal parking spaces in our inventory. This will allow us to issue shorter term permits for these spots, increasing the overall supply of permit parking.

Benefit:These additional spaces would be available for sale during the spring and summer months and would provide a temporary measure of relief to residents who might otherwise be unable to purchase a parking permit.

Council approval required:No.

Housekeeping changes

There are a number of other minor modifications to the program, which are "hard wired" into the Municipal Code, which inhibit our efficiency and detract from customer satisfaction. We are recommending the following minor changes to the legislation, as follows:

-that there be no charge to re-issue a parking permit (for example, when it is lost or damaged).

-that visitor/temporary permits be charged for in increments of 7 days for $10 only. The current fee schedule is $10 for 7 days, and $30 for 1 month (which can be 28, 29, 30, or 31 days, depending on the month). The single rate of $10 for 7 days is simpler to explain and administer and is a very minor fee adjustment. It also eliminates the anomaly that it costs exactly the same for a visitor permit for a month ($30) as it does to purchase one for 3 weeks (3 x $10). This encourages someone to hold a temporary permit for longer than they may actually need it.

-that parking permits only be issued to vehicles which do not exceed a gross vehicle weight of 3,000 kilograms (to replace the out-moulded requirement in the current by-law which refers to the rated carrying capacity of the vehicle, and to harmonize with the Ministry of Transportation's threshold for a passenger vehicle).

Conclusions:

We believe the proposals described in this report will make dramatic improvements to our customer service and access to our service, as well as increasing the overall availability of permit parking space in the city. Council's authority is necessary to implement some of these changes, related to the introduction of flexible permit terms, over-selling areas, and some minor housekeeping amendments; while other changes can and have been made administratively.

If Council approves these recommendations, we expect to introduce flexible permit terms, with the associated benefits for our clients, in the spring or summer of 1999.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lesley Watson, 392-1525

Bob Bonner, 392-1560 ext. 8-6325

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(June 2, 1998) from Ms. Babs Church, President, Asquith Collier Association; and

-(June 23, 1998) from Mr. Storm MacGregor

15

Glenlake Avenue and its Intersections with

Prince Rupert Avenue and Dorval Road - Implementation of

All-Way "Stop" Sign Control (Davenport)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 29, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement all-way "Stop" sign control on Glenlake Avenue at its intersections with Prince Rupert Avenue and Dorval Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That "Stop" signs be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Glenlake Avenue at its intersections with Prince Rupert Avenue and Dorval Road; and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction of any Bills that are required.

Background:

The Executive Committee of the former Toronto City Council, at its meeting on September 29, 1997, referred a report dated September 25, 1997, from City Works Services regarding the installation of all-way "Stop" sign controls on Glenlake Avenue at its intersections with Prince Rupert Avenue and Dorval Road, to the appropriate committee of the new Toronto City Council. Accordingly, in concurrence with Councillors Betty Disero and Dennis Fotinos, this report is being submitted to the Toronto Community Council for consideration.

Comments:

Glenlake Avenue, from Dundas Street West to Keele Street, operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Prince Rupert Avenue, in the vicinity of Glenlake Avenue, operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. These two streets intersect to form a "T"-type intersection with right-of-way being designated by a "Stop" sign for northbound Prince Rupert Avenue traffic. Dorval Road, in the vicinity of Glenlake Avenue, operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. These two streets intersect to form a "T"-type intersection with right-of-way being designated by a "Stop" sign for northbound Dorval Road traffic.

All-way "Stop" sign controls currently exist on Glenlake Avenue between Dundas Street West and Keele Street at its intersections with Indian Road, Indian Road Crescent and Indian Grove. The only two intersections not so controlled are at Prince Rupert Avenue and Dorval Road. The distance between Dundas Street West and Indian Road (the first all-way "Stop" location west of Dundas Street West) is approximately 300 metres, with Prince Rupert Avenue being located approximately 100 metres west of Dundas Street West and Dorval Road being located approximately 200 metres west. This spacing provides a long interval for vehicles to gain speed along this portion of Glenlake Avenue.

Works staff have evaluated these intersections against the technical criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs which encompass such factors as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience, and have concluded that the warrants for all-way "Stop" sign controls on Glenlake Avenue at its intersections with Prince Rupert Avenue and Dorval Road are satisfied.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator,

392-7771

16

McCormack Street - Request for All-Way "Stop" Sign at

Maybank Avenue; and a "No Heavy Trucks" Prohibition

7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Davenport)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that an all-way "Stop" Sign at McCormack Street and Maybank Avenue be approved.

The Toronto Community Council again submits Clause 24 of Report No. 6 which City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration:

________

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (May 11, 1998) from Councillor Disero:

Enclosed please find a copy of a report received by our office from Andrew Koropeski, Director of Infrastructure Planning and Transportation with respect to the above-noted.

I would like to request that this be considered at the next Toronto Community Council meeting.

________

Communication dated April 22, 1998, from the

Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services,

addressed to Councillor Disero

I refer to your letters of October 7, 1997, and February 19, 1998, on behalf of Ms. Louise Wasniewski of Premises No. 407 Maybank Avenue and a telephone conversation on January 12, 1998, between Ms. Wasniewski and Mr. Brian Holditch of City Works Services, regarding the above. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by the delay in my response.

McCormack Street, from Weston Road to the former boundary between the City of Toronto and the City of York, operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Maybank Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and terminates at McCormack Street to form a "T" type intersection with right-of-way designated by a "Stop" sign for southbound traffic on Maybank Avenue. A private roadway accesses this intersection from the south.

1. Request for an all-way "Stop" sign control at McCormack Street and Maybank Avenue.

An 8-hour peak volume count conducted by City Works Services staff at the subject intersection, revealed that of the 1,143 vehicles entering the intersection from McCormack Street, 1,073 (94%) proceeded straight through the intersection. A total of 68 vehicles were recorded entering the intersection from Maybank Avenue, 32 of which made a left turn onto McCormack Street. A count of pedestrians crossing McCormack Street at Maybank Avenue recorded a total of 35, none of which were children.

A check of Toronto Police Service accident records from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 (the most recent data available) revealed no reported accidents at the subject intersection.

City Works Services staff have evaluated this intersection against the technical criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs, which encompass such things as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience, and have determined that this intersection does not meet the criteria for the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control, in view of the low volume of traffic on Maybank Avenue and the low volume of pedestrians crossing McCormack Street.

2. Request for a "No Heavy Trucks" prohibition on McCormack Street, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.,daily.

McCormack Street is not prohibited to heavy trucks and Weston Road, at the east end terminus of McCormack Street, is the only access to McCormack Street that does not prohibit access to heavy trucks. The remaining streets intersecting with McCormack Street are residential streets and are prohibited to heavy trucks at all times.

Several commercial businesses, including autobody shops, are located on the south side of McCormack Street between Maybank Avenue and its west end terminus within the former City of York. Consequently, trucks attending these commercial premises must use McCormack Street from Weston Road and, under the provisions of the Municipal Code, would be exempt from any heavy truck prohibition, even if a temporal prohibition were to be implemented, as McCormack Street is the only route available to these trucks.

Accordingly, the introduction of a heavy truck prohibition from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily, on McCormack Street is not recommended.

17

Lansdowne Avenue from Queen Street West to Rideau Avenue -

Proposed Road Narrowings (High Park)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of the pavement on Lansdowne Avenue between Queen Street West and Rideau Avenue to facilitate the planting of trees and landscaping of the boulevards while providing a measure of traffic calming on the street, as part of scheduled road reconstruction work in 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the planned reconstruction work on Lansdowne Avenue have been accommodated with the 1998 Capital Budget. No additional funding is required to narrow the road and provide the landscaping, as outlined in this proposal.

Recommendations:

1. That approval be given to narrow the pavement on Lansdowne Avenue described as follows:

"the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 14.0 m to a width varying from 10.0 m to 14.0 m on LANSDOWNE AVENUE between Queen Street West and Rideau Avenue, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2199, dated June 10, 1998;

2. That the City Solicitor and City Clerk be requested to commence the statutory advertising process of the draft by-laws to authorize the narrowings of Lansdowne Avenue such that ads are placed the weeks of June 29 and July 6, 13 and 20, 1998, to enable the hearing of deputations on this matter at the July 22, 1998 Toronto Community Council meeting; and

3. That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Comments:

Existing Conditions

Lansdowne Avenue between Queen Street West and Rideau Avenue is primarily residential in nature with a fire hall on the west side and Parkdale Public School and West Lodge Park on the east side. The street has a width of 14.0 m and carries two-way traffic with a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit. Frequent bus service is provided by the Toronto Transit Commission, with buses every six minutes during peak periods. Approximately 12,000 vehicles per day use this portion of Lansdowne Avenue, with 48% of vehicles exceeding the 40 km/h speed limit and 7% exceeding the limit by at least 10 km/h. Pedestrian crossovers are located at Seaforth Avenue (south side), approximately 170 metres north of Seaforth Avenue and about another 190 metres further north.

The following parking regulations are in effect:

East side-No Parking anytime.

West side-No parking anytime from Queen Street West to a point 60 metres north thereof.

No parking anytime from Rideau Avenue to a point 30.5 metres south thereof.

No parking between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

The pavement, sidewalks and curbs on Lansdowne Avenue between Queen Street West and Rideau Avenue were constructed in 1946 and are scheduled for reconstruction this year. These facilities have reached the end of their economic life-cycle.

Proposed Plan

Lansdowne Avenue could comfortably carry the existing traffic volume as a two-lane road. Accordingly, it is proposed to narrow the road approximately two metres on each side, generally as indicated in the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2199 dated June 10, 1998. In addition, it is proposed to plant a row of trees in each boulevard approximately one metre away from the existing curbs. As the trees mature, this would gradually transform the appearance of the street.

Parking will be retained on the west side, and the existing evening peak parking prohibition will be rescinded, so that parking is available 24 hours per day. There are two bus stops on the east side of the street and four on the west. On the east side, two-metre wide bus bays will be provided (so that at bus stops, the existing curb location will not change). No special provisions are needed to accommodate buses on the west side, as statutory "No Standing" regulations are already in place at the bus stops.

Consultation and Approval Process

Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller will be hosting a public meeting on July 14, 1998 to solicit feedback from residents. Discussions with TTC and emergency services staff have been initiated and will continue as necessary. Any modifications which are found to be desirable or necessary can be reported to subsequent meetings of Community Council or City Council.

This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environment Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

The narrowing of the pavement on Lansdowne Avenue constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provision of the Municipal Act. The statutory requirements of The Municipal Act provide that notice of the intent to enact a by-law in respect of the work shall be published once a week for 4 successive weeks and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. Having regard to these statutory requirements coupled with the schedule of Council meetings for the months of August and September, it will be necessary to begin advertising the proposed alteration after endorsement by the Toronto Community Council on June 24, 1998, but prior to City Council approval on July 8. Specifically, it is recommended that this matter be advertised during the weeks of June 29, July 6, July13 and July 20, 1998, and be scheduled as a deputation item for the July 22, 1998, meeting of the Toronto Community Council, with final approval by City Council on July 29, 1998. Adhering to this schedule will allow work to commence in August, prior to the commencement of the school year in September. Of course, should City Council not endorse the plan at its July 8, 1998 meeting, the advertising would be discontinued.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Macbeth, Manager

Transportation Management Section, 392-1799

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Pavement Narrowing on Lansdowne Avenue

18

Installation of Speed Bumps in Public Laneways (Davenport)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 8, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on requests for the installation of speed bumps in various public laneways.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This work is an element of an ongoing annual programme and the cost is accommodated in the 1998 Capital Programme for Public Laneway improvements.

Recommendations:

(1)That the installation of a speed bump of the type and design noted herein and at the location shown in Table "A" of this report be approved; and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

City Works Services has received a request regarding the feasibility of installing an additional speed bump in the public lane between Goodwood and Ascot Avenues, west of Dufferin Street. The attached Table "A" and associated drawing No. 421F-5180 detail this location, which meets the criteria for the installation of a speed bump.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, 392-7878

________

TABLE "A"

Adjustment

WardLocation

21Lane system bounded by Goodwood Avenue, Dufferin Street, Ascot Avenue and Boon Avenue (Ward 21), as shown on Drawing No. 421F-5180.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Speed Bump and Sign Layout Goodwood/Ascot Avenue

19

Installation/Removal of On-Street

Disabled Persons Parking Spaces

(Davenport, Don River, East Toronto, Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June8,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on requests for the installation/removal of a number of disabled on-street parking spaces.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the installation/removal of disabled on-street parking spaces as noted in Table "A" of this report be approved; and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

City Works Services has investigated the feasibility of installing/removing a number of on-street disabled persons parking spaces at various locations as outlined on the attached Table "A" of this report.

All applicants are holders of valid disabled persons parking permits as issued by the Ministry of Transportation and the designated space will not result in the deprivation of more than one on-street parking space. Locations where on-street disabled persons parking spaces are to be removed result from applicants moving, holding expired permits or no longer requiring these on-street parking privileges.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, 392-7878

TABLE "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

20Beatrice Street, west side, from a point 28 metres north of College Street to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. D. Jorge, a resident of Premises No. 174 Beatrice Street).

20Brock Avenue, west side, from a point 45 metres north of Wyndham Street to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. F. Luis, a resident of Premises No. 222 Brock Avenue).

20Cobourg Avenue, south side, from a point 84 metres east of Brock Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Mr. H. Barnes, resident of Premises No. 3 Cobourg Avenue).

21Kenneth Street, south side, from a point 43.5 metres west of Dundas Street West to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. M. Almeida, a resident of Premises No. 17 Kenneth Street)

25Booth Avenue, west side, from a point 90.3 metres north of Eastern Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. A. Altobelli, a resident of Premises No. 130 Booth Avenue).

25Dagmar Avenue, south side, from a point 161.5 metres west of Jones Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mrs. F. A. Timleck, a resident of Premises No. 59 Dagmar Avenue).

25Withrow Avenue, south side, from a point 266.5 metres west of Logan Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. S. Y. Hum, a resident of Premises No. 71 Withrow Avenue).

26Waverley Road, east side, from a point 139 metres south of Norway Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. M. Whalen, a resident of Premises No. 203 Waverley Road).

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

21Westport Avenue, north side, from a point 51 metres east of Old Weston Road to a point 5.5 metres further east

20

Installation of an On-Street Loading Zone for

Disabled Persons - Front No. 262 Grace Street, West Side,

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June8,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to provide access to the curb for vehicles picking up and dropping off a disabled person at this address.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That an on-street loading zone for disabled persons operating from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., daily, be established on the west side of Grace Street, from a point 187.0 metres south of Harbord Street to a point 8.0 metres further south; and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone on behalf of Mrs. Evelyn Ivey of Premises No. 262 Grace Street, Works has investigated establishing a designated on-street loading zone for disabled persons in front of the above noted premises.

Mrs. Ivey requires the use of Wheeltrans transportation on a regular basis. Parking is currently allowed on the west side of Grace Street. Vehicles generally occupy the curb parking areas near Premises No. 262 Grace Street. Wheeltrans vehicles have difficulty accessing a space at the curb to pick-up or drop-off Mrs. Ivey with the result that they must stop within the traveled portion of the roadway, on a curved section of the street, obstructing traffic flow and creating a potentially hazardous situation for other traffic and Wheeltrans passengers.

To rectify this situation, a designated on-street loading zone for a disabled person should be established on the west side of Grace Street, fronting Premises No. 262 operating from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Those time periods required by the constituent for pick-up/drop-off purposes).

I note that this loading zone could be used by any vehicle displaying a valid disabled persons parking permit while actively engaged in loading activities but does not allow such a vehicle to park at this location.

The implementation of this proposal will eliminate two parking spaces during the above noted times but should not significantly inconvenience visitors or permit parkers as parking will be allowed at other times.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, 392-7771, Traffic Investigator

21

Implementation of Parking Regulations

- Burnside Drive (Midtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June8,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the frequency of long term non-resident parking on Burnside Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking be restricted to a maximum period of sixty minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the south, east, north and west sides (the inner crescent) of Burnside Drive from Bathurst Street (north intersection) to Bathurst Street (south intersection); and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

Councillor Ila Bossons has requested that Works staff review and take appropriate action to implement parking regulations on Burnside Drive which would reduce the occurrence of all-day long term non-resident parking.

Burnside Drive is a two-way local street which essentially forms a crescent extending west from Bathurst Street at a point 100 metres south of Alcina Avenue and re-intersecting with Bathurst Street at a point 50 metres further south. Parking is prohibited at anytime on north, west, south and east sides of Burnside Drive (outer sides of the crescent). Parking is allowed to a maximum period of three hours at anytime on the south, east, north and west sides of Burnside Drive (inner sides of the crescent). The permit parking system is not in effect on this street.

Site inspection conducted by Works staff has confirmed that long term non-resident parking is occurring on Burnside Drive, allegedly to a certain degree by T.T.C. employees working at the Hillcrest Yard, located one block south at Bathurst Street and Davenport Road.

Accordingly, in order to discourage long term parking on Burnside Drive, parking should be restricted to a maximum period of sixty minutes, as contained in the above Recommendation No.1.

This regulation would be consistent with the regulations in effect on the majority of residential streets in the area. However, I note that residents and their guests will not be exempt from this parking restriction and would be subject to enforcement if parked for longer than one hour during the effective time period.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Thomas L. McCulloch, Traffic Investigator

392-7771

22

Rescindment of the "No Parking, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.,

Monday to Friday" Prohibition - East Side of Ossington Avenue,

from Hallam Street to Davenport Road (Davenport)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June9,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To consider a request to rescind the morning "opposite side" (off-peak) rush hour parking prohibition, noted above, to create additional parking opportunities for area residents.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday" parking prohibition on the east side of Ossington Avenue be adjusted to operate from Queen Street West to Hallam Street; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of area residents, City Works Services has investigated the feasibility of rescinding the "opposite side" (off-peak) parking prohibition on the east side of Ossington Avenue, from Hallam Street to Davenport Road, to allow area residents to park their vehicles on this section of roadway during weekday mornings.

Ossington Avenue is a two-way four lane arterial roadway with a pavement width of 12.8 metres and a posted speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Daily traffic volumes average 12,000 vehicles and the Toronto Transit Commission provides regularly scheduled bus service.

Parking and Stopping are prohibited on the east side of the street from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, respectively. Parking where otherwise permitted is allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

Parking on the west side of this section of roadway is prohibited at anytime and Stopping is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday.

Rescindment of the northbound "opposite side" (off-peak) prohibition, as noted in Recommendation No. 1 above, would result in reduced roadway capacity for northbound traffic on this section of street. However, average northbound "opposite side" off-peak volumes (roughly 330 vehicles per hour) are well within capacity levels (approximately 700 vehicles/hour/lane of traffic).

Accordingly, the impact on northbound traffic operations and levels of service associated with Toronto Transit Commission buses should be minor. A total of three T.T.C. bus stops operate on the east side of Ossington Avenue, from Hallam Street to Davenport Road. All statutory parking regulations such as those associated with T.T.C. stop locations, corner parking prohibitions, fire hydrants and traffic control signals, as well as the "No Stopping, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday prohibition, noted above, would remain in effect.

Implementation of east-side off-peak parking within the above block parameters would not negatively impact on studies to consider the feasibility of implementing bicycle lanes on both sides of Ossington Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth, Senior Traffic Investigator

392-7771

23

Implementation of Alternate Side Parking

Silverthorn Avenue and Blackthorn Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, received this Clause.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June9,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To increase parking opportunity at certain times on Silverthorn Avenue and Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to the northerly limit of the Davenport Ward and to enhance street cleaning opportunity on both sides of these streets.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That alternate side parking be implemented on Silverthorn Avenue and Blackthorn Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to the northerly limit of the Davenport Ward by rescinding and implementing as required, the parking regulations outlined in Appendix "A" (attached); and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, Works staff have investigated implementing alternate side parking on Silverthorn Avenue and on Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to the northerly limit of Davenport Ward (the former municipal boundary between Toronto and York).

Silverthorn Avenue

Silverthorn Avenue operates one-way southbound between Rowntree Avenue and the first lane north of St. Clair Avenue West, two-way between the lane and St. Clair Avenue West, and two-way between Rowntree Avenue and the northerly limit of the Davenport Ward (32.6 metres north of Rowntree Avenue), on a variable pavement width of 7.3 to 10.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side of the street and on the west side from St. Clair Avenue West to Pryor Avenue and from Rowntree Avenue to the northerly limit of the Davenport Ward. Parking is otherwise permitted on the west side of Silverthorn Avenue to a maximum period of three hours, except between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. daily when permit parking regulations apply.

On the west side of the street there are currently 70 on-street parking spaces. An additional 3 parking spaces could be provided north of Rowntree Avenue for a total of 73 spaces on the west side. There are potentially 72 parking spaces on the east side of the street.

As you may be aware, for practicable purposes, the inventory of available on-street permit parking spaces on streets where alternate side parking is in effect, must reflect the side of the street with the least number of spaces (i.e. 72 spaces on the east side). Accordingly, there would be a net gain of 2 permit parking spaces if the 3 additional spaces were provided on the west side and alternate side parking was implemented.

Parking is presently permitted at anytime on the west side of Silverthorn Avenue in front of S.A.D.R.A. Park (3 spaces). In the interest of safety, parking should be prohibited at this location except during the hours of permit parking operation (12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Similarly, if alternate side parking is implemented, parking should be prohibited except during the hours of permit parking operation on the east side of Silverthorn Avenue fronting the park.

Blackthorn Avenue

Blackthorn Avenue has a variable pavement width of 7.3 to 8.5 metres and operates one-way northbound between the first lane north of St. Clair Avenue West and Rowntree Avenue, and two-way between Rowntree Avenue and the northerly limit of the Davenport Ward (32.6 m north of Rowntree Avenue) and between St. Clair Avenue West and the first lane north. Parking, as reflected in the field, is prohibited at anytime on the east side of Blackthorn Avenue and on the west side from a point 92 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 45 metres north of the north limit of S.A.D.R.A. Park. Parking is otherwise permitted on the west side to a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, between St. Clair Avenue West and a point 92 metres north and to a maximum period of three hours on the remainder of the west side, except during the hours of permit parking operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily.

There are currently a total of 60 on-street parking spaces on the west side of the street and a potential of 81 parking spaces on the east side of the street.

Again, given that alternate side parking is in effect, the inventory of available on-street permit parking spaces must reflect the side of the street with the least number of spaces (i.e. 60 spaces on the west side) and therefore, no additional parking permits could be made available to area residents, even though an increase of 21 parking spaces would result when parking is permitted on the east side.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Appendix "A"

In order to implement alternate side parking on Silverthorn Avenue and Blackthorn Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to the northerly limit of Davenport Ward, it is recommended that the parking regulations on these streets be amended as follows:

Silverthorn Avenue:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the east side of Silverthorn Avenue from a point 52 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 32.6 metres north of Rowntree Avenue (former N.C.L.), be rescinded;

(2)That parking on the east side of Silverthorn Avenue from a point 52 metres north of St.Clair Avenue West to a point 32.6 metres north of Rowntree Avenue be prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, from April 1^st to November 30^th and at anytime from December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next following year inclusive;

(3)That parking on the west side of Silverthorn Avenue from Pryor Avenue to a point 32.6 metres north of Rowntree Avenue, be prohibited from the 16^th day to the last day of each month from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive;

(4)That parking be prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. daily on the east side of Silverthorn Avenue from a point 129 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 26.5 metres further north (fronting S.A.D.R.A. Park);

(5)That parking be prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. daily on the west side of Silverthorn Avenue from a point 136 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 25 metres further north (fronting S.A.D.R.A. Park);

(6)That the permit parking system on Silverthorn Avenue operate on an alternate side basis from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily;

Blackthorn Avenue:

(7)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the east side of Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to a point 32.6 metres north of Rowntree Avenue (former N.C.L.) be rescinded;

(8)That parking on the east side of Blackthorn Avenue from St.Clair Avenue West to Rowntree Avenue be prohibited from the 16^th day to the last day of each month from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive;

(9)That parking on the east side of Blackthorn Avenue from Rowntree Avenue to a point 32.6 metres north of Rowntree Avenue be prohibited from the 16^th day to the last day of each month from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive and at anytime from December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next following year inclusive;

(10) That parking on the east side of Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to a point 84 metres north be permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, from the 1^st to the 15^th of each month from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive and from December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next following year;

(11)That parking on the west side of Blackthorn Avenue from Rowntree Avenue to a point 32.6 metres north of Rowntree Avenue be prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive;

(12)That parking on the west side of Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to a point 92 metres further north and from a point 45 metres north of the north limit of S.A.D.R.A. Park to Rowntree Avenue be prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive and at anytime from December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next following year inclusive;

(13)That the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the west side of Blackthorn Avenue from a point 76.2 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 61 metres further north be adjusted to apply from a point 92 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 45 metres north of the north limit of S.A.D.R.A. Park;

(14)That the "One hour 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday" parking regulation on the west side of Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to a point 92 metres north be adjusted to operate from the 16^th day to the last day of each month from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive; and

(15)That the permit parking system on Blackthorn Avenue operate on an alternate side basis from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily.

24

Naming of the Proposed Temporary Street -

and Authorization of Traffic and Parking Regulations

- Simcoe Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following reports (June10,1998) from the City Engineer, City Works Services and (June 10, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from the City Engineer, Toronto Works Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the proposed temporary public street, 151.2 metres north of Pullan Place extending easterly from St. Patrick Street to Simcoe Street, be named "Simcoe Street". The naming of the proposed temporary street will assist motorists in locating the portion of Simcoe Street, north of the Canada Life lands at 190 Simcoe Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the proposed temporary public street, 151.2 metres north of Pullan Place extending easterly from St. Patrick Street to Simcoe Street, illustrated on MAP A attached, be named "Simcoe Street", and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Background:

I have a request from Phillip L. Sanford of McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers and Solicitors (Suite 4700, Toronto Dominion Bank Tower, Toronto M5K 1E6) on behalf of the Canada Life Assurance Company, to name the proposed temporary street illustrated on MAP A attached, "Simcoe Street".

The approved redevelopment of the Canada Life lands involves the closing of a portion of Simcoe Street, north of Pullan Place, to vehicular traffic. The proposed temporary street, to be conveyed to the City, will provide vehicular access to the portion of Simcoe Street north of the Canada Life lands. A permanent street will be built at a later date, just south of the temporary street.

Comments:

As a result of the proposed closing of Simcoe Street, north of Pullan Place, to vehicular traffic, motorists travelling northerly from Queen Street West will have to access Simcoe Street, north of the Canada Life lands, via St. Patrick Street and the temporary street. Naming the temporary street "Simcoe Street" is acceptable as this would facilitate vehicular traffic continuity between the northerly and southerly legs of Simcoe Street via St. Patrick Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416) 392-1831

Fax: (416) 392-0081

E-mail: dechristo(@)city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Simcoe Street

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize traffic and parking regulations on the new east-west leg of Simcoe Street between Simcoe Street and St. Patrick Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That subject to the lay out, dedication and naming of the Simcoe Street extension, the following traffic regulations be implemented:

(a) The new street be designated for a one-way eastbound traffic operation;

(b) Parking be prohibited at anytime on both sides ;

(c) The speed limit be established at 40 kilometres per hour;

(d) A "Stop" sign be installed for eastbound traffic at the new intersection with the north-south section of Simcoe Street;

(e) A "Stop" sign be installed for northbound Simcoe Street traffic, immediately to the south of the new street; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Background:

The Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of September 16, 1996, authorized the closing and conveyancing of portions of the Simcoe Street road allowance between Dundas Street West and Queen Street West, the establishment of a pedestrian way north of Pullan Place and the establishment of a new east-west road between Simcoe Street and St. Patrick Street (Clause 9 of City Services Committee Report No.11, adopted as amended by City Council on September 16, 1996).

Comments:

The work is being carried out in connection with the redevelopment of the Canada Life Head office complex between University Avenue and St. Patrick Street, north of Queen Street West and a Section37 Agreement between the City and Canada Life was executed on October 3, 1997.

The first phase of the redevelopment is underway and construction of the new east-west link, located approximately 230 metres north of Queen Street West, between Simcoe Street and St. Patrick Street by Canada Life is nearing completion. It is anticipated that the lands will be conveyed to the City shortly and the necessary bills in respect of the closing of the Simcoe Street right-of-way and lay out and dedication of the new east-west link will be before City Council at its meeting of July 8,1998. It is expected that the east-west leg of Simcoe Street will be opened to vehicular traffic in mid-July. Accordingly, it is appropriate to introduce traffic and parking regulations for the new street as set out in Recommendation No 1, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra

Manager of Programmes

392-7711

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it, during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (June 17, 1998) from Mr. Phillip L. Sanford, McCarthy Tétrault, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

25

Construction of an Underground Pedestrian Tunnel

Connecting the Building at 11 King Street West and

the Existing Pedestrian Tunnel at 21 Melinda Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June10,1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the construction of an underground pedestrian tunnel under and across Melinda Street, connecting the building at 11 King Street West to the existing underground pedestrian tunnel at 21Melinda Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the construction of an underground pedestrian tunnel under and across Melinda Street, connecting the building at 11 King Street West (Hammerson building) to the adjacent existing pedestrian tunnel at 21 Melinda Street (Commerce Court), subject to the respective owners of the buildings, Hammerson Canada Inc., Suite 1005, 70 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5J2M4 and National Trust Company, CIBC Development Corp. Realty Taxation, P.O. Box 109, Station Commerce Court Toronto, Ontario M5L 1E2, and such other licensees as may be required by the City Solicitor to:

(a)indemnify the City of Toronto from and against all actions, suits, claims or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges and expenses that may result from such permission granted;

(b)maintain the tunnel in good and proper repair and a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c)remove the tunnel upon receiving notice so to do with the understanding that the City shall not give such notice in the first 75 years following completion of the tunnel or for the life of the buildings at 11 King Street West and 21 Melinda Street, whichever period is less;

(d)permit additions to such tunnel to allow additional buildings to be serviced, and to permit and pay for such alterations and modifications to such tunnel as may be required at any time by the City to serve the public interest;

(e)pay an annual rental fee, as determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(f)accept such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interest of the Corporation;

(g)make any amendments to the agreement (July 9, 1969) for the existing underground tunnel that may be required as a result of this new tunnel connection; and

(h)relocate any underground pipes or other connections that may be required to facilitate the construction of the new tunnel connection to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Background:

An encroachment agreement was entered into on July 9, 1969, with the property owners of the Commerce Court building at 21 Melinda Street for the construction and maintenance of an underground pedestrian tunnel under and across Melinda and Jordan Streets. This tunnel provides pedestrian access from the buildings at 21 Melinda Street, forming Commerce Court; to the King-Yonge Subway Station.

Comments:

Mr. Lou Micheff of Hammerson Canada Inc., 70 University Avenue, Suite 1005, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2M4, submitted an application requesting permission to construct a tunnel link under and across Melinda Street to connect into the existing Commerce Court tunnel. The proposed tunnel connection will measure 6.6 m in length, and extend 0.46 m into the City street allowance.

This new tunnel link will provide direct access from the Hammerson building (11 King Street West) into the existing Commerce Court tunnel at 21 Melinda Street.

Conclusions:

As this underground pedestrian tunnel will not impact negatively on the Melinda Street right-of-way, it should be permitted, subject to the owners of 11 King Street West and 21 Melinda Street entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon 392-7894

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Re:39

26

Rescinding of "No Parking Regulation" -

Montrose Avenue West of North Beatrice Street

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the "No Parking Regulations" on the northern section of Montrose Avenue (west of North Beatrice Street and fronting numbers 296 to 300) be rescinded; and

(2)City officials take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 17, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone:

Recommendations:

(1)That the "No Parking Regulations" on the northern section of Montrose Avenue (West of North Beatrice Street and fronting numbers 296 to 300) be rescinded; and

(2)Those city officials give effect thereto.

Parking prohibitions between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM are usually placed in front of schools for safety reasons. The 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM "No Parking Regulations" on Montrose Avenue, north of north Beatrice Street fulfills this purpose because of the presence of Montrose Avenue Public School. However, the same prohibition south of North Beatrice Street on Montrose Avenue should not be required for issues of safety.

Because of the above and because of request from the owner occupant of 304 Montrose Avenue, I would appreciate if the regulations on this section of Montrose Avenue could amended as recommended above.

27

Lifting of a Ban Respecting Special Occasion Permit

Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes -

Ted Reeve Community Area and the Toronto East

Arena Gardens Incorporated (East Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Chapter 25 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to permit the use of special occasion permits issued under the Liquor Licence Act at Ted Reeve Community Arena, where such permits have been first approved by the Committee of Management of the Arena, subject to amending the agreement between the City and The Toronto East Arena Gardens Incorporated.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 11, 1998) from Mr. John Sillers, Ted Reeve Community Arena and The Toronto East Arena Gardens Incorporated:

Purpose:

I have been authorized by the Committee of Management, Ted Reeve Community Arena, and The Toronto East Arena Gardens Incorporated to request that the use of special occasion permits issued under the Liquor Licence Act be permitted at Ted Reeve Community Arena where such permits have been first approved by the Committee of Management.

Background:

The cost of the construction of Ted Reeve Community Arena was funded in part by contributions made by the residents of East Toronto to the Toronto East Arena Gardens Incorporated, a non-profit body incorporated for the purpose of assisting in the establishment of an Arena and park in East Toronto for the benefit of the public. Pursuant to an agreement dated October 12, 1954, between the former City of Toronto and the Arena Gardens Corporation, a board was established by the former City under the then Community Centres Act to operate and maintain the arena and the Arena Gardens Corporation agreed to pay to the City the balance of the funds collected on account of the capital cost of Arena. Section 4 of this agreement specifically prohibits the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Arena.

The general policy of the former City respecting alcohol at community and recreation centres as set out in its Municipal Code prohibits the sale, dispensing or consumption of alcohol except under a special occasion permit first approved by the Board or Committee operating the centre (Section 25-11F). However, in accordance with 1954 agreement with the Arena Gardens Corporation, the Municipal Code establishes a special standard for Ted Reeve Community Arena which prohibits the Committee from approving such permits (Section 25-13F). I am not aware of any other municipal community or recreation centre in the city which is subject to such a ban.

Discussion:

Included in certain improvements currently underway at the Arena is the enlargement and upgrading of a room, known as the Earl Robertson Room, located on the second floor overlooking the ice surface. Upon completion of the work, the ER Room will be well equipped for the holding of social and other events. The use of special occasion permits in appropriate circumstances approved by the Committee of Management would enhance the use and enjoyment of the Arena by its various users which in turn would increase the revenue needed to finance the overall operations of the facility.

Conclusion:

The ban of the use of special occasion permits at Ted Reeve Community Arena is no longer defensible. This anomalous situation can be corrected simply by amending the Municipal Code and the agreement with the Arena Gardens Corporation to delete the ban.

Your early and favourable consideration of this request of the Committee of Management and the Arena Gardens Corporation is respectfully requested.

28

Request for Stop Signs - Emerson Avenue

at the Intersections of Armstrong Avenue and

Millicent Street (Davenport)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that "Stop" signs be installed for southbound traffic on Emerson Avenue at its intersections with Armstrong Avenue and Millicent Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 13, 1998) from Councillor Disero:

The report for the introduction of stop signs on Emerson Avenue, at the intersections of Armstong Avenue and Millicent Street was before the last Toronto Community Council of May 27, 1998.

As I was unable to attend the meeting that day, I had asked for the item to be deferred, however, Toronto Community Council "received" it.

Could you please put it back on the agenda for the next Community Council of June 24, for further discussion.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To consider a request to install "Stop" signs for southbound traffic on Emerson Avenue at its intersections with Armstrong Avenue and Millicent Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of area residents, Works staff have investigated installing "Stop" signs for southbound traffic on Emerson Avenue at its intersections with Armstrong Avenue and Millicent Street.

Emerson Avenue from Lappin Avenue to Wallace Avenue operates one-way southbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Both Armstrong Avenue and Millicent Street operate one-way eastbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and intersect with Emerson Avenue to form "T"-type intersections with Emerson Avenue being the through street.

Intersection of Emerson Avenue and Armstrong Avenue

A recent peak 8-hour traffic survey conducted by Works staff recorded a total of 622 vehicles travelling southbound on Emerson Avenue at Armstrong Avenue with 124 of these vehicles turning left on to Armstrong Avenue. No pedestrians were recorded crossing Emerson Avenue during the survey, however, 85 adults and 14 children were recorded crossing north/south on the east side of Emerson Avenue at Armstrong Avenue.

A check of Toronto Police Service accident records from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 (the most recent data available) revealed no reported accidents at the subject intersection.

Works staff have evaluated this intersection against the technical criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs which encompass such factors as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience. This intersection does not satisfy the operational elements for the installation of a "Stop" sign for southbound traffic on Emerson Avenue. In particular, given the "T" shape layout and the one-way designations of these two intersecting streets, the only traffic entering this intersection is from the southbound approach on Emerson Avenue and consequently, there are no right-of-way conflicts that warrant the installation of a "Stop" sign at this intersection.

Intersection of Emerson Avenue and Millicent Street

A recent peak 8-hour traffic survey conducted by Works staff revealed a total of 533 vehicles travelling southbound on Emerson Avenue at Millicent Street. Of these 533 vehicles, 122 turned left on to Millicent Street. A total of 20 pedestrians, 19 adults and 1 child were recorded crossing Emerson Avenue and a total of 99 pedestrians, 96 adults and 3 children were recorded crossing north/south on the east side of Emerson Avenue at Millicent Street.

An examination of Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersection from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 revealed no reported accidents.

Works staff have evaluated this intersection against the technical criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs which encompass such factors as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience. This intersection does not satisfy the operational elements for the installation of a "Stop" sign for southbound traffic on Emerson Avenue. Again, given the "T" shape layout and the one-way designations of these two intersecting streets, the only traffic entering this intersection is from the southbound approach on Emerson Avenue, and consequently, there are no right-of-way conflicts that warrant the installation of a "Stop" sign at this intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch,, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

29

Change of On-Street Overnight Permit

Parking Hours on the West Side of Christie

(South of Barton Avenue) (Davenport)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)in order to allow non-permit holders the opportunity to park on Christie Street, between Barton Avenue and Bloor Street West after midnight, the existing permit parking hours of 12:01 a.m to 7:00 a.m. on the west side of Christie Street (south of Barton Avenue) be adjusted so as to operate between the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 7:00a.m.; and

(2)City Officials take appropriate action to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (undated) from Councillor Disero:

The subject section of Christie Street is within permit parking area "5A" where to date, 794 permits have been issued against a total of 953 available on-street spaces. Specifically, on the subject section of Christie Street, there are 0 permits issued against a total of 37 available on-street parking spaces.

In view of the above, it would appear that the recommended adjustment of permit parking regulations would not negatively impact on existing residential parking conditions on the subject section of Christie Street.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (June 16, 1998) addressed to the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Section, City Works Services from Councillor Disero:

I have received a request from Councillor Joe Pantalone to change the current on-street overnight permit parking from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. to "2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m."

The purpose for this request is that since the Ukrainian Cultural Centre is a community facility whereby events are regularly held on weekends i.e., weddings, etc., people attending the events are being ticketed, if they stay past midnight.

Could you please investigate the feasibility of this request and report your findings to me.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

30

Pilot Project to Provide for More Garbage Cans

to be Placed on St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that all revenues received by the contractor be transferred to the City of Toronto.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the pilot litter receptacle and garbage storage receptacle program described in the report (June 12, 1998) from the Director of Operations and Sanitation, City Works Services be approved;

(2) the pilot project extend from approximately August 1 to December 31, 1998; that all pilot litter and garbage receptacles be removed at the end of the pilot; and that approval of the pilot project have no effect on any program for provision of litter and garbage receptacles elsewhere in the City at any time and in this area after December31, 1998;

(3) authorization be given for the provision of approximately 20 advertising litter receptacles by Olifas Marketing Group Inc., at no cost to the City, for the duration of the pilot;

(4) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Toronto Community Council on the results of the pilot project following its completion; and

(5) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including entering into a contract in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Recommendation No. (3) was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Disero, Fotinos, Jakobek, McConnell, Pantalone, Silva - 9

Nays:Councillors Bussin, Chow, Johnston, Layton, Miller, Walker - 6

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit the previously requested report on the shortage of garbage receptacles in certain areas of the City, to the meeting of the Toronto Community Council to be held on July 22, 1998.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 22, 1998) from the Director of Operations and Sanitation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To provide an alternate method of providing additional litter receptacles on St. Clair Avenue West on a pilot basis.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

If City-owned litter receptacles are used in a pilot project, there will be no additional costs to the City.

Recommendation:

If it is decided to proceed with a pilot project with more litter receptacles on St. Clair Avenue West, that City-owned receptacles be used.

Council Reference/Background/History:

A separate report to your Community Council (June 12, 1998) entitled "Pilot Project to Provide for More Garbage Cans to be Placed on St. Clair Avenue West (Ward 21 - Davenport)" recommends that a pilot project be carried out using litter receptacles provided by Olifas Marketing Group Inc. and displaying advertising.

The former City of Toronto carried out a tender process in 1995 which contemplated the placement of advertising on refuse collection vehicles, litter receptacles and other street furniture. The former City of Toronto Council decided not to proceed with such a program (Clause 25, contained in Executive Committee Report No. 15, adopted by City Council at its meeting of June 5 and 6, 1995.)

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

While the proposal to use litter receptacles with advertising in a pilot project on St. Clair Avenue West was intended to provide experience with this option and to obtain input from residents, it may be perceived as pre-empting any decision by City Council on the general issue of advertising on the street allowance and City vehicles. Staff will report separately to the appropriate Committee of City Council on this overall issue.

In order to avoid a conflict between the pilot project and any decision by City Council regarding the provision of litter receptacles with advertising on the road allowance, it is recommended that, if the pilot project is to proceed, it be carried out using City-owned litter receptacles. There are sufficient City-owned receptacles in inventory to carry out the pilot project.

Conclusion:

The pilot project on St. Clair Avenue West should proceed using City-owned litter receptacles.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Warren

Director of Operations and Sanitation

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone (416) 392-1846

Fax (416) 392-0396

E-Mail "jwarren2@city.toronto.on.ca"

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (June 12, 1998) from the Director of Operations and Sanitation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To establish a procedure to install additional litter receptacles on St. Clair Avenue West and determine whether the installation of these litter receptacles reduces littering and garbage accumulation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The implementation of the pilot project recommended in this report will not result in additional costs to the City. The assessment of the pilot project will include analysis regarding the relative costs of increased numbers of litter receptacles versus street cleaning costs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the pilot litter receptacle and garbage storage receptacle program described in this report be approved;

(2) the pilot project extend from approximately August 1 to December 31, 1998 and that all pilot litter and garbage receptacles be removed at the end of the pilot;

(3) authorization be given for the provision of approximately 20 advertising litter receptacles by Olifas Marketing Group Inc., at no cost to the City, for the duration of the pilot;

(4) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Toronto Community Council on the results of the pilot project following its completion; and

(5) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of May 6 and 7, 1998, the Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

"(1)to report to the Toronto Community Council to be held on June 24, 1998 on:

(a)a pilot project that would provide for more garbage cans to be placed on St. Clair Avenue West between Lansdowne Avenue and Winona Drive and its impacts on litter on the street;

(b)the number of, availability of, and demand for garbage cans in the former City of Toronto; and

(2)to meet with representatives of Corso Italia BIA, Earlscourt Residents' Association, Regal Heights Residents' Association and Policy Community Partnership - 13 Division in order to discuss possibilities in this regard, and report back to the meeting of the Toronto Community Council to be held on June 24, 1998."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

1. Meeting with Representatives of Corso Italia BIA, Earlscourt Residents' Association, Regal Heights Residents' Association and Police Community Partnership - 13 Division

On June 2, 1998 a meeting convened by Councillor Betty Disero was held between Works and Emergency Services staff and representatives of the above neighbourhood and business groups. The meeting included a review of the data on litter generation and collection presented in this report and a tour of St. Clair Avenue West to observe litter conditions.

In the meeting, residents indicated that a higher density of litter receptacles might reduce littering on the street and in such locations as planters, and that mid-block litter receptacles may be of assistance in reducing littering. Litter receptacles are generally located at block ends where parking is restricted in order to facilitate emptying of the receptacles. Frequency of litter pickup and the issue of garbage set out at litter receptacles was also discussed.

It was agreed that the pilot project recommended in this report be proceeded with, subject to the approval of City Council.

2. Number, Availability and Demand for Litter Receptacles in the Toronto Community

Council Area

The current inventory of litter receptacles in the Toronto Community Council Area and the demand for their use is shown in Table1 (attached), together with the changes in numbers in recent years.

The inventory of litter receptacles increased by 25% between 1990 and 1997 and reduced somewhat in 1998 as a result of thefts of litter receptacles and the elimination of litter receptacles from low demand locations where stolen receptacles were not replaced. All stolen litter receptacles have been replaced on the street or in inventory, in accordance with the City's self insurance policy. The current cost of the litter collection operation is $1,450,000 per year, or $900 per receptacle per year. The cost of litter collection is approximately $630 per tonne. The litter receptacles are an integral part of the Toronto Community Council Area litter collection operation, as litter collection staff place collected litter in the receptacles for transfer and disposal.

The former City of Toronto Works Services and Parks Departments developed an improved litter collection system for implementation in 1999 using improved equipment subject to appropriate equipment availability. This system will result in operational savings of approximately $500,000 per year and will require the sharing of collection equipment between Works and Emergency Services and Community and Neighbourhoods Services staff. The implementation of this improved efficiency program should proceed in 1999 when new collection equipment starts to become available.

Table 1 shows that between 1990 and 1997 there was a substantial increase in on-street receptacles due to demands from neighbourhoods. While increased numbers of litter receptacles increase capital and operating costs for receptacle maintenance and operation, they may result in reduced overall littering. No definitive relationship between the existence of litter receptacles and on-street litter has been established in any City study carried out to date.

3. Pilot Project for More Garbage Cans on St. Clair Avenue West

A pilot project has been developed to both increase the density of litter receptacles on St. Clair Avenue West and monitor the impacts of locating these additional receptacles on litter conditions. The existing and proposed pilot additional receptacles are shown in Table 2, attached.

The meeting with neighbourhood representatives showed that household garbage accumulation is at least as significant an issue as litter accumulation on St. Clair Avenue West. This is also an issue in other parts of the Toronto Community Council Area. Residents of many apartments have limited storage space for garbage and do not wish to retain it in their apartments. They sometimes place garbage in and around litter receptacles. This occurs on a seven day per week basis. It is proposed to establish enclosed outdoor garbage storage containers on the road allowance at one location on St. Clair Avenue West (on the south side of the street, on the block between Lauder Avenue and Glenholme Avenue) and to work with neighbourhood residents to determine whether the provision of such storage facilities will reduce the illegal set out of garbage in and around litter receptacles. Residents will be responsible for setting out the garbage stored in containers at curbside on regular garbage collection days. On this block, a mid-block litter receptacle also will be provided on a pilot basis to determine the impact of mid-block placement of litter receptacles and operational impacts.

4. Provision of Advertising Funded Receptacles

In order to reduce the cost of the pilot program, it is proposed to use receptacles provided by OlifasMarketing Group Inc. for the pilot. Approximately 20 litter receptacles will have advertising provided on both faces. Neighbourhood residents have viewed the receptacles and have no objections to their use in the pilot. If it is decided to expand the use of such litter receptacles funded by advertising throughout the City, the cost of the City's inventory of receptacles including in-stock receptacles (approximately $2,000,000 in the Toronto Community Council Area) could be eliminated and revenues could be recovered by the City from the sale of advertising.

5. Timing and Cost of the Pilot Project

It is recommended that the pilot project run from approximately August 1 to December 31, 1998, and that a report be presented to your Community Council on the results of the pilot following its termination. At termination of the pilot project, all pilot containers should be removed. The cost of the pilot project can be accommodated within the overall budget for street cleaning in the Toronto Community Council Area.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Warren

Director of Operations and Sanitation

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone (416) 392-1846

Fax (416) 392-0396

E-Mail "jwarren2@city.toronto.on.ca"

Table 1

Litter Receptacles in the Toronto Community Council Area

* 1998 Inventory as of May 1, 1998

Table 2

Existing and Proposed Pilot Litter Receptacles

St. Clair Avenue West

From Lansdowne Avenue to Christie Street

Table 2 (Cont'd.)

Existing and Proposed Pilot Litter Receptacles

St. Clair Avenue West

From Lansdowne Avenue to Christie Street

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Michael Homsi, OMG Media; and

-Ms. Rita Gardonio.

31

Interim Appointment to the Ralph Thornton Centre

Board of Directors

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Ms. Julie Richards be appointed to the Board of Management to the Ralph Thornton Centre on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until her successor is appointed, to replace Mr. Daniel Kushner.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (May 27, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth J. Feltes, Executive Director, South Riverdale Community Health Centre:

On behalf of the Board of South Riverdale CHC I am pleased to advise you that Ms. Julie Richards would like to stand as our representative to the Ralph Thornton Board, replacing Daniel Kushner. It would be appreciated if you would advise the City of this appointment.

It is our understanding you will contact Julie directly about dates of Board Meetings.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information.

32

Tree Removal at 2022 Davenport Road (Davenport)

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City undertake to remove the tree located at 2022 Davenport Road at minimal or no charge to the owner.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 15, 1998) from Councillor Disero:

I am writing to ask for Community Council's assistance in a matter that involves a tree removal at the above-noted location.

My office requested the Forestry Department to investigate a tree complaint received on May 27, 1998. The Forestry Department informed my office that they have declared the tree as dangerous. My office has also obtained a history of the tree from Richard Ubbens, City Arborist, and it shows that for years the city pruned the tree as their own, but since becoming a hazardous claim, the tree is on private property. The tree is in very bad shape and needs to be removed as soon as possible.

My constituent's have indicated that they are willing to share in paying a "reasonable" price for the removal of the tree, but have indicated that with today's costs and the size of the tree, removal will run in the thousands of dollars.

I would like to request from Community Council that the City undertake to remove the tree, with minimal to no charge to my constituent.

33

Variance from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

291 Jane Street (High Park)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council refuse Application No. 998015 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated roof sign at 291 Jane Street.

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated roof sign at 291 Jane Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

City Council refuse Application No. 998015 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated roof sign.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of Jane Street, between Ardagh Street and Annette Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a one storey commercial building . The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated roof sign (see Figure 2). The sign has a length of 4.9 metres and a height of 2.4 metres, with an area of 11.7m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that a roof sign is not permitted in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The former City of Toronto Council adopted this prohibition on April 24, 1995 based on a study of roof signs along main streets in CR and MCR districts. Roof signs detract from the streetscape and negatively impact the skyline views along our commercial streets and views from adjacent residential districts. Signs which were legally erected prior to the passing of the by-law and which do not conform to the current sign provisions of the Municipal Code are permitted to remain as legal non-conforming.

A roof sign previously existed at this location. The original sign panels were removed but not the support structure. New sign panels have recently been erected on the existing support structure. At its meeting of April 1 and 2, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council adopted By-law 1996-0168 which further amended the sign regulations of Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code by deleting the as-of-right replacement provisions for legal non-conforming signs. City Council adopted this recommendation because it was felt that the continued replacement of non-conforming signs would serve to prolong the lifespan of signs in areas where Council had decided that they are no longer desired and by permitting the erection of new non-conforming signs, the goal of attrition would take much longer to achieve. While the signs' faces and attributes can be changed, no changes are permitted to the sign structure, location or height of legal non-conforming signs.

In this instance, while no change has occurred to the location of the sign or its support elements, new sign panels have been erected which contradicts the intent of these provisions. The applicant has been advised of other options available to display appropriate signage.

Given the prohibition of roof signs in this district and the deletion of the replacement provisions for legal non-conforming signs, I consider the requested variance to be significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code. I am, therefore, recommending that this application be refused.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

291 Jane Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

291 Jane Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

291 Jane Street

34

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

199 Richmond Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse Application No.993062 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign at 199 Richmond Street West.

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain one illuminated fascia sign at 199 Richmond Street West.

Funding Sources; Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

City Council refuse Application No. 993062 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign.

Comments:

The property is located on the south side of Richmond Street West, between Duncan Street and Simcoe Street, in a reinvestment area (RA) district. The property accommodates a four storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for third party advertising on the east elevation of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 12.2 metres and a height of 5.5 metres, with an area of 67 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the area of the sign (67 m²) exceeds the maximum area of sign permitted of 25 m² by 42 m²; and

2. the sign is located within 60 metres of another 3^rd party sign.

In 1994, the applicant was issued a permit to erect a 247 m² non-illuminated mural sign on the east elevation of the building. The applicant is currently requesting permission to maintain an illuminated fascia sign in the same location. The first variance occurs because the sign is larger than permitted by the Municipal Code. The size of sign is regulated in order to reduce the negative impact of signage on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. In this instance, the sign is more than two times the size allowed for fascia signs in this district.

The second variance occurs because the sign is located within 60 metres of two third party ground signs. The separation distance was introduced into the Municipal Code in order to prevent sign clutter. In this instance, the existing ground signs located at 181 Richmond Street and at 168 Simcoe Street, as well as the subject fascia sign are all visible to motorists travelling westbound on Richmond Street and, in my opinion, that many signs situated this close to one another is excessive and represents oversignage.

I am, therefore, recommending that this application be refused, as I find the variances requested to be significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

________

Mr. Danny Starnino, Cieslok Outdoor Ltd., appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

199 Richmond Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

199 Richmond Street West

35

Residential Demolition Application -

133 Roxborough Drive (Midtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May25,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

In accordance with former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 146, Article II, Demolition Control, I refer the demolition application for 133 Roxborough Drive to you to recommend to City Council whether to grant or refuse the application, including conditions, if any, to be attached to the permit.

Funding Sources; Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council authorize me to issue the residential demolition permit for 133 Roxborough Drive, and that the permit bear the condition that the lot be re-graded and landscaped, substantially in accordance with the May 15, 1998 landscaping plan, no later than one year after demolition of the existing building has begun.

Comments:

On May 15, 1998 John Emery applied, on behalf of the owner-in-trust, Ira Pickell, for permission to demolish the vacant, two-storey detached house at 133 Roxborough Drive.

The owner-in-trust also owns the adjacent property at 131 Roxborough Drive. He does not intend to redevelop the site, but to remove the building, re-grade and landscape the site to match the remainder of his property.

The Official Plan of the former City of Toronto encourages the physical maintenance and, where appropriate, upgrading of the existing housing stock in the City. However, at its meeting of December 18, 1995 the Council of the former City of Toronto adopted the following policy where a replacement building is not proposed or anticipated at the time of application:

Where there is no intention to rebuild, or circumstances warrant, Council may apply alternate conditions such as allowing the payment of a penalty and requiring the footprint of the demolished building be landscaped to match the remainder of the lot, or other conditions as Council may deem appropriate.

Conclusion:

I recommend that City Council authorize me to issue the residential demolition permit for 133 Roxborough Drive, on the condition that the lot be re-graded and landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan on file with me.

Contact Name:

David Brezer, P.Eng

Telephone:(416) 392-0097

Fax:(416) 392-0721

E-mail:dbrezer@city.toronto.on.ca

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. David Harrison

-Mr. John Emery; and

-Mr. Ira S. Pickell .

36

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code

(High Park, Downtown, East Toronto, North Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following reports from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(May 20, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated fascia sign at 1390 Queen Street West.

Funding Sources; Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998008 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998008, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north side of Queen Street West, between O'Hara Avenue and Brock Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a three storey mixed-use building with residential units on the uppermost storey and commercial uses below.

The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign on the first floor of the building (see Figure 3). The sign has a length of 5.2 metres and a height of 1.2 metres, with an area of 6.2 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it is not located entirely on a wall that is part of the commercial unit.

The Municipal Code requires signs to be located on the portion of wall belonging to a particular commercial unit so that each commercial unit is allowed to be identified. In this instance, the sign extends over the doorway which provides access to the second and third floors. However, its location does not preclude the provision of appropriate signage for other commercial tenants in this building.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1390 Queen Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1390 Queen Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 3

1390 Queen Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 4

1390 Queen Street West

(June 10, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign at 48 Yonge Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998039 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998039, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-west corner of Yonge Street and Wellington Street West, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 12 storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to install a new fascia sign consisting of individual letters and corporate logo on the east elevation of the building (see Figure 1). The new sign would reflect a change in the name of the commercial operation from "Sun Alliance" to "Royal & SunAlliance" and would be located in the same location as the existing sign which is to be removed. The sign has a length of 6.1 metres and a height of 1.6 metres, with an area of 9.7 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it will be located above the second storey of the building. The intent of this provision is to prevent oversignage and to limit the possible negative impact of signage on the streetscape. In this instance, no reasonable opportunities for signage exist within the fist two storeys. Further, the modestly sized sign would be non-illuminated and would be in keeping with other signs along this section of Yonge Street, which I consider acceptable.

I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

48 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

48 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

48 Yonge Street

(May 22, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain two non-illuminated projecting signs at 337 Queen Street West.

Funding Sources; Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998032 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain two non-illuminated projecting signs.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998032, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the south side of Queen Street West, between Peter Street and John Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a three storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain two non-illuminated projecting banner signs on the Queen Street elevation of the building (see Figure 2). The signs each have a length of 0.9 metres and a height of 3.6 metres, with an area of 3.2 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the aggregate area of the signs (5.1 m²) exceeds the permitted area of 0.6 m² by 4.5m²; and

2.the signs project 1.3 metres over a public sidewalk instead of 1.0 metre.

The variances relate to the size of the signs and the extent of their projection over the sidewalk. The maximum area for a projecting sign is based on the amount of frontage the unit has on the street.

The banner signs run lengthwise on the building face within the second storey. Although larger than permitted, the signs have been designed to complement the proportions of this narrow three storey building and to align with the adjacent windows and, in my opinion, do not negatively impact upon the building or the streetscape.

Respecting the second variance, the signs are located 2.7 metres above grade and therefore pedestrians are not negatively affected. Further the signs are in keeping with other signs along this section of Queen Street in terms of their projection.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

337 Queen Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

337 Queen Street West

(June 9, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain one illuminated projecting sign at 14 Duncan Street.

Funding Sources; Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998029 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated projecting sign, on condition that the sign does not contain flashing lights.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998029, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-west corner of Duncan and Pearl Streets, in a reinvestment area (RA) district. The property accommodates a four storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated projecting sign along the Duncan Street frontage of the building (see Figures 1 and 2). The projecting sign identifies the ground floor tenant of the building. The sign has a length of 1.83 metres and a height of 3.3 metres, with an area of 6.03 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that:

1.the sign exceeds the permitted area of 0.1 square metre for each metre of the building frontage of the commercial unit. The permitted area is 0.92 square metres and the actual area is 6.03 square metres;

2.the sign exceeds the permitted thickness of 0.5 metres with an actual thickness of 0.939 metres; and

3.the sign overhangs a pedestrian walkway by more than 1 metre, with the actual projection being 2.13 metres.

Two other variances relating to animation of the sign and height from grade, which previously existed, have been eliminated by the applicant, who will be modifying the sign to bring it into closer compliance with the Municipal Code requirements.

The maximum area for a projecting sign is based on the amount of frontage the unit has on the street. The original proposal has been revised to reduce the area variance. Any further reduction of the area would require a new sign to be built, rather than a modification to the existing sign. The proposed area is acceptable.

The variances relating to thickness of sign and projection over the pedestrian walkway are acceptable. Neither variance will affect pedestrian movement or views.

I am recommending approval of this application, on condition that the sign not contain flashing lights, as I find the variances requested to be acceptable in this instance and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Raymond David

Telephone: (416) 392-7188

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: rdavid@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

14 Duncan Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

14 Duncan Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

14 Duncan Street

(May 19, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated fascia sign at 400 King Street West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998034 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998034, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-east corner of King Street West and Charlotte Street, in a reinvestment area (RA)district. The property accommodates a two storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign on the south elevation of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 7.6 metres and a height of 1.3 metres, with an area of 10.1m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it is not mounted wholly against the wall of the building.

The sign consists of individual cut out illuminated letters and logo affixed to an aluminum bar which projects 0.47 metres from the wall of the building and runs across the commercial unit frontage. In this instance, the sign is located 4.7 metres above grade and therefore pedestrians are not negatively affected. Likewise, in my opinion, the sign does not negatively impact upon the streetscape.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

400 King Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

400 King Street West

(June 1, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain one illuminated awning sign at 2014 Queen Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998021 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated awning sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998021, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north side of Queen Street East, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a three storey mixed-use building containing residential uses on the upper storeys and commercial uses on the ground floor. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated awning sign on the south elevation of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 5.5 metres and a height of 1.2 metres, with an area of 6.6m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the sign is not entirely located within the tenant's commercial unit frontage;

2.the sign exceeds the maximum area of sign permitted of 30% of the first storey building face; and

3.the sign is located within 20 metres from a lot in a park district.

The first variance occurs because the sign extends over the doorway which provides access to the second and third floors. The Municipal Code requires signs to be located on the portion of wall belonging to the particular commercial unit so that each commercial unit is allowed to be identified. In this instance, however, residential uses occupy the two upper storeys and the sign does not adversely affect the tenants' enjoyment of these units.

The second variance relates to the maximum sign area permitted on the ground floor. The Municipal Code permits signs to be located within the first two storeys of a building and regulates the area of signs to 30% of the building face on the first floor and 15% of the building face on the second floor. The intent of these provisions is to limit the possible negative impact of signage on buildings and on the streetscape. In this instance, the awning sign is consistent with many of the existing signs that have been erected along this section of Queen Street and is not, in my opinion, unnecessarily prominent.

The third variance occurs because the sign does not meet the required 20 metre minimum separation distance for illuminated signs adjacent to parks. This provision respecting minimum separation distance is intended to reduce the negative impact of illuminated signs adjacent to parks. In this instance, the sign is located only 0.45 metres closer to the park than permitted and it is well within the permitted 25 m² size limit for awning signs in this district. Therefore, I consider the variance to be acceptable.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2014 Queen Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2014 Queen Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2014 Queen Street East

(May 29, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign at 416 Victoria Park Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998026 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998026, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the west side of Victoria Park Avenue, north of Kingston Road, in a residential (R2) district. The property accommodates a place of worship. The applicant is requesting permission to install one non-illuminated fascia sign on the east elevation of the building (see Figure1). The sign has a length of 1.9 metres and a height of 0.6 metres, with an area of 1.1 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it will be located 3.6 metres above grade instead of 2.0 metres.

Signs permitted in residential districts are required to be small and low in order to limit any negative impact the sign may have on the streetscape and on neighbouring residential uses. In this instance, the non-illuminated sign would be affixed to a blank side wall of the building which is substantially set back from the property line and would be located so as to be visible from the street, which I consider appropriate.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca, Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communication (June 23, 1998) from Mr. John Humphries, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

416 Victoria Park Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

416 Victoria Park Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

416 Victoria Park Avenue

(June 9, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain one illuminated fascia sign at 20 Eglinton Avenue East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 9930063 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign on condition that the sign only be illuminated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and that this be controlled by means of an automatic timing device.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 993063, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north side of Eglinton Avenue, east of Yonge Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a five storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign on the east elevation of the building for the purposes of third party advertising (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 5.8 metres and a height of 7.6 metres, with an area of 44 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the area of the sign (44 m²) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 25 m² by 19 m²; and

2.the sign extends above the fourth storey of the building.

The first variance occurs because the sign is larger than permitted by the Municipal Code. The size of sign is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. The property is situated mid-block along a commercial section of Eglinton Avenue which is characterized by tall buildings and a variety of sign types. The sign is located on a blank side wall of the building and is appropriately sized in order to be visible in this mid-block location.

The second variance occurs because the sign is higher than permitted by the Municipal Code. On October 6 & 7, 1997, the former City of Toronto Council amended the sign regulations of Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code to limit the height of third party fascia and mural signs on the side walls of buildings to a maximum of four storeys or 15 metres above grade in CR and MCR districts. This new regulation is aimed at preserving the appearance of the commercial streetscape and minimizing the negative impact of illuminated signs on adjacent residential uses. The sign is located within the upper three storeys of this five storey building and does not, in my opinion, adversely impact the streetscape or the surrounding commercial uses. There are no existing residential uses in the immediate vicinity from which the sign is visible. However, the lands abutting Eglinton Avenue East are zoned to permit residential development and residential use is likely to occur on the south side of the street. Therefore, it would be appropriate to limit the hours of illumination of the existing sign.

I am recommending approval of this application with controls on the hours of illumination, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

20 Eglinton

Insert Table/Map No. 2

20 Eglinton

(June 11, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit two illuminated fascia signs and four non-illuminated projecting banner signs at 152 St. Patrick Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 997075 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated fascia signs and four non-illuminated projecting banner signs, on condition that:

(i)the fascia signs are located on the building substantially in accordance with the attached Figures 1 and 2;

(ii)the fascia sign in the form of a globe is front lit;

(iii)the fascia sign in the form of a globe has a maximum projection from the face of the building of 0.26 metres; and

(iv)the copy on the fascia sign in the form of a globe and the banner signs not include letters or numbers.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997075, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the south-west corner of Dundas Street West and St. Patrick Street, in a mixed-use (MCR) district. The property accommodates a newly constructed building containing commercial and residential uses. The applicant is requesting permission to install two illuminated fascia signs and four projecting banner signs. The proposed signs will identify the main entrance to the commercial component of the building (see Figures 1 and 2).

The fascia sign, comprised of individual letters, has an overall length of 8.4 metres and a height of 1.4 metres, with an area of 11.76 m². This sign will be back lit. The fascia sign in the form of a globe has a width of 8.4 metres and a height of 3.43 metres, with an area of 28.81 m². The 'globe' fascia sign will be front lit. The projecting banner signs each have a length of 0.9 metres and a height of 7.8 metres, with an area of 7.02 m² each.

The proposed fascia signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that:

1.the proposed fascia sign in the form of a globe will be erected above the second storey of the building and more than 10 metres above grade;

2.the area of the proposed fascia sign in the form of a globe will exceed the maximum area of sign permitted of 25 m², with an area of 28.81 m²; and

3.the proposed fascia signs will exceed the maximum aggregate area of sign permitted of 15% of the second storey building face.

The proposed projecting banner signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that:

1.the proposed projecting banner signs will be erected above the second storey of the building and more than 10 metres above grade; and

2.the aggregate area of the proposed projecting banner signs of 28.08 m² will exceed the maximum area of signs permitted of 0.1 m² per metre of building frontage by 25.94 m².

The proposed signage has undergone numerous revisions. The latest revision addresses the concerns of planning staff, respecting the size of the originally proposed sign, the height of the sign above grade and the internal illumination of the entire sign. Specifically, staff were concerned that because of these attributes the sign would detract from the prominence of the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) tower when viewed from the east along Dundas Street, which view corridor is protected in the City's Official Plan (see Location Map).

The applicant's response to the concerns of staff was to split the originally proposed sign into two components - a back lit fascia sign comprised of individual letters spelling "Village by the Grange" and above that a front lit fascia sign in the shape of a globe covered with decorative graphic images but no text. These signs are placed lower on the building than the originally proposed sign. Further, the globe is now more decorative and reads less like a commercial sign. Consequently, the 'visual weight' of the sign has also shifted downward. As a result of these changes the proposed fascia signs meet staff's minimum requirements, while providing a prominent identification for the new retail entrance to the "Village by the Grange".

The variance for the projecting banner signs are not of concern, as the banners are predominantly decorative and will emphasize the rounded shape of this portion of the building. To ensure that this remains the case, I have recommended that copy comprised of text not be permitted on the banners.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Raymond David

Telephone: (416) 392-7188, Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: rdavid@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

152 St. Patrick Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

152 St. Patrick Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

152 St. Patrick Street

37

Modifications to Plan of Subdivision -

44 Norwood Terrace (East Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June10,1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor:

Purpose:

To obtain instructions regarding an Ontario Municipal Board Motion in respect of the owner's proposal to modify the plan of subdivision to be developed at 44 Norwood Terrace.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No funds are required as a result of this report.

Recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)The City Solicitor be authorized to inform the Ontario Municipal Board that the Council of the City of Toronto has no objection to the owner's application to modify the plan of subdivision at 44 Norwood Terrace as described in the Notice of Appointment for a Motion for Directions served on the City."

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on August 12 and 13, 1996, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Toronto instructed the City Solicitor to advise the Ontario Municipal Board ( the "OMB") that the City supported the approval of the draft plan of subdivision, and associated minor variances, proposed for 44 Norwood Terrace. The OMB, by decision dated October 4, 1996, approved the draft plan of subdivision and associated minor variances. The owner of the subdivision has recently served a "Notice of Appointment for a Motion for Directions" advising that the owner will seek directions from the OMB in respect of certain changes it seeks to the proposed plan of subdivision.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Notice served on the City advises that the proposed amendments would split one of the lots, Lot 28 as approved by the OMB's 1996 decision, into two lots. Lot 28 was to have contained the only detached single family dwelling in the plan of subdivision; however, the owner now wishes to build two townhouses instead of a detached single family dwelling. The Notice also advises that technical adjustments to the variances previously granted by the OMB are required due to more accurate measurements obtained by converting the red-lined draft plan to CAD. In addition, some adjustments will also have to be made to accommodate a minor re-alignment of Street A to introduce a gentler curve in this roadway at its intersection with the easterly lane. The owner has also re-calculated the front yard setbacks to account for an oversight in the original examiner's notice, where the setbacks were not measured to the second-storey porches of Lots 1 to 13.

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has, by letter to me dated May28, 1998, advised she has no objection to the proposed amendments.

Conclusions:

As the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has advised she has no objection to the proposed amendments, I ask that I be authorized to advise the OMB that the City of Toronto has no objection to the proposed amendments.

Contact Name:

Stephen Bradley, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7790, Fax: (416) 392-0024

38

794 Bathurst Street - Court of Appeal Decision (Midtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (May 26, 1998) from the Corporation Counsel be received for information;

(2)City Council record its appreciation for the diligent and outstanding work of the professionals within the City's Legal Department in this successful appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal;

(3)the Chief Building Official be requested to keep the Councillors of Midtown, Downtown and Trinity-Niagara advised of enforcement actions concerning this address, in terms of use, occupancy, construction and signage, and;

(4)the City Clerk be requested to forward copies of Council's actions to the Unit Commander of Police Division No. 14, the Fire Chief, the Medical Officer of Health and Toronto Licensing.

Purpose:

To be received for information

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

To be received for information

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On March 19, 1998 the Ontario Court of Appeal heard an appeal from the decision of the Ontario Court (General Division) dated September 27, 1995. This was an appeal by the City of Toronto from an order declaring that the restaurant use of premises municipally known as 794 Bathurst Street, Toronto was permitted to include as an accessory use a large dance floor and stage along with live entertainment. The dance floor area has a capacity of 195 people. The City submitted that by the addition of the dance floor and stage and the provision for live entertainment, the use of the premises was transformed from a "restaurant" use to an "entertainment facility" which was not permitted in this area of the City.

By way of background, the City had issued a building permit for a restaurant which did not show, on the permit drawings, any area for a dance floor and stage. The plans submitted in support of a building permit indicated a dining facility with an oval-shaped bar and a seating capacity of 370 people with tables and chairs located throughout the premises. Had the applicant disclosed an intention to include as part of the restaurant use a dance floor and stage, the City would not have issued the permit.

The Court of first instance found that the entertainment use of the restaurant was "accessory" to the restaurant use. It did not accept the City's argument that the restaurant had been transformed into an "entertainment facility" as defined in the City's Zoning By-law.

Prior to the hearing of the original application, the City enacted an Interim Control By-law which prohibited dance floors and stages in any restaurant in an area of the City which included 794 Bathurst Street. The Judge, on the Application appealed from, took offence at the City's enactment of the Interim Control By-law, characterizing the City's actions as "an affront to the judicial system".

The Court of Appeal overturned the Ontario Court General Division decision. They found firstly, that there was no proper evidentiary foundation for impugning the City's conduct or motives in enacting the Interim Control By-law. Secondly, they found that the use of the premises with the dance floor and stage along with live entertainment was not a "restaurant use" within the meaning of the City's Zoning By-law, but that of an "entertainment facility" so defined. A copy of the decision is attached for reference.

This report is for information.

Contact Name:

Thomas H. Wall

Telephone: (416) 392-1561

________

(A copy of Court of Appeal Decision from the Judgment of Madam Justice Kitely dated September27, 1995 was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

39

Extension of King-Parliament

Façade Improvement Program (Don River)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that, in consultation with the City Solicitor, the facade improvement program presently existing in the King/Parliament area be extended north of Queen Street and between the western boundary of Jarvis Street, and the eastern boundary of River Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 5, 1998) from Councillor McConnell:

As part of the King Parliament Revitalization Plan, the City Council approved a streetscape improvement program which included a façade improvement program to ensure that the historic character and appearance of the commercial buildings in the King Parliament area be preserved. This program provided a significant opportunity for commercial property owners to preserve the historic architectural presence of their buildings.

The business area north of King stretching along Queen St. and in the area from Jarvis to River would also greatly benefit from the same type of program. The Queen Street East commercial area described here is strip of businesses, which currently is associated with The Queen East Business Association (QUEBA). These businesses and local residents are embarking on a neighbourhood improvement program which includes an initiative to restore the historic aspects of these buildings and thereby improve the street's appearance.

The extension of the program to include this section of Queen Street will enhance the street and upgrade the general atmosphere of this important business district. The QUEBA initiative is a streetscape project with a business improvement strategy. This same area will be receiving a road refacing from works during the summer months. The façade improvements coupled with the eventual replacement of hydro poles will totally refurbish this retail strip.

I would recommend that in consultation with the legal department that the façade improvement program presently existing in King/Parliament rea be extended North of Queen and between the western boundary of Jarvis Street and the eastern boundary of River Street.

I would be grateful if you could include this item on the next agenda of Community Council.

40

Location of Banners - St. Clair Avenue West

Between Westmount Avenue and Winona Drive (Davenport)

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that Pole No. 290 be added to the list of pole locations.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the application for banners donated by the St. Clair/Oakwood Project Chair to be located on poles on St. Clair Avenue West between Westmount Avenue and Winona Drive, be approved;

(2)the location of the banners be subject to approval of Toronto Hydro; and

(3)the City's general insurance policy be applied to this application.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit any further requests for pole locations directly to Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 1, 1998) from Councillors Disero and Fotinos:

We received a letter from the St. Clair/Oakwood Project Chair, donating banners to the City.

We have a list of approved polls from City Works.

We are asking permission to waive the conditions for erection of these banners.

Hundreds of similar banners were erected by the City of York last year to help spruce up certain areas.

The group has also donated containers, murals and the stores have put up flower boxes, at no cost to the City.

There is no organized BIA in the area and the banners are not to promote any event, product or group.

We are asking for permission to have the banners erected in the attached list of poll locations.

_______

North Side, from Winona to Westmount

Wood Hydro PolesSteel TTC Poles

234250276298

236256284300

238268286

240272292278

244274296270

South Side, from Westmount to Winona

Wood Hydro PolesSteel TTC Poles

287267257

285265255

281263251

279261249

277259247

275257245

273241243

North Side, from Winona to Christie

Wood Hydro Poles

196, 198, 200, 202, 204, 206, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220, 222, 224, 226, 228

South Side, from Winona to Christie

Steel TTC Poles

235, 233, 231, 229, 227, 225, 223, 221, 219, 211, 209, 207, 205, 203, 201

41

Waiving of Temporary Street Closing

and Sidewalk Sale Fees for the

Junction Gardens Farmers Market (High Park)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion, placed by Councillor Miller and seconded by Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

"WHEREAS the Junction Gardens BIA Farmers Market, which is part of the Dundas Street West Action Plan for the rejuvenation of this area, has been very successful over the past four years; and

WHEREAS the Junction Gardens BIA Farmers Market may be assessed very high fees for the temporary street closures and sidewalk sale permits needed to facilitate the Farmers Market; and

WHEREAS the former City of Toronto agreed to waive all such fees in prior years;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council waive the temporary street closing and sidewalk sale fees for the Junction Gardens Farmers Market to be held each Saturday from June 1 to October 31, 1998".

42

Hillcrest B.I.A. - Appointment to Board of Directors

(Davenport)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Mr. Victor Singh, Toronto Dominion Bank, 687 St. Clair Avenue West, be appointed to the Board of Management of the Hillcrest B.I.A. to replace Ms. Cathy Lawes, for a term of office to expire on November 30, 1998, or until her successor is appointed. The named nominee meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 106.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that it has noted Mr. Tony Diodati is the property owner at 679 St. Clair Avenue West and not the business "Churrasco of St. Clair" as submitted in an earlier report.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 23, 1998) from Councillor Disero:

With respect to the Board of Directors, listed below are some changes that have been made to the Board:

Mr. Victor Singh has replaced Ms. Cathy Lawes. Toronto Dominion Bank, 687 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto ON M6C 1B2.

Mr. Tony Diodati - new address. Churrasco of St. Clair, 679 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto ON M6C 1A7.

At the last meeting of June 15, 1998, the following people were selected:

Co-Chairs: Mr. Tony Diodati and Mr. Santo Bozzo

Treasurer: Mr. Victor Singh

Secretary: Mr. Santo Carino

The Board has designated $7,000 for the sole purpose of beautification.

43

Residential Demolition Application -

33 Gloucester Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June15,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To make recommendations regarding the issuance of a residential demolition permit for 33 Gloucester including conditions, if any, to be attached to the permit.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council authorize me to issue a demolition permit subject to the following standard conditions:

(a)That the applicant for the permit construct and substantially complete the new building to be erected on the site of the residential property to be demolished not later than two (2) years from the day demolition of the existing residential property is commenced.

(b)That, on failure to complete the new building within the time specified, the City Clerk shall be entitled to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for each dwelling unit contained in the residential property in respect of which the demolition permit is issued and that such sum shall, until payment, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permit to demolish the residential property is issued.

(c)That the remaining party-wall is repaired and maintained in accordance with the Ontario Building Code.

Comments:

At its meeting held on April 16, 1998, the Council of the City of Toronto gave consideration to my March 5, 1998 report published as Clause No. 40 of Report No. 3 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Residential Demolition - 33 Gloucester Street (Downtown)". Council adopted the Clause without amendment, and by so doing, deferred consideration of the application for a demolition permit until such time as a building permit has been issued for a replacement building for the property.

On June 5, 1998 building permit 409029 was issued to construct a two-storey detached house on the property.

Conclusions:

As the Planning Act requires City Council to issue a demolition permit where a building permit has been issued for a replacement building, I recommend that I be authorized to issue the demolition permit subject to the above noted standard conditions.

Contact Name:

David Brezer, P. Eng

Telephone: (416) 392-0097, Fax: (416) 392-0721

E-mail: dbrezer@city.toronto.on.ca

44

Installation of Speed Humps -

Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue,

and Barton Avenue from Brunswick Avenue

to Albany Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June23,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Brunswick Avenue and Barton Avenue by the introduction of speed humps on these streets.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $15,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Brunswick Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of the residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5229, dated June 1998";

(2)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Barton Avenue from Brunswick Avenue to Albany Avenue for traffic calming purposes by the construction of speed humps at specific locations to be determined by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council;

(3)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue, and on Barton Avenue, from Brunswick Avenue to Albany Avenue coincident with the implementation of the speed humps; and

(4)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Background:

The review of various traffic management options in the West Annex neighbourhood has been on-going for a considerable length of time. The City Services Committee of the former Toronto Council, at its meeting of June 7, 1995 directed staff to assist a residents' traffic committee in the development of an area plan. Staff have participated with Ward Councillors and concerned residents in attempting to develop suitable options. However, issues emerging in the area resulted in some difficulty in achieving consensus on an area-wide approach, although site-specific measures have been implemented at various locations. In continuing to deal with area concerns in this manner, written complaints of speeding on Brunswick Avenue from residents and their traffic committee have resulted in Brunswick Avenue becoming a focus for introducing measures to reduce the speed of traffic on streets in the area. Likewise, the adjacent section of Barton Avenue is also of concern in this regard.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor John Adams and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue to reduce motor vehicle speeds on this street. A draft plan was presented at a public meeting on June 16, 1998. At this meeting the majority of residents were in favour of modifying the initial plan somewhat, and the one shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5229 has emerged to take into account the input received.

Brunswick Avenue is a collector street which operates two-way between Wells Avenue and Lowther Avenue and one-way southbound between Lowther and Bloor Street West. The street has a pavement width of 7.3 m, a speed limit of 40 km/h and carries about 1500 vehicles per day (Wells Avenue to Barton Avenue), 3300 vehicles per day (Barton Avenue to Lowther Avenue) and 1900 vehicles per day (Lowther Avenue to Bloor Street West). Parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side of Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Street and on the west side from Bloor Street West to a point 38.1 m north thereof between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Parking is restricted to 60 minutes between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the west side from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue and permitted up to three hours elsewhere on the west side. The permit parking system is in effect between 12:01 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. from Bloor Street West to Wells Street.

Brunswick Avenue between Wells Avenue and Bloor Street West meets all of the primary criteria for the installation of speed humps as outlined in the former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy (adopted by Toronto City Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997). The most recent speed surveys (April 1998) have revealed that the proportions of traffic exceeding the speed limit between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, Lowther Avenue and Barton Avenue and Barton Avenue and Wells Street respectively are 31%, 5% and 37%. I note that the installation of speed humps will not affect the number of on-street parking spaces, as cars can park on speed humps.

Of particular concern to the residents was the traffic speed in front of Tyrrell Park and as noted on the attached diagram one speed hump could be established directly in front of this park. Other speed hump locations were established on the basis of recommended distances between humps and distances from traffic controls. In addition, the geometry of driveway ramps, presence of catch basins and maintenance hole covers and availability of existing poles were taken into consideration. Although the portion of Brunswick Avenue between Lowther Avenue and Barton Avenue has very little speeding, it does have the highest traffic volumes and is close to Loretto College and Private School. It is proposed that a single hump be established in this block. If speed humps are installed, the speed limit on the street would be reduced to 30 km/h.

As stipulated in the policy, once it has been determined that the speed hump installation is technically warranted, a City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street, and households on side streets whose only access is from the affected street. The policy notes that 60% of those responding should support the plan in order to authorize the installation.

Based on discussions at the meeting, Councillor Adams has requested that when this poll is conducted, a similar poll be conducted on Barton Avenue for the two blocks between Brunswick Avenue and Albany Avenue to determine if residents there are in favour of having speed humps on their portion of Barton Avenue. At present, field work and technical data have not been obtained for the subject section of Barton Avenue but could be completed before the actual poll and advertising.

The changes proposed to Brunswick Avenue as set out above and to Barton Avenue constitute alterations to public highways pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

These projects are pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mike Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Brunswick Avenue

45

510 Spadina: Roadway Changes to Improve Safety

(Downtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)in order to address traffic safety concerns on the section of Spadina Avenue extending from Front to College Streets, temporary barriers be installed between signalized intersections to prevent vehicles crossing the streetcar tracks, with breaks in the barriers to accommodate left-turn movements at all non-signalized intersections except those at D'Arcy Street and Glen Baillie Place, Oxley Street and Front Street to the northern edge of Wellington Street West;

(2)the lane markings, including double yellow lines and signage on Spadina Avenue be modified to reinforce and complement the effects of the temporary barriers on managing traffic movements;

(3)T.T.C. and City Officials closely monitor the traffic situation on Spadina Avenue and adjacent streets following the introduction of the temporary barriers;

(4)T.T.C. and appropriate City Officials consult with local residents to develop options for permanent solutions to the traffic safety problem on Spadina Avenue, and report back to the Toronto Community Council in January, 1999 on a recommended proposal along with cost estimates and an implementation schedule;

(5)T.T.C. and appropriate City Officials work with the Chinatown Police Liaison Committee to develop a public awareness and road safety campaign regarding the operation of light rail transit on Spadina Avenue; and

(6)T.T.C. and appropriate City Officials consult with the residents and merchants in the Kensington area to consider the issue of vehicular access to and from the market, including the installation of traffic signs at Baldwin Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (April 9, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, April 8, 1998, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "510 Spadina: Roadway Changes To Improve Safety."

The Commission also considered the attached report from Mr. D. Floyd, Interim Lead, Transportation Department, City of Toronto, in connection with this matter.

The Commission received the foregoing reports for information, noting the contents therein, and approved the following:

1.That Toronto City Council be requested to approve, in principle, the construction of a physical separation on Spadina Avenue, between Spadina Circle and Front Street, excluding signalized intersections, in order to prevent vehicles from travelling on the streetcar right-of-way, subject to the Minister of Environment issuing a Declaration Order pertaining to the Environment Assessment for the Spadina Streetcar Line, and subject to public consultation regarding the need for, and the design of such a physical separation;

2.That staff from the TTC and City Transportation Department hold a public meeting a the earliest possible time in order to discuss the problems and potential solutions for the current situation on Spadina Avenue, and that all reports regarding this matter be made available at this meeting;

3.That staff from the TTC and City Transportation Department proceed with discussions on the simplification of signal operations as outlined on Page 2, Section (a) of the aforementioned report submitted by Mr. Floyd; and

4.That staff report on possible traffic signal improvements that would assist motorists to distinguish between regular and transit related signals, including consideration of what is used in Europe.

The foregoing is forwarded to City of Toronto Council for the approval noted above, as well as, the Toronto Community Council, the Toronto Transportation Department and the Ontario Ministry of Environment for information.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (April 9, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, April 8, 1998, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "Automobile-Streetcar Collisions Continue On 510 Spadina Route."

The Commission received the foregoing report for information, noting that:

-the trend of automobile-streetcar collisions on the Spadina Avenue section

of the 510 Spadina streetcar route is not subsiding;

-the collisions documented in this report, as with those documented in the previous reports on the 510 Spadina streetcar route, are those which are occurring at non-signalized mid-block location which, therefore, cannot be attributed to the traffic signal arrangements on Spadina Avenue;

-since that last Commission meeting on February 25, 1998, there have been

an additional 18 automobile-streetcar collisions on Spadina Avenue.

The foregoing is forwarded to City to Toronto Council, the Toronto Community Council, the Toronto Transportation Department and the Ontario Ministry of Environment for information.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(June 23, 1998) from Mr. Alex Speigel, Project Manager, Kensington Market Lofts

-(June 23, 1998) from Ms. Catherine Cragg, Chair, SURA

-(Undated) from Pat McKendry

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Pat McKendry

-Mr. Tony Louie; and

-Mr. Lloyd Alter.

(A copy of the following reports, referred to in the foregoing communications was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 5

-(April 7, 1998) from Interim Functional Lead, Transportation

-Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 6)

(City Council on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a copy of Toronto Transit Commission Reports Nos. 1 and 2, submitted by Councillor Blake F. Kinahan, Lakeshore-Queensway, regarding 510 Spadina Avenue: the physical separation of streetcars from other traffic on Spadina Avenue, and installation of temporary curbs for safety, which were considered by the Commission at its meeting held on July 9, 1998.)

46

Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe -

Broadway Avenue Flankage of 2387 Yonge Street

(North Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387 Yonge Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of the public poll conducted in connection with the business operator's request for a cafe licence on the Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387 Yonge Street. The poll and report was requested by the Toronto Community Council.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387 Yonge Street, notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice and the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

OR

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387 Yonge Street.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, in considering a report (March 10, 1998) from the former Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services, entitled "Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387Yonge Street", deferred consideration of the matter and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to undertake a poll with respect to the application and report back on the results of the poll to its meeting of June 24, 1998.

Comments:

A poll dated April 27, 1998 to May 27, 1998 was conducted on Broadway Avenue, between house nos. 2 to 28 and 3 to 11, including 2377, 2383 and 2401 Yonge Street to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Conclusions:

Both the public notice and the recent poll indicate that the neighbourhood is strongly opposed to the boulevard cafe at 2387 Yonge Street, Broadway Avenue flankage.

Although the proposed cafe met the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (i.e. setbacks, physical design, location), these criteria alone cannot address all public concerns which they relate to additional noise, pedestrian and car traffic, garbage, illegal parking and late night use of the adjacent public garage.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant permission for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387 Yonge Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 10, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387 Yonge Street because written objections were received in response to the public notification.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387 Yonge Street, notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;

OR

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387 Yonge Street.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of January 21, 1998, in considering a communication (December 19, 1997) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, acting on behalf of Mr. Craig Findlay, CEO, Koo Koo Roo Canada Partners Ltd., asked me to report on his appeal, as a deputation item.

Comments:

Mr. Paul Sipos, 120 Adelaide Street West, Unit # 2150, on behalf of 1170060 Ontario Ltd/Koo Koo Roo Canada Partners Ltd., o/a Koo Koo Roo California Kitchen, submitted an application on May23, 1997 requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387 Yonge Street.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 36.0 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix'A'). It can accommodate 8 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 32 people.

The application met the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313 and a notice was posted on June 10, 1997, for 14 days, to determine neighbourhood support. Prior to the expiry date of the notice, the Department received six (6) letters of objection, one of which included a petition with 59 signatures in opposition to the cafe (Appendices 'B' through 'H'). The Department also received one (1) other letter of objection after the expiry date from an area tenants' association (Appendix 'I').

Generally, the concerns relate to the additional noise, foot and car traffic, garbage, illegal parking and late night use of the adjacent public garage that will be generated by the cafe. As well, there is a concern that disabled residents in the neighbourhood will have difficulty manoeuvring their wheelchairs past the cafe enclosure and other street poles, etc.

Mr. Craig Findlay was advised in writing that we could not issue a licence because of the negative response from the public posting.

Mr. O'Donohue, arguing on behalf of Koo Koo Roo, feels that the neighbours may be more receptive to a boulevard cafe now that Koo Koo Roo has been operating the restaurant for over 6 months.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Findlay a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue flankage of 2387 Yonge Street because of the negative response to the public posting.

Although there are clear criteria surrounding the physical design, setbacks, location and hours of operation of boulevard cafes, these technical criteria alone cannot address all public concerns which may also relate to the quality of the operation of a boulevard cafe or the behaviour of current or future clientele. Cafes do introduce a new level of activity in an area.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(April 6, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, addressed to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

-(June 18, 1998) from Ms. Hilda Wilson;

-(June 22, 1998) from Bernice Slotnick;

-(undated) from Mr. Lev Teplitsky; and

-(June 24, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Geoffery and Susanne Sadleir.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Cindy Visser;

- Mr. Albert B. Hoogenboon; and

-Mr. Tony O'Donohue

(A copy of Appendices B to I, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Cafe No. 2930

47

Appeal of Denial of Commercial Boulevard Parking Application -

Massey Street Flankage of 937 Queen Street West

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that two boulevard parking spaces on the Massey Street flankage of 937 Queen Street West be approved subject to the following conditions:

(1)the applicant shall develop and maintain a landscaped area in the northernmost section of the boulevard (as per the sketch attached to the communication (June 16, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone), containing up to three trees (if possible, and at the City's discretion), one of the trees to be the existing honey locust;

(2)the paving of the boulevard parking spaces shall be of Ecostone or equivalent material;

(3)the loading door access area shall be reconstructed in asphalt or concrete;

(4)the applicant shall install a sign at the loading dock advising that the space is for short-term loading and unloading only;

(5)the area south of the loading dock access area, presently enclosed in curbstones shall be of concrete and permitted to be used to allow parallel loading and unloading;

(6)the southernmost area (approximately eight feet) referred to in Condition No. (5), shall be excavated by the applicant and filled with soil to allow the planting of a flower garden;

(7)the applicant shall not apply chemical pesticides to the areas referred to in Condition Nos. (1) and (6); and

(8)the applicant shall place and maintain a small garbage receptacle adjacent to the loading dock.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 22, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking on the Massey Street flankage of 937 Queen Street West, because of a negative public poll. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Massey Street flankage of 937 Queen Street West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;

OR

(2)City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking privileges on the Massey Street flankage of 937 Queen Street West.

Background:

Mr. Elias Elatrash, in his letter of March 11, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse his application for commercial boulevard parking on the Massey Street flankage of 937 Queen Street West.

Comments:

Mr. Elias Elatrash, President, Rema Furniture Mfg. Ltd., 937 Queen Street West, Toronto, OntarioM6J 1G7, submitted an application on October 31, 1997 requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Massey Street flankage of 937 Queen Street West.

The proposed parking area can accommodate 2 motor vehicles parallel to the roadway as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B').

This application meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking as set out in § 313-42 of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks.

As the proposed parking area is located on a residential flankage, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 100 m of the subject property to determine their support of the proposal. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated January 7 to February 6, 1998 was conducted on the east side of Massey Street between Nos. 81 and 121 and on the west side of Massey Street between Nos. 58 and 106, including 951Queen Street West. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. Elatrash was notified in writing that given the negative poll results, a licence for commercial boulevard parking could not be issued.

The City Clerk's office has notified the owners and occupants within 100 m along both sides of Massey Street from the proposed parking location, advising of Mr. Elatrash's appeal.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Elatrash a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Massey Street flankage of 937 Queen Street West because the poll result was negative.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

Insert Table/Map No. 1

937 Queen Street West (City Works Report)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (June 16, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone:

Recommendation:

That two (2) boulevard parking spaces be approved subject to the following conditions:

1.The applicant shall develop and maintain a landscaped area in the northernmost section of the boulevard (as per the attached sketch) containing up to three trees (if possible and at the City's discretion), one of the trees to be the existing honey locust.

2.The paving of the boulevard parking spaces shall be of Ecostone or equivalent material.

3.The loading door access area shall be reconstructed in asphalt or concrete.

4.The applicant shall install a sign at the loading dock advising that the space is for short-term loading and unloading only.

5.The area south of the loading dock access area, presently enclosed in curbstones shall be of concrete and permitted to be used to allow parallel loading and unloading.

6.The southernmost area (approximately eight feet) referred to in paragraph 5 shall be excavated by the applicant and filled with soil to allow the planting of a flower garden.

7.The applicant shall not apply chemical pesticides to the areas referred to in paragraphs 1 and 6.

8.The applicant shall place and maintain a small garbage receptacle adjacent to the loading dock.

Background: This matter was deferred by Toronto Community Council to June 24, 1998 so that a win-win solution could be explored by the applicant and Massey Street residents.

Following a series of consultations, the applicant and residents have reached an agreement embodied in the foregoing recommendations. The conditions attached to the granting of the boulevard parking will improve the appearance and functioning of this boulevard which flanks a residential street.

Insert Table/Map No. 2

937 Queen Street West - Rema Furniture Mfg. Ltd.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(May 1, 1998) from Ms. Michaelle McLean;

-(May 6, 1998) from Mr. Robert Whalen;

-(May 3, 1998) from Ms. Annette Borger and Mr. Ken Dishman; and

-(May 4, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Nathan Loeppky

(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

48

Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400,

to Permit Front Yard Parking for a Second Space at

85 Crescent Road (Midtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the application for a second parking space at 85 Crescent Road be approved by City Council, notwithstanding that the request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the licence previously issued for a single space be reinstated.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, to permit a second front yard parking space. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a public hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)an application for a second parking space at 85 Crescent Road be denied by City Council, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the licence previously issued for a single space not be reinstated until the excessive paving is removed, as requested by City staff.

Background:

Ms. Gunta Mackars of Gunta Mackars Landscape Architecture, acting on behalf of the owners of 85 Crescent Road, in her letter of April 6, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal to staff's decision to refuse their application for a second parking space at this address.

The Department had received an application for front yard parking for a second parking space at this address on May 20, 1997. The application was returned to the applicant, because the request exceeded the maximum of one parking space as permitted under City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400. The property was licensed for one front yard parking space, and the licence was recently cancelled.

Comments:

The previous property owners were originally licensed for front yard parking for one vehicle on September 30,1994. The property changed ownership, and the new owners, Mr. and Mrs. Peters, were advised in November 1996, of the need to transfer the existing licensed parking privileges. The licence was transferred to the Peters on January 4, 1996.

On July 5, 1996, Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current front yard parking criteria of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400, sets a maximum of one front yard parking space per property.

In September 1996, an inspection showed that the front yard had been recently landscaped. The retaining walls within the City street allowance were removed, the grade lowered to sidewalk grade, and the entire width of the property had been paved in brick pavers and concrete. There was no approval nor any permits issued by the Department for this work, and a notice was left at the property to have the excessive paving removed. No application for a second space was ever submitted.

On January 6, 1997, I received a facsimile from the landscape architect on behalf of the owners, advising that the Peters had agreed to comply with the landscape requirements of the code, and limit the parking to a single parking space, by having precast planters installed and broadleaf evergreens planted.

An application for a second space was received by the Department on May 20, 1997. We returned it to Mr. Peters since it did not meet the current front yard parking criteria of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400. The Peters were advised of the refusal of the second parking space; and were again requested to remove the excess paving in order to meet the landscaping requirements, as previously agreed by the Peters.

Recent inspections in February of this year showed the unauthorized parking of two vehicles, and that the work had not been undertaken. The file was subsequently closed and the licence for the single parking space was cancelled.

Conclusions:

The existing front yard parking licence for one space was grandfathered when the by-law changed in 1996. The property is not eligible for a second front yard parking space. The request for a second parking space should be denied by Council, and the previously licensed parking space should not be reinstated unless the excessive paving is removed, as previously requested.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

________

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Viktor Jaunkalns o.b.o. Gunta Mackars; and

-Mr. Robert Peters.

(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

85 Crescent Road

49

Appeal of Denial of Application for a Sidewalk/Boulevard

Vending Permit - King Street West, South Side,

74.5 Metres West of Charlotte Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a permit be issued to Mr. Medina Marisabel for sidewalk/boulevard vending on King Street West, south side, 74.5 metres west of Charlotte Street, notwithstanding the objections received by the adjoining property owner and tenant.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 3, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a sidewalk/boulevard vending application. The application was denied because written objections were received. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a public hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that a permit be issued to Mr. Medina Marisabel for sidewalk/boulevard vending on King Street West, south side, 74.5 metres west of Charlotte Street, notwithstanding the objections received by the adjoining property owner and tenant.

Background:

Mr. Michael M. Doyle, solicitor acting on behalf of Medina Marisabel, in his letter of April 7, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on King Street West, south side, 74.5 metres west of Charlotte Street.

Comments:

Mr. Medina Marisabel, 825 Bloor Street West, Apt. # 3, Toronto, Ontario, M6G 1M1, applied on December 12, 1997 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on King Street West, south side, 74.5metres west of Charlotte Street, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). Mr. Medina Marisabel proposes to vend sausages, hot dogs and cold drinks.

As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owner for their comments, if any. Mr Allan G. Beach of Fasken Campbell Godfrey, solicitor for the owner of the adjoining property and Mr. Eric Bresler, solicitor for the adjoining tenant, have submitted letters of objection dated February 9 & 10, 1998 (Appendix 'C' and 'D'), regarding this location.

Under the procedural rules of the Municipal Code, where a written objection to the issuance of a vending permit has been received in my office, I am required to refuse the application. The applicant then has 30 days from receipt of our notice to request an appeal to the Toronto Community Council.

Staff have met with Mr. Medina Marisabel and confirm that we cannot issue a vending permit under Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, because we have received a letters of objection.

In order to assist your Committee with the evaluation of Mr. Beach's concerns, they are summarized below along with the staff response.

Concern #1:The proposed vending would unreasonably interfere with the operation of the existing or any future business at the location

Staff response:Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, requires a minimum separation of 25 metres between a vending location and a business selling a similar product. The objection received is not from a business selling a similar product.

Concern #2:The proposed vending would increase pedestrian/bystander traffic and will greatly increase the odds of mishap/accident

Staff response:Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, requires 3.66 metres of paved passable space to be maintained for pedestrian movement.

Conclusions:

As this application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the Municipal Code, the application should be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

________

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Marisabel Medina; and

-Mr. Eric Bresler

(A copy of Appendices A, C and D, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

King Street West/Charlotte Street - Street Vending

50

Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248,

to Permit Driveway Widening at 60 Russell Hill Road (Midtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the application for a parking space adjacent to the private driveway at 60 Russell Hill Road be approved by City Council, notwithstanding that the application does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 3, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, to permit driveway widening parking which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code, as requested by Councillor Adams. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a public hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)an application for a parking space adjacent to the private driveway at 60 Russell Hill Road be denied by City Council, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code: and

(2)the existing crushed stone paving, situated on the City boulevard adjacent to the driveway and which was installed without a permit be removed and restored to soft landscaping.

Background:

Councillor John Adams has asked me to report on a request for a by-law exemption to permit driveway widening at 60 Russell Hill Road.

Comments:

Mr. Sidney Oland, co-owner of 60 Russell Hill Road, Toronto, Ontario M4V 2T2, is requesting an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, in order to park two motor vehicles in front of his house (see Appendix 'A'), for a total of 3 spaces.

We opened a file on this location in November 1996 because construction in the boulevard had begun without permits. Subsequently the owner submitted an application to re-pave the driveway and walkway. A permit to re-pave the driveway was issued on November 20, 1996. The owners were advised that the area adjacent to the driveway could not be paved or approved for a parking area as it did not meet the criteria of the Municipal Code. The permit clearly indicates that there is to be no parking within the City street allowance so as to contravene the Zoning By-law and Municipal Code Chapter 248.

The property has a private driveway 3.57 metres wide, which leads to an open parking area in front of the newly constructed addition, on the east side of the existing house. This addition and parking space were approved by Committee of Adjustment, appealed to the OMB, and granted by the OMB with conditions. The driveway is approximately 22.0 metres long from the curb to the wall of the building.

Including the legal parking space on private property approved by the Committee of Adjustment, the property can accommodate parking for 3 vehicles (see diagram in Appendix 'B'). Although parking on private driveways in front of houses is a zoning infraction, it is difficult to enforce and is a fairly common practice throughout the former City of Toronto. (City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 governs any parking on the property. It prohibits any parking on any portion of the lot beyond the front wall of a dwelling, but permits casual parking on a properly surfaced driveway.)

Why the application should be denied

Driveway widening is governed by the criteria set out in § 248-3 of Municipal Code Chapter 248 and Zoning By-law No. 438-86. This application does not meet three requirements of the legislation, as summarized in the table below and explained further in the text.

Driveway widening is only permitted where the existing private driveway does not exceed a width of 2.6 metres at its narrowest point. Another condition of the Code prohibits driveway widening if the property has access to an existing parking facility on private property. At 60 Russell Hill Road, neither of these criteria are satisfied. As shown in the Appendices, the private driveway is over 2.6metres in width and leads to a open parking facility on the property.

Accordingly, Mr. Oland was advised by letter on September 26, 1997 that the property is not eligible for driveway widening, and therefore an application could not be considered.

Why the owners want additional parking

Mr. Oland wants more permitted parking on his property because: 1) he complains that it is a nuisance to jockey the cars; 2) his wife Ingrid Weger, who has a provincially-issued disabled permit, can get closer to the door; and 3) his mother-in-law, who is a very frequent visitor, could park on the parking pad instead of parking on the street. Therefore, he is requesting licences for two spaces in the City boulevard--one at the end of his driveway, and an additional space next to the private driveway. If licensed, this would effectively provide parking for 4 vehicles at 60 Russell Hill Road.

Mr. Oland has submitted documentation in an effort to argue legal non-conforming use, as the parking area adjacent to the private driveway has been in existence for many years. However, since the parking area was not in existence prior to the passing of the Zoning By-law in 1953, legal non-conforming use cannot be granted. The documentation of Dr. Pauline Strunk clearly states that her parents had initially installed the parking area adjacent to the driveway after they purchased the property in the mid 1960's.

Complaints about unauthorized parking

We have received complaints about the unauthorized parking on the widened portion of the driveway. We confirmed these complaints and asked the owners to cease the parking, or concrete curbstones would be installed. The parking continued and in January 1998 the City installed a concrete curbstone to prevent the unauthorized parking.

Conclusions:

As the property has access to an open parking space at the front of the dwelling, by means of a private driveway which is greater than 2.6 metres, this location is not eligible for driveway widening. This request should be denied by Council.

City Council, at its meeting of April 16, 1998, adopted Clause 66 of Report No. 3 of the Toronto Community Council, and by so doing denied an almost identical request for 17 Lynwood Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (April 20, 1998) from Ms.BarbCaplan, addressed to Councillor Adams, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Mr. Sidney Oland appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

No 60 Russell Hill road

Insert Table/Map No. 2

No 60 Russell Hill road

51

Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe -

832 College Street, Ossington Avenue Flankage (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Ossington Avenue flankage of 832 College Street, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to

(a)the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b)the patio being closed and cleared by 10:30 p.m. from Sunday to Thursday and by 11:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back after the end of the 1998 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe on the Ossington Avenue flankage of 832 College Street, because of a negative public poll. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Ossington Avenue flankage of 832 College Street, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)Should City Council approve the application, I be requested to report back after the end of the 1998 cafe season on the operation of the cafe;

OR

(3)City Council deny the application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Ossington Avenue flankage of 832 College Street.

Background:

Councillor Joe Pantalone, in his communication of May 14, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), requested a report on the application for a boulevard cafe licence at 832 College Street.

Comments:

Mr. Majid Khoshab, owner of 1179621 Ontario Limited, o/a Coffee Time Donuts, 832 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1C8, submitted an application on December 5, 1997, requesting a licence for boulevard cafe privileges on the Ossington Avenue flankage of 832 College Street.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 27.18 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix'B'). It can accommodate 6 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 24 people.

This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafe as set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

As the proposed cafe flanks a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 metres from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated March 9 to April 8, 1998 was conducted on the west side of Ossington Avenue, between house nos. 460 and 478 and on the east side of Ossington Avenue between house nos. 455 and 493, including 832 and 834 College Street, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English, French, Italian and Portuguese (i.e. every person received the ballot form in 4 languages). The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. Khoshab was advised in writing May 15, 1998 that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued. Furthermore, Mr. Khoshab was advised that a further application for boulevard cafe privileges at 832 College Street could not be considered for twenty-four months from the closing date of the public poll which was April 8, 1998.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Khoshab a licence for the cafe on the Ossington Avenue flankage because the poll result was negative. I am satisfied that the poll was conducted properly, and ballots were available in Italian and Portuguese, as well as the two official languages.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council approve the boulevard cafe at 832 College Street, Ossington Avenue flankage.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

_______

(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

832 College Street

52

Espressimo Caffebar - Request to Extend the Hours of Operation

for the Boulevard Cafe, on the Roxborough Street West

Flankage of 1094 Yonge Street (Midtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the extension of hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Roxborough Street West flankage of 1094 Yonge Street to 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week, as requested by the applicant; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back after the end of the 1998 cafe season on the operation of the cafe under the extended hours.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's request to extend the hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Roxborough Street West flankage of 1094 Yonge Street from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)(a)City Council approve the extension of hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Roxborough Street West flankage of 1094 Yonge Street to 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week, as requested by the applicant; and

(b)Should City Council approve an extension of the hours, I be requested to report back after the end of the 1998 cafe season on the operation of the cafe under the extended hours;

OR

(2)City Council deny the request for an extension of the boulevard cafe hours on the Roxborough Street West flankage of 1094 Yonge Street.

Background:

Mr. Michael Meffe, owner of Espressimo Caffebar, 1094 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario M4W 2L6, has requested an extension of operating hours of his boulevard cafe from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, in considering the Department's report (March 10, 1998) entitled " Espressimo Caffebar - Operation of the Boulevard Cafe During the 1997 Cafe Season- Roxborough Street West , flankage of 1094 Yonge Street", recommended that the report be adopted by City Council and that if the applicant has requested an extension of the hours of operation, all property owners and tenants within the policy area of the cafe be notified of the applicant's request to extend the hours of operation to 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week, and that the matter be scheduled as a deputation item.

City Council, at its meeting of April 16, 1998, adopted my report of March 10, 1998 and approved the continued operation of the boulevard cafe subject to the same terms and conditions of the closing hours (i.e., Sunday to Thursday and statutory holidays, closing hours of 9:30 p.m., and Friday and Saturday, 11:00 p.m.).

Mr. Michael Meffe of Expressimo Caffebar, in his letter of May 6, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), requested that the hours of operation be extended to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

The City Clerk's office has notified the owners and occupants within 120 metres along both sides of Roxborough Street West from the cafe area, advising them of Mr. Meffe's proposal.

Conclusions:

As indicated in my report to your Committee dated March 10, 1998, during the 1997 cafe season, the operation of the boulevard cafe was monitored periodically. Our inspections confirmed that the proprietor complied with the restrictions and other requirements of § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, including the closing time restrictions.

In addition, we did not receive any complaints from members of the public or Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council should decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant an extension of the boulevard cafe hours for the boulevard cafe at 1094 Yonge Street, on the Roxborough Street West flankage.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

-(June 16, 1998) from Ms. Pauline Couture

-(June 17, 1998) from Ms. Diana Powell

(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

53

Construction of a Wrought Iron Fence and Stone Pillars -

Fronting 49 Forest Hill Road and on the

Heath Street Flankage (Midtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the construction of the wrought iron fence and pillars within the City boulevard on the Heath Street West flankage of 49 Forest Hill Road, subject to the owners entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 3, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowners' request to construct a fence and pillars which exceed the maximum height permitted under City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a public hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the construction of the wrought iron fence and pillars within the City boulevard on the Heath Street West flankage of 49 Forest Hill Road, subject to the owners entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

Mark Hartley Landscape Architects, on behalf of the owners, Mr. Paul Melnuk and Ms. Donna Melnuk of 49 Forest Hill Road, Toronto, Ontario M4V 2L4, submitted an application on May 7, 1998, requesting permission to construct a wrought iron fence and stone pillars within the City boulevard fronting 49 Forest Hill Road and on the Heath Street West flankage.

A portion of the proposed fence at the front of the property will be 1.3 m high and two proposed stone pillars will be 1.5 m high rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m allowed for in Chapter 313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code. In a letter dated May 13, 1998, the applicant has requested an exemption to this by-law so that the height of the fence and pillars will correspond with the scale of the house and other landscaping features on the property.

Staff have also inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that this fence and pillars would be consistent with the streetscape as there are other fences and pillars of similar height in the area.

Details of this fence and letter from the owners are on file with my Department.

Conclusions:

As the fence and pillars are consistent with other installations in the area, the construction of the fence and pillars should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

54

Application for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit -

John Street, East Side, 9 Metres North of Richmond Street West

(Downtown)

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on John Street, east side, 9 metres north of Richmond Street West, be refused.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a sidewalk/boulevard vending application, which was denied because the proposed vending location is within 25 metres of a business selling similar products.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That, should City Council wish to permit Mr. Walter Guadron to vend on the sidewalk/boulevard within 25 metres of a business selling similar products (a restaurant) on John Street, east side, 9metres north of Richmond Street West, which is not presently permitted under Chapter 315 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, it is recommended that:

(1)(a)the permit be renewed annually, provided a letter of consent is submitted at time of renewal from Mr. Young Ik Kwon, owner and operator of "The Sandwich Table", 150 John Street;

(b)the vending permit be valid from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday; and

(c)in the event of change of ownership of the business at 150 John Street, the new owner provide a letter of consent for the continuing operation of the vending location;

OR

(2)the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on John Street, east side, 9 metres north of Richmond Street West, be refused.

Background:

Mr. Michael Doyle, agent acting on behalf of Mr. Walter Guadron, in his letter of April 7, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on John Street, east side, 9 metres north of Richmond Street West.

Comments:

Mr. Walter Guadron, 647 Mortimer Avenue, East York, Ontario M4C 2J9, applied on December 31, 1997 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on John Street, east side, 9 metres north of Richmond Street West (Appendix 'B'). Mr. Guadron proposes to vend sausages, hot dogs, and cold drinks.

The provisions of Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code require that the vending location be no less than 25 metres from a business that sells similar products to the public.

Mr. Guadron's proposed location is within 14 metres from the "The Sandwich Table" restaurant located at 150 John Street. Mr. Guadron met with staff on site and he was advised that the location does not meet the requirements of Chapter 315 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. He was also advised in writing.

Subsequently, he submitted a letter dated December 31, 1997 (Appendix 'C') from Mr.YoungIkKwon, owner and operator of "The Sandwich Table" restaurant, 150 John Street, Toronto, Ontario M5V 2Z2, in support of his application, provided that the hours of operation be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Sunday. Further, Mr. Kwon wishes to reserve the right to withdraw his support in the event the permit is not issued within one year from the date of his letter.

Conclusions:

Approving this request would set a precedent. However, if this is a request which Council wishes to support in principle, I recommend that a permit be issued for a one year term, and be renewed annually with the condition that the applicant provide a new letter of consent from the owner of "The Sandwich Table", or any new occupant/owner of the restaurant at 150 John Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

________

(A copy of Appendices A and C, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Vending - John Street/Richmond Street West

55

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage

Properties - 200 Annette Street (High Park)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May25,1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 30 Edwin Avenue be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council include the property at 30 Edwin Avenue on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

In March, 1998, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 30 Edwin Avenue for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

As outlined in the attached report to the Board of Heritage Toronto (May 11, 998), Heritage Toronto staff researched and evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria; it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C).

Comments:

A representative of Toronto Hydro, owners of the property, appeared at the May 20, 1998 meeting of Heritage Toronto. Hydro does not object. Following the deputation, the Board recommended that the property be added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property at 30 Edwin Avenue (Toronto Hydro-Electric System Substation) is identified for architectural reasons for its well-integrated design and its importance as a prominent feature in the West Toronto neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the property at 30 Edwin Avenue on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

_________

(Report dated May 11, 1998, from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto,

addressed to the Chair and Members, Toronto Historical Board)

Recommendation

That the property at 200 Annette Street (Annette Street Baptist Church) be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments

1.Background:

In a letter dated March 27, 1998, the president of the West Toronto Junction Historical Society requested that the property at 200 Annette Street be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The Toronto Region Architectural Conservancy and the pastor of the Czechoslovakian Baptist Church have sent letters supporting the request.

2.Discussion:

The property at 200 Annette Street was evaluated according to the Board's criteria which indicates that it is worth of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

A Property Research Summary is attached.

________

HERITAGE TORONTO

PROPERTY RESEARCH SUMMARY

Basic Building Data:

Address:200 Annette Street (northeast corner of Annette Street and High Park Avenue)

Ward:21

Current Name:Czechoslovak Baptist Church

Historical Name:Annette Street Baptist Church

Construction Date:1888

Architect:none found

Contractor/Builder:John Shelley Turner, contractor

Additions/

Alterations:1906, addition, west wing; west tower replaced; south gable replaced with dormers; 1920, addition, west entrance porch; date unknown, chimney rebuilt

Original Owner:Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec

Original Use:religious (church)

Current Use*:religious (church)

Heritage Category:Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date:May 1998

Recorder:HPD:KA

*this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

________

Property Research Summary

Description:

The property at 200 Annette Street is identified for architectural reasons. John Shelley Turner, a local contractor, constructed the Annette Street Baptist Church in 1888. Its design is similar to one prepared by Toronto architect Edmund Burke that appeared in the April 1886 issue of The Canadian Baptist. In 1906, the original west tower was replaced when the church was extended to the west. A new entrance vestibule was added to the west end of the structure in 1920. The Czechoslovak Baptist Church has occupied the building since 1976.

The Annette Street Baptist Church displays stylistic features influenced by the Arts and Crafts Movement of the late 19^th century with its low walls, steeply-pitched and flared roofs, and half-timbering. Constructed of brick on a stone base, the church is trimmed with brick and stone. A gable roof with flared eaves, chimneys on the north slope, and gabled dormers covers the rectangular plan. The church was designed to face south onto Annette Street with two towers of varied heights at the east and west ends. Covered by a pyramidal roof with flared eaves, the east tower has segmental-headed door and window openings with transoms and brick labels, and brick string courses and panels. The west tower displays rounded-arched window openings. Its pyramidal roof extends from a raised base with brick chimneys. Between the towers, the low south wall has round-headed window openings divided by brick buttresses. The north (rear) and west walls display similar fenestration. The west wall facing High Park Avenue contains the main entrance to the church. A single-storey vestibule is covered by a steeply-pitched gable roof supported on brackets and filled with half-timbering. A round-arched door opening contains paired wood doors with transoms above. Round windows are found in the gable ends of the west and east walls.

The property at 200 Annette Street is located on the northeast corner of Annette Street and High Park Boulevard. Placed in a landscaped setting with trees, the Annette Street Baptist Church is part of an important streetscape of churches. On Annette Street, the Keele Street Church of Christ at #99, Victoria-Royce Presbyterian Church at #152, and High Park-Alhambra United Church (formerly High Park Avenue Methodist Church) at #260 are included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The Annette Street Baptist Church is a well-executed example of period architecture influenced by the Arts and Crafts Movement.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Location Map - 200 Annette Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Photographs - 200 Annette Street

56

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory

of Heritage Properties - 58 Sherwood Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May25,1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 58 Sherwood Avenue be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council include the property at 58 Sherwood Avenue on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

In February, 1998, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 58 Sherwood Avenue for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property owners made the request, supplemented by historical research for the property.

As outlined in the attached report to the Board of Heritage Toronto (May 11, 1998), Heritage Toronto staff researched and evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria; it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C).

Comments:

At its meeting of May 20, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto recommended that the property be added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property at 58 Sherwood Avenue (The Sherwood Apartments) is identified for architectural reasons as a well-designed example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style and a visible feature on Sherwood Avenue in the North Toronto neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the property at 58 Sherwood Avenue on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

_______

(Report dated May 11, 1998 from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto

addressed to the Chair and Members, Toronto Historical Board)

Recommendation:

That the property at 58 Sherwood Avenue (The Sherwood Apartments) be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments:

1.Background:

In a letter dated February 26, 1998, the vice president of the Board of Directors of the 58 Sherwood Avenue Co-Ownership Inc. requested that the property at 58 Sherwood Avenue (The Sherwood Apartments) be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

2.Discussion:

The property at 58 Sherwood Avenue was evaluated according to the Board's criteria which indicates that it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage property.

A Property Research Summary is attached.

________

HERITAGE TORONTO

PROPERTY RESEARCH SUMMARY

Basic Building Data:

Address:58 Sherwood Avenue (north side of Sherwood Avenue between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road)

Ward:22

Current Name:not applicable

Historical Name:The Sherwood Apartments

Construction Date:1928

Architect:Kaplan and Sprachman

Contractor/Builder:W. Pidgeon and Sons Limited

Additions/

Alterations:window sash replaced

Original Owner:W. Pidgeon and Sons Limited

Original Use:residential (apartment building)

Current Use*:residential (cooperative)

Heritage Category:Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date:May 1998

Recorder:HPD:KA

*this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

________

Property Research Summary

Description:

The property at 58 Sherwood Avenue is identified for architectural reasons. The Sherwood Apartments were constructed in 1928 according to the designs of Toronto architects Kaplan and Sprachman. W. Pidgeon and Sons Limited were both the developers and the contractors for the project. Albert E. Pidgeon, a member of the firm, occupied a unit. The 58 Sherwood Avenue Co-Ownership Inc., with individually owned units, acquired the building in 1990.

The Sherwood Apartments are designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, identified by the red clay tile roofs, curvilinear gable, round-arched openings, and stone details imitating adobe stucco. The I-shaped three-storey plan is covered by a hipped tiled roof with gables on the south face and double chimneys on the east, south and west ends. The principal (south) facade on Sherwood Avenue is symmetrically organized in three parts. The centre section contains the main entrance at ground level. A projecting entrance porch has a red tile roof supported on brick piers. A round-arched stone-clad opening contains a single wood door with multi-paned sash and arched sidelights with single panes. Iron light fixtures in the shape of griffins holding globe lights are placed on either side of the entrance. A two-storey round-arched window opening over the entrance lights the interior stairwell. Pairs of rectangular windows are separated by a spandrel and surmounted by an arched transom with leaded glass. On either side of the entrance bay, each of the three stories has single flat-headed windows with brick lintels and extended stone sills. The centre of the wall is topped by a curved gable with corbelled brick and stone coping. The end sections of the south wall have flat-headed window openings, organized in pairs and threes and linked by continuous sills. Trios of round-arched window openings mark the third storey. Above, the gable ends of the roof have stone corbels and brackets. The end walls of the south wing are devoid of openings. The north extension of the building has red brick cladding and regularly spaced fenestration. On the interior, the entrance hall with its ceramic tile floor and the wood staircase are important features.

The property at 58 Sherwood Avenue is located on the north side of the street, midway between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road. It is set on landscaped grounds on a tree-lined street. It is a well-designed example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style and a visible feature amid the mainly single residential buildings on Sherwood Avenue in the North Toronto neighbourhood.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Location Map: 58 Sherwood Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Photographs: 58 Sherwood Avenue

57

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of

Heritage Properties - 548 Gerrard Street East (Don River)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May25,1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 548 Gerrard Street East be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council include the property at 548 Gerrard Street East on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

In October, 1997, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 548 Gerrard Street East for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property is occupied by the St. Matthew's Lawn Bowling Club which celebrates its centenary in 1999.

As outlined in the attached report to the Board of Heritage Toronto (May 11, 1998), Heritage Toronto staff researched and evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria; it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C).

Comments:

The City Parks and Recreation Department was notified about the request but did not appear at the May 20, 1998 meeting of Heritage Toronto. The Board recommended that the property be added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property at 548 Gerrard Street East (St. Matthew's Lawn Bowling Club) is identified for architectural and historical reasons as an important example of vernacular architecture in the Riverdale neighbourhood overlooking the Don River.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the property at 548 Gerrard Street East on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

________

(Report dated May 11, 1998 from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto,

addressed to the Chair and Members, Toronto Historical Board)

Recommendation

That the property at 548 Gerrard Street East (St. Matthew's Lawn Bowling Club) be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments

1.Background:

In October, 1997, former City of Toronto Councillor Peter Tabuns requested Heritage Toronto to assist a constituent in completing the documentation to nominate the property at 548 Gerrard Street East for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property is identified for convenience purposes as #2 St. Matthew's Road. The St. Matthew's Lawn Bowling Club celebrates its centenary in 1999.

2.Discussion:

The property at 548 Gerrard Street East was evaluated according to the Board's criteria which indicates that it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

A Property Research Summary is attached.

________

HERITAGE TORONTO

PROPERTY RESEARCH SUMMARY

Basic Building Data:

Address:548 Gerrard Street East (northeast corner of Gerrard Street East and St. Matthew's Road)

Ward:25

Current Name:St. Matthew's Lawn Bowling Club

Historical Name:St. Matthew's Lawn Bowling Club

Construction Date:1906

Architect:Robert McCallum, City Architect (attribution)

Contractor/Builder:none found

Additions/

Alterations:1926, interior alterations (conversion from electricity to natural gas); date unknown, one lawn bowling green converted to horseshoe pitch

Original Owner:City of Toronto

Original Use:recreational (clubhouse)

Current Use*:recreational (clubhouse)

Heritage Category:Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date:May 1998

Recorder:HPD:KA

*this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

________

Property Research Summary

Description:

The property at 548 Gerrard Street East is identified for architectural and historical reasons. Historical records indicate that St. Matthew's Lawn Bowling Club was incorporated in 1905, although it was purportedly founded in 1899. An historical photograph in the possession of the club shows the site in operation in 1906. Developed on property owned by the City of Toronto, the design of the clubhouse is attributed to Robert McCallum, City Architect.

The St. Matthew's Lawn Bowling Clubhouse is a wood frame cottage clad with horizontal wood siding. With a rectangular plan, the building rises 1½ stories above a raised basement with an entrance on the south end. The clubhouse is covered by a gable roof with ventilators in the gable ends (north and south), a centre gable on the east façade, and a tall brick chimney on the west side. A single-storey hipped roof verandah wraps around the south, east and north facades to extend past the west wall of the building. The verandah has paired wood posts with brackets supported on brick piers, a decorative wood balustrade, and latticework screens along the base and at the north and west ends. The verandah is enclosed at the north end beneath a shed roof. Two entrances with wood doors are found on the east façade, and the south entry has double wood doors. Flat-headed window openings with double sash windows are introduced on all walls.

The property at 548 Gerrard Street East is located at the northeast corner of Gerrard Street East and St. Matthew's Road in Riverdale Park. To the east, the Don Jail at 550 Gerrard Street East and Riverdale Public Library at 370 Broadview Avenue are included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The St. Matthew's Lawn Bowling Club is an important example of vernacular architecture in the Riverdale neighbourhood overlooking the Don River.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Location Map - 548 Gerrard Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Photographs - 548 Gerrard Street East

58

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of

Heritage Properties - 2928 Dundas Street West (High Park)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May25,1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 2928 Dundas Street West be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council include the property at 2928 Dundas Street West on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

In March, 1998, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 2928 Dundas Street West for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property owner sent a letter supporting the request.

As outlined in the attached report to the Board of Heritage Toronto (May 11, 998), Heritage Toronto staff researched and evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria; it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C).

Comments:

The property owner appeared at the May 20, 1998 meeting of Heritage Toronto to support the request. Following the deputation, the Board recommended that the property be added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property at 2928 Dundas Street West (a commercial building dating to 1919) is identified for architectural reasons as an important component of the Dundas Street commercial district in the West Toronto neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the property at 2928 Dundas Street West on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

________

(Report dated May 11, 1998, from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto,

addressed to the Chair and Members, Toronto Historical Board)

Recommendation

That the property at 2928 Dundas Street West be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments

1.Background:

In a letter dated March 27, 1998, the president of the West Toronto Junction Historical Society requested that the property at 2928 Dundas Street West be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The president of the Toronto Region Architectural Conservancy and the property owner have sent letters supporting the request.

2.Discussion:

The property at 2928 Dundas Street West was evaluated according to the Board's criteria which indicates that it worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties is a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

A Property Research Summary is attached.

________

HERITAGE TORONTO

PROPERTY RESEARCH SUMMARY

Basic Building Data:

Address:2928 Dundas Street West (north side of Dundas Street West between Keele Street and Pacific Avenue)

Ward:21

Current Name:not applicable

Historical Name:William Speers Building

Construction Date:1919

Architect:Smith and Wright, architects

Contractor/Builder:none found

Additions/

Alterations:date unknown, minor alterations to shopfront

Original Owner:William Speers, undertaker

Original Use:commercial (with residential above)

Current Use*:commercial (with residential above)

Heritage Category:Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date:May 1998

Recorder:HPD:KA

*this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

________

Property Research Summary

Description:

The property at 2928 Dundas Street West is identified for architectural reasons. In 1919, the architectural firm of Smith and Wright designed a commercial building for the Dundas Street property of William Speers. Speers resided on-site while operating his undertaking business in a neighbouring building.

The William Speers Building displays the Classical detailing favoured for commercial structures in the early 20^th century. Rising three stories, the structure is clad with brick and trimmed with cast stone. On the principal (south) facade, the wall projects in two sections which are connected by stone corbels. The ground floor features a shopfront where a recessed entrance is placed between two display windows with plate glass set in metal frames. At the west end, a single door topped by a leaded-glass transom provides access to the upper stories. The second and third floors have oversized window openings, set in stone surrounds and containing sliding sash windows. The openings are separated by a brick spandrel and surmounted by corbelled brickwork. At the top of the wall, a brick parapet is trimmed with stone. In the centre of the parapet, a decorative stone element contains a date stone marked "1919 A. D." and a shield motif. The side walls rise above the two-storey commercial buildings flanking this property. The west wall abuts the adjacent building, while the east wall is separated from the neighbouring building by a narrow laneway.

The property at 2928 Dundas Street West is located on the north side of the street, midway between Keele Street and Pacific Avenue. It terminates the view looking north from Medland Street. With its height and surviving features, the William Speers Building stands out in the block. It is an important component of the Dundas Street commercial district in the West Toronto neighbourhood.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Location Map - 2928 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Photograph - 2928 Dundas Street West

59

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage

Properties - 30 Edwin Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May25,1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 30 Edwin Avenue be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council include the property at 30 Edwin Avenue on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

In March, 1998, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 30 Edwin Avenue for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

As outlined in the attached report to the Board of Heritage Toronto (May 11, 998), Heritage Toronto staff researched and evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria; it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C).

Comments:

A representative of Toronto Hydro, owners of the property, appeared at the May 20, 1998 meeting of Heritage Toronto. Hydro does not object. Following the deputation, the Board recommended that the property be added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property at 30 Edwin Avenue (Toronto Hydro-Electric System Substation) is identified for architectural reasons for its well-integrated design and its importance as a prominent feature in the West Toronto neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the property at 30 Edwin Avenue on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

________

(Report dated May 11, 1998, from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto,

addressed to the Chair and Members, Toronto Historical Board)

Recommendation

That the property at 30 Edwin Avenue (Toronto Hydro-Electric System Substation) be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments

1.Background:

In a letter dated March 27, 1998, the president of the West Toronto Junction Historical Society requested that the property at 30 Edwin Avenue be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The president of the Toronto Region Architectural Conservancy, the Bloor-Junction Neighbourhood Coalition of Toronto, and Shim and Jelly Company have sent letters supporting the request.

2.Discussion:

The property at 30 Edwin Avenue was evaluated according to the Board's criteria which indicates that it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

A Property Research Summary is attached.

________

HERITAGE TORONTO

PROPERTY RESEARCH SUMMARY

Basic Building Data:

Address:30 Edwin Avenue (northwest corner of Edwin Avenue and Ruskin Avenue)

Ward:21

Current Name:Toronto Hydro-Electric System Substation

Historical Name:Toronto Hydro Junction Substation

Construction Date:1911

Architect:Robert McCallum, City Architect

Contractor/Builder:Tengle and Son, contractors

Additions/

Alterations:1916, 1920 and 1931, additions, A. E. Salisbury, City Architect, with J. M. Waterman ;

Date unknown, parts of copper cladding removed from cornice

Original Owner:Toronto Hydro-Electric System

Original Use:industrial (substation)

Current Use*:industrial (substation)

Heritage Category:Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date:May 1998

Recorder:HPD:KA

*this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

________

Property Research Summary

Description:

The property at 30 Edwin Avenue is identified for architectural reasons. The Toronto Hydro Junction Substation was constructed in 1911 according to the designs of City Architect Robert McCallum. His successor, A. E. Salisbury, worked in conjunction with J. M. Waterman to design complementary additions in 1916, 1920 and 1931.

The substation features the Classical detailing favoured for public buildings in the early 20^th century. Constructed of brick with stone detailing, the complex rises the equivalent of three stories (a one-storey addition on the north end is not included as a significant element). Two shed-roofed skylights, three ventilators, and a flat-roofed clerestorey survive on the roofs cover the different sections of the complex.

The different phases of the building are linked by the repetition of stone detailing: base, three belt courses, and diamond patterns beneath a cornice. The principal (south) façade is organized in three stepped sections. At the east end, the public entrance is placed at grade level in a coursed stone surround. Its Classical entablature is decorated with courses of acanthus leaves and bead moulding, fleurs-de-lis, a rondelle with a Tudor rose, and a keystone with a water motif. The round-arched entrance contains an elaborate metal door with glass panels, columns, sidelights, and a round-arched transom with grillwork. At the west end of the wall, a freight door is placed in a stone surround with mouldings, cornice and keystone. Above this entrance, a round-arched panel has brick and stone trim. The panel contains a round-arched window opening with a metal sash window and a stone sill, and a date stone (1920). In the remainder of the south wall, rectangular-headed window openings have stone detailing and metal sash windows.

The east wall along Edwin Avenue continues the stone detailing introduced on the south end. This wall is organized into a series of bays by round-arched panels with stone keystones and corner blocks. At the base of each panel, a rectangular-headed window opening with a metal sash window is decorated with a stone label and sill. Between the window openings, the walls display diamond-patterned brickwork. The pattern of round-arched panels with rectangular-headed openings below is repeated on the west wall flanking the railway tracks and on the north wall. However, on the latter walls, the round-arched panels contain both round-arched and rectangular-headed window openings separated by decorative brick panels. On the interior, the entrance hall has a terrazzo floor with brass strips, marble wainscotting, a staircase with a brass handrail, and a ceiling light fixture with a water motif.

The Toronto Hydro-Electric Substation is located at the southwest corner of Edwin Avenue and Ruskin Avenue. With its well-integrated design, the building is an important feature of the West Toronto neighbourhood.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Location Map - 30 Edwin Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Photographs - 30 Edwin Avenue

60

Requests for Endorsement of Events for

Liquor Licensing Purposes

(City Council on July 8 and 9, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the times for the Festival of St. Mary of the Angels Church be as follows:

Friday, August, 7, 1998-7:00 p.m. to midnight - cleared and closed;

Saturday, August 8, 1998-7:00 p.m. to midnight - cleared and closed; and

Sunday, August 9, 1998-2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. - cleared and closed.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes:

(1)declare the following to be events of municipal and/or community significance and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to their taking place:

(a)10th Annual Latin American Music Festival at Christie Pits Park to be held on August 1, 2 and 3, 1998;

(b)Festival at St. Mary of the Angels Church to be held on August 7, 8 and 9, 1998; and

(c)Bloor By The Park Street Party on the curb lane and sidewalk of south side of Bloor Street West from Indian Road east for approximately 200 lineal feet to be held on July 11, 1998;

(2)advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the following events and has no objection to their taking place:

(a)Royal Bank Picnic at Olympic Island to be held on August 13, 1998;

(b)St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Annual Community Picnic at David Crombie Park to be held on July 11, 1998;

(c)Summerworks Theatre Festival in Outdoor Courtyard of the Factory Theatre to be held on August 6 - 16, 1998;

(d)Keen Pre-Race Reception on the premises of the Marine Museum at Exhibition Place to be held on July 16, 1998

(e)Rittal Systems Ltd. Company Picnic at Centre Island at site #26, to be held on July 11, 1998;

(3)endorse the action of the Toronto Community Council in having advised the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has declared the Lesbian and Gay Pride Day Celebrations, in the Area of Church and Wellesley Streets which was held on June27 and 28, 1998 to be an event of municipal significance and had no objection to it taking place; and

(4)since the following events take place prior to the meeting of Council, endorse the actions of the Toronto Community Council in having advised the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it was aware of the following events and had no objection to their taking place:

(a)Ruth's Steak House Picnic at Ward's Island which was held on July 1, 1998;

(b)Toronto Marriott Eaton Centre Picnic at Olympic Island which was held on July 2, 1998; and

(c)Fontaine Films Reception on Dunloe Road which was held on July 1, 2, or 3, 1998

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(May 22, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Hollyer, General Manager, Ruth's Chris Steak House;

-(May 27, 1998) from Mr. Tony Tamburro, Director of Food and Beverage, Toronto Marriott Eaton Centre;

-(June 2, 1998) from Ms. Ivone Carion;

-(May 23, 1998) from L. Goldberg;

-(June 3, 1998) from Ms. Jill Ward;

-(June 13, 1998) from Mr. Michael Blecher;

-(June 24, 1998) from Councillor Rae;

-(June 15, 1998) from Mr. Marcelo E. Ruiz;

-(June 12, 1998) from Mr. Robert Costello, Bloor by the Park;

-(June 9, 1998) from Fr. Luis d'Araujo;

-(undated) from Councillor Miller and Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski;

-(June 16, 1998) from Ms. JoAnne Godawa; and

-(June 16, 1998) from Bill Graham, President, Golden Rule Marketing.

(City Council on July 8 and 9, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a copy of a communication (March 4, 1998) addressed to Sgt.Greenaway, C.R.U., 13 Division, Metro Police Services, from Councillor Betty Disero, Davenport, requesting information to assist the St.Mary of the Angels Church with its request for a liquor licence for its August 7-9, 1998 Festival.)

61

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Intersection of Vaughan Road and Bathurst Street - Request for Additional Street Name Signs (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(June 5, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services respecting Intersection of Vaughan Road and Bathurst Street - Request for Additional Street Name Signs (Midtown), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(b)Area Parking Study - Hillcrest and Wychwood Park Neighbourhoods (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(June 9, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services respecting Area Parking Study - Hillcrest and Wychwood Park Neighbourhoods (Midtown), and recommending:

(1) That Toronto Community Council endorse the work plan, as outlined in the body of this report, for an Area Parking Study of the Hillcrest and Wychwood Park Neighbourhoods; and

(2) That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report, as necessary, on any recommendations arising as a result of the Area Parking Study.

(c)Shoxs Billiard Lounge - Operation of the Boulevard Cafe at 2827 Dundas Street West (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report, until its meeting to be held on July 22, 1998, for deputations:

(June 10, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services respecting Shoxs Billiard Lounge - Operation of the Boulevard Cafe at 2827 Dundas Street West (Davenport), and recommending that the temporary licence for the boulevard cafe fronting 2827 Dundas Street West be extended to the end of the 1998 cafe season under the present terms and conditions and I be requested to report back after the end of the 1998 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

(d)Fences Within the City Street Allowance (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following reports until the draft proposed fence by-law for the City of Toronto is submitted:

(i)(March 18, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services respecting Fences Within the City Street Allowance (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto), and recommending that the Toronto Community Council choose between the options for amending the current Municipal Code requirements for fences on public property within the former City of Toronto, and the public notification process as presented below:

(1)(a)That fences and ornamental walls within the City street allowance, both at the front of a property and beyond the main front wall of the building not exceed a height of 1.0 m;

OR

(b)That fences and ornamental walls within the City street allowance located beyond the main front wall of the building not exceed a height of 1.9 m and that such fences and ornamental walls be set back a minimum distance of 2.1 m from the rear edge of the City sidewalk or 3.8m from the curb where there is no sidewalk;

AND

(2)(a)That notification of all fence and ornamental wall applications continue to be forwarded to the Ward Councillors;

OR

(b)That the requirement for notification of fences and ornamental wall applications to the Ward Councillor be eliminated;

OR

(c)That City staff post a notice on the property, of application for fences and ornamental walls over 1.0 m in height for a period of 14 days;

AND

(3)That appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(ii)(March 19, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor respecting Delegation of Fence Approval Process - Legal Issues

(iii)(May 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the following motion adopted by Council at its meeting held on May 13, and 14, 1998

"WHEREAS City Council at its meeting held on April 16, 1998, received, for information, Item (p), entitled 'Fences Within the City Street Allowance (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto)', embodied Clause No. 96 of Report No. 3 of Toronto Community Council, headed 'Other items Considered by the Community Council';

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, in accordance with Section 46 of the Council Procedural By-law, Item (p), entitled 'Fences Within the City Street Allowance (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto)' embodied in Report No. 3 of Toronto Community Council, headed 'Other Items Considered by the Community Council', be reopened and referred back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration."

(e)Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 198008 to Convert an Existing Industrial Building to 15 Live-work Units at 99 Chandos Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(May 25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 198008 to Convert an Existing Industrial Building to 15 Live-work Units at 99 Chandos Avenue (Davenport), and recommending that I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the applications and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(f)Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 198009 for 2543, 2545 and 2549 Dundas Street West and 22R Jerome Street (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(May 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 198009 for 2543, 2545 and 2549 Dundas Street West and 22R Jerome Street (Davenport), and recommending that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application and to notify owners and tenants within 120 metres of the site, the Dundas West Residents Association, the West Toronto Junction Historical Society and the Ward Councillors.

(g)Rezoning Application 198007 to Permit the Construction of 62 Live/Work Units and Eleven Detached and Semi-Detached Houses with Basement Apartments at 35 Golden Avenue, 30/36 Morrow Avenue (High Park).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(June 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Rezoning Application 198007 to Permit the Construction of 62 Live/Work Units and Eleven Detached and Semi-Detached Houses with Basement Apartments at 35 Golden Avenue, 30/36 Morrow Avenue (High Park), and recommending that:

(1)I be requested to hold a public meeting in the area to discuss the application and to notify the tenants and owners within 120 metres of the site and the Roncesvalles/Macdonell Residents Association;

(2)The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(3)The owner immediately conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could have resulted in negative environmental effects to the site. This report should be submitted to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council.

(h)The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(i)(June 4, 1998) Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Advisability of Closing Brunswick Avenue at the South Side of Bloor Street for the Creation of an Urban Square (Downtown), and recommending that this report be received for information purposes.

(ii)Petition with 320 signatures in favour of closing Brunswick Avenue.

(i)Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 197018 to Permit a Four-Storey Mixed-Use Building Containing Ground Floor Retail Space and 36 Residential Units at 1117 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following status report:

(i)(June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 197018 to Permit a Four-Storey Mixed-Use Building Containing Ground Floor Retail Space and 36 Residential Units at 1117 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that I be requested to hold a second public meeting in the area to discuss the revised application.

(ii)(June 20, 1998) from Mr. Ted Pejlak forwarding a petition in opposition.

(j)Preparation of a Framework and Concept Plan for Lands South of the Ship Channel (Port Industrial District) (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(i)(June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Preparation of a Framework and Concept Plan for Lands South of the Ship Channel (Port Industrial District) (Downtown), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(ii)(June 24 1998) from Ms. Jacqueline Courval, Co-chair, Friends of the Spit.

(k)Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - 59 Barton Avenue (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following:

(i)(June 11, 1998) from Councillor Bossons respecting Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision - Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - 59 Barton Avenue (Midtown);

(ii)Notices of Committee of Adjustment Decisions dated January 14, 1998;

(iii)(June 23, 1998) from Ms. Joan MacCallum, in support of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment respecting 59 Barton;

(iv)(June 24, 1998) from Mr. Jassie Khurana, Khurana Associates.

Mr. Jassie Khurana appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Councillor Adams declared an interest in the foregoing matter in that he owns property within the notice area of the subject property.

(l)Designation of Loading Areas and On-Street Parking Spaces in Downtown Toronto for Use by Motor Coaches.

The Toronto Community Council report having received the following communication for information:

(June 9, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 3 contained in Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Designation of Loading Areas and On-Street Parking Spaces in Downtown Toronto for Use by Motor Coaches", which was amended and adopted by City Council at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998.

(m)Interim Purchasing By-law, Awarding of Contracts.

The Toronto Community Council report having received the following communication for information:

(June 8, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 17 contained in Report No. 7 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Interim Purchasing By-law, Awarding of Contracts", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998.

(n)Mountain Biking in High Park (High Park).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following motion, placed by Councillor Miller and seconded by Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

"WHEREAS mountain biking has become a popular sport in High Park; and

WHEREAS we, as Ward Councillors, have received numerous complaints regarding the high incidence of damage caused by mountain bikes in High Park;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff , in consultation with the City Cycling Committee, be requested to report with respect to the issue of facilitating alternative mountain biking locations; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff, in consultation with the City Cycling Committee, review possible sites for a mountain bike course by consulting with appropriate agencies, in co which might have available land, such as TEDCO."

(o)Zoning for 80 Turnberry Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the zoning for 80 Turnberry Avenue:

(June 18, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting 80 Turnberry Avenue

(p)Municipal Approval to Permit Certain Wine Racks to Remain Open on Any Public Holiday.

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the City Solicitor and the City Clerk to prepare a response to the request contained in the following communication, in consultation with the Ward Councillors where the stores are located, and to report to the Toronto Community Council, if necessary.

(June 12, 1998) from Jeff Power, The Wine Rack, requesting Municipal Approval to permit certain Wine Racks to remain open on any public holiday.

(q)Traffic Management Study in the South Eglinton West Area (Bounded by Yonge Street, Eglinton Avenue East, Mount Pleasant Road and Manor Road East) (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)formalized the Sough Eglinton West Area (bounded by Yonge Street, Eglinton Avenue East, Mount Pleasant Road and Manor Road East for a traffic management study; and

(2)authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to assist the South Eglinton Residents and Ratepayers Association (SERRA) traffic committee in seeking solutions to reduce speed and volume of traffic on residential streets in this area:

(i)(June 11, 1998) from Councillor Walker; and

(ii)(June 18, 1998) from Councillor Johnston.

(r)Palmerston Gardens from Manning Avenue to Palmerston Avenue - Transfer of Parking from the North Side to the South Side (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council report having received the following communications:

(i)(June 10, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, Works and Emergency Services, addressed to Councillor Adams;

(ii)(June 23, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Judith and Trent Brady, addressed to Councillor Adams;

(iii)(June 23, 1998) from Ms. Anne Minguet;

(iv)(June 22, 1998) from Ms. Carolynne Veffer;

(v)(June 23, 1998) from Mr. Elden Freeman;

(vi)(June 24, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Brent and Barbara Kilbourn; and

(vii)(June 12, 1998) from Councillor Adams, addressed to Residents of Palmerston Gardens

Ms. Judith and Mr. Trent Brady appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(Councillor Adams, at the meeting of City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, declared his interest in Item (k), entitled "Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - 59Barton Avenue (Midtown)", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he owns property within the notice area of the subject property.)

Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE,

Chair

Toronto, June 24 and 25, 1998

(Report No. 8 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.)