City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules

City of Toronto Council and Committees

All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

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

URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 8

1Morningside Heights Land Use Study and Related Development Applications, and Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study.

2Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts.

3Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending.

4Vending Permit No. 95-213 York Mills Road.

5Consultant's Study - Inventory of Cycling Trail Opportunities in Rail and Hydro Corridors.

6Contract No. T-8-98:Bathurst Street Bridge Over theToronto Terminal Railway South of Front Street - Structure Rehabilitation.

7Contract No. T-56-98: F.G. Gardiner Expressway-Parliament Street to Cherry Street Substructure Repairs.

8Contract No. EB9806RD:Construction of Waterfront Drive from Park Lawn Road to Palace Pier Court, Including Road Construction, Streetlighting, Streetscaping and Underground Utility Distribution Duct Work.

9TTC Streetcar Platforms and Bicycle Lanes on Lake Shore Boulevard West Between 30th Street and 40th Street.

10TTC Streetcar Platforms on Lake Shore Boulevard West at Park Lawn Road; and Construction of Waterfront Drive.

11Bayview Avenue from Balliol Street to Soudan Avenue/Parkhurst Boulevard: Request to Permit Parking in the Off-Peak Direction During the Morning and Afternoon Peak Periods.

12Removal of Trees from the Sheppard Avenue Right-of-Way at Burbank Drive/Bessarian Road.

13Passenger Drop-Off Lay-By on Bloor Street East Required for Private Sector Development.

14Yonge Street Median Construction, North York Boulevard to Ellerslie Avenue.

15Road Modifications Required for Private Sector Developments: Various Locations.

16Proposed Introduction of Left-Turn Prohibitions at 2530 Weston Road.

17Proposed Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Designation: Finch Avenue West Between Weston Road and a Point 255 Metres West of Weston Road.

18Proposed Parking Prohibition on the West Side of Scarlett Road, Near theLambton Golf and Country Club Driveway.

19Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Bathurst Street and Robinson Street/Carr Street.

20Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Broadview Avenue and Hillside Drive.

21Proposed Pedestrian Crossover: Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue.

22Procurement of Used Buses.

23Toronto Transit CommissionFamily Pass/Celebrate Toronto Street Festival.

24Incorporation of the Terms of Reference for the Sub-Committee on Pro-Transit Initiatives into the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Task Force

25Other Items Considered by the Committee.

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 8

OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on June 15 and 16, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

Morningside Heights Land Use Study and

Related Development Applications, and

Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study.

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

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the City of Toronto seek the co-operation of the Federal government, the Provincial government, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the land owners and other potential partners, such as Friends of the Rouge Watershed and Save the Rouge Valley System Incorporated, to acquire, in conjunction with the City of Toronto, flood plain lands in the study area, particularly the area between the Morningside Tributary and the Rouge Park, and south of Cedarbrae Golf Course to the Canadian Pacific Railway, at fair market value based on the current land use designation of the lands, for dedication to the City of Toronto or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for public parkland;

(2)the City of Toronto confirm that no major road should be built in the Rouge Park;

(3)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to:

(a)submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at the appropriate time, on how the City-wide affordable housing policies are being achieved at this site; and

(b)investigate the feasibility of a requirement that all future developments in this study area manage their own storm water on-site; and

(4)the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, be consulted in order to determine how increased transit usage can be achieved through road planning and design on this site.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1) to (4) of the Scarborough Community Council embodied in Clause No. 13 of Report No. 5 of The Scarborough Community Council, headed "Morningside Heights Land Use Study and Related Development Applications, and the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study", viz:

"The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council:

(1)endorse Phase 2 and Addendum and direct staff to complete Phase 3 of the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study;

(2)defer the redesignation of the lands south of the Hydro Corridor, east of Staines Road, currently designated Open Space to a later date, until the City has rectified the problems associated with the diversion structure and the stabilization of the stream north of the Corridor;

(3)adopt Option 2, i.e., retain employment uses west of the Tributary; permit Executive Residential uses east of the Tributary, with Significant Natural Area Centred on the Morningside Tributary, and:

(a)resolve that the existing land use designations west of the Morningside Tributary be retained as one of the largest remaining greenfield employment opportunities in the City of Toronto, and that staff be directed to initiate an official plan amendment to redesignate the lands east of the Tributary for Executive Residential uses; and

(b)direct staff to use the recommendations from the staff report on the Phase 2 Subwatershed Analysis and Addendum, submitted to Scarborough Council last fall, including a green space corridor centred on Morningside and Neilson Tributaries as the basis for preparing the Implementation Plan for the Subwatershed Study;

(4)endorse the position taken by the Scarborough Community Council that it does not support any road connection between Highway 407/the Markham By-pass and Highway 401 as it is detrimental and negative to the proper planning of the Morningside Heights area;".

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report directly to Council for consideration with this matter on the recommendations contained in the submission dated June 15, 1998 from Mr. Jim Robb, Project Co-ordinator, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, viz:

"Therefore, Friends of the Rouge Watershed requests that the Urban Environment and Development Committee make the following prudent and diligent recommendations:

-The Committee recommends the establishment of a minimum flood-plain buffer of 160 metres wide along the Morningside Tributary between Steeles Avenue and the CPR tracks to avoid the public liabilities associated with allowing development too close to flood-prone and/or erosion-prone areas and to protect the ecological features and functions of the Morningside Tributary area of the Rouge Park;

-That the City of Toronto seek the co-operation of the federal government, the provincial government, the Rouge Park, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the landowners and other potential partners to help acquire the lands between Staines Road and the Rouge Valley (at fair market value based on their current land-use designation and constraints) for dedication to the City of Toronto or the Rouge Park for flood plain, public parkland and ecosystem protection;

-The Committee supports the unanimous (11-0) Scarborough Community Council position that no new roads or highways should be built through the Rouge Park area (including the Morningside Tributary) south of Steeles Avenue;

-Whether the land-use is industrial or residential, the Committee recommends that any further development within the Morningside Tributary watershed will need to:

(a)comply with the Subwatershed Study recommendations and pertinent provincial and federal legislation (e.g., federal Fisheries Act and policy);

(b)improve water quality, stream base flow and red-side dace habitat;

(c)reduce flash floods and erosion by maximizing infiltration of precipitation and protecting prudent flood plain buffers;

(d)support the goal and objectives of the Rouge Park Management Plan by protecting, expanding and interconnecting natural areas (e.g.,streams, woodlands, wetlands);

(e)protect the stream corridors defined in Map 5 of the Metropolitan Greenspace System (December 30, 1994)."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (June 4, 1998) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on June 3 and 4, 1998, had before it Clause No. 13 of Report No.5 of The Scarborough Community Council, headed "Morningside Heights Land Use Study and Related Development Applications, and Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study".

Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration, with requests that:

(1)the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services develop a protocol for the processing of planning matters and submit a joint report thereon to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

(2)the City Clerk submit a report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on a possible amendment to the Procedural By-law which would permit a Member of Council to put a motion to defer or refer a matter prior to the questioning of staff.

(Clause No. 13 of Report No.5 of

The Scarborough Community Council, headed

"Morningside Heights Land Use Study and Related Development Applications,

and Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study.)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration, with requests that:

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council:

(1)endorse Phase 2 and Addendum and direct staff to complete Phase 3 of the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study;

(5)consider this matter at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 3, 1998.

The Scarborough Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested that the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

(1)recommend to Community Council, a strategy to proactively protect and preserve the natural environment for the areas that Council determines should remain designated as employment lands;

(2)request the applicant to submit a preliminary Plan of Subdivision based on a minimum average housing lot size of 12,000 square feet, such Plan to also include provision for neighbourhood commercial, parks, and any other community facilities necessary;

(3)more strictly refine the Employment Uses designation in the Official Plan; and

(4)report to Community Council with respect to the lands west of the Tributary to further refine the boundary between Industrial and Residential Uses.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (March26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This report responds to a status report request by Scarborough Community Council regarding the previous positions of the former Scarborough Council (see Appendix 1) with respect to the Morningside Heights Land Use Study Area, an area as shown on Figures 1 and 2, and the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study as shown on Figures 4, 5 and 6. The report presents three options for Council to consider.

It is essential that Council determine its preferred Option in order to provide clear direction to staff, landowners and the community regarding the future of the Morningside Heights Area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Option 1 has major unbudgeted financial implications. These are set out within that Option on Page2 of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council determine its preferred Option from among the three:

Option 1 -Acquire Most of Morningside Heights Land Use Study Area

for Parkland and Renaturalize the Morningside Tributary:

(a)resolve that the areas identified by Save the Rouge Valley System (SRVS) be purchased to implement the SRVS recommendation that most of the Morningside Heights Land Use Study Area become a natural area and authorize funding of $200,000.00 for technical studies to re-do the Phase 2 subwatershed analysis and $25,000.00 for real estate appraisals, to provide technical data required; and

(b)direct staff to initiate an amendment to the Scarborough Official Plan to redesignate all the Industrial lands within the Morningside Heights Land Use Study area to Open Space uses.

The long-term funding implication of choosing Option 1 will not be known until the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study Implementation Plan is prepared. Work to date indicates the cost of acquiring land may be $57,000,000.00 to $80,000,000.00 and the cost of replacing stormwater management facilities could be as much as $100,000,000.00.

If Option 1 of the recommendations is adopted, the immediate financial implication is $225,000.00 ($200,000.00 for technical studies and $25,000.00 for real estate appraisals). Funding for this is not included in the previous or 1998 Capital Budget. Two projects previously approved, but for which funds have not been spent, are:

Project No. 8012 - Watermain Construction - Finch Avenue and Beare Road; and

Project No. 8571 - Wishing Well Park Sewers - pond inlet modifications.

The Finch Avenue and Beare Road project extends a watermain to homes experiencing inadequate supply of water. The Wishing Well Pond project increases the level of protection against flooding for area residents; the current level of service already meets city standards. Without this funding, new funds would be required.

Funds are also required for the City Solicitor for expert witnesses to defend Option 1 at the Ontario Municipal Board.

Option 2 -Retain Employment West of Tributary, Permit Executive Residential East of the Tributary, with Significant Natural Area Centred on the Morningside Tributary:

(a)resolve that the existing land use designations west of the Morningside Tributary be retained as one of the largest remaining greenfield employment opportunities in the City of Toronto and that staff be directed to initiate an official plan amendment to redesignate the lands east of the Tributary for Executive Residential Uses; and

(b)direct staff to use the recommendations from the staff report, on the Phase 2 Subwatershed Analysis and Addendum submitted to Scarborough Council last fall, including a green space corridor centred on Morningside and Neilson tributaries as the basis for preparing the Implementation Plan for the Subwatershed Study.

Option 3 -Designate Morningside Heights for Residential Uses,

with Significant Natural Area Centred on Morningside Tributary:

(a)resolve to amend the Official Plan for the lands within the Morningside Heights Land Use Study Areas west of the Morningside Tributary to provide for high quality low density and medium residential development in an enhanced natural setting, including a green space along the west boundary of the study area; and

(b)direct staff to use the recommendations from the staff report, on the Phase 2 Subwatershed Analysis and Addendum submitted to Council last fall, including a green space corridor centred on Morningside and Neilson tributaries as the basis for preparing the Implementation Plan for the Subwatershed Study.

The following recommendations are common to all three options set out above.

(a)direct staff to report to the May 27, 1998, meeting of the Scarborough Community Council on whatever amendments are necessary to the transportation plan components of the Scarborough Official Plan and MetroPlan to support the adopted land use option and that all interested persons and agencies, including the Regional Municipalities of York and Durham and the Towns of Markham and Pickering to be advised; and

(b)direct staff to bring forward Bills to amend the by-law for the Protection and Conservation of Trees (No. 25150) to extend coverage to all properties with single family homes in the Tapscott Employment District.

Comments:

(1)Morningside Heights Proposal:

In 1985, the owners of the majority of the Morningside Heights Land Use Study Area, bounded by the CPR lines, Steeles Avenue and the Rouge Valley top-of-bank, submitted applications to change these lands from Industrial to Residential uses. The history of these applications and the study reports is detailed in Appendix 2.

Morningside Heights landowners appealed their amendment application because the former Scarborough Council did not make a decision on the application. The Board has scheduled a pre-hearing conference on July 2, 1998 and set October 19, 1998 as the hearing date.

Staff has considered the environmental, land use and transportation matters which affect this area. Economic Development staff has recommended that it is desirable to retain this area for employment uses as this is one of the last remaining greenfield employment areas in Toronto.

Planning and Buildings staff do not share this view. There has been a negligible uptake of land for industrial uses within Tapscott in recent years, even with the economic recovery now in full swing.

Planning staff recognize the need to provide sites for the long-term employment needs in Tapscott after the existing supply of 21 hectares (51 acres) of serviced land is fully utilized. How can this best be done? In the view of Planning staff, the lands in the Passmore and Steeles area, 200 hectares (500 acres) either side of Markham Road and west of the CPR line (Figure7) have a superior location for industry and better access to major roads than lands within the study area.

Since the required sanitary and storm sewers must pass through Morningside Heights and will be financed by levies from its development, it makes sense to encourage development of the study area to occur as rapidly as possible. In the considered opinion of Planning staff this can occur much more rapidly with residential development in the Morningside Heights Study Area. Retaining the present industrial designations in the study area may have the unintended effect of seriously hindering the City's ability to provide more attractive greenfield lands elsewhere for its future employment needs in the eastern part of the City.

(2)Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study:

(a)Background:

Scarborough Council considered the Subwatershed Analysis last fall. (The terms of reference of the study are set out in Appendix 3.) SRVS argued there was an opportunity and a need to protect more land than staff recommended. The SRVS recommendations include specific directions to substantially alter the Subwatershed Study. The most significant is the removal of all existing stormwater management structures. Staff have not been able to determine whether this is technically possible. A preliminary review indicates a possible cost of removal and replacement with underground storage in the order of $100,000,000.00.

Staff recommended an 'ecological corridor' along the main branches of the tributary be acquired. The proposed corridor was to be at least 100 metres (330 feet) wide, widening to include forested areas at Passmore Avenue and Neilson Road. These corridors covered 120 hectares (290 acres) in Scarborough and a further 30 hectares (75acres) in Markham. Within Morningside Heights Study area, the corridor covers 60 hectares (150 acres). It was expected that the required lands would be acquired by a combination of dedication and acquisition.

SRVS supports a very long term plan, which might take 100 years to achieve. City staff recommended the Subwatershed analysis as a sensible plan to retrofit the Morningside Tributary, a plan which has the support of the technical agencies. SRVS advocate significant restoration of the watershed which is now two-thirds urbanized.

(b)SRVS Recommendations:

The SRVS recommendations are two-fold and significantly change the direction of the subwatershed study. Five of the recommendations call for physical changes to the subwatershed study directions (replace man-made stormwater management facilities with natural stream; achieve a natural hydrograph; locate stormwater management structures outside the floodplain/natural areas; prohibit road crossings of Morningside and target specific habitat). These recommendations can only be implemented by large-scale acquisition of private lands, in Toronto and Markham. Methods to acquire land include purchase and negotiation with the land owner leading to dedication.

Staff evaluated the mechanisms to bring the lands recommended by SRVS into public ownership (see Appendix 4). The magnitude of the lands required necessitate purchase of not only the area recommended by SRVS but potentially all of Morningside Heights. While some acquisition is possible by methods other than purchase, dedication of all of the private lands is not likely if no development is permitted.

SRVS recommendations cover about 230 hectares (570 acres) in Toronto and more in Markham. If these recommendations are implemented, staff believe that the land would have to be purchased at an estimated cost of $57,000,000.00. It is our considered opinion that this would, in fact, likely require purchase of up to 330hectares (810 acres) at a cost in the order of $80,000,000.00.

(c)Tree By-law:

The City applied the Tree By-law to protection and conservation of trees on all properties except those properties with single family homes. Some of the wood lot properties within Tapscott have houses on them. As there is a strong interest in preserving existing trees in the subwatershed, the Tree By-law should be extended to apply to single family properties in Tapscott.

(3)Land Use:

(a)Executive Residential Community Proposal:

The Planning and Buildings Department has consistently supported Executive Residential uses east of the Morningside Tributary because it is adjacent to the CedarBrae Golf and Country Club and Rouge Park. The new community would be virtually surrounded by golf courses and open space. Planning staff recognize employment uses could be viable west of the tributary, but support high quality residential uses here if developed in conjunction with a major amenity such as a championship calibre golf course. A Residential community west of the tributary must be designed and developed with such an amenity to give it character, to make it a place of distinction and to avoid becoming just another subdivision.

Morningside Heights would be a highly attractive residential environment for business executives. These are the very people whose business and community leadership we need to attract and not lose to communities in the 905 region. The upscale housing to be created in Morningside Heights would fill a gap at the top end of the housing market which now exists in the east part of the City. This would implement both Scarborough's Official Plan policy for executive housing and Metro Plan's policy to provide a full range of housing types and unit sizes.

The community plan would provide for a green space corridor as a buffer from the industrial lands to the west. In addition, many of the objectives of the subwatershed study, such as the dedication of the Morningside Tributary corridor, can be accomplished through development agreements and land dedications.

(b)Reasons to Retain Employment Uses:

Toronto needs greenfield employment lands now more than ever to accommodate relocations from older employment areas and to compete with neighbouring jurisdictions. Economic Development Staff recommends retaining existing industrial uses designations in the Morningside Heights area of the Tapscott Employment District. A review of the Tapscott Employment District found that the area is viable for industry. These findings were supported in principle by Scarborough's Economic Development Committee in April 1997.

Morningside Heights represents one of the largest contiguous greenfield employment area in the City of Toronto. Based on absorption rates for employment lands in Scarborough since 1990, a period which experienced a severe recession in our real estate market, Morningside Heights provides Toronto with less than a 20-year supply of lands for employment use. If converted to residential uses the opportunity to provide future employment is lost forever.

Economic Development staff was prepared to compromise on its position to retain employment uses in Morningside Heights by supporting residential uses to the east of the Morningside Tributary. A report by the Acting City Manager, the Commissioner of Planning and the Executive Director of Economic Development supporting this position went to Scarborough Planning and Buildings Committee in June 1997. The compromise provides the ability to bring services to the employment areas to the Passmore/Steeles area while retaining lands west of the tributary for employment uses.

Is it important to retain large tracts of land for future industrial development? Industrial businesses are the critical wealth generator providing high value jobs, export sales and employment spin-offs. The manufacturing sector alone, in the City of Toronto, employs 164,000 in 6,100 establishments (1996). Economists estimate that one manufacturing job generates three other jobs in the local economy.

Retention of industrial/commercial realty assessment is important. While representing only 29 percent of total realty assessment it was responsible for 54 percent of property taxes collected in 1997. Redevelopment of industrial areas to residential erodes the commercial/industry assessment base. The conversion of office and industrial properties to residential is well documented and a trend that is expected to continue in our older employment districts. Morningside Heights represents one of the last areas in Toronto to capture business relocating out of our older employment/industrial areas. Over the long term, Morningside Heights has the potential to provide more than 13,000jobs and generate $50 million in property taxes if allowed to remain an employment district.

Converting employment districts to residential uses has a further financial impact to the municipality because housing in Toronto costs more to service than it generates in revenue. Only 75 percent of the local expenditures for housing are covered by the residential tax payer, the remaining 25 percent is subsidized by the industrial/commercial sector. The conversion of Morningside Heights to residential uses would incur an annual short fall in the range of $3 million to $8 million, depending on the actual number of residential units.

As we emerge from the depressed real estate market of the early 1990s, inventories of existing available industrial and office facilities are diminishing. Toronto's industrial vacancy rates were at a high of 12.8 percent in 1993. Today they are 6.9percent with rental rates approaching levels required to support new and speculative construction. Greenfield locations like Morningside Heights offer cost-effective solutions for business requiring new facilities.

If the City of Toronto is unable to accommodate the growth of our businesses, we will increasingly face the loss of business to neighbouring jurisdictions. Ingram Micro, in its recent announcement, identified the lack of available sites as the primary reason for its relocation from Toronto to Mississauga, a loss to Toronto of 900 jobs.

The City of Toronto's ability to accommodate future business growth is far from clear. The redevelopment of traditionally industrial lands to residential and retail uses in older districts has to be taken into consideration when examining the possible conversion of the largest tract of greenfield employment land to residential. On this basis, Economic Development would strongly encourage Council not to support the Morningside Heights ownership group application to designate these lands for residential. Economic Development staff recommend that a City wide employment and assessment review be undertaken to ascertain Toronto's competitive position in the GTA and identify the related financial impacts in order to better determine Toronto's ability to accommodate business growth and compete for new and expanding business.

(4)Status of the Markham-Scarborough Link:

The issue of a major north-south road located in the east end of the City, linking Highways401 and 407, has been the subject of many reports over the past 20 years. The level of interest in this road is significant. The three neighbouring municipalities of YorkRegion, Durham Region, and the Town of Markham have requested party status at the OMB hearing for Morningside Heights, stating that their interest relates only to the road link. Amendments to the Scarborough Official Plan, OPA 722, dealing with the deletion of the East Metro Transportation Corridor and OPA 990, the North-East Roads Study and the deferral of MetroPlan, which have been appealed by the Region of Durham and other municipalities, may be consolidated into this hearing. The following outlines the background to this important issue.

(a)Provincial Policies in Conflict:

In 1990, the Province of Ontario announced the creation of the Rouge Park. Coincidently, the Minister of Transportation announced that there would be "no new roads constructed south of Steeles Avenue in the Rouge Park." The policy statements precluded a number of planned inter-regional road connections that were included in the City of Scarborough Official Plan, including the westerly extension of FinchAvenue and Passmore Avenue. Council amended its Road Plan for the RougePark area (OPA 990) to implement this Provincial Policy. OPA 990 is currently awaiting approval at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

The East Metro Freeway, planned to link Highway 401 and Highway 407 through what is now the Rouge Park, would also be precluded. Although the Province has confirmed on many occasions that the East Metro Freeway will not be constructed as originally planned, the Province has not sold any of the land that was assembled for this purpose. Provincial staff continue to protect the original planned interchange at Highway 401, securing and protecting land through the development process.

By continuing to protect this alignment, now known as the East Metro Transportation Corridor, the Province is causing a great deal of uncertainty to the adjacent communities and environmental groups. Municipalities abutting Toronto continue to hope that a major road facility will be constructed as originally planned.

(b)The Environmental Assessment Proposal:

In 1994, the Province agreed to finance an Environmental Assessment Proposal (EAP) study of a Markham/Scarborough Transportation Link. A public consultation process was conducted in early 1995 to receive public input to the draft EAP. Groups in Scarborough expressed strong concerns. They also questioned the need for a link and the elimination of other corridors from further study.

In the fall of 1995, Scarborough Council resolved not to support the continuation of the Markham/Scarborough Link Environmental Assessment Proposal. Markham Council approved the EAP and gave strong support to proceed with the Environmental Assessment.

(c)Morningside Heights Alternative Road Alignment:

The Morningside Heights landowners propose an alignment for the extension of Morningside Avenue along the east side of the CPR tracks, crossing the tracks north of the HEPC corridor and continuing north to Steeles Avenue on land that is owned by other interests. The alignment is similar to some of the alternatives identified in the 1995 EAP study.

While this alignment may be the only possible alignment given the many environmental and political constraints, there are many implementation problems associated with the proposal route. The following is a brief discussion of the salient reasons why this alignment is likely to be very difficult to achieve.

(i)Grade Separations:

The City of Scarborough commenced an environmental assessment of the Morningside/Finch/CPR grade separation in 1997. The study is currently on hold due to many factors including the uncertainty caused by lack of a land use decision regarding the Morningside Heights area. Finch Avenue between Neilson Road and Morningside Avenue is currently handling more traffic than the broken two-lane cross-section was designed to carry. In addition, the narrow/low existing grade separation must be replaced to allow for safer more efficient handling of traffic including transit buses. The alignment suggested by the Morningside Heights group would have to be capable of accommodating this future grade separation.

The suggested alignment crosses the CP Rail line between the Ontario Hydro Corridor and Passmore Avenue, requiring an expensive grade separation and the co-operation of more land owners.

The intersecting point with Steeles Avenue would have to be located far enough west of the CP rail line to allow for the ultimate CP/Steeles Avenue grade separation. The new road would also have to cross the environmentally sensitive Morningside Tributary south of Steeles Avenue.

(ii)Markham By-Pass Connection:

The new road must make a direct connection with the Markham By-pass to be of any value to the future north-south travel demand. The proposed intersection of the Markham By-pass and Highway 7 is located just west of 10th Line on the east side of the planned Cornell Community. This is approximately three kilometres east of the suggested intersection point at Steeles Avenue. If the road were aligned as proposed it would be circuitous in the extreme (Figure 9).

A direct connection with the Markham By-pass would require a crossing of the Parkview Golf Course in a north easterly direction. This route would be extremely expensive as it would have to diagonally cross the Rouge River flood plain. Depending on the environmental constraints, the new road may require a bridge one kilometre long to satisfactorily cross the Rouge Valley. This is more than twice the length of the Bloor viaduct. The construction problems associated with the route are further exacerbated by the need to be grade separated at the CN rail line and then somehow cross 9th Line south of the Box Grove Community.

To avoid the expensive crossing of the Rouge River Valley north of SteelesAvenue, the Town of Markham may propose to extend the Markham By-pass south to Steeles Avenue east of 9th Line. If a road was ended in this location, opposite the Rouge Park, it would dump a very large volume of traffic onto SteelesAvenue. This would also put further pressure for a southerly extension through the northwest portion of the Rouge Park.

(iii) Impact on Malvern Community:

In addition to the already noted concerns, the proposed alignment depends on funnelling regional commuter traffic through an existing road link within a built up community. If the road is successful as a regional transportation link, the increased traffic volumes and possible access restrictions may well have the effect of isolating Malvern's Neighbourhood 3 from community facilities in the Malvern core on which this neighbourhood depends.

(iv)Future Land Use of Morningside Heights:

The ultimate land use within Morningside Heights will have a bearing on the future road requirements. If the area is developed for executive residential uses, there will not be the demand to require the capacity provided by a

north-south arterial road. If, however, the area is developed as an employment district, potentially more major roads would be required to accommodate future travel demand and make the district more attractive for businesses to locate.

(v)Funding:

Provincial staff have confirmed that the new road would be funded by the local municipalities and not the Province. These costs would have a tremendous impact on the capital programs of the City of Toronto and York Region, given the number of grade separations and river crossings required.

Conclusions:

Council needs to enunciate its vision for the future of the Morningside Heights Study Area. Does Council want the lands to become a major natural area through public acquisition, effectively removing 230 hectares (570 acres) from any future urban developments? Alternatively, does Council want urban development with a natural corridor centred on the Morningside Tributary and Neilson Creek as proposed in the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Analysis Report and Addendum and as supported by staff?

If Council supports urban development, Council then must consider whether to retain the employment designations west of the Morningside Tributary or support the redesignation of these lands to provide for a high quality residential community with a significant natural feature.

While the component parts of this decision are complex, a clear direction from Council is essential to provide direction to staff, landowners and the community.

This report has the concurrence of the Executive Director of Scarborough Economic Development Department and the Commissioner of Works and Environment.

Contact Names:

Mr. David Beasley, MCIP, RPP, Principal Planner, Urban Planning and Development Services, 396-7026, Fax: 396-4265, E-mail: beasley@city.scarborough.on.ca.

Ms. Ann Rexe, MCIP, RPP., Assistant Director, Works and Emergency Services, 396-7156, Fax:396-5681, E-mail: rexe@city.scarborough.on.ca.

Mr. Bruce Graham, Manager, Community and Economic Development Services, 396-7066; Fax:396-4241, E-mail: graham@city.scarborough.on.ca.

Mr. Rod McPhail, Acting Director, Strategic Planning and Legislation, 396-7018, Fax: 396-4265, E-mail: mcphail@city.scarborough.on.ca.

--------

Appendix No. 1

Summary of Council Directions

(1)Scarborough Community Council requested a status report, on Morningside Heights, with input from all departments, for April 1, 1998.

(2)The former Scarborough Council tabled the land use recommendations for the Morningside Heights land west of Morningside Tributary and requested staff to report on the extension of Morningside Avenue in Morningside Heights (Clause No. 16 embodied in Report No. 17 of The Planning and Buildings Committee, considered by Council September 30, 1997).

(3)The former Scarborough Council requested a report on the methods and mechanisms to implement Save The Rouge Valley System Inc. (SRVS) recommendations. Council also directed staff to prepare the implementation plan for Morningside Tributary Subwatershed, incorporating ten recommendations made by SRVS. (Clause No. 1, Report No. 16 of The Works and Environment Committee, adopted as amended by Council September 30, 1997).

--------

Appendix No. 2

History of Morningside Heights Applications, Studies and OMB Appeals

In 1994, Council approved terms of reference for the Morningside Heights Land Use Study to determine whether or not the industrial designations should be changed. Council approved Official Plan Amendment 974 which identified this as a Special Study Area This amendment was subsequently appealed by the landowners.

In May of 1997, the Scarborough Planning and Buildings Committee considered a Preliminary Evaluation report on the Morningside Heights landowners' application for a new residential community of 3,150 single and attached dwelling units, and applications by the Cedar Brae Golf Club for 105 cluster residential units and Kaposi and Raponi for high density residential and commercial uses.

The report recommended that Phase1 of the Morningside Heights Land Use Study be concluded by Council supporting low density Executive Residential uses for that part of the study area between the Morningside Creek and the Rouge Valley. The report also recommended that residential uses be supported for the balance of the study area conditional on a commitment by the owners to a full scale 18 hole golf course and substantial reduction of the proposed residential densities.

Economic Development staff in a report, entitled "Morningside Heights Employment Review", stated that this area is a desirable employment area and the largest remaining greenfield development opportunity in the City of Toronto. The Economic Development Committee supported this position in principle on April 2, 1997.

The Planning and Buildings Committee then directed that a joint report be prepared by the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings and the Executive Director, Economic Development, with input from the Acting City Manager, specifically addressing the viability and desirability of retaining the existing industrial uses designations.

This joint report was considered by Council on June 10, 1997, in conjunction with previously prepared reports. The recommendations were to support Executive Residential uses east of the Morningside Creek, retain the existing industrial designations to the west, refuse the Kaposi and Raponi applications, give conceptual support to part of the Cedar Brae application, and report in September 1997 on progress on Phase 2 of the study.

Council supported Executive Residential uses east of the Morningside Creek. Rather than reconfirming industrial uses west of the tributary, Council directed that staff review whether these lands were appropriate for executive housing. A community information meeting was directed, which was subsequently held and reported to Council.

In response to Council's direction, planning staff, with the assistance of an expert golf course designer, explored the potential of the study area for executive housing. The resulting planning concept was set out in the report, entitled "Morningside Heights: An Executive Residential Golf Course Community in Scarborough".

On September 30, 1997, Council considered Planning and Buildings Department recommendations to implement this vision, including resolving Phase I of the Land Use Study in favour of an Executive Residential community, golf course and clusters of golf villas and proceeding with Phase2 with input from the Subwatershed Study and all interested parties.

Council considered this report in conjunction with a report by the Executive Director of Economic Development on "The Financial Impact - Conversion of Industrial Land to Residential, Morningside Heights". This report provided an analysis of the higher municipal costs related to servicing residential as opposed to employment land uses in Morningside Heights.

Council also considered the SRVS submission recommending retaining much of MorningsideHeights as either undeveloped or forested at this time. When Council considered the matter, Planning staff supported an Executive Residential Golf Course Community. Economic Development staff recommended retention of this area for employment. Council tabled the Planning and Buildings report with a direction that staff report back on the extension of MorningsideAvenue as part of the Land Use Study.

In October 1997, the Morningside Heights landowners appealed their official plan amendment application to the OMB.

--------

Appendix No. 3

Purpose of Subwatershed Study

Scarborough has been preparing the subwatershed study to provide an environmental plan for Morningside Tributary, in Markham and Toronto. The Study objectives were to:

(1)provide a balance between urban development and protection of the ecosystem;

(2)protect, restore, enhance historic, cultural, recreational and visual amenities;

(3)minimize flooding or reestablish natural floodplain hydrologic function where possible;

(4)prevent pollution;

(5)link strategy to land use approvals; and

(6)avoid liability for the City.

--------

Appendix No. 4

Methods of Implementing the SRVS Recommendations

and Techniques to Bring Land Into Public Ownership

(1)Review of Methods of Implementing the SRVS Recommendations:

(1)That the entire existing floodplain (known as the Regional Flood line) be protected, renaturalized and brought into public ownership.

Method of Implementing: Acquire.

(2)That all streams, and their headwater areas, be protected, renaturalized and brought into public ownership.

Method of Implementing: Acquire.

(3)That all natural vegetation in the area be given a Level One status, so that it cannot be destroyed.

Further discussion with SRVS indicated that the term 'natural vegetation' meant woodlots. The Subwatershed Analysis created three levels of protection. The only way to ensure that all woodlots remain will be to acquire them and put in place a management plan.

Method of Implementing: Acquire.

(4)That a protective 30-metre, publicly owned buffer be established along all streams and natural areas.

There are alternatives to public acquisition, such as conservation easements and stewardship agreements which may be equally effective without requiring public ownership.

Most of the proposed buffer lands recommended by SRVS have been achieved by staff recommendation; the remainder would have to be acquired.

The TRCA Full Authority has passed a resolution directing staff to consider the concerns raised by the Friends of the Rouge including a review of an increase of the 10-metre setback in the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study. TRCA staff have not reported back and we will advise Council accordingly.

Method of Implementing: Acquire.

(5)That a 300-acre tableland forest be created to connect the Morningside stream to the Rouge River:

This proposal suggests that the tableland between the Tributary and the Rouge River be acquired and a forest created on these lands. In Toronto the existing land uses on the proposed forest block are golf course (Brookside and the west half of the CedarBrae Golf and Country Club). The total area of the proposed forest is about 230hectares (568 acres) in Toronto alone. A further area is proposed in Markham.

The existing use of the lands to the east should be examined before making a decision to acquire the lands between the tributary and the Rouge. The lands south of Steeles Avenue to approximately the Ontario Hydro corridor are occupied by the CedarBrae Golf and Country Club, which is permitted to continue in the Rouge Park Management Plan and by official plan policy (Upper Rouge Secondary Plan). The Rouge valley south of the Hydro corridor is owned by the Province and is currently forested.

This recommendation is based on a philosophical desire to expand forest cover in the Rouge watershed, possibly creating sufficient wide, mature woodlots which may provide habitat for birds like the Red Shouldered Hawk, referred to in Recommendation No. (10).

Method of Implementing: Acquire.

(6)That existing energy dissipators and unnatural stream beds be replaced by natural stream beds.

SRVS recommended replacement of all man-made structures. There are 13structures, including two energy dissipators, the Tapscott diversion structure and pond as well as many outfall structures. Each of these engineered structures serves a function that mitigates the impacts of development on water quality, and quantity. While we recognize the importance of regenerating the Morningside Subwatershed, there are serious (safety, property damage, economic) consequences if these structures were removed as both the north and south portion of the watershed in the Town of Markham and in Malvern have been developed based on these stormwater management facilities, being in place.

Staff has done a preliminary investigation of the replacement of structures. We do not know if it is technically possible or feasible. A preliminary review indicated that it may cost in the region of $100,000,000.00 to provide stormwater storage facilities to replace the existing stormwater management facilities. This does not include stream restoration, or costs to undertake the studies to achieve this proposal.

It should be noted that Morningside Creek Forest located at the mouth in the Morningside Tributary is an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA). The energy dissaptor at the Toronto Zoo and other stormwater management facilities are located in this ESA. It will be very difficult to remove existing stormwater management structures without damaging the existing natural areas of the watershed.

There is some opportunity to modify the function of some of the stormwater management structures; but this should be done in the context of a long-term strategy and study of each specific site. The Subwatershed Analysis clearly identified opportunities to improve and retrofit the existing stormwater management facilities.

Method of Implementing: Cost cannot be calculated without technical studies but could be more than $100,000,000.00.

(7)That a natural hydrograph (the rate at which water moves through the area and into the stream) be achieved in the stream.

A hydrograph is a representation of the rate of flow of water moving along a stream, expressed in graph form. In very general terms, when a watershed is stripped of its natural forest cover to make way for agricultural activities, runoff volume increases by a factor of three to four times. Once this same watershed is urbanized, the runoff volume can increase ten-fold.

Urbanization changes the whole hydrologic cycle of the watershed itself. The net effect of development also has a dramatic change in stream hydrology, was well as changes to groundwater infiltration and baseflow recharge.

In addition to the hydrologic changes, urbanization also causes changes to in stream water quality, to the riparian zone stream habitat and to the stream channel geomorphology. All these physical changes have consequential chemical and biological effects on the stream ecosystem.

Once urbanization has taken place, the original or natural hydrologic cycle has been modified. Recent studies have shown that the current practice of two-year storm 'peak shaving' has not been effective in controlling downstream channel erosion. Even with 'over control', by providing more storage, the extended duration of flows cause velocities well above critical erosive velocities that could not be prevented. Hence, control facilities alone, using additional storage, are not expected to prevent downstream channel erosion.

However, in a greenfield situation, it is possible to model (simulate) the requirements to regenerate (recreate) the pre-development hydrologic cycle by implementing massive storage facilities in combination with source control and several other remedial measures that currently (to date) have never been built and tested.

It is theoretically possible to recreate the pre-development hydrologic cycle in an undeveloped area. Whether or not it is acceptable and economically feasible still has to be determined. We are still in the early stages of the understanding of the full implications of employing stormwater management to effectively match predevelopment hydrographs (i.e., to maintain predevelopment runoff volumes as well as peak flows).

Method of Implementing: SRVS propose that their recommend acquisition areas will implement this recommendation. No technical work has been done to determine if this is possible.

(8)That stormwater management structures be located outside the floodplain and natural areas.

The Subwatershed Analysis does not discuss the location of stormwater ponds. Staff anticipate that if the 'ecological corridor' set out in the Phase 2 report is achieved, there would be no need to locate stormwater management ponds in the corridor which is wider than the proposed floodplain and includes natural areas. Under these conditions the Phase 2 report recommendations would already achieve this SRVS recommendation.

SRVS wishes all stormwater management facilities to be located outside the regional floodplain. The existing regional floodplain is caused by a combination of floodwaters moving down stream (because a dam was never constructed) and a backwater caused by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) line, just north of FinchAvenue. The culvert under the railway acts as a dam, restricting flow downstream and causing a backwater upstream. The only way to ensure no stormwater management ponds are in the flood plain is to buy the existing regional floodplain as SRVS suggests.

Method of Implementing: Purchase the existing regional flood plain.

(9)That new roads will be prohibited from crossing the Morningside stream:

The roads required to cross Morningside Tributary is a land use issue. There is one road crossing today, Staines Avenue. Provincial policy prevents new road crossing anywhere in Rouge Park but permits road crossings of the portion of Morningside Tributary north of Finch.

Method of Implementing: Acquire the tablelands between the Tributary and the Rouge River.

(10)That the watershed be managed to ensure the following species are present for future generations to enjoy:

-Red Side Dace, Central Stoneroller and Rainbow Trout;

-Red Shouldered Hawk; and

-Coyote and Deer.

We think that the fish species identified by SRVS are appropriate targets for the main Morningside Tributary and were recognized generally in the Subwatershed Analysis target to management Morningside tributary as a 'cold-water' stream. Coyotes and deer are not particularly sensitive species and will remain in the corridor as identified in the Addendum to the Phase 2 report.

Red Shouldered Hawk is a less tolerant species and has very specific habitat requirements. Forest interior habitat is required for nesting, and adjacent wetlands are required for feeding. It is unclear even with the forest envisioned by SRVS if the other requirements of the Red Shouldered Hawk could be met. As a result to use this species as a target may not be appropriate.

We could suggest many other species and suggest that species should be selected based on the opportunity for biodiversity and for supporting populations of species of concern. Some appropriate target species may be Bobolink, Woodcock, Northern Flying Squirrel or amphibians.

Method of Implementing: The habitat for most species recommended by SRVS can be achieved by the originally recommended Subwatershed Analysis. It is not clear if the habitat for proposed target of Red Shouldered Hawk could ever be achieved. SRVS suggest that the tableland, between the Tributary and the Rouge be acquired and reforested so that it would, in the long run (80 years or more) provide appropriate habitat.

(2)Techniques To Bring Land Into Public Ownership:

(1) Purchase:

Purchase can be achieved by either government or non-governmental organizations expending funds. There are a number of alternatives which do not necessitate public expenditure. These include land exchange and dedication of parkland or floodplain, during the development process. Other methods include using alternate development standards, density transfer, income tax deductions and charitable donations to acquire land without the need for outright purchase.

Staff estimate that the cost of acquiring the lands identified by SRVS would be about $57,000,000.00. City Real Estate staff estimate that the land value would be $250,000.00 per hectare ($100,000.00 per acre) averaged over area recommended for purchase. Staff assumed future development potential based on the industrial designations which now apply to most of the lands. The value of any specific parcel will vary depending on many factors. A real estate appraisal will be required to determine the cost. This estimate does not include the lands in Markham which would also be required by the SRVS recommendations.

The SRVS recommendation would only leave 76 hectares (187 acres) of MorningsideHeights lands for development. The lands remaining available for development are small and of irregular shape, being the residue of lands which SRVS proposes should be acquired. Servicing and planning these remaining lands for any urban use would be inefficient and impose significant additional costs to the developers, costs which could likely not be recovered in marketing the developed lands. Given this result, the landowners would probably ask that all of lands in Morningside Heights be acquired. Upstream corridor lands outside Morningside Heights in Toronto constitute a further 30 hectares (75acres). The final acquisition cost of the 330hectares (810 acres) could in the order of $80,000,000.00. These estimates do not evaluate implications for Markham.

As a comparison the estimated land costs are 80 times the 1997 Scarborough Capital Budget for watercourse land acquisition.

(2)Parkland Dedication:

The parkland dedication from the development of the remaining lands would be so small as not to be an effective means of acquiring lands. The Planning Act provides for dedication of land for active parkland - five percent for residential lands or twopercent for commercial/industrial development. As the parkland dedication would be based on land available for development, this measure would provide only 1.6hectares (fouracres) to 3.6 hectares (nine acres) of dedicated land.

(3)Dedication of Flood Plain Lands:

Normally, developers are expected to pay for flood control measures benefiting their lands and regional flood plain lands are deeded to a public agency. Tapscott landowners have already paid for the diversion structure and an Environmental Assessment approval is in place to divert stormwater so that there will be no flood plain downstream of it. These landowners cannot be expected to freely dedicate the same lands which this facility was intended to free up for development.

(4)Land Exchange/Density Transfer:

Given the extremely low "as of right" residential density existing on these lands, most of which are zoned for agricultural uses, transfer of density rights is not a realistic way to acquire land.

Concentrating higher density residential development on small "islands" of development surrounded by a "sea" of public open space, would require small lot sizes and/or multiple and apartment housing forms. This would totally change the development concept to one that neither City staff nor the landowners could support.

Placing community facilities like schools or parks located next to the proposed corridor would be ineffective as a land acquisition technique because few, or none, will be required to serve development on the residual lands.

Reduced road rights-of-way, with an area equivalent to the "saved" area being dedicated as corridor, are possible. It is likely, however, that use of "rural" road cross-sections to allow ditches and increased storm water infiltration may require full-width rights-of-way.

Existing roads allowances and other publicly owned lands constitute 12 hectares (25acres) in the Morningside Heights, for example. These lands might be exchanged for the dedication of additional corridor lands.

(5)Tax Deduction for Dedication of Property:

The Income Tax Act allows tax relief for owners dedicating lands to public agencies for conservation purposes to conservation organizations, with charitable status. This example is dependent on whether the developer is willing to negotiate this and would find the tax deduction beneficial.

Appendix No. 5

Economic Impacts of the SRVS Proposal

The SRVS proposals would reduce the area for employment uses in the Morningside Heights study area to approximately 76 hectares (187 acres) net developable land. By comparison, the Morningside Tributary Watershed Study identifies approximately 190 hectares (468 acres) of net developable land in the Morningside Heights Study Area. Based on this difference alone, the economic potential under the SRVS development proposal would provide less than 40 percent of the development potential of the Morningside Tributary Watershed Study Phase 2 recommendations.

The resulting economic impact of the SRVS proposal would be approximately 8,000 fewer jobs than could otherwise be generated. Potential annual property taxes would be reduced from $50 million to only $20 million.

The SRVS proposal also brings into question the feasibility for servicing and developing approximately 200 hectares (500 acres) of industrial land to the north and west of MorningsideHeights, as this would be financed, at least in part, by contributions from benefiting developers. The recommendation will render relatively small, isolated and oddly shaped developable parcels requiring significantly higher servicing. The end result is a higher price to users and may have a significant negative effect on their marketability. Jobs and property tax revenue to the municipality is further at risk if the remaining lands are undevelopable because of excessively high per acre costs to service.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (May 15, 1998) from the Commissioner, Works and Environment, Scarborough:

Purpose:

The Scarborough Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Environment, Scarborough, in conjunction with the Law Department, to compare the Subwatershed Study findings with the Memorandum of Understanding, between Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. and the Morningside Heights Landowners Group. Council also asked that we report on financial means of achieving the environmental attributes in Morningside Heights. The last matter was the status of the Tapscott sewer program in the Capital Budget and how to expedite servicing west of Morningside Heights.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

We require funding in the amount of $200,000.00 to prepare reports on the technical and financial implications of extending trunk sewers to the remainder of Tapscott Employment District and prepare detailed stormwater management reports on how to implement more natural stormwater drainage. We will charge this to Account No. 57794-00000-84330-xxx, which is for Project No.711, Tapscott Industrial Area Sewers.

Recommendations:

(1)It is recommended that Council:

(a)endorse the Phase 2 Report and Addendum of the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study and those portions of the Memorandum of Understanding consistent with the Subwatershed Study and endorse the revised corridors (except on Neilson Creek), the revised stormwater management methodology which attempts to avoid use of the Tapscott Diversion Structure in the end, the added woodlot on Pitchfork Creek and the proposed trust fund;

(b)direct staff to prepare the Implementation Plan for the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study;

(c)direct staff to forward the Phase 2 of the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study and Addendum to the Council of the Town of Markham with a request that the Town authorize their staff to work with the City staff to prepare the Implementation Plan, for Markham's portion of Morningside Tributary Subwatershed; and

(2)direct staff to bring forward a Bill to amend the by-law for the Protection and Conservation of Trees (No. 25150) to extend coverage to all properties with single family homes in the Tapscott Employment District.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Council has considered the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study Phase 2 report since last June. In February 1998, the Ontario Municipal Board held a pre-hearing on the land development applications in the Tapscott portion of the Subwatershed Study area. Following the pre-hearing Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. (SRVS) and Morningside Heights Landowners Group held private discussions to see if they, as two parties to the OMB hearing, could develop a joint agreement on their positions on both land use and subwatershed planning issues. This agreement was presented to Community Council on April 1 as a "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU). At the same meeting, City Staff also responded to Scarborough Council's request from September 1997 for a response on the ten point recommendations of SRVS. As the Memorandum of Understanding was a modified position by both SRVS and the landowners, Community Council asked staff to report further with a comparison of the various positions.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(1)Comparison of Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study

to the Memorandum of Understanding:

The Memorandum of Understanding is a contract between SRVS and the Landowners Group expressing their joint support for residential development of Morningside Heights, in the Tapscott portion of the subwatershed. This agreement specifies areas to be protected and regenerated, and requires specified stormwater management techniques. Some aspects of the MOU are not related to the subwatershed study issues such as the number of road crossings permitted and preferred land use.

Is the Memorandum of Understanding a good compromise for the Subwatershed Study? Yes. In general terms several key areas support and exceed the Subwatershed recommendations. The MOU also includes methods to carry out the subwatershed study, ahead of the Implementation Plan being prepared, which appear to achieve more than staff anticipated.

The key findings which support the Subwatershed Study are:

(a)creation of a corridor on Morningside Tributary, and dedication of these lands to the City. The Subwatershed Study recommended the corridor but staff expected to have only a portion dedicated;

(b)dedication of four woodlots. The Subwatershed Study recommended three woodlots be protected and that these would have to be purchased;

(c)dedication of a corridor on Neilson Creek from Neilson Road to the CPR rail line on a corridor which the subwatershed study anticipated would likely be piped;

(d)dedication of one corridor of Pitchfork Tributary (connecting to the upstream woodlot) which the subwatershed study anticipated would likely be piped;

The MOU also reduces some corridor widths to less than the subwatershed recommendation. South of Ontario Hydro, the Morningside corridor is reduced from 100 metres to 80 metres, but an additional 20 metres next to the top of the bank of the Rouge River will be deeded. This fulfils a Rouge Park Management Plan objective, which is a reasonable alternative.

There is a floodplain on Neilson Creek, which is as much as 90 metres wide. The MOU only shows dedication of a 20 metre wide corridor. The MOU is reasonable subject to further technical studies (at the plan of subdivision stage) to show whether any floodplain reduction is achievable using passive stormwater management techniques. If not, additional land will have to be acquired on Neilson Creek.

The Memorandum of Understanding also contains a significant undertaking to implement the Subwatershed Study in the form of a $1 Million Trust Fund for regeneration of Morningside Tributary in Morningside Heights, through the auspices of SRVS and the Landowners Group. Such a fund will greatly assist the implementation process. The proposal also shows linkages which provide walking trail access throughout the area. The linkages support subwatershed objectives but may not be sufficient to meet other municipal planning needs.

The Landowners Group has agreed to a more stringent stormwater management process which will, as much as practicable, utilize natural processes and to protect cold water fisheries in the watercourses. Morningside Heights Landowners and SRVS, also agree that development of Morningside Heights will not present a barrier to long term removal of the Tapscott Diversion structure. This intent paves the way for the removal of the diversion structure within 50 years, as a target for the city to adopt.

(2)Comments on Memorandum of Understanding:

We have reviewed the MOU with the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study Technical Steering Committee, the Public Advisory Committee and the staff Technical committee. The MOU is consistent with the Subwatershed Study Phase 2 report and Addendum. in principle but it is not acceptable for the MOU to pre-commit Council to residential land use.

The MOU anticipates elimination of the Diversion Structure within 50 years. There is not sufficient technical analysis to determine if such a target is achievable. All parties agree it will be a tough, patient process to retrofit Morningside Tributary to avoid the need for the diversion structure. Working toward this long-term goal is very positive but additional stormwater management reports will be required.

At the Council meeting, there was concern that a 'binding' agreement between SRVS and Morningside Heights Landowners Group would effectively bind other parties, including the City. The Law Department notes that the Memorandum of Understanding is an agreement which is only binding on the parties that sign it, SRVS and the Morningside Heights Landowners. If the MOU is registered on title, and they ultimately deed those lands to the city, current policy requires that any lands be conveyed to the city to be free and clear of all encumbrances, including any private agreements. However, if Council supports certain aspects of the MOU, Council may accept whatever encumbrances deemed desirable.

(3)Means to Expedite Acquisition of Environmental Attributes in Morningside Heights:

The MOU sets out a way of achieving the protection and enhancement of natural areas in Morningside Heights. The parties agree that the lands should be approved for residential development and the landowner will deed most of the lands for natural purposes if their development is approved.

The proposal represents a larger area of public dedication than was anticipated when staff recommended the subwatershed study last September. At that time, staff anticipated that we could expect dedication of a portion, but not all, of the 100 metre widths. We expected to have to purchase most of the woodlots.

If Council deems Employment as a preferred land use, the existing land use may remain. Under that scenario, to find the natural areas, the City would have to negotiate either acquisition of the natural areas, or a stewardship agreement in which the owner would agree to keep lands in a natural state.

The subwatershed recommendations would be more easily achieved by fostering development approval which is a win-win situation for all parties.

(4)Status of the Capital Budget for Tapscott Sewers:

About 600 hectares (1,500 acres) of land between the CPR rail line at Neilson Road and Passmore Avenue and the area at Passmore Avenue and Markham Road have been zoned as an employment area for some years. In 1990, Scarborough Council endorsed a concept to service these lands based on:

(i)extending trunk sewer services from Staines Road, at the Ontario Hydro corridor, to west of Markham Road and Passmore;

(ii)financing construction through debentures and recovering the cost through an area sewer levy, according to the Municipal Act;

(iii)adding this project to the Five-Year Capital Works Program;

(iv)negotiating the acquisition of necessary easements.

(Clause No. 7 embodied in Report No. 31 of The Administrative Committee adopted, as amended, by Scarborough Council November 14, 1990.)

In 1994, $600,000.00 for studies for the Tapscott Industrial Area Sewers were included in the approved Capital Budget (at an estimated cost of $6.93 million for construction future funding). The study funds have been spent on subwatershed studies. The route for the trunk sewers through Morningside Heights requires an agreement on a road pattern, which in turn is based on land use.

The MOU requires the city to make greater use of existing natural drainage, than was planned in the subwatershed study. As a result, a detailed stormwater management plan to provide specific stormwater management techniques and recommendations for extending the storm sewer, particularly west of the CP rail line is now required over and above the implementation plan.

Based on Scarborough Council approval in 1990, staff has been trying to negotiate a route for the sanitary sewer and storm servicing concept through Morningside Heights lands. Ideally the sanitary and stormwater routing follows existing and/or proposed watercourses and roads As we have not been able to agree on a route, our only option would be to expropriate the land for the servicing scheme. We prefer to continue negotiations to obtain the route through the development process at no cost to the City.

An alternative is for staff to consider corridor routes and options outside the land holdings of the Morningside Heights Landowners Group and report back on the projected cost of land acquisition and servicing scheme recommended.

In 1998, the Tapscott Industrial Area Sewer Capital Project No. 711 (formerly Capital Project No.8433) is shown in the City of Toronto Capital Budget as a future capital project (in 1999). Funding for the above reports can come from this capital project.

Other Issues:

Tree By-law:

In our previous report, we recommended that the Tree By-law be extended to apply to single family homes in Tapscott Employment District to protect and conserve existing trees.

Jim Robb/The Friends of the Rouge Watershed:

Mr. Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, has submitted a letter requesting consideration of several matters in the implementation plan process. The letter specifically notes that the implementation plan address protection and improvement to habitat for specified fish, improved water quality and stream flow stability which we agree will be key areas to address in the next phase of this study. Anotherpoint is that there should be a 30 metre buffer adjacent to the floodplain, north of the OntarioHydro. This has largely been achieved by both the subwatershed study and the MOU.

Mr. Jim Robb also makes a recommendation that road crossings of Morningside Tributary be restricted to one road. While we have said in the subwatershed study that road crossings should be kept to a minimum, this is a land use matter. There is also a suggestion that about 30 hectares (75acres) east of Staines Road be purchased to protect flood-prone and ecologically sensitive lands as part of Rouge Park. These lands will no longer be in the floodplain if the findings of the subwatershed study are implemented. While it may be nice to acquire more lands for Rouge Park, the subwatershed study did not recommend this.

Conclusions:

The Memorandum of Understanding is largely consistent with the recommendations of the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study Phase 2 Report and Addendum. There are a few matters like preferred land use, which are related to the secondary plan and development approval process, not the subwatershed planning process. The MOU is an agreement only between SRVS and the Morningside Heights Landowners Group and would only bind the City, if the City chooses. The MOU is successful in obtaining a greater degree of dedication on corridor lands and woodlots than was expected when staff reported on the Phase 2 findings originally. If Council prefers a land use other than residential, it will likely require a new round of negotiations to purchase the corridors and woodlots or make stewardship arrangements with landowners.

A further issue was the status of the capital budget to extend services to the unserviced lands in Tapscott Employment District. This project was approved in concept in 1990, at an anticipated cost of $6.93 million. Staff have been negotiating a route for sanitary and storm servicing concept through Morningside Heights, but the sewer route has not yet been secured. The only option would be to expropriate the land needed for the servicing scheme. Continued negotiation to obtain the route through the development process, at no cost to the city is preferable.

It is also necessary to carry out a detailed stormwater management plan to provide specific techniques and recommendations for storm sewer location. Staff require Council's direction so we can complete Phase 3 of the Study which is a detailed implementation plan for the Subwatershed.

Contact Name:

Ann L. Rexe, RPP, MCIP, Assistant Director, Environment, Works and Emergency Services, 396-7156, Fax: 396-5681, E-mail: rexe@city.scarborough.on.ca

--------

Memorandum of Understanding

Introduction:

(1)This is a Memorandum of Understanding between Save the Rouge Valley System ("SRVS"), of the first part, and 554056 Ontario Limited, the Neilson Development Corporation, M&R Holdings, the Staines Development Corporation and Silvercore Properties Inc. (collectively, "theOwners"), of the second part. SRVS and the Owners are the Parties to this Memorandum.

(2)This Memorandum is based upon acceptance by the Parties of the "Introduction", "Agreed Context", "Core Principles", "Development Principles" and "Implementation Plan" contained herein.

(3)This Memorandum binds the Parties to their respective obligations contained herein unless the Scarborough Community Council, at its April 1, 1998 meeting, or subsequently, or the City of Toronto ("the City"), or the Ontario Municipal Board ("the Board"), as the case may be, fails or refuses to approve within Morningside Heights a mix of low-density and medium-density housing types east and west of the Morningside Creek ("the Creek"), and in case of such failure or refusal, this Memorandum and the Parties' obligations under it shall immediately terminate.

Agreed Context:

(4)The Owners each own parcels of land within the Morningside Heights planning area ("Morningside Heights"). This area is depicted on the map attached hereto as Schedule "A" which also shows the lands owned by the Owners. Morningside Heights is the area located north of Finch Avenue East, south of Steeles Avenue East, east of the C.P.R.'s Connector and Havelock Sub lines, and west of the Rouge Park, in the City.

(5)The lands in Morningside Heights are subject to an official plan amendment application ("theApplication"), made by the Owners. The purpose of the Application is to create a land use policy framework that would permit use of Morningside Heights for residential and related neighbourhood uses, in the context of appropriate environmental preservation and protection.

(6)The Application has been appealed ("the Appeal") to the Board, by the Owners. SRVS has been identified by the Board, and is acknowledged by the Owners, as having a legitimate interest in the Application and the Appeal.

Core Principles:

(7)The Parties support development of Morningside Heights for residential and related neighbourhood uses, with environmentally protected and enhanced features ("the Features"), in order, among other objectives, to perpetuate the survival of healthy populations of fish species currently found in the Creek. The maps attached hereto and entitled "Option A" and "Option B" depict the two development options supported by the Parties.

(8)The Parties seek, in co-operation with one another to advance, promote and realize a specific concept for development of Morningside Heights ("the Development Concept").

(9)The Development Concept is that Morningside Heights will be a unique and special community, particularly distinguished from other new residential communities in the City by the conservation, preservation and enhancement of the Features and their functions.

(10)The Parties will, in respect of the subject matter of this Memorandum, co-operate with one another during all of the various stages of the planning approval process for Morningside Heights, including approval of official plan documents and zoning, draft approval of plans and conditions of subdivision, approval of technical studies, and final registration of plans of subdivision.

Development Principles:

(11)Morningside Heights shall be developed in a manner consistent with conservation, preservation and enhancement of the Features and their functions. The Features are shown on the maps attached hereto as "Option A" and "Option B", and are further identified in s.12.1, s. 12.2, s. 12.3, s. 12.4, s. 12.5, s. 12.6, s. 12.7 and s. 12.11, below.

(12)For greater specificity, development shall proceed in accordance with the following:

12.1the reservation of a corridor for the Creek, which shall be 100 metre in width north from the Hydro Corridor to the northwest woodlot, and 80 metres in width south from the Hydro Corridor to the southern boundary of Morningside Heights;

12.2establishment and preservation within Morningside Heights of a 15 metre linkage and buffer zone ("the Buffer") along the Havelock Sub, Connector and Belleville Sub lines of the C.P.R.;

12.3establishment, re-naturalization and preservation of a 20 metre corridor for the Neilson Tributary, which will link the Buffer to the Creek;

12.4establishment, re-naturalization and preservation of a 20 metre corridor for the Pitchfork Tributary, which will also link the Buffer to the Creek;

12.5preservation and enhancement of those parts of the existing northwest and southwest woodlots which:

12.5.1are on property owned by the Owners; and

12.5.2have been identified as meriting preservation and enhancement by the Owners' environmental consultant, based upon:

12.5.2.1a review of aerial photographs;

12.5.2.2an on-site evaluation; and

12.5.2.3consultation with SRVS;

and SRVS may require a peer review of the work of the Owners' environmental consultant, at the expense of the Owners, by a qualified environmental consultant acceptable to both Parties;

12.6establishment of a linkage that connects the northwest woodlot, the Creek and the Rouge River valley system, utilizing the Creek corridor, the Hydro Corridor, and:

12.6.1the whole of the southern of the two properties identified on Schedule "A" hereto as owned by "Village Securities Ltd." ("the VS Property");

or, if the Owners do not acquire the VS Property, the Owners shall, in recognition of the ecological value of linking the Features:

12.6.2seek and support the establishment of a 20-metre wide corridor which would:

12.6.2.1extend east from the northwest wood lot along the City-owned Passmore Avenue road allowance; and

12.6.2.2then continue south along the City-owned Staines Road road allowance to the Hydro Corridor;

and, at the election of the City, either:

12.6.2.3provide a 20-metre wide corridor on lands south of the VSProperty identified on Schedule "A" hereto as owned by "Silvercore Properties";

or:

12.6.2.4make an additional contribution of $200,000.00 to the Fund established in accordance with s.13, below, provided that, in the City's opinion, such a contribution would be consistent with the principles and objectives of the Morningside Heights Subwatershed Study.

12.7provision of a linkage that connects the southwest wood lot to the Morningside Creek and the Rouge River valley system, utilizing the Pitchfork Tributary corridor, the Creek corridor, the Hydro Corridor and, if applicable, the linkage provided for in s.12.6.2.3.

12.8provision for no more than two road crossings of the Creek;

12.9the design of a stormwater management system that will allow, subject to downstream improvements and modifications, the removal of the stormwater diversion facility in the Creek by the Creek's owner within a 50 year time horizon;

12.10the Parties will promote and support the implementation of practical passive stormwater management techniques, as practicable, throughout the areas of Morningside Heights to be developed with the objective, among other things, of providing moderate flows of cold, clean water to the Creek to support the fish species in it;

12.11dedication of a publicly-owned 30 metre setback ("the setback") from the Rouge River's top-of-bank, which shall remain undeveloped, save and except that there may be permitted, only to a limited extent, encroachment into the setback by part or all of a public road, in order to ensure appropriate and efficient development of the lands designated for residential use, and where such encroachment is permitted, the Owners shall provide an increase in the setback in other areas, such that an amount of land corresponding to the amount of the encroachment is included in such areas;

12.12re-naturalization, with vegetation acceptable to Ontario Hydro, of the Hydro Corridor, so that it can function as a linkage between the Buffer, the Creek and the Rouge River system.

(13)The Owners will collectively contribute, to a trust fund ("the Fund"), the sum of $1,000,000.00, which is to be used to ensure that the Parties' mutual-desire for preservation, enhancement, regeneration and re-naturalization of the Features is fulfilled. The obligation to contribute will be incorporated into the agreement provided for in s.14, below. Actual payment, in accordance with each Owner's proportionate share, shall be made:

13.1first, in an installment of $100,000.00, no later than three months after:

13.1.1a favourable decision of the Board on the matters currently before it; or

13.1.2a favourable disposition of any appeal or review of the Board's decision;

13.2then, for the remaining balance of $900,000.00;

13.2.1no later than 12 months from registration of the first plan of subdivision ("theFirst Plan") in Morningside Heights; or

13.2.2where the First Plan has been registered, but an appeal is outstanding or is subsequently filed in respect of an Owner's plan of subdivision or conditions of draft approval, that Owner's payment shall be made not later than 90 days from the date an order of the Board is issued in respect of such appeal.

Implementation Plan:

(14)The Parties recognize that this Memorandum was initially drafted in non-binding form, and converted to a binding agreement on short notice. Therefore, the degree of specificity which would normally be found in a legal agreement is not included here. The parties have therefore agreed that they will work cooperatively, in good faith, and with due diligence, towards concluding a superseding legal agreement ("the Agreement"), which will carry forward, expand upon and detail the principles contained in this Memorandum. Once executed, the Agreement will entirely supersede this Memorandum, and will be registered against the title to all of the Owners' lands in Morningside Heights.

(15)The Agreement will set out the details of establishing and managing the Fund. However, the Parties have already agreed that the Agreement will provide that:

15.1the monies in the Fund are to be used only within Morningside Heights;

15.2the monies are to be used solely for actual environmental preservation, enhancement, regeneration and re-naturalization of the Features;

15.3the Fund can be augmented by monies from sources other than the Owners;

15.4a minimum of $1,000,000.00 from the Fund will be spent within five years of registration of the First Plan; and

15.5the Fund will be administered by a registered charity, governed initially by a board of trustees which will have five members: three appointed by SRVS and two appointed by the Owners.

(16)It is the intention of the Parties that the lands containing the Features will be conveyed, voluntarily and free of charge, to either the City, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, or such other appropriate entity as the City and the Owners agree upon. The recipient of the conveyance must be prepared to agree to and permit the preservation, enhancement and re-naturalization of the Features provided for in this Memorandum. The Parties acknowledge that such voluntary conveyance is substantially in excess of any conveyance that could be required as a condition of planning approvals.

(17)The Owners will approach the owner of the VS Property with a view to acquiring it for the purpose outlined in s. 12.6.1 and s. 12.7, above. The Owners will negotiate the potential purchase in good faith and with due diligence, but shall not be required to pay a price in excess of that which, in their sole judgment, exceeds the fair market value of the VS property.

(18)SRVS will not oppose approval of an arterial road which is generally located and configured in accordance with one of Alignment "A" or "B" of the "Link" depicted on Schedule "A" attached hereto, provided that, first, such road will not be a controlled access highway or freeway, and second, that in respect of Alignment "B", appropriate official plan policies be approved to address the environmental impact of providing for a crossing of the Creek.

(19)SRVS will not oppose the Owners' application for an amendment to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a copy of which application, without schedules thereto, is attached hereto as Schedule "B".

(20)At the April 1, 1998 meeting of the Scarborough Community Council ("the SCC"), SRVS and the Owners will jointly request that the SCC support residential development of Morningside Heights.

(21)The Parties agree that any dispute between them concerning this Memorandum shall be referred, upon written request of one or other of them on ten days' notice to the other, to arbitration. In case of referral to arbitration, there shall be an arbitration panel of three members: one appointed by SRVS, one appointed by the Owners, and one appointed by agreement of the Parties' appointees. The decision of the panel shall, if requested by either of the Parties, be delivered in writing. The panel's decision shall be final and binding.

ALL OF WHICH REFLECTS OUR UNDERSTANDING:

Mr. Glenn De Baeremaeker

Save the Rouge Valley System Inc.

Mr. Norman Godfrey

554056 Ontario Limited

Mr. Philip Brent

554056 Ontario Limited

Mr. Mickey Snow

The Neilson Development Corporation and

The Staines Development Corporation

Mr. Sheldon Silverberg

Silvercore Properties Inc.

Mr. Paul Minz

M & R Holdings

Mr. Jim Robb

for Friends of the Rouge Watershed

1 Braeburn Boulevard

Scarborough, Ontario

M1J 2P9

May 8, 1998

Subwatershed Steering Committee

City of Scarborough

c/o Ann Rexe

150 Borough Drive

Scarborough, Ontario

Fax: 396-5861

Re: Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study

Dear Steering Committee Members:

Friends of the Rouge Watershed has evaluated the sub-watershed report and the SRVS/developer proposals (MOU). Our current submissions to the steering committee follow earlier submissions by Jim and Cathy Robb (e.g., July 1994, April 8, 1997, August 15, 1997, October 24, 1997) and presentations to Council in September of 1997 and April of 1998.

After observing this watershed for more than 25 years, FRW believes the following commitments are necessary to achieve the sub-watershed objectives and facilitate progress on sub-watershed phase III (implementation). FRW is asking the steering committee to support the following objectives as you begin phase 3:

(1)Red-side dace as Sentinel Species:

-protect, improve and expand habitat for the red-side dace and other local cool-water species of fish and invertebrates;

(2)Better water quality and improved stream-flow stability:

-improve base flow and improve water quality to meet the PWQO's;

-significantly reduce peak flows and create a more natural hydrograph through infiltration of precipitation and runoff near its source;

-re-negotiation of the Scarborough/Markham flood-water agreement to support these objectives;

-gradual retrofitting/remediation of existing outfalls and blockages to support the preceding objectives;

(3)Better Floodplain/Rouge Park Protection:

Between the Hydro corridor and Steeles - protection of the regional floodplain and a 30metre buffer on either side of the flood-plain to provide a safety margin for flooding, erosion, trails and ecosystem health;

Between Staines Road and the Rouge Valley - dedication and/or acquisition of the following lands to protect flood-prone and ecological sensitive lands as part of the Rouge Park:

Village Securities8.22 hectares, either side of Hydro Corridor - currently designated open space or agricultural, Morningside Land-owners Group have offered to purchase and dedicate the southern third of this property Silvercore Properties21.9 hectares - currently designated open space or agricultural, almost all of this property is within the regional floodway or flood fringe and the developers have already offered to dedicate an 80 metre floodplain and a 30 metre buffer along the Rouge valley;

High Glenn4.86 hectares - currently designated open space or agricultural, a significant portion of this small parcel is within the 30 metre buffer along the Rouge Valley and the 15 metre buffer along the CPR rail line which the developers have agreed to dedicate to green space.

(4)Better Woodland/Greenspace Protection:

With respect to the Morningside Heights area - dedication and/or acquisition of other areas of hydrological and environmental significance including:

Orlando8.36 hectares - owned by Manulife through receivership, this property is virtually un-developable due to large areas of flood-plain, groundwater seepage and environmentally significant forests;

Maduri-Pitelli5.26 hectares - this property contains significant areas of floodplain and mature forests;

Pitchfork & Neilsenthe develop has offered to dedicate a 20 metre buffer along each of Tributariesthese these tributaries, however, the flood-plain and a generous buffer should be protected for a minimum corridor width of 60 metres along the main trunk of each tributary between Staines and Neilsen and 30metre buffers should be protected along other tributary streams;

(5)One Road Crossing:

With the dedication and/or acquisition of the lands east of Staines, development in Morningside Heights should be possible with only one road crossing of the Morningside Tributary, thereby limiting adverse effects and fragmentation of fish and wildlife habitat, public parkland and trails.

Conclusion:

FRW encourages the steering committee to support the above five points to:

-avoid costly legal and financial liabilities from flooding, erosion and property damage;

-protect and improve water quality and habitat for the red-side dace and cool-water species; and

-protect, expand and improve the aquatic and terrestrial habitat of the Rouge Park.

We look forward to your support.

Sincerely, Jim Robb, for FRW

(P.S. based on executive direction, this input must still be formally ratified by FRW executive.)

--------

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following memorandum (May 27, 1998) addressed to Councillor Bas Balkissoon, from the Commissioner, Scarborough Works and Environment Department, which was before the Community Council at its meeting held on May 28, 1998:

This memorandum is prepared in response to your request for follow-up on issues raised by Friendsof the Rouge Watershed at the City Community Information Meeting held at the Toronto Zoo on May 20, 1998.

In particular, you asked staff if the agreement between land owners and the City regarding funding the Tapscott Diversion structure is a commitment to allow development in the existing floodplain on the lands east of Staines Road.

Council Reference/Background/History:

History of the Agreement Related to the Diversion Structure:

The Diversion Structure and Relationship to Lands East of Staines Road:

The City built the Tapscott Diversion Structure in the mid-1980s to permit development within the Tapscott Employment District and the Malvern Community, downstream of Tapscott. There was lengthy consideration about how to permit development while protecting significant natural areas in the Morningside Tributary subwatershed, to the south. There has always been a floodplain on Morningside Tributary north of the CPR rail line, northeast of the intersection of Staines Road and Finch Avenue. The Brodie Report, 1980 clearly showed that the constriction of flow caused about 40 percent of the floodplain, east of Staines Road south to the CPR rail line at the CPR culvert. Even today the restriction at the culvert causes a backwater effect, which augments the extent of the floodplain.

The diversion structure was designed to eliminate the floodplain in Tapscott Employment District and on the lands east of Staines.

In the early 1980s, the lands east of Staines Road and north of the CPR rail line were not in a secondary plan area. By the late 1980s the lands east of Staines north of the CPR rail line were added to Tapscott Employment District.

Implications of Brodie Report, 1980:

In 1980, the Borough retained Andrew Brodie Associates Inc. to prepare the Tapscott Industrial District Stormwater Management Implementation Report for Tapscott and Malvern. The Brodie report recommended a diversion of stormwater to the Rouge River and that the Morningside Tributary be channelized through both Tapscott and the lands east of Staines Road to allow for development. Council then approved proceeding with the design of the Morningside Tributary diversion structure.

Environmental Assessment 1981:

The Environmental Assessment (EA) for Stormwater Management in the Morningside Tributary Watershed of the Tapscott Industrial District was prepared in 1981 and approved in 1982. The EA recommended retaining baseflow in the Morningside Tributary and diverting all other flows up to the regional storm to the Rouge River. This alternative removes all of the floodplain, south of the diversion structure, including the lands east of Staines Road.

Special Agreement No. 576, 1982:

The City required an easement for the diversion structure and pond on Morningside Heights lands and the Ontario Hydro corridor. The City also needed funds to pay for this structure. To obtain prepayment of levies and an easement for the diversion structure, Special Agreement No.567 was prepared in 1982. Attached is a copy of the special agreement between the City and certain land owners, within the Tapscott Employment District. Those who signed the agreement were only some owners of land between Staines Road and Middlefield Road. This agreement did not include the land east of Staines Road, presumably because these lands were designated for "agricultural areas uses" not development.

Why is there an Existing Floodplain today?

We designed the berm, required to ensure the diversion of all stormwater flows from Morningside Tributary, but we did not build it. We had expected that Morningside Heights would be developed shortly and that the extension of McNicoll Avenue would have acted as a berm to complete the planned diversion. As a result, there is an existing floodplain today (as shown in the Phase 2 report) in the event of a regional storm.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Diversion Structure:

Council acted, in 1982, to build the diversion structure. As a result, the City is committed to eliminate the floodplain on Morningside Tributary, downstream of the diversion structure both east and west of Staines Road and in Malvern Neighbourhoods 2, 3 and 6.

Friends of the Rouge Watershed Comments:

Friends of the Rouge Watershed raised four concerns at the May 20, 1998 City Community Information meeting:

(1)Increased Risk of Flood Damage:

Friends of the Rouge Watershed (FRW) suggest that Council is in a liability position if it allows development of the existing floodplain, east of Staines Road. Council committed to eliminate the floodplain in 1982 by constructing the diversion structure. This action protects the lands which FRW suggests should be acquired as floodplain. The diversion structure protects the lands downstream up to the regional flood level, which is a higher level of protection than normally found in the rest of the City where storm sewers are designed to protect up to a 25-year storm event.

(2)Back-sliding on Ecosystem Protection Objectives:

(from the September 1997 Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. proposals)

The Memorandum of Understanding is a compromise between two parties at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. This compromise is less than Save the Rouge Valley Inc. (SRVS) proposed in its 10-point proposals of September 1997. In our report of May 15, 1998, we note that the Memorandum of Understanding is largely consistent with the Subwatershed Study recommendations.

(3)Too Many New Roads:

Friends of the Rouge Watershed argue those three road crossings on the Morningside tributary are too many, but do not say how many they prefer.

The Addendum to the Phase 2 report of the Subwatershed Study does say that road crossings are a necessary component of development but these crossings should be kept to a minimum. The matter is appropriately part of the development approval process.

(4)Inadequate Community Consultation:

Friends of the Rouge Watershed assert that there has been inadequate public consideration of the reduction of the floodplain, new roads and other parts of the development process.

The reduction of the floodplain was considered in the Environmental Assessment process for the Tapscott Diversion Structure in 1982. There was a public process at the time. It should be noted that the Subwatershed Study process aims to reintroduce a floodplain and meander belt for the Morningside Tributary in the range of 50 metres to 80 metres in width, while the Environmental Approval process resulted in the elimination of the floodplain.

The Subwatershed process has held a public information process since 1993 and has been advised by a Public Advisory Committee. SRVS has been a participant in the Public Advisory process for interest groups. All meetings of the Steering Committee of agencies and the Public Advisory Committee meetings have been open to the public, who indicated an interest. Jim Robb, of Friends of the Rouge Watershed has attended many meetings. Within the last year, during consideration of the Phase 2 report of the Subwatershed Study, the Planning and Buildings Department have convened two community information meetings about land use issues. Works staff have attended to present the findings of the subwatershed study and answer questions. Over 10,000 people have been invited to each of community information meetings of June 1997 and May 1998. The most recent meeting was held on May 20, 1998, at the TorontoZoo and all aspects of land use and the subwatershed study were discussed with about 70 people present.

Conclusion:

The construction of the diversion structure represents a commitment by the City to eliminate the floodplain, south of the diversion structure, including the lands east of Staines Road.

The recommendations contained in my report dated May 15, 1998 are still valid.

Mr. Michael A. Price, Commissioner, Scarborough Works and Environment Department.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following report (May 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

Scarborough Community Council on April 1, 1998, requested a report on the definition of "Executive Housing". Also requested was a report on the appropriate planning process to develop a Secondary Plan for Option 2 (partly employment and partly residential) and Option 3 (allresidential), specifically relating to high quality housing.

The report also describes a new option for the future land use of the study area which takes into account the objections raised by the Regions of York and Durham at the Ontario Municipal Board and the landowners' recent proposals as set out in their memorandum of understanding with Save the Rouge Valley System (SRVS).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Scarborough Community Council direct the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings to investigate the feasibility of the Option 4 package, as presented in this report, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Environment and the Director of Economic Development, through discussions with the Morningside Heights landowners, SRVS, the Regions of York and Durham, and other community stakeholders, environmental groups and agencies, and to report on progress to the June 24, 1998 meeting of Scarborough Community Council.

Secondary Plan for Morningside Heights:

Issues:

The Morningside Heights Land Use Study Terms of Reference calls for two stages of reporting. The first stage is to determine the future land use for the Study Area; the second stage is to prepare a Secondary Plan setting out in greater detail the land use(s), facilities servicing and road pattern to implement the selected land use option.

The Secondary Plan must address a wide range of important factors, some of which are the focus of other studies:

-environmental issues, particularly the enhancement and protection of the Morningside Tributary and other natural features of the area, which are being studied by the Morningside Subwatershed Study;

-road issues, both interregional, such as the proposed Cornell/407/401 link, and local, such as the Morningside/Finch Road intersection study being undertaken for the City;

-the Rouge Park, which includes both the valley of the Rouge River and the Morningside Tributary corridor, particularly with respect to trail linkage and adequate buffering between residential and employment uses;

-mechanisms to ensure that the vision of a high quality community is implemented; and

-extension of sanitary and water services, and environmentally appropriate stormwater services, through the Study Area and west to service 200 hectares (500 acres) of vacant industrial land in the Steeles-Passmore-Markham area.

If it is determined that Option 2 is the preferred Option, then the lands west of the Morningside Tributary would remain within the Tapscott Employment District. Planning of this area would focus on employment strategies and integration of this area with the lands west of the CPR line.

Consultation Process:

Because of the importance and sensitivity of this area, there is a need to involve many individuals, groups and agencies in the consultation process.

The Study Area landowners, residents of Malvern and the Upper Rouge area, and members of the business community in the eastern part of the Tapscott Employment District are important stakeholders.

Representatives of environmental groups such as Save the Rouge Valley System and Friends of the Rouge have shown a strong and continuing interest.

Agencies and City Departments, such as the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Ministries of Natural Resources (MNR) and Transportation (MTO), the Boards of Education, the Toronto Zoo and City and parks staff need to be involved.

The May 20, 1998 community information meeting, to be held at the Metro Zoo can serve as an important step in this consultative process. The meeting, called by my Department, will include presentations by the Planning and Buildings, Economic Development and Works and Environment Departments. Dialogue between the various stakeholders will be encouraged.

If so directed by Council, staff can continue this process of consultation, leading to a draft of the Secondary Plan in the fall of 1998.

Under normal circumstances, staff would then report to the Scarborough Community Council with this draft and request direction to give notice for a Public Meeting for the Secondary Plan.

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing:

The Ontario Municipal Board process has commenced and will, when the hearing commences on October 19, 1998, take the matter out of the hands of Council. Pre-hearing conferences are scheduled for May 19 and July 3, 1998. The latter date is of particular importance, as the Board will attempt to narrow the issues to be heard. It is in the City's interest to have a clearly defined position on the principal issues, particularly for the chosen land use option and the Markham-Scarborough road connection.

As would be expected, the Morningside Heights landowners' group is preparing intensively for the hearing. Depending on how close the City's position is to the owners' position, staff may be able to work with the owners' consultants to resolve some of the outstanding issues, with appropriate consultation with other stakeholders.

Discussion - Executive Housing:

Scarborough Council on June 10, 1997, affirmed that the lands within the Morningside Heights area east of the Morningside Tributary should be developed for low density Executive Residential uses.

Executive Housing is a term contained in both the General Policies and Land Use Sections of the Scarborough Official Plan. To date this designation has been utilized only in the Rouge Community Secondary Plan.

The General Policy is as follows:

2.4.3.4Council shall encourage the provision of housing for consumers at the upper end of the income scale, in order to attract and accommodate the needs of the executives of Scarborough's industries, businesses and institutions.

The designation is described in the Land Use Designations as follows:

3.1.2The Executive Residential designation shall be applied to selected areas of the City to promote the development of "prestige" residential accommodation. It will also be applied to retain and enhance such development where it already exists. Single detached dwellings shall be the only housing form to be permitted within this designation. In this designation, single detached dwellings may include domestic help quarters. Lot sizes and house sizes will generally be larger than within the Low Density Residential designation. Design and construction will be of a quality and nature to accommodate consumers at the upper end of the income scale.

The Rouge Community Secondary Plan contains the Executive Residential designation along the top of bank of the Rouge and on both sides of Sheppard Avenue (Figure 4.26). A Council policy adopted in 1984 sets out guidelines for development in this area and specifies a minimum frontage of 18metres (59 feet) frontage for Executive Residential lots.

Plans of subdivision and lot divisions where this designation applies have followed these guidelines.

The City has also utilized other planning approaches to achieve high standards of residential development. The Port Union Village Community Secondary Plan, for example, contains general urban design objectives, which are expanded on in a comprehensive set of Council-adopted guidelines appended to the Plan. Statements regarding the importance of the character of the community are also set out in the Port Union Village Community Plan.

Subdivision agreements have been utilized by the City to achieve high standards of streetscape design, including landscaping, lighting and street furniture. The Coscan subdivision in Port Union Village is a recent example. Architectural control of house siting, design and materials has also been utilized in Bridlewood and other areas, and can be enforced by inclusion through the subdivision agreement, if the developer concurs.

Bayview Hill - Richmond Hill:

Bayview Hill in Richmond Hill, planned for 3,000 single detached dwellings, comes close to staff's vision of what can be achieved in Morningside Heights. Figure 1 illustrates the quality of housing in this community.

Although the Bayview Hill Secondary designation is "Low Density Residential", the policies of the Plan are clear in their intent regarding executive housing.

"The Bayview Hill Planning District has a number of locational advantages which make it most suitable for the provision of executive housing. The physical features of the area, with its extensive valleylands associated with the Beaver Creek, its attractive woodlots, and its scenic views, lend themselves to housing of this character."

The objectives for housing in this community are:

(a)to create a very high quality, low density residential community; and

(b)to provide for a range of medium and large lot sizes for single detached dwellings on full services on a community scale, thus providing an inventory of large homes not provided elsewhere in the Town on a comparable scale.

The implementing zoning sets out the following lot sizes.

	Minimum Frontage	Minimum Lot Area
R6	15 metres - 49 feet	502 m� - 5,400 square feet
R8	18 metres - 59 feet	603 m� - 6,500 square feet
R9	19.5 metres - 64 feet	653 m� - 7,030 square feet
R12	24 metres - 79 feet	804 m� - 8,650 square feet

The Secondary Plan for Bayview Hill establishes design criteria for development, e.g.,

"Aesthetically pleasing streetscapes shall be encouraged through the careful use of architectural styles, varied setbacks, building materials and colours, and special landscaping particularly where collector streets intersect."

"Special care shall be taken to design, develop and maintain visually significant entrance features."

"Residential development adjacent to arterial roads shall be designed to be aesthetically pleasing and sensitive to road conditions."

In the opinion of staff, these policies and zoning standards have achieved a high quality residential community, with the larger lots constituting a substantial executive housing component.

Angus Glen - Markham:

A more recent development with executive housing is Angus Glen in Markham at Kennedy Road and Major Mackenzie Road. It is located adjacent to a major valley feature, the Bruce Creek, and the Angus Glen golf course.

A detailed Design Guidelines document sets out the results of deliberations between the developer, his consultants and Town staff covering urban design and amenities, streetscape, an open space master plan and an implementation strategy. It provides a framework for implementing the project, utilizing a variety of techniques.

These include a process in the subdivision agreement whereby a Control Architect and Control Landscape Architect, appointed by the developer with the approval of the municipality, review and approve all low and medium density housing plans. In addition, the developer has undertaken to enter into private agreements with builders to ensure a high quality of house design.

The Design Guidelines include housing types which, in the opinion of staff, qualify as "executive housing". Lot types A and B, shown on Figures 2 and 3, are described in the Design Guidelines as "wide lots with generous (and variable) front yard setbacks and side yards to create gracious streetscapes in an estate residential setting."

The largest of these lots are over 21 metres (70 feet) in frontage. These lots are planned adjacent to the golf course. Other large lots of 18.2 metres to 21.4 metres (60 feet to 70 feet frontage) back onto or are close to the valley and front onto the main collector road. These are the most visible locations in the community and set the "tone" for the rest of the project.

These housing types would qualify as "executive housing" in the opinion of staff.

Other Greater Toronto Area Municipalities:

Large residential lots on full services are provided for in other Greater Toronto Area municipalities.

In Stoney Creek, the Lakeshore-Area Secondary Plan requires residential development in an area east of Fifty Road to be "low profile", not to exceed 10 units per net residential hectare

(four units per acre). The plan requires a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres (60 feet) within a large part of the area.

Although Oakville does not specifically provide for large lots in its Official Plan, it does have a large lot category in its Zoning By-law.

All the examples noted so far are on full municipal water and sanitary sewer services. Residential development in Morningside Heights would be on full services. Numerous municipalities also provide for large residential lots with servicing by septic tanks and communal or individual wells. These "estate lots" range in area from .3 hectares to .8 hectares (3/4 to 2 acres). Examples include Deer Creek and Fawn Brook in Ajax. Houses on estate lots are typically built for the executive market.

Attached housing in high amenity locations such as the Beacon Hall golf course in Aurora also cater to the executive market.

Discussion: A Fourth Option:

Markham-Scarborough Road Link:

At the February 20, 1998, pre-hearing conference of the Ontario Municipal Board on MorningsideHeights, the Regions of York and Durham made strong representations that no decisionshould be made by the OMB with respect to the future land use of Morningside Heights without provision for a north-south transportation link through the study area, and the undertaking of an environmental assessment of this link.

The road would provide a high-capacity arterial connection between the Markham by-pass, near the new community of Cornell, and Highways 407 and 401. The Province's declaration with respect to the Rouge Park leaves no alternative route through the former City of Scarborough for this link.

The two Regions and the Town of Markham requested party status at the hearing for the purpose of arguing this position. York Region has also asked for the consolidation of OPA 722, the deletion of the East Metro Transportation Corridor, and OPA 990, the North-East Road Study, into the hearing. In my opinion, OPA 990 implements the Provincial Government's policy of "no new roads south of Steeles Avenue in the Rouge Park (1990)" and should not be included in the current hearing.

The Board Chairman has recognized the importance of the transportation issue and raised the possibility of segmenting the hearing, with the first part dedicated to transportation issues.

The landowners have proposed reserving a narrow corridor for an arterial road alignment along the western boundary of the study area from north of the HEPC corridor to Morningside Avenue for a three-year period. This proposal has been rejected by York Region.

Lack of any resolution on the issue of the north-south road link can effectively prevent any progress toward resolving the future land use for Morningside Heights. The Ontario Municipal Board may well be receptive to a request by the Regions for a study, given the already-documented need for such a connection.

I am still of the opinion that there is great merit to the goal of a high quality executive housing community in Morningside Heights, taking advantage of the area's great natural amenities. I continue to believe this is also the most expeditious way of bringing the Morningside Creek Corridor, the woodlots and top of bank of the Rouge Valley into public ownership and extending services through the study area to open up the 200 hectares (500 acres) of presently unserviced employment lands in the Markham-Passmore area.

Several developments in the past few weeks strongly suggest that Community Council may be well-advised to consider an alternative approach to achieving the City's objectives in the Study Area.

These include the insistence of the Regions with respect to the road link and the withdrawal of support of the owners for a golf course, which would have ensured the prestigious character of the community and acted as a buffer from the industrial uses to the west. Recognition of the enhanced accessibility and visibility for employment uses which the proposed road link would bring to this area, should it prove feasible and desirable, is an additional consideration.

This alternative, Option 4, is shown on Figure 4. It would incorporate the following package of elements:

(1)retaining the existing industrial designations on the following areas:

-north of the HEPC, west of Neilson Road; and

-south of the HEPC, west of a line between Neilson Road and the Tributary;

(2)special policies for these industrially designated areas indicating that they may be affected by the findings of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Scarborough-Markham Road Link and that no plan of subdivision will be processed prior to completion of the EA;

(3)agreement by York and Durham Regions to equitably share the cost of the Environmental Assessment and to remove their request to consolidate OPA 990 into the hearing;

(4)agreement by the Regions and the Town of Markham not to oppose amendment of the Metroand Scarborough Official Plans to delete Staines Road as an arterial link

(this is strongly supported by the findings of the Subwatershed Study) or to the land use amendments indicated below;

(5)public dedication of the Morningside Tributary Corridor, woodlots, 30 metres (100 feet) topof bank of the Rouge Valley south of the HEPC and other natural features in the area proposed for residential development, through the subdivision process;

(6)redesignation of the areas shown in Option 4 for residential uses, including a significant Executive Housing component; and

(7) expedited extension of sanitary sewers and storm drainage facilities through the area proposed for residential uses through the subdivision process, to serve the 200 hectares (500acres) employment area to the west of the study area.

Conclusions:

With respect to Option 4, it is my recommendation that Scarborough Community Council instruct me to commence negotiations with the landowners, environmental interests, the Regions of York and Durham and the Town of Markham, in consultation with the Works and Environment and Economic Development Departments, to achieve the elements comprising this plan and to report on progress to Scarborough Community Council at its meeting on June 24, 1998.

The present Executive Residential definition in the Scarborough Official Plan provides a good starting point for defining "executive housing". If Council wishes to expand this definition by adding a minimum lot size, the examples of the Rouge Community, Bayview Hills and Angus Glen further would suggest a minimum frontage in the order of 18 metres (59 feet).

The requirement of a high standard of community design and the use of planning tools such as architectural, landscaping and streetscape design control through the subdivision approval process, would be useful additions to the definition.

An executive housing community need not be limited to detached houses on large lots but can also include a wider range of lot sizes and housing forms, including high-end detached housing, in a quality community setting.

Many of the urban design guidelines and the implementation procedures which are important aspects of executive housing are likely to be specific to a particular development or community. Any further refinement or expansions of the definition of the term "Executive Housing" be considered within the context of the Secondary Plan process for Morningside Heights.

Contact Name:

Mr. David Beasley, MCIP, RPP., Principal Planner, Urban Planning and Development Services, 396-7026, Fax: 396-4265, E-mail: beasley@city.scarborough.on.ca.

--------

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following report (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, directed staff to hold a Community Information meeting at the Toronto Zoo administrative offices on May 20, 1998 to discuss Morningside Heights. This report summarizes the presentations and records the comments made at the meeting.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Scarborough Community Council receive this report for information.

Discussion:

Staff sent out almost 13,000 notices by postal walk and advised by first class mail all those who had previously indicated that they wished to be notified of any subsequent meeting. Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. also distributed flyers advising of the meeting. The meeting was attended by approximately 75 persons.

The format of the meeting included presentations by City staff, representatives of SRVS and Friendsof the Rouge and the owners' planning consultant.

The focus question was: "What values does the City need to hold in making decisions for the future urban use of this land?"

A facilitator recorded comments by the audience, which are attached to this report. The consensus of the meeting was that these comments be reported in full and not summarized. Only one comment sheet and one letter, also attached, were received. Several community representatives expressed satisfaction with the meeting despite its four hour length.

Conclusions:

The great majority of the audience indicated concurrence for the SRVS position and most, with some exceptions, supported residential as opposed to employment uses as the basis for the future development of Morningside Heights. Several indicated concerns about specific provisions of the memorandum of understanding between the landowners and SRVS, notably with respect to the piping of minor watercourse and SRVS agreement not to oppose an arterial road south of SteelesAvenue.

Contact Name

Mr. David Beasley, MCIP, RPP., Principal Planner, Urban Planning and Development Services, 396-7026, Fax: 396-4265, E-mail: beasley@city.scarborough.on.ca.

--------

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following report (May 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development:

Purpose:

The purpose of the report is to undertake a City-wide review, as directed by Scarborough Community Council, on the impact of redesignating Toronto's largest remaining greenfield employment area to residential. The review includes the impact on employment, assessment and long-term supply of land for employment uses. The municipal financial implications and the competitive position to attract and retain business are included.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the existing industrial land use designations west of the Morningside Tributary in the Morningside Heights study be retained to preserve the largest remaining greenfield employment opportunity in the City of Toronto;

(2)staff report to Scarborough Community Council at its meeting on June 24, 1998, with costs and options for trunk sewer and water extension to complete servicing of Tapscott Employment District to Middlefield Road; and

(3)Council, in considering development east of the Morningside Tributary, consider as a condition of approval of the development that the land owners in Morningside Heights be required to grant to the City all necessary easements to permit the extension of storm, sanitary and water services through the Morningside Heights Study Area to complete the servicing of Tapscott Employment District.

Comments:

Hemson Consulting Ltd. was retained to prepare a report for Economic Development, Culture and Tourism responding to the Scarborough Community Council's request. The report has the following key conclusions and will be presented to the Community Council.

The City has limited remaining supply of undeveloped greenfield employment land, about 1,500acres. Morningside Heights is about one-third of the City's greenfield supply.

Until recently, the market for new employment lands has been very sluggish not just in the Tapscott area, but across the GTA. Conditions in the employment land market are rapidly improving in the GTA. There is every indication the market is improving within the City as well.

New land is needed to help compensate for the continued loss of industrial uses from older dysfunctional brownfield lands.

In today's real estate market, greenfield employment lands are virtually the only basis on which the City can compete with suburban regions for new industrial-type assessment and employment growth.

Tapscott is a relatively new and competitive employment area with reasonablely good road and public transit access. It can compete well with many locations in York and Durham Regions.

The problem of the property tax differential between the City and the Regions has affected the competitiveness of the City's greenfield land in the past. The announced 50 percent reduction in the provincial industrial education tax will make significant progress in narrowing the tax gap with the Regions, thus improving the competitive position of the remaining City greenfield lands.

Employment use in Morningside Heights will be more fiscally beneficial to the City than the residential alternative. The new assessment and tax system does not affect this conclusion. At full development, employment use would produce an estimated $5.5 million net property tax revenues annually to the City compared to a $700,000.00 annually for the residential alternative.

Based on analysis to date, the need for the north-south transportation link between Highways 401 and 407 does not appear to be dependent on the choice between employment and residential development in Morningside Heights.

The protection of the Rouge River watershed is not dependent on the choice of land use, since any development will need to meet the standards set out by the TRCA in the Rouge watershed plan.

In addition to the above broader market considerations, the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has also received a number of letters from existing occupants of the Tapscott area expressing their concerns about the possibility of residential redesignation. These letters are attached as Appendix 1.

To ensure that greenfield employment land is available as soon as possible, we recommend that staff continue investigating the cost and options for servicing the remaining lands in Tapscott and that the landowners in Morningside Heights provide the necessary easements in the Morningside Heights Study Area as a condition of approval for development east of Staines Road.

Conclusions:

The Morningside Heights area is the largest remaining greenfield employment area in the City. It is important to keep this area designated for employment uses to assure future employment opportunities, to gain the financial benefit of non-residential development and to provide the City with a land supply that can compete with the 905 Regions.

Finally determining the land uses in the Morningside Heights area may also provide the opportunity to provide servicing through Morningside Heights to the north part of the Tapscott District, which is the second largest concentration of greenfield employment land in the City.

Contact Name:

Mr. Bruce Graham, Manager, Business Development, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, 396-7066, Fax: 396-4241, E-mail:graham@city.scarborough.on.ca.

--------

Appendix I

Letters of Support from Existing Occupants of the

Tapscott Employment District and Others

(1)Renown Steel (A Division of Slater Steel Inc.);

(2)Cinram International Inc.;

(3)Audio Products International Corp.;

(4)Craftwood (A Division of Sonnenberg Industries Ltd.);

(5)Black & McDonald Limited;

(6)IPSCO Ontario Inc.;

(7)Sunlike Juice Ltd.;

(8)Columbia House;

(9)CB Commercial Real Estate Group Canada Inc.;

(10)Toronto Real Estate Board; and

(11)Realcor Commercial Realty Inc.

In addition to the foregoing, communications were also received from:

-Magna Developments; and

-Colliers International.

Copies of all of the above were provided to all Members of Scarborough Community Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

The Scarborough Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having received the following request from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and having deemed that the Community Council's comments, as requested, are contained in the foregoing recommendations to Council:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 19, 1998:

(1)directed that the Scarborough Community Council be advised that the redesignation of lands in Morningside Heights from Employment to Residential may have City-wide economic development implications;

(2)requested the Scarborough Community Council to submit any comments on economic development issues related to the redesignation of lands in Morningside Heights to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of the Scarborough Community Council, having:

(a)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit all documentation pertaining to the redesignation of lands in Morningside Heights to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998;

(b)directed that, in the meantime, the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services consult with all interested parties and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(c)received the communication from Mr. Michael Melling, Davies Howe Partners.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it the following communications and report:

(i)(May 14, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, at its meeting held on May13 and 14, 1998, adopted, without amendment, a Motion moved by Councillor Mahood, seconded by Councillor Saundercook, regarding the redesignation of undeveloped industrial lands in Scarborough; the operative paragraphs of such Motion being as follows:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development, be requested to report on this application and its impact from an economic development perspective to the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held May19, 1998;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Urban Environment and Development Committee be requested to advise the Scarborough Community Council of any interest, from an economic development perspective, regarding this application at its meeting scheduled to be held on May27, 1998.".

(ii)(May 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing a status update on City-wide economic implications of the proposed redesignation of the largest concentration of greenfield employment and open space land (approximately 733 acres) located in the north-east of Scarborough to low and medium density residential; advising that real estate market conditions, property tax legislation, municipal finance considerations and redevelopment pressures on the City's older employment districts are factors which have an impact on the future land use in Morningside Heights; that these factors have also seen significant changes since the former City of Scarborough reviewed the Morningside Heights application in the fall of 1997; stating that Economic Development staff expect to be able to provide a report to Scarborough Community Council which will shed new light on the value of Morningside Heights as a location for future employment uses; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(iii)(May 15, 1998) from Mr. Michael Melling, Davies Howe Partners, advising that his firmisCounsel to 554056 Ontario Limited, the Neilson Development Corporation, M&RHoldings, the Staines Development Corporation and Silvercore Properties Inc., which are the owners of the bulk of the lands known as "Morningside Heights"; and setting out two requests for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

--------

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

-Ray Simpson, Hemson Consulting, who made a presentation with respect to the report entitled: "Retaining Employment Lands - Morningside Heights", dated May 1998, a copy of which was provided to all Members of Scarborough Community Council and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk;

-Michael Bowman, Solicitor, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt;

-Angelina Macri, Solicitor, Magna Developments;

-John MacKenzie, Save the Rouge Valley System;

-Glenn de Baeremaeker, Save the Rouge Valley System;

-Jeffrey L. Davies, Davies, Howe Partners, representing Silcore Properties, who also introduced the following spokespersons for various landowners in the area:

-Barry Morrison, Barry J. Morrison & Associates Limited;

-Frank Clayton, Clayton Research;

-Randy Grimes, IBI Group, for M & R Holdings, who provided to Community Council, a report entitled: "Key Points and Preliminary Response to Hemson Report", and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk;

-John Bousfield, Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler & Smith, for Staines Development;

-Gary Watchorn for Brookside Golf Course, who made a presentation with respect to the document entitled: "A Community Vision - Morningside Heights", a copy of which was provided to all Members of Community Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

-Jim Robb, for Friends of the Rouge Watershed;

-Michael Melling, Davies, Howe Partners, responding to Mr. Robb's comments; and

-Lois James, in support of Save the Rouge Valley System.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (May29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report responds to the May 19, 1998 request by the Urban Environment and Development Committee that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit all documentation pertaining to the redesignation of Morningside Heights to the June 15, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and that the Commissioner report on the consultation undertaken with respect to the issue.

Financial Implication:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Committee receive this report for information.

Discussion:

Consultation by Planning staff with various stakeholders and technical agencies has been extensive since the original applications for the redesignation of the lands within the area were received in 1985 and have become more intensive since the current application was referred to the Ontario Municipal Board in October of 1997. Most recently, the Planning, Works and Economic Development Departments attended a public information meeting on May 20, 1998, directed by the Scarborough Community Council, for which approximately 13,000 notices were sent out. A similar meeting was held in June of 1997.

Much of this consultation has taken place over the past four years within the context of two studies, the Morningside Heights Land Use Study and the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study, the latter covering most of the area within the Land Use Study. These meetings have resulted in frequent staff contact with the landowners and their consultants, industrial landowners outside the study area, environmental groups such as Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. (SRVS), Friends of the Rouge, resident group leaders such as William Dempsey and Lois James, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), provincial ministries such as the Ministries of Natural Resources and Transportation and others.

The Subwatershed Study, in particular, has representatives of many of these agencies on its Steering Committee and Public Advisory Committee. Although this study is not mandated to make recommendations on land use designations, it was a frequent focus for such discussion, along with the issue of public acquisition of lands.

The Planning and Economic Development Departments have been in frequent contact over the past year, and have prepared two joint reports, considered by Scarborough Community Council on April1, 1998. and Scarborough Council on June 10, 1997, respectively.

As a result of the direction of the Ontario Municipal Board, given at the pre-hearing of February1998, the parties and participants have been meeting, often several times a week. New participants are the Regions of York and Durham and the Town of Markham, which have expressed great interest in the provision of a north-south arterial link through part of the study area.

The landowners have also held four "workshops" on various issues related to servicing, employment demand, road and residential design proposals. Councillors, among others, were invited to attend.

Conclusions:

There has been extensive consultation with the public, technical agencies, interest groups and the applicants over the past 13 years. With the encouragement of the Scarborough Community Council and the Ontario Municipal Board, thiseffort by staff continues with the objective of narrowing the issues to be argued at the scheduled October 19, 1998 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

As requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee, planning reports dealing with the Morningside Heights Land Use Study are appended to this report.

Contact Name:

Mr. David Beasley, Principal Planner, Community Planning Division, 396-7026, Fax 396-4265, E-mail: beasley@scarborough.on.ca.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (June 15, 1998) from Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Scarborough City Centre:

As you know, Item No. 5, Morningside Heights Land Use Study and Related Development Applications, was referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee by Toronto City Council at its meeting of June 3, 1998.

You may also be aware that at the Scarborough Community Council meeting on May 27, 1998, staff were directed to bring forward further reports on this item to the Community Council meeting on June 24, 1998. With this in mind, major landowners in the area have suggested that the item before the Committee be deferred until the next meeting (see Item No. 5(b), Supplementary Agenda).

Since I will be unable to attend today's meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, I wanted to advise you and the members of the Committee that I support the applicant's request for a temporary deferral of this item.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

(i)(June 10, 1998) from Mr. Jeffrey L. Davies, Davies Howe Partners, advising that his firm is counsel to 554056 Ontario Limited, the Neilson Development Corporation, M & R Holdings, the Staines Development Corporation and Silvercore Properties Inc., which are the owners of the bulk of the lands known as "Morningside Heights"; that consideration of the Morningside Heights application involves a number of important and complicated issues which are subject to further staff reports; stating that his firm has been advised that the staff report requested by the Scarborough Community Council will soon be completed and will be on the agenda for the June 24, 1998 meeting of the Community Council; and requesting that the Urban Environment and Development Committee not commence its deliberations on Morningside Heights until its next meeting, at which time it will have the benefit of the staff report dealing with the dividing line between industrial and residential uses west of Morningside Creek.

(ii)(June 11, 1998) from Mr. Jeffrey L. Davies, Davies Howe Partners, advising, further to his letter dated June 10, 1998, that the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has scheduled a Pre-Hearing Conference for July 13, 1998, which is the date of the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee; suggesting that, in order to avoid a conflict with the Pre-Hearing, the Committee set a time to deal with the Morningside Heights issue on July14, 1998; further advising that he is prepared to request to schedule an additional Pre-Hearing between the July 14 and September14, 1998 Pre-Hearings in order to assure the Committee that the City will not be prejudiced by a deferral of the Morningside Heights issue to its July, 1998 meeting.

(iii)(June 15, 1998) from Ms. Lois James, Scarborough, urging Members of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to adopt the goal of clean air for the Rouge Valley, and to discouraging the use of cars and trucks by providing public transit access and by planning for services within walking and cycling distances.

The following officials made a presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with respect to the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Virginia West, Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

-Mr. Lorne Ross, Urban Planning Division, Scarborough Civic Centre;

-Ms. Brenda Librecz, Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development; and

-Mr. Raymond Simpson, Hemson Consulting Ltd.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. John Mackenzie, Save the Rouge Valley System;

-Mr. Jeffrey L. Davies, Davies Howe Partners, on behalf of Morningside Heights landowners;

-Mr. Randy Grimes, Director, IBI Group;

-Mr. Bela Kaposi, Markham (and also appearing on behalf of Ms. Gina Raponi);

-Mr. William A. Dempsey, Centennial Community and Recreation Association of Highland Creek;

-Mr. Michael Bowman, Osler Hoskin and Harcourt on behalf of IPSCO Ontario Inc.;

-Ms. Angelina Macri, Dale & Lessman, Barristers and Solicitors, (on behalf of Black and McDonald, et al);

-Ms. Marion Kenney, Markham;

-Ms. Ruth Gill, Scarborough;

-Ms. Linda Carscadden, Scarborough;

-Ms. Lois James, Scarborough;

-Mr. Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, and filed a written submission; and

-Mr. Brian Gardner, Scarborough.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Councillor Bas Balkissoon, Scarborough Malvern;

-Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Scarborough City Centre;

-Councillor Raymond Cho, Scarborough Malvern; and

-Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford.

(A copy of the planning reports, which were appended to the foregoing report dated May 29, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the June 15 and 16, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 25, 1998) from the Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report directly to Council on the recommendations of Friends of the Rouge Watershed contained in their submission to the June15, 1998 Urban Environment and Development Committee. As the submission largely relates to the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study, a project of the Works and Emergency Services Department, I have prepared comments on the submission.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None, unless Council directs staff to include the purchase of about 33 hectares (80 acres.) of additional land requested by Friends of the Rouge Watershed.

Recommendation:

For the information of Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Friends of the Rouge Watershed have been active participants in the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study. They have raised concerns about many issues which the staff and technical agencies have considered during the subwatershed planning process.

Friends of the Rouge Watershed request their four recommendations be adopted to emphasize the importance of certain issues or modify the direction of the subwatershed study.

(1)Establish a 160 metre (525 feet) Wide Corridor on Morningside Tributary:

Scarborough Community Council, Urban Environment and Development Committee, city staff and technical agencies have recommended a minimum corridor width of 100 metre (328 feet) on Morningside Tributary in the Tapscott area. (See Figure 1.) The corridor recommended in the Phase2 report, before you, is at least 100 metres wide. In some cases it is as wide as 160 metres or more. The north portion of the proposed corridor is much wider than 100 metres and contains the regional floodplain and the woodlots at Passmore Avenue and Neilson Road. We believe the corridor width in this area is satisfactory to Friends of the Rouge Watershed.

Friends of the Rouge Watershed is concerned with the width of the corridor where there is an existing wide floodplain between Brookside Golf Course and Finch Avenue. Friends of the Rouge Watershed are concerned about flooding, erosion, and impact on fish habitat. As a result, they request that the corridor be widened from 100 metres minimum to 160 metres to give an extra measure of floodplain protection to the Morningside corridor and Rouge Park.

Staff stands behind the Subwatershed Study recommendations as shown on Figure 1. Technical agencies also support this corridor. Friends of the Rouge Watershed are asking Council to consider a higher level of protection by increasing the width of the Morningside Corridor.

Staff does not believe this is necessary. Under regional storm conditions, the flat topography between Brookside Golf Course and Finch Avenue creates a wide, shallow floodplain on both sides of Morningside Tributary. The City partially constructed the Tapscott diversion structure in 1982 on the Brookside Golf Course. The objective of the diversion structure, when complete, was to divert floodwater to the Tapscott pond, on the Ontario Hydro Corridor, east of Staines. As a result there will no longer be a floodplain on the wider corridor requested by Friends of the Rouge Watershed. The berm required to divert the regional stormwater was not completed on Brookside Golf Course. Staff thought that Morningside Heights would be developing shortly which would have seen McNicoll Avenue extended to act as the berm to complete the planned diversion. Once the diversion structure is completed, the regional floodplain will therefore be contained within the recommended Morningside Corridor.

The Subwatershed Study anticipates the diversion structure will be completed but the way the diversion structure is completed will be modified. The change will ensure more stormwater flow (than originally planned) continues downstream within the Morningside stream, past the diversion structure, to protect, preserve and improve habitat within the Morningside corridor. At the same time, the plan is to attempt to prevent downstream erosion.

Staff expects that the 100 metre wide corridor for Morningside Tributary can be acquired by a combination of dedication and purchase, during the development process. If Council wishes to increase the Morningside Corridor from 100 metres to 160 metres the implementation plan will have to address how to fund the acquisition of the additional corridor where the corridor recommended in the Subwatershed Plan is not 160 metres wide.

(2)Toronto Should Acquire the Lands East of Staines Road and Seek the Support of All Other Agencies:

The lands east of Staines Road are designated Open Space and Agriculture, not just Open Space. Friends of the Rouge Watershed suggest that since there is an existing floodplain it would be an appropriate area to acquire to avoid using the diversion structure as much as possible.

As noted above, the lands east of Staines Road, south of the Ontario Hydro Corridor will no longer be within the floodplain when the diversion structure is completed. If Council wishes to acquire these properties, staff will have to report in the implementation plan how to fund this purchase, over and above the lands we already expect will have to be purchased.

Friends of the Rouge Watershed say that the land will be acquired 'at fair market value'. 'Fair market value' is the price agreed to by a willing purchaser and willing vendor both being informed of current market conditions. To suggest the existing official plan designations somehow dictate the land value is incorrect. Owners have a right to seek approval to amend the Official Plan and we must consider this in the property valuation process.

(3)Friends of the Rouge Watershed Seek Council's Support not to Build New Roads or Highways through Rouge Park, Including Morningside Tributary South of Steeles Avenue:

The Subwatershed Report Addendum suggests that road crossings of Morningside Tributary should be kept to a minimum. The Subwatershed Study states that the planning approval process will evaluate which roads are required. Then those roads should be designed to have the least damaging effect on the watercourse.

Friends of the Rouge Watershed seek Council's support to oppose new roads and to continue to oppose highways crossings built through the Rouge Park area (including the Morningside Tributary) south of Steeles Avenue. The previous recommendation to acquire the lands east of Staines Road may have the effect of avoiding possibly one road crossing of Morningside Tributary.

(4)Friends of the Rouge Watershed Seek Council's Support for a Number of Initiatives No Matter Which Land Use Scenario is Approved:

These recommendations are:

(a)Comply with Subwatershed Study recommendations.

This request supports the recommendations from Scarborough Committee Council and the Urban Environment and Development Committee which are before you.

(b)Comply with provincial and federal legislation (e.g., federal Fisheries Act).

The City has to do this in any case.

(c)Improve water quality, stream baseflow and red side dace fish habitat.

This request supports the recommendations from Scarborough Committee Council and the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(d)Reduce flash floods and erosion by maximizing infiltration of rainwater.

This request supports the recommendations from Scarborough Committee Council and the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(e) Protect prudent floodplain buffers.

The Subwatershed Study recommends a 100 metre corridor on Morningside Tributary while Friends of the Rouge Watershed recommend a 160 metres wide corridor. As raised in the response to Recommendation No. (1), we do not believe that this is required but if Council wishes a wider corridor then the lands will have to be purchased from the land owner.

(f) Support Rouge Park Management Plan.

The Subwatershed Study recommendation supports Rouge Park.

(g)Protect stream corridors as set out in Metro Official Plan

The Subwatershed Study recommendations are consistent with the Metro Official Plan so long as a greenspace function is retained generally in the areas shown in the Plan. Friends of the Rouge Watershed raise this concern because the Morningside Heights landowners have separately requested an amendment to Metro Plan to ensure that their development proposal is in conformity with Metro Plan. We understand it is the opinion of Planning staff that the Morningside Heights proposal complies with the Metro Plan, therefore no amendment is required. A copy of the developer's proposed amendment is attached as Figure 2.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Friends of the Rouge Watershed have been actively involved in the Subwatershed process. Their recommendations largely support the Subwatershed Plan but their recommendations request that we exceed the minimum standards set by suggesting that about 33 hectares (80 acres) be acquired besides the lands already recommended in the subwatershed study.

Conclusions:

Council should support the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study as recommended by Scarborough Community Council and the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Contact Name:

Ann L. Rexe, Assistant Director, Environment,

Phone: 396-7156, fax: 392-5681, E-mail: rexe@city.scarborough.on.ca.)

(A copy of Figures 1 and 2, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (June 30, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Scarborough Community Council reports having directed that the attached report (June22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, be forwardedto Council for information, to be considered in conjunction with Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(Report dated June 22, 1998, addressed to

the Scarborough Community Council from the

Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough District.)

Purpose:

The Scarborough Community Council, on May 28, 1998, further to recommendations contained in Clause No. 13 of Report No. 5 of The Scarborough Community Council, directed that the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

(1)recommend to Community Council, a strategy to proactively protect and preserve the natural environment for the areas that Council determines should remain designated as employment lands;

(3)more strictly refine the Employment Uses designation in the Official Plan; and

(4)report to Community Council with respect to the lands west of the Tributary to further refine the boundary between Industrial and Residential Uses.

Recommendation:

For the information of Scarborough Community Council.

Discussion:

Refinement of the Boundary between Industrial and Residential Uses west of the Morningside Tributary:

Speakers to Scarborough Council and Community Council have emphasized the need for a buffer along the east side of the CPR. This would separate residential uses within Morningside Heights from industrial uses to the west of the CPR, such as the IPSCO plant, and from their rail siding activity. Various ways of achieving this separation have been considered, including a golf course. This report proposes a buffer of high quality, well-landscaped employment uses.

Past reports have commented on the attractiveness of the natural attributes of the study area, including the Morningside Tributary, for high quality residential development. The Tributary represents a potential geographic boundary between land uses but can also be considered as a valuable attribute for residential uses on both sides. A strong planning and environmental argument can be made for incorporating the Tributary as a central feature of a residential community plan rather than an edge. Its potential would be wasted as the rear property line for industrial lots.

The question remains, where to separate the two uses? There are no prominent geographical features, natural or manmade, and no pattern of ecologically significant resources aligned in a way which would be useful in determining the dividing line. Neilson Road is the only feature which offers some promise, but only for part of its length.

Community Council has strongly confirmed the Scarborough City Council's opposing a six-lane interregional highway through the Study Area. There is, however, a need to complete the City's road grid to serve development in this quadrant. Staines Road is shown on both the Metro and Scarborough Official Plans as a link from Finch Avenue to Steeles Avenue. The Morningside-Finch intersection improvement study was commenced in recognition of the need to resolve existing local traffic problems. Lack of good road access has proven to be a major deterrent to development of the Study Area for employment uses in the past.

This deficiency could best be overcome by the continuation of Morningside Avenue, as a four-lane undivided road, under the CPR main line to join the Neilson Road alignment, to cross the CPR Havelock line north of the Neilson sub-tributary and proceed north along the west boundary of the Malvern Remediation site to terminate at Steeles Avenue.

Preliminary analysis indicates that this alignment would meet engineering design criteria. This would include provision for a future grade separation at the Havelock line, if and when this is warranted. The alignment would effectively replace the intended function of the Staines Road connection shown in the two Official Plans and would provide efficient access to land uses both within and outside the Study Area. It would provide a good intersection with Finch Avenue at one end and the potential for a signalized intersection with Steeles Avenue at the other.

This new road would ultimately allow the closure of the Neilson Road-Passmore Road crossing of the rail line.

Arterial roads are by far the most common boundary between employment districts and residential communities in Scarborough, particularly in the newer districts such as Tapscott, Marshalling Yards, Milliken and Steeles. Roads generally provide a more satisfactory interface between uses than rear lot lines, which expose the residential backyard amenity areas to the noise and views associated with industrial activity and truck loading.

Using the proposed road alignment as the dividing line between land uses would have the benefit of placing the HEPC substation, which is an intermittent source of noise from the operation of cooling fans, within the employment area. It would also provide a separation distance of greater than 300metres (1000 feet) between the IPSCO temper mill on Tapscott Road and any residential use within Morningside Heights.

The proposed road will permit direct driveway access to employment uses. Access to residential uses will be by service road. Both businesses and homes will thereby present their best face to the street, to create a "civilized" streetscape, with no reverse frontages. This arrangement would also provide full exposure for the community and to its entrance features, rather than hiding them behind industrial uses.

The preferred option as shown on Figure 1 locates the road approximately 110 metres (360 feet) from the CPR connector line. (This is the depth of a typical industrial lot in the Finchdene Square area.)

This option has several advantages, including providing all lots with arterial road frontage. It results in approximately 41 hectares (101 acres) of employment uses, potentially supporting over 2,000jobs. Should the plan be acceptable to the landowners, it offers the opportunity to expedite the servicing of over 160 hectares (400 acres) of prime employment lands west of the Study Area, which would generate approximately 8,000 new jobs.

Other options making a straighter connection with the increased depth from the CPR line served by cul-de-sacs have also been considered. These provide less efficient lotting and substantially less marketability for the employment component.

I do not support employment uses on both sides of the Morningside extension, where it would create an undesirable rear lot condition between the employment and residential uses. Employment uses on the east side of the Morningside extension would prevent the exposure necessary to successfully market the residential community and the interior industrial lots. It would diminish the City's ability to plan the area as a comprehensive, vital and viable residential community.

It is my recommendation that the optimum boundary between employment and residential uses within the Study Area would be an arterial road aligned as shown on Figure 1.

Refinement of Employment Uses Designation:

The western part of the Morningside Heights Study Area is designated for Special Industrial Uses, the least restrictive industrial designation in the Official Plan. (Figure 2.)

Council has already taken action to replace the former Special Industrial Uses designation west of the CPR line with more restrictive industrial designations. From the IPSCO plant north to the Morningside Tributary, a depth of approximately 100 metres (330 feet) west of the rail line was redesignated to General Industrial Uses with High Performance Standards (HPS) in 1997. The balance of the area was redesignated to General Industrial Uses.

In addition to traditional "industrial" uses, the Industrial Uses designations in the Official Plan also provide for training and educational facilities, offices, recreational uses and, in certain locations, places of worship. The City has been very successful in the past in attracting a wide range of attractive development within "industrial" areas, including Warner Brothers, Columbia House, Cinram, NovoPharm and many others.

Most of the industrially-designated lands within the Study Area are already subject to the HPS designation. The HPS designation precludes Special Industrial Uses as defined in the Zoning By-law, i.e., types of industrial uses which could be incompatible with the upscale image and environmental objectives Council may wish to support in this area.

"High Performance Standards may include special requirements for: limitation of uses, siting, landscaping areas, parking, external building materials, signs, prohibition or screening of outside and open storage."

It is my recommendation that Council give direction to staff to undertake the preparation of a Secondary Plan which will include not only the extension of the General Industrial Uses with High Performance Standards designation to all employment lands within the Study Area but will also incorporate Special Policies within areas so designated which will require:

-the highest possible quality of design and construction; and

-the greatest sensitivity to environmental considerations, especially to stormwater management.

These Special Policies will be implemented by means of the zoning by-law, subdivision agreements and site plan control. Policies will include, for example, high standards for front yard and perimeter landscaping and a prohibition of open storage and front yard parking.

A Pro-Active Strategy to Protect and Preserve the Natural Environment within Employment Areas:

Morningside Tributary Sub-Watershed Study:

The protection of the environment of the watershed, whether for employment or any other urban use, has been the cardinal goal of the Morningside Tributary Sub-Watershed Study over the past five years. Phase three of the Study, the Implementation Plan, will articulate a pro-active strategy to achieve this goal. It is expected that the Implementation Plan could be completed within six months after Council approves Phase 2 of this study as amended by the Addendum.

The Implementation Plan will focus on the acquisition of the stream corridors and woodlots recommended in the Phase 2 Subwatershed Report and the Addendum by any and all methods (see Appendix No. 4, Clause No. 24 of Report No. 3 of The Scarborough Community Council dated March26, 1998).

The first choice for acquisition will be negotiation with land owners to seek dedication of lands. Other tecniques include the purchase of key properties and stewardship agreements to maintain the lands in natural condition and allow naturalization through tree planting.

The adoption by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority of floodplain mapping extended to the headwaters of the Morningside Tributary will empower the TRCA and the City to utilize this information in development control.

Secondary Plan:

The Secondary Plan process can be the means to:

(i)extend the Open Space designation to include Neilson and Pitchfork Creeks and the woodlots at Passmore and Neilson;

(ii)extend the Environmental Impact Zone to include stream corridors;

(iii)replace the Special Industrial Uses (least restrictive) designation with General Industrial Uses High Performance Standards (most restrictive);

(iv) create Special Policies for the HPS designation in the Study Areas to further refine this designation as discussed earlier in this report; and

(v)introduce Urban Design Guidelines for boulevard design, front yard setbacks, landscaping, etc.

Other Planning Strategies:

(1)Zoning standards to require an increased part of each site to be allocated to landscaping and to prohibit open storage and front yard parking.

(2)Subdivision agreements to require servicing designs to optimize water quantity and quality control and reduce disturbance of natural grading, road designs to minimize environmental impact such as bridging and "day lighting" of stream crossings rather than using culverts, and utilizing stormwater management techniques to minimize stormwater runoff from buildings and paved areas and to strictly control impacts during construction.

(3)Bringing of all employment areas under site plan control and using innovative site planning technique to reduce paved areas, further protect abutting sensitive areas and maximize tree planting.This will register on title the measures contained in the site plans to respect environmentally sensitive features, retain drainage swales, and require reduced runoff.

(4)Extending the Tree By-law to cover all properties with single detached houses within the Tapscott Employment District.

(5)Development and marketing by the owners, with the assistance of the City's Economic Development staff, of the employment uses as an "eco-industrial park" featuring some of the following components:

-environmental technology and service companies;

-companies manufacturing 'green' products; and

-a single environmental theme such as a solar energy or zero emissions park.

Large Lot Subdivision:

The landowners were requested by Community Council to submit a preliminary subdivision plan based on a minimum lot size of 1100 square metres (12,000 square feet) for the area east of the Morningside Tributary. The owners declined, citing prohibitively high costs of developing only this area, in isolation of the balance of the property and with only this size of lot.

Figure 3 is an illustration of the possible development of this area using this criteria. It would yield approximately 350 lots. This would be well below the threshold justifying a school, retail centre or community facilities except for a small neighbourhood park.

As noted in my previous report to Community Council, it is my strongly held opinion that lot size is only one of many aspects of an executive community. Location, urban design, street scapes, and landscaping on both the public and private side are some of the many other attributes. Average lot sizes in the prestigious Forest Hill, Kingsway and Lawrence Park areas of Toronto, for example, are only half to two-thirds of this size.

My report to the Scarborough Community Council meeting of May 28, 1998, brought to the attention of Council a number of examples of residential developments where municipalities have been able to achieve high quality residential development with innovative development standards. One of the communities mentioned in that report, Angus Glen, has now been featured in a report by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, entitled "Breaking New Ground: An Illustration of Alternative Development Standards in Ontario's New Communities".

"Using a 'partnership' approach and workshops involving municipal engineering and planning staff, and the proponent's consulting team, a secondary plan, zoning by-law technical standards (urban design, streetscape and open space guidelines) and draft plan of subdivision were developed in simultaneous streams of work."

A detailed document contains urban design guidelines including a streetscape plan for lighting, planting and cross-sections of all streets, an open space master plan and a detailed approval framework. The Design Guidelines document is the centrepiece of a comprehensive set of agreements between the Town of Markham and the developer. The use of a "village control architect", approved by the Town and retained by the developer, ensures consistent application of urban design and architectural guidelines.

All of these techniques are also available to the City of Toronto to ensure the high quality of residential development in Morningside Heights.

Conclusions:

By supporting Option 4 as described in this report, Council has the opportunity to achieve extremely important environmental, transportation and land use objectives for the north-eastern part of the city, in concert with the landowners and major interest groups. These objectives include:

-Opening up over 40 hectares (100 acres) of employment land within the Study Area which were previously unmarketable because of poor road access, while addressing the concerns of existing businesses in the Tapscott Employment District.

-Expediting the servicing of over 160 hectares (400 acres) of prime employment lands between the CPR Havelock line and Middlefield Road.

-Solving the Morningside Avenue/Finch Avenue intersection bottleneck and at the same time completing the road grid within this area as shown in both the Scarborough and Metro Official Plans, without crossing the Morningside Tributary (now part of the Rouge Park).

-Providing the option is supported by the landowners and their agreement with SRVS is still in effect, Option 4 represents an efficient and cost-effective means of achieving many of the objectives of the Subwatershed Study. This includes the dedication of the Morningside Tributary ecological corridor, woodlots and a key section of the Rouge Valley top of bank, and the establishment of a fund for the protection and restoration of the natural environment.

-Creation of an outstanding environmentally-conscious new residential community to rank with the best in North America.

Contact Name:

David Beasley, MCIP, RPP, Principal Planner, Urban Planning and Development Services

Phone:396-7026

Fax:396-4265

E-mail:beasley@city.scarborough.on.ca)

(A copy of Figures 1, 2 and 3, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications from the following individuals:

(i)from Mr. Jeffrey L. Davies, Davies-Howe Partners:

-(June 19, 1998) commenting on the process by which the issue pertaining to Morningside Heights was dealt with at the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee; noting that some deputants were deprived of the opportunity to make submissions on key points; and requesting that another meeting be held to rectify the unfairness associated with the meeting in which all deputants are governed by the same rules; and

-(July 2, 1998) submitting further comments on Morningside Heights; recommending that Council choose Option 4; and attaching a map which depicts Option 4 and explains its essential components;

(ii)(July7, 1998) from Ms. J. Foster, Senior Planner, Watershed Management, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, providing information with respect to the Morningside Heights Planning Area; and

(iii)(June 15, 1998) from Mr. Jim Robb, Projects Director, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, providing a copy of the submission from Friends of the Rouge, regarding Morningside Heights.)

Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct

Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts.

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

"It is further recommended that the following recommendation of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee embodied in the communication dated June 30, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted:

'The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on June 25, 1998, recommended that the following recommendations of the Budget Committee be adopted:

(1)an adequate expenditure be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account to undertake the project to avert suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct and that the cost be no more than $1.5 million; and

(2)the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be brought back to the Budget Committee in the fall for the final allocation of funding.' ")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May28, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having recommended to the Budget Committee that it recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, that up to $1.5 million be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account to undertake the project to avert suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May28, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide the Urban Environment and Development Committee with recommendations to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Street Viaduct.

Funding Sources and Requirements:

Funds of between $40,000.00 and $60,000.00 for the proposed Request for Proposals and design process can be absorbed within the approved 1998 Transportation Capital Works budget.

Preliminary estimates indicate that the installation costs for barriers/safety netting/equipment on the Viaduct will range from $400,000.00 to $700,000.00 plus operating and maintenance costs ranging from $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 per year. These estimates are based on the provision of basic safety systems and do not include any costs associated with architectural or artistic enhancements to conform with City urban design practices. The cost of these enhancements is unknown at this time but could increase the costs to between $800,000.00 and $1,300,000.00. The Works and Emergency Services Department does not have funds allocated for this project in either its Current Budget or Capital Budget for 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee support, in principle, the introduction of measures, as outlined in this report, to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Street Viaduct;

(2)a Request for Proposals be issued, as outlined in this report, to solicit proposals for design concepts and full architectural services, with the submissions being evaluated by a Project Steering Committee comprised of representatives from:

-the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-the Council on Suicide Prevention;

-the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto;

-Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning;

-the Transportation Division, Works and Emergency Services Department; and

-the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee.

(3)a further report be submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the selection of a preferred design, the detailed budget requirements and a project schedule; and

(4)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on April 16, 1998, the Council of the City of Toronto adopted Clause No. 3 of Report No. 4 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Prevention of Suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct". In the aforementioned Clause, the Urban Environment and Development Committee reported, for the information of Council, having:

(a)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to consult with the Bridge Society of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario and submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on April 16, 1998, on any progress that has been made with respect to this matter and, specifically, on any short-term initiatives that can be implemented immediately;

(b)requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the appropriate City officials, to submit a report to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998, regarding:

(i)a public education program which would set out the actions that should be taken by members of the public if confronted with a potential suicide situation; and

(ii)improved services which can be implemented in an effort to prevent suicides; and

(c)referred the following motions by Councillor Moscoe to the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, with a request that he submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998:

"That the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommend that Council:

(a)support, in principle, the concept of barriers or safety netting to avert suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct;

(b)refer the design of the barriers or safety netting to the Toronto Historical Board, the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, and the Interim Functional Lead, Culture, Arts and Heritage, with a request that the design process be in accordance with the City's policies and that an artist be included on the design team; and

(c)that this process be fast-tracked.".

In response to Item (a), the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, submitted a report to City Council at its meeting on April 16, 1998, which provided information on the progress that had been made to date with respect to safety measures on the Bloor Street Viaduct.

At its meeting on April 20, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it the following reports:

(i)(April 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services recommending that:

(1)City Council urge the Ontario Minister of Health to make a financial commitment to the Mental Health Reform Strategy by:

(a)allocating funding immediately to ensure that a comprehensive crisis response system is in place for Toronto;

(b)ensuring that the community services dealing with suicide (i.e., distress centres, phone-in lines) are adequately funded to meet increased demands for these services; and

(c)implementing key components of related community-based services (e.g.,case management, housing, etc.) as quickly as possible; and

(2)the Medical Officer of Health report via the Board of Health on the range of prevention and educational services already in place within the City and, in consultation with the Canadian Mental Health Association, identify further educational components needed to better equip the general public in the area of suicide awareness and prevention, and explaining that suicide prevention needs to be seen in the context of mental health reform, which requires a financial commitment and timely implementation by the Province; and

(ii)(April 15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, advising that preliminary estimates for installing barriers or safety netting on the Bloor Street Viaduct range from $400,000.00 to $700,000.00 plus operating and maintenance costs ranging from $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 per year, and that these estimates are based on the provision of basic safety systems and do not include any costs associated with architectural or artistic enhancements.

Discussion:

In response to Council's directives, transportation staff initiated a series of working team meetings and consultations. The working team included representatives from the following agencies:

-the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario (2 representatives);

-the Council on Suicide Prevention (2 representatives);

-the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto (1 representative);

-Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning (1 representative); and

-the Transportation Division, Works and Emergency Services Department

(2 representatives).

The working team focused its activities in five areas as follows:

(A)review of experience from other jurisdictions with respect to suicides from bridges;

(B)review of data with respect to suicides in the City of Toronto;

(C)review of the feasibility of installing barriers/covered walkway/safety netting on the Bloor Viaduct to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Viaduct;

(D)review of the feasibility of installing telephones on the Bloor Viaduct; and

(E)review of the feasibility of developing non-structural options (e.g., police patrols) to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Viaduct.

Following is an overview of the working group's conclusions in these five areas:

(A)Review of Experience from Other Jurisdictions:

The Transportation Division does not have staff with expertise in suicide prevention issues and therefore relied on external experts to provide knowledgeable opinion and assessment on this topic.

The Council on Suicide Prevention requested Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry to conduct a comprehensive review of the current research literature and statistical information available on bridge suicides. Some conclusions that have arisen from the review are:

(a)There is no doubt that certain landmarks become favoured spots for suicide. Publicity from the media undoubtedly enhances the popularity of such suicide points.

(b)Accessibility undoubtedly facilitates choice of suicide method. Thus, any measure that impedes accessibility to jump from a bridge will lower the suicide incidence on that bridge. This has been shown at bridges such as the Duke Ellington Bridge in Washington, D.C.

(c)There is absolutely no evidence available that closing off access to suicide from the Bloor Viaduct will lower the overall suicide incidence in Toronto... Equally, there is no evidence that suicides will increase at other bridges in Toronto if steps are taken at the Bloor Street Viaduct.

Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, Psychiatrist, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, and Professor of Psychiatry and Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, made an overhead presentation to TheUrban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting on March 23, 1998, entitled "A Rationale for Preventing Suicide on the Prince Edward (Bloor) Viaduct". Due to the significance of the presentation in providing background information, the working team requested that a copy of his presentation material be attached to this report.

Between April 15 and 18, 1998, an international conference, hosted by the American Association of Suicidology, was held in Washington, D.C. Ms. Karen Letofsky, Executive Director of the Toronto Distress Centre and a member of the Council on Suicide Prevention, prepared a summary of the conference as follows:

"This conference was of historical significance in that it brought together a number of groups, whose interest in suicide reflects quite different goals and perspectives: the American Association of Suicidology; Survivors of Suicide; Suicide Prevention Awareness Network; and the International Association of Suicide Prevention. Psychologist, Dr. Seiden, was honoured at the event for his advocacy work in trying to suicide-proof the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge. This structure still remains the number one location, worldwide, for highest number of suicides per year.

In discussion with a number of professionals about the San Francisco experience, it was learned that:

(a)partial safety measures have not been effective from an overall perspective;

(b)total barricading has been advocated for over 20 years;

(c)resistance has come from the Historical Board for aesthetic reasons and from citizen groups espousing an individual rights/responsibility argument; and

(d)there is full international professional support for the total proofing of the bridge.

There was general consensus amongst those surveyed, that denial of access to means was a recognized effective strategy in suicide prevention.

In reference to concerns about substitution of means, it was agreed that there was no evidence to suggest that either all individuals did not substitute, nor that they only substituted with other bridges. Therefore, in order to document the effectiveness of barricades, it is important to look at the overall suicide rate for a community over a number of years, rather than merely at rates for neighbouring structures. In this case, the Washington situation is a glowing endorsement for the utility of this strategy. Other supportive strategies undertaken by some communities, including foot patrols, also lend credence to the notion that preventing an attempt is effective in ultimately preventing suicide. This has been demonstrated in a number of follow-up studies, wherein only 20 percent, within a five to ten-year time period, of those who were stopped went on to complete."

In summary, there is sufficient experience, in particular, from the following three bridges:

(i)Sydney Harbour Bridge, Australia;

(ii)Ellington Bridge, Washington, D.C.; and

(iii)Glenn Street Bridge, Glen Falls, New York;

to demonstrate that the installation of fences can eliminate the incidence of suicide attempts from that bridge. The Washington, D.C. example is of special interest in that the installation of the fence did not promote a transfer of suicides to an adjacent bridge.

(B)Review of Toronto Data:

These data have been provided to all Councillors in a separate memo together with other letters and literature from suicide experts and researchers.

The number of suicides from the Bloor Viaduct and the significant increase of suicides in 1997 is a major concern. In view of this situation, the working team hopes that installation of protective measures will occur in 1998.

(C)Feasibility of Installing Barriers/Covered Walkway/Safety Netting:

The construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct was completed in 1919, with a bi-level deck construction across the Don River at Bloor Street/Danforth Avenue. The maximum difference in elevation from the top of the handrail to the ground below is approximately 40metres (131 feet) at the Don River and 27 metres (89 feet) at the Don Valley Parkway.

The Viaduct has a total length of 469 metres (1,539 feet) between the east and west abutments. To effectively prevent people from jumping off the bridge, a barrier will be required over the entire length of the structure.

Three types of preventive barrier designs were investigated and approximately costed as follows:

(1)installation of safety fencing of sufficient height ($400,000.00 - $520,000.00);

(2)installation of covered walkways ($700,000.00); and

(3)installation of safety nets below the structure ($530,000.00).

Relative to each other, all three options have various advantages and disadvantages such as view obstruction, bird nuisance, paper pollution, vandalism, high wind and ice loading stress and maintenance costs. Some members of the working team wish to include all three options with equal standing in the Request for Proposals. Transportation staff have concerns with respect to solutions involving safety netting and/or covered walkways for the following reasons:

(a)there is no documented evidence that safety netting is being used anywhere in the world to deter suicide attempts from bridges. In addition, the retrieval of people from the netting is problematic with respect to both safety and cost;

(b)a covered walkway is the most expensive of the options being considered. Also, there are major concerns with maintenance and cleanliness issues, based on our experience with bus shelters; and

(c)there are a number of success stories with fences, particularly, the Ellington Bridge in Washington, D.C.

Further meetings of the working team will be held to discuss these concerns in more detail and to develop the final details of the Request for Proposals. In preparing the Request for Proposals, it is the working team's intent to encourage innovative solutions provided they meet the three prime criteria, namely, deter suicide attempts; meet the architectural/artistic requirements; and be appropriate from both a capital and operating cost standpoint.

(D)Installation of Telephones:

Information was received from Bell Canada regarding the installation of telephones on the Bloor Viaduct. These phones would enable would-be jumpers to reach out for help/contact and would also enable passers-by to call for emergency services if required.

The working team, in reviewing the issue of installing telephones on the Bloor Viaduct, concluded as follows:

(1)six telephones should be installed, three on each side;

(2)the phones would need to be clearly visible, with appropriate signing;

(3)there are costs associated with the receiving end service (Distress Centre) that need to be taken into account; and

(4)telephones on the Bloor Viaduct can play a role in reducing the number of suicides but will not be nearly as effective as barriers or safety netting.

We estimate that the supply and installation of six telephones on the Bloor Viaduct including appropriate signing will cost approximately $15,000.00. The effectiveness of the telephones will depend on a number of factors, in particular, the capability to provide an immediate response at the receiving end (Distress Centre) where the calls will be immediately identified as either "emergency response required" or "counselling requested". When details regarding the operational implications, costs, and funding requirements of providing this service are finalized and approved, it will be possible to proceed with the installation of the six telephones.

(E)Non-Structural Measures:

In consultation with the Department of Community and Neighbourhood Services, and the provincial Ministry of Health, the working team is continuing to investigate other measures to reduce the number of suicides from the Bloor Street Viaduct.

These measures include:

(i)police patrols;

(ii)community group patrols;

(iii)public education program; and

(iv)change in public perception.

They will be investigated as supportive, rather than substitutive measures.

Conclusions:

In attempting to provide an answer to the question, "What actions should be taken to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Street Viaduct?", the working team reviewed and evaluated an extensive amount of information, a synopsis of which is contained in this report.

For a project which involves installing either barriers or safety netting on the Bloor Viaduct, the engineering requirements of these systems can be clearly defined. However, given the unique architectural and aesthetic requirements, a two-stage architect/designer selection process is being recommended. The first stage will solicit "Expressions of Interest" from the architectural/design community. From the responses, a short list will be developed of the most qualified respondents. During the second stage of the competition, the qualified respondents will develop and submit design solutions and cost estimates. The selected candidate from the second stage will be retained to complete the design document, tender and manage the entire project. This approach will enable proposers to apply innovative designs that meet both the functional and aesthetic requirements of this project. It is estimated that this two-stage selection process could cost between $40,000.00 and $60,000.00. Funds for this process will be reassigned from the 1998 Transportation Capital Works budget.

A Project Steering Committee will be established to evaluate the proposals and to provide guidance during this process. It will be comprised of representatives from:

-the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-the Council on Suicide Prevention;

-the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto;

-Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning;

-the Transportation Division, Works and Emergency Services Department; and

-the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee.

This process will lead to a solution which best meets the various criteria.

Contact Name:

Mr. Les Kelman, Assistant Director, Construction, 392-5372.

(Presentation material filed by Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky,

entitled "A Rationale for Preventing

Suicide on the Prince Edward (Bloor) Viaduct",

referred to in the foregoing report.)

Some Suicide Bridges and Other Suicide Spots Mentioned in the Medical Literature:

-Golden Gate, San Francisco-Oakland Bay;

-Beachy Head, Sussex, United Kingdom;

-Clifton Suspension Bridge, Bristol, United Kingdom;

-Duke Ellington Bridge, Washington, D. C.;

-Taft Bridge, Washington, D. C.;

-Brooklyn Bridge and Mid-Hudson Bridge, New York;

-Arroyo Seco Bridge, California;

-Aurora Bridge, Seattle;

-Story and Gateway Bridges, Brisbane, Australia;

-Sydney Harbour Bridge, Australia;

-Four Bridges, Odense, Denmark;

-Eiffel Tower, Paris, France; and

-Empire State Building, New York.

What happens to bridge jumpers?

-Fate is determined by height, velocity, angle, surface (falls onto pavement likely to be fatal or lead to serious injury; falls into water lead to severe internal damage and likely death).

-In jumping into water horizontal falls more likely fatal.

-San Francisco cases experienced death-rebirth, transcendence.

-Golden Gate survival rate moved up from one percent to five percent. Because of rapid transportation to hospital.

Rationale for Bridge Barriers:

-There is a specific scenario for each person's suicide in that person's mind. Compare the Coal Gas story (Kreitman).

-Deterring the act by barriers may buy time. The suicidal impulse is often temporary.

-Safety measures prevent injury or distress to those in proximity.

-The preference of suicides for specific bridges is romanticization of death. Attention focused by the media fosters this "brand preference" similar to commercial advertising.

-The Sydney Harbour Bridge barrier is effective (15-fold reduction in 50 years).

-A high proportion of jumpers in some cities are actively psychotic schizophrenics responding to auditory hallucinations (cf. Brisbane vs. Bristol).

Case example: The Ellington Bridge, D. C.*

-Did the barrier prevent suicide from the Ellington Bridge?

EllingtonTaft

Pre ("79-86") 25 12

Post ("86-90") 0 10

* O'Carroll (1994) as corrected by Berman (personal communication, 1998).

Alternatives to Barriers:

-Hanging safety netting (but trampoline effect must be eliminated).

-Renaissance-style structure.

-Toughened glass or perspex fence with relocated pedestrian walkway. Need to prevent vibration due to wind force.

-24-hour dedicated hotline telephones.

-Change public perception is very important (Annual Jazz Festival on Ellington Bridge suggested). Need to convert image from bridge of death to bridge celebrating lifestyles (Greek and other ethnic communities?).

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (June 11, 1998) from Dr. Robin R. Richards, Head - Division of Orthopaedics, St. Michael's Hospital, expressing strong support for the efforts of the Committee in increasing the safety of the Prince Edward Viaduct and other pedestrian bridges in Toronto; advising that most patients who jump from this bridge do not survive, but that those who do usually suffer severe musculoskeletal injuries that result in permanent disability; and urging the Committee to take action with regard to this issue.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Al Birney, President, East York Chapter and Chairman, Bridge Committee, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-Mr. Ray Doucette, Scarborough;

-Mr. Michael McCamus, Spokesperson of the Bridge Committee, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-Police Superintendent Aidan Maher, Toronto Police, 55 Division;

-Dr. Paul Links, Arthur Sommer Rotenberg Chair in Suicide Studies, University of Toronto;

-Dr. Robin R. Richards, Head of Orthopaedics, St. Michael's Hospital;

-Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, Psychiatrist, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, and Professor of Suicide Studies, York University;

-Ms. Karen Letofsky, Executive Director, Suicide Survivor Support Programme, Toronto Distress Centre;

-Mr. Dale Wright, Canadian Airmotive Ltd.; and

-Councillor Jack Layton, Don River.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (June 30, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends to Council the adoption of the recommendation embodied in the transmittal letter (June 26, 1998) from the Budget Committee.

Background:

At its meeting on June 30, 1998, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had before it the attached transmittal letter (June 26, 1998) from the Budget Committee recommending:

(2)the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be brought back to the Budget Committee in the fall for the final allocation of funding.

These recommendations should be considered with Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(Communication dated June 26, 1998,

addressed to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee

from the City Clerk.)

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on June 25, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, that:

(2)the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be brought back to the Budget Committee in the fall for the final allocation of funding.

The Budget Committee reports having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report back in the fall on departmental under-expenditures in the Transportation Department, and any other department, and the feasibility of charging the cost of the project to any such department.

Background:

The Budget Committee on June 25, 1998, had before it a transmittal letter (June 17, 1998) from the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding funding for the installation of barrier/safety netting/equipment for the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications from the following individuals:

(i)(June 24, 1998) from Ms. Stephanie L. Merklinger, Pefferlaw, Ontario, forwarding a proposal regarding the Bloor Viaduct, which includes hiring security to patrol the area; and

(ii)(June 30, 1998) from Mr. John Rendle, Rendle Safety and Canadian Airmotive, advocating the use of safety nets on the Bloor Street viaduct.)

Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending.

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

(1)striking out and referring Recommendation No. (8)(a) of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee back to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee, viz.:

"(8)that the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be requested to:

(a)conduct a lottery as soon as possible to award the former Metro road vending locations, as well as the new sites identified within the Club/Entertainment District;"; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)at such time as this matter is considered by the Road Allowance Sub-Committee, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit copies of the relevant contracts entered into by the former Metropolitan and City Councils; and

(2)the following motion be referred to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee for consideration:

Moved by Councillor Fotinos:

'It is further recommended that:

(1)any vending locations issued by the City of Toronto cannot be sold or transferred by the permit holder but must be returned to the City when the vendor no longer wishes to operate that location; and

(2)vendors must actively work in their spot for a portion of every day that they operate at that location.' ")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(i)the adoption of the recommendations of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee embodied in the following communication (May13, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) to provide that vending location No.(21) not be deleted until such time as a lottery takes place; and

(ii)that public property enforcement occur immediately within the Club District to remove illegal vendors after 11:00 p.m. each night:

Recommendations:

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee on May 12, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1)the adoption of Recommendation No. (1) of Part A of Appendix 1 embodied in the report (April 24, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, subject to amending part (a) to provide that vending location No. (110) not be deleted, but be adjusted in consultation with the present vendor; and, further, that vending location No.(18) not be deleted until such time as a lottery takes place; so that Recommendation No. (1) shall read as follows:

"(1)(a)that the following vending locations be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending spaces:

(i)Nos. (7) and (81) listed in Attachment "A" to the report (January 22, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation; and

(ii)Nos. (12) and (34), identified by the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area;

(b)that vending location No. (110) listed in Attachment "A" to the report (January 22, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation not be deleted, but be adjusted in consultation with the present vendor; and

(c)that vending location No. (18) listed in Attachment "A" to the report (January 22, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation not be deleted until such time as a lottery takes place;";

(2)the adoption of Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the aforementioned report (April24, 1998) subject to reinstating vending location No. (21), and subject to confirmation by the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, that it is still operating; so that Recommendation No. (3) shall read as follows:

"(3)the vending locations listed in Part B of Appendix 1 to this report be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending locations located on major arterial roads with the exception of vending location No. (21), such location to be reinstated, subject to confirmation by the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, that it is still operating;";

(3)the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (2) and (6) embodied in the aforementioned report (April 24, 1998);

(4)that Recommendation No. (4) embodied in the aforementioned report (April 24, 1998) be deleted;

(5)that Recommendation No. (5) embodied in the aforementioned report (April 24, 1998) be deleted and the following new Recommendation No. (5) be inserted in lieu thereof:

"(5)the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be requested to give the BloorStreet West area from Spadina Avenue to Bathurst Street special attention with regard to vending enforcement;";

(6)that the Bloor-Yorkville BIA be given special attention by by-law enforcement officers;

(7)that the existing contractual arrangements respecting the former City of Toronto and the former Metro road vending locations be confirmed; and

(8)that the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be requested to:

(a)conduct a lottery as soon as possible to award the former Metro road vending locations, as well as the new sites identified within the Club/Entertainment District;

(b)review illegal vending within the Entertainment District to assist in determining where vending spots will be located;

(c)submit a report to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee:

(i)on how the former City of Toronto vending locations will be brought into the lottery system upon the expiry of the existing contracts;

(ii)on appropriate new rules for the Club/Entertainment District after 11:00 p.m. and identify a number of legal vending locations for the Club/Entertainment District which conform to the new rules;

(iii)as soon as possible, on controlling vending on private property;

(iv)on the establishment of a committee of vendors to assist staff in determining vending locations;

(v)on a system of photo-identification for vendors;

(vi)on the issue of vendors hiring assistants; and

(vii)on establishing different categories of vending locations at different rates.

Background:

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee had before it a report (April 24, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, advising that in order to provide viable vending locations and to avoid conflicts with area businesses, it is necessary to update the vending site inventory list; that the list was last updated in 1995; that in addition, it is necessary to provide a fair process for finding a replacement vending site if there is a final decision to eliminate those vendors displaced as a result of the inventory update; further advising that a review was carried out in the Bloor Street area and supports a vending prohibition on Bloor Street West between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue; and recommending that:

(1)the Road Allowance Sub-Committee review the recommendations to delete sites outlined in Recommendation No. (1) of Part A of Appendix 1;

(2)Recommendations Nos. (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) from the Road Allowance Sub-Committee as outlined in Part A of Appendix I to this report be approved;

(3)the vending locations listed in Part B of Appendix 1 to this report be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending locations located on major arterial roads;

(4)the former Metro road vending locations currently vacant and any new sites established on major arterial roads prior to the new process being implemented be offered to vendors in the order their name appears on the vendor reserve list;

(5)all vending be prohibited on Bloor Street West (both sides) between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue; and

(6)the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.

The Sub-Committee also had before it a communication (March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on March 4, 5, and 6, 1998, during consideration of Clause No.3 of Report No.2 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed, "Vending on Major Arterial Roads (Former Metro Roads)", directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration in the total perspective of all of the by-laws from the former area municipalities.

The Sub-Committee also had before it a petition, submitted by Councillor John Adams, Midtown, signed by 36 business owners and operators on Bloor Street West, requesting that City Council endorse a by-law prohibiting sidewalk and curbside vending on Bloor Street West, from BathurstStreet to Madison Avenue.

The following persons appeared before the Road Allowance Sub-Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Abbas Eskandari, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Mohammad Gandehary, Toronto, Ontario, and filed a written submission;

-Mr. John Chronopoulous, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Amo Blazys, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Steve Mavros, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Peter Bougadis, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Joanne Malinowska, Etobicoke, Ontario;

-Mr. James Robinson, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Peter Karopoulos, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Fred Heywood, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Pat Vavaroutos, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Abdul Rasoul Konoi, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Ms. Sophia Alexopoulos, Toronto, Ontario.

(Report dated April 24, 1998, addressed to the

Road Allowance Sub-Committee, from the

Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.)

Purpose:

To amend the site inventory list for vending on major arterial roads (former Metro Roads); and to designate Bloor Street West (both sides) between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue as an area where vending is prohibited.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Road Allowance Sub-Committee review the recommendations to delete sites outlined in Recommendation No. (1) of Part A of Appendix 1;

(2)Recommendations Nos. (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) from the Road Allowance Sub-Committee, as outlined in Part A of Appendix 1 to this report, be approved;

(3)the vending locations listed in Part B of Appendix 1 to this report be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending locations located on major arterial roads;

(5)all vending be prohibited on Bloor Street West (both sides) between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue; and

(6)the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, City Council struck out and referred back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee Clause No. 3 of Report No. 2 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Vending on Major Arterial Roads (Former Metro Roads)", for further consideration "in the total perspective of all the by-laws from the former Area Municipalities". In doing so, Council amongst other things directed that all existing vending permits from the former municipalities be continued on a month-to-month basis until such time as a new City-wide policy is in place.

In addition, business owners and operators in the Bloor Street West area have requested by letter and a petition to Councillor John Adams, that City Council approve a by-law prohibiting sidewalk and curbside vending on Bloor Street West, between Bathurst Street and Madison Avenue.

Discussion:

In keeping with Council's request to operate month-by-month until there is a single by-law for the selection of locations in the City, there are a number of housekeeping matters which must be dealt with:

(1)Amendments to Site Inventory:

In the report (January22,1998) from the Interim Functional Lead of Transportation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee as contained in the aforementioned Clause No.3 of Report 2 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, it was recommended that the vending locations listed in Parts I, II, III andIV of the Attachment"A" to that report be deleted from the current inventory of sites. These sites were found to be in conflict with current vending criteria and/or had frequent turnover and/or were found to be dormant for a long period of time. The Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting on February9,1998, after hearing deputations on these matters, recommended to Council the deletion of sites listed in Parts II, III and IV. Part I of the Attachment "A" was referred back to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee for further review and hearings.

The members of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee and Transportation Department staff carried out a site inspection of the vending locations listed in Part I of Attachment "A" and hearings were held on February 27, 1998, regarding deletion or relocation of these sites.

Following the hearing, the Road Allowance Sub-Committee on February 27, 1998, recommended a variety of changes to the sites listed in Part I as well as changes to other sites not contained in the Attachment "A". Recommended changes to sites listed in PartsII, III and IV as well as the proposed changes to Part I and other sites are consolidated into Appendix 1 to this report.

At the present time there are six vendors currently operating at the six sites, Nos. (7), (12), (18), (34), (81) and (110), recommended for deletion by the Road Allowance Sub-Committee at its meeting on February 27, 1998, as listed in Recommendation No.(1) of Part A of Appendix 1. In view of the Council decision to continue current vendors on a month-to-month basis as an interim arrangement, it is suggested that the Sub-Committee reconsider its earlier decision to eliminate these sites at this time. If the final decision is to delete these six sites it would be appropriate that the names of these vendors be placed at the top of the vending reserve list in the same order they were selected during the 1995 lottery. Vending locations currently vacant and any new sites established prior to the approval of a new process will be offered to those vendors with their name on the reserve list in the order their name appears on the list.

(2)Vending Prohibition on Bloor Street West:

A letter of complaint from Mr John Chronopoulos, 398 Bloor Street West, accompanied by a petition from other business owners and operators in the Bloor Street West area (Appendix2), was received from Councillor John Adams requesting that staff examine the area of Bloor Street West, Bathurst Street to Madison Avenue, for the prohibition of vending and report on the matter. Madison Avenue is one block east of Spadina Avenue.

Staff have completed a survey of Bloor Street West between Bathurst Street and SpadinaAvenue identifying 32 businesses selling products similar to those sold by street vendors, in particular, ice-cream products. Twenty businesses are situated on the north side of the street and 12 on the south side.

Since a legal vendor already exists on Bloor Street West between Spadina Avenue and Madison Avenue and no designated spaces exist between Bathurst Street and SpadinaAvenue, it is recommended a prohibition be implemented between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue.

Conclusions:

In order to provide viable vending locations and to avoid conflicts with area businesses, it is necessary to update the vending site inventory list. The list was last updated in 1995. In addition, it is necessary to provide a fair process for finding a replacement vending site if there is a final decision to eliminate those vendors displaced as a result of the inventory update.

A review was carried out in the Bloor Street area and supports a vending prohibition on Bloor Street West between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue.

Contact Name:

Mr. Romualdo D'Ippolito, Toronto Transportation,

Metro Hall Office, Road Allowance Control Section.

Phone: (416)392-5371. Fax: (416) 392-9317.

E-mail address: romualdo_d'ippolito@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

--------

Appendix 1

A.Recommendations of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee pertaining to sites listed in Part1 of Attachment "A" to Clause 3 of Report No. 2 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1)that the following vending locations be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending spaces:

(a)Nos. (7), (18), (81) and (110) listed in Attachment "A" to the report (January22, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation; and

(b)Nos. (12) and (34), identified by the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area;

(2)that vending location No. (17) listed in Attachment "A" to the aforementioned report be moved east so that it is positioned between the two windows of the GAP store;

(3)that vending location No. (19), identified by the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area, not be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk boulevard vending spaces;

(4)that vending location No. (50), identified by the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area, not be deleted; and, further, that the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, in consultation with officials from the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), be requested to move the site to a more suitable location in front of the ROM;

(5)that the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested to:

(a)identify vending location No. (35) listed in Attachment "A" to the aforementioned report, as a site for possible deletion during 1998 and notify potential vendors thereof; and

(b)meet with representatives from Hammerson Canada Inc. with a view to incorporating a vending site within the redesign of the streetscape;

(6)that the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation and Members of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be requested to work with members of the Bloor-Yorkville BIA in order to develop a streetscape which would accommodate vendors in a manner compatible with the ambiance desired in the area; and

(7)that the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested to review the rules as they apply to the Club/Entertainment District with a view to establishing specific rules for that District which would address the needs and criteria of the area; and further, that stringent enforcement be provided within the District.

B.Sites in Part II, III and IV in Attachment "A" to Clause No. 3 of Report No. 2 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(II)Sites Not Issued During 1995, 1996, 1997:

4Bloor Street East South Side 11.72MWestof Jarvis Street

20Bloor Street West South Side 10.57MEastof Bedford Road

21Bloor Street West South Side 13.82MEastof Devonshire Place

32Danforth AvenueNorth Side30.00MWestof Donlands Avenue

54Queen's Park Crescent West Branch72.22MNorthof Hoskin Avenue

74University Avenue West Side 35.82MNorthof Dundas Street West

91University Avenue West Side 5.40MSouthof Gerrard Street West

106Yonge Street East Side 25.22MSouthof Wellington Street East

303The QueenswayNorth Side13.10MEastof Uno Drive

304The QueenswaySouth Side34.70MEastof Rothsay Avenue

307Dundas Street West North Side21.50MWestof Burnhamthorpe Road

308Dundas Street WestSouth Side2.30MEastof Royal Avon Crescent

412Ellesmere Road. South Side8.50MWestof Neilson Road

84University Avenue East Side 11.22MNorthof Elm Street

(III)Sites Not Issued 1996, 1997:

33Danforth Avenue South Side 85.22MWestof Greenwood Avenue

41Danforth Avenue North Side 13.97MWestof Greenwood Avenue

61Spadina Avenue East Side 110.26MNorthof Lake Shore Boulevard

65Spadina Avenue East Side 8.70MSouthof Baldwin Street

85University Avenue East Side 12.72MNorthof Gerrard Street West

96Yonge Street East Side 6.83MNorthof South Edge Granby Street

104York Street West Side 18.15MNorthof Queen's Quay West

107Yonge Street East Side 10.02MNorthof Wood Street

201Yonge StreetEast Side152.50 MNorthof Bishop Avenue

202Yonge StreetWest Side18.20MNorthof Elmhurst Avenue

214Don Mills Road West Side12.20MNorthof Science Centre Driveway

314Burnhamthorpe Road North Side 95.00MWestof The West Mall.

401Warden AvenueEast Side14.00MNorthof Bridletowne Circle

(IV)Sites Returned 2 Times Or More:No. of Times

Returned

22 Bloor Street West South Side 30.00MWestof Bay Street2

28Bloor Street East North Side 6.86MEastof Park Road2

46Lakeshore Blvd. WestSouth Side 7.00MEastof Rees Street2

58Queen's Park West Side 12.92MNorthof College Street2

68 University Avenue East Side 14.00MSouthof Pearl Street2

76University Avenue West Side 194.00MNorthof Queen Street West2

92University Avenue West Side 18.50MNorthof Wellington Street2

206Yonge StreetWest Side12.80MNorthof North York Blvd.2

209Yonge StreetWest Side13.40MSouthof Finch Avenue West2

306Bloor Street West,North Side15.60MWestof Islington Avenue2

410Morningside AvenueEast Side 29.00MNorthof Lawrence Avenue2

3Bloor Street East South Side 9.45MWestof Church Street3

8Bay Street East Side 39.00MNorthof Queens Quay West3

40Dundas Street West South Side 43.18MEastof Bay Street3

71University Avenue East Side 28.00MNorthof Richmond St. W.3

97Yonge Street West Side 45.52MNorthof Queen's St. W.3

310Dundas Street WestSouth Side11.80MEastof Subway Crescent3

26Bloor Street West South Side 133.50MWestof Queen's Park4

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also havinghad before it a communication (June 11, 1998) addressed to Councillor John Adams, from Mr.Martin Sone, Owner and CEO, Merls Pharmacy (Ontario) Limited, advising that the presence of motorized vendors illegally parked along Bloor Street West between Spadina and Bathurst causes various problems; and urging the prohibition of these vendors from parking illegally in the neighbourhood.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Abbas Eskandari, Toronto;

-Mr. John Mavrogiannis, Toronto;

-Mr. Corrado Salonia, Toronto;

-Mr. Rick Brandenburg, Toronto;

-Mr. Peter Kovatchev, Etobicoke;

-Mr. Fred Heywood, Whitby;

-Ms. Kapustova, Toronto;

-Mr. Bob McIntosh, Toronto;

-Mr. Thuoc Do, Toronto;

-Ms. Patty MacPherson, Bloor Bathurst Madison BIA;

-Mr. John Chronopoulos, Toronto;

-Mr. Neek Mohammed Neekzad, North York; and

-Councillor Michael Walker, North Toronto.

(A copy of Appendix 2 and the Petition, referred to in the foregoing report dated April 24, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the June 15 and 16, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications from the following individuals and organizations regarding the vending lottery process:

-(June 16, 1998) from Mr. Abbas Eskandari, Toronto;

-(June 30, 1998) from Mr. Don Trahey, Toronto;

-(June 14, 1998) from Mr. Michael Morad, Toronto;

-(June 15, 1998) from Mr. Corrado Salonia, Toronto; and

-(July 7, 1998) from Mr. Andrew Paton, Q.C.)

Vending Permit No. 95-213 York Mills Road.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by deleting from the recommendation of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee, the words "such time as the lottery is held", and inserting in lieu thereof the date "August 31, 1998", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"The Road Allowance Sub-Committee on May 12, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that vending at this location be permitted to continue until August 31, 1998, and that this location be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending locations located on major arterial roads at that time.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee embodied in the following communication (May 13, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee on May 12, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that vending at this location be permitted to continue until such time as the lottery is held and that this location be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending locations located on major arterial roads at that time.

Background:

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee had before it a communication (April 27, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South, forwarding a communication dated April 7, 1998, from Mr. Dale Clayden, Vice-Principal, York Mills Collegiate Institute, expressing concerns with respect to the vending site on the north side of York Mills Road, west of Banbury Road; and requesting that the site occupied by the holder of permit No. 95-213 be deleted from the inventory of vending sites.

The Sub-Committee also had before it a report (May 1, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, advising that a recent inspection of the sidewalk and boulevard area near 490YorkMills Road reveals that Site No. 213, York Mills Road, north side, 141.10 metres west of Banbury Road is in an area zoned residential and directly in front of school property; that our current policy requires that the designated area shall be located in an area zoned commercial, industrial or institutional and shall not be located closer than 30 metres from the entrance to any school ground, therefore, the site fails to meet the criteria; and recommending that sidewalk vending Site No. 213 at 490 York Mills Road, north side, 141.10 metres west of BanburyRoad (York Mills Collegiate) be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending locations located on major arterial roads.

Mr. John Sklifas appeared before the Sub-Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(Communication dated, April 27, 1998 addressed

to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee,

from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South.)

I urge you to support the attached request by York Mills Collegiate Institute to have the site near the school, presently occupied by the holder of permit No. 95-123, removed from the list of permitted vending sites.

The reasons listed in Vice-Principal Clayden's letter are endorsed by parents, residents and motorists.

Your quick action in this matter is appreciated.

(Communication dated April 7, 1998, addressed to

Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South from

Mr. Dale Clayden, Vice-Principal, York Mills Collegiate Institute.)

As per our telephone conversation, I am requesting your assistance in having a vending permit (No.95-213) and the site revoked. It is located directly in front of our school on the north side of York Mills Road, west of Banbury Road. Over the past three years, I have had correspondence with Mel Lastman, Mayor of North York; Bev Salmon, Metro Councillor, North York Centre South; Douglas Floyd, Commissioner, Ron Rout, Department Manager, Metro Transportation, and others regarding our concerns.

Our concerns include the following:

-traffic congestion caused by vehicles stopping on York Mills Road or stopping in our fire route to purchase a hot dog;

-safety of our students walking or driving as a result of this congestion;

-litter created by the vendor and customers, further taxing our depleted caretaking staff;

-loss of revenue to Versa Foods, the tendered cafeteria vendor for Y.M.C.I.; and

-vendor's truck constantly parked in our fire route.

We feel that it is an inappropriate vending site for the above reasons and request the site be eliminated.

(Report dated, May 1, 1998, addressed to

the Road Allowance Sub-Committee

from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.)

Purpose:

To delete Site No. 213 from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending locations located on major arterial roads (former Metro Roads).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that sidewalk vending Site No. 213 at 490 York Mills Road, north side, 141.10metres west of Banbury Road (York Mills Collegiate) be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending locations located on major arterial roads.

Background:

Councillor Joanne Flint has forwarded a request from Mr. Dale Clayden, Vice-Principal, York Mills Collegiate Institute, that the vending site on the north side of York Mills Road, west of Banbury Road, in front of the collegiate be deleted from the inventory of sites.

Comments:

A recent inspection of the sidewalk and boulevard area near 490 York Mills Road reveals that Site No. 213, York Mills Road, north side, 141.10 metres west of Banbury Road is in an area zoned residential and directly in front of school property.

Our current policy requires that the designated area shall be located in an area zoned commercial, industrial or institutional and shall not be located closer than 30 metres from the entrance to any school ground, therefore, the site fails to meet the criteria.

Conclusion:

Since vending Site No. 213 fails to meet the current site criteria for the establishment of a sidewalk vending location, it should be deleted or relocated to meet the criteria.

Contact Name:

Mr. Ron Rout, Toronto Transportation, Metro Hall Office, Road Allowance Control Section, 392-5365, Fax No. 392-6517, E-mail address: Ron_Rout@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (June 11, 1998) from Mr. Dale Clayden, Vice-Principal, York Mills Collegiate Institute, regarding vending location Site No. 213 and requesting that this particular site not be permitted to be functional past Labour Day when the next school year commences.)

Consultant's Study - Inventory of Cycling Trail

Opportunities in Rail and Hydro Corridors.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by deleting from Recommendation No. (1) embodied in the report dated June 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the words "active and abandoned", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(1)City Council endorse in principle developing trails in rail and hydro corridors, as an integral part of a city-wide network of cycling routes which would include both off-street and on-street facilities;".)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report (June 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(2)the adoption of the joint recommendation of the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, the Toronto City Cycling Committee, and the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, embodied in the communication (June 6, 1998) from the City Clerk, viz:

"that a bicycle/pedestrian path be included in the planning and development of the Ontario Hydro lands, between Highway No. 401 and McNicoll Avenue and Pharmacy and Warden Avenues; and that such request form part of the discussions at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearings"; and

(3)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to:

(a)negotiate with the railway companies and Ontario Hydro, a protocol for acquiring trails identified in the report dated June 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(b)address in future reports a consideration of utilitarian cycling needs, as well as recreational cycling needs; and

(c)determine what effects bicycle trails within rail corridors in other cities have had on neighboring communities, and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee, reports for the information of Council, having:

(i)directed that a copy of the aforementioned report dated June 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the communication dated June 6, 1998, from the City Clerk be forwarded to the Scarborough Community Council for its advance information;

(ii)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to meet with the local Councillors whose wards are affected by trails identified in the aforementioned report dated June 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(iii)deferred consideration of the following reports until its next meeting scheduled to be held on July 13, 1998:

(a) (May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, headed "Ontario Hydro Corridors in the City of Toronto"; and

(b)(June 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, headed "Recreational Use of Hydro Corridors"; and

(iv)received the communication (June 12, 1998) from Mr. Jack Becker, Public Co-Chair, Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (June1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report describes the key findings of a feasibility study to identify active and surplus rail and hydro corridors which are suitable for bicycle and pedestrian trails and outlines steps for creating a multi-year implementation plan for developing trails in these corridors.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No funds are required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council endorse in principle developing trails in active and abandoned rail and hydro corridors, as an integral part of a city-wide network of cycling routes which would include both off-street and on-street facilities;

(2)the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and Works and Emergency Services be authorized to develop a plan, in consultation with the Toronto Cycling Committee, for implementing trails in active and abandoned corridors, based on the consultant's report, entitled "Inventory of Cycling Trail Opportunities in Rail and Hydro Corridors", which would address:

(a)guidelines for identifying priority trail projects;

(b)a multi-year implementation plan;

(c)design guidelines for trail construction and trail-roadway intersections;

(d)annual capital funding requirements for trail development and property acquisition; and

(e)additional funding sources and potential partnerships with other levels of government and private corporations;

(3)the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and Works and Emergency Services be requested to report, in time for consideration as part of the 1999 capital budget, on trail projects which could be initiated in 1999;

(4)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be authorized to protect opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian trails in rail and hydro corridors wherever possible through the development approval process and secure implementation where appropriate;

(5)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to consider policies as part of the new Official Plan to preserve future opportunities for trail development in rail and hydro corridors which are declared surplus; and

(6)a copy of this report be forwarded to all Community Councils, the City of Toronto Environmental Task Force, Ontario Hydro, Consumers' Gas, CN Rail, CP Rail (St.Lawrence and Hudson), GO Transit and the Toronto Transit Commission for information and comments.

Background:

At its meeting on October 16, 1996, the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee considered a report by its Network Planning Sub-Committee which recommended that the proposed redevelopment of surplus Ontario Hydro lands in Scarborough include bicycle and pedestrian trails and that land use designations be amended to accomplish this. In his December 20, 1996 report to the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, the Deputy Commissioner of Planning requested that the Committee identify both active and surplus utility corridors suitable for bicycle and pedestrian trails across Metropolitan Toronto.

On June 18, 1997 the Toronto Atmospheric Fund approved a grant of $50,000.00 for a joint project by the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee to determine the feasibility of developing bicycle trails in hydro and rail corridors across Metro Toronto. Additional funding and staff resources to manage the study project were provided by the Toronto Urban Development Services and the Metro Parks and Culture Departments. Following a selection process, the City of Toronto Board of Management (October 2, 1997) authorized retaining Victor Ford and Associates to conduct the feasibility study.

Discussion:

(1)Study Purpose:

The primary purpose of the study was to identify rail and hydro corridors within the City of Toronto that could accommodate multi-use trails for commuter and recreational cyclists, in-line skaters and pedestrians. The Toronto Atmospheric Fund contributed study funding because of the potential for a comprehensive trail network to reduce CO₂ emissions by encouraging utilitarian cycling trips.

The railway companies and Ontario Hydro have begun to offer corridor lands for sale that are no longer economically productive or where more cost effective alternatives exist. The product of the study, the inventory of potential trail opportunities within rail and hydro corridors, will enable the City to respond effectively to opportunities for property acquisition and trail development as opportunities arise.

(2)Consultation with Stakeholders:

A steering committee consisting of planning, parks and transportation staff and members of the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee developed the study terms of reference and provided direction to the consultant. Several presentations have been made to the Cycling Committees at all stages of the project. At the joint meeting of the Toronto City Cycling Committee, Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee and North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee on May 25, 1998 the Committees endorsed the recommendations contained in this report.

The corridors identified in the consultant's report are owned and managed, for the most part, by Ontario Hydro, Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The consultants and staff met with real estate representative of these companies to present the study objectives and to get their input. While the representatives have been generally supportive of this exercise to identify opportunities within their corridors, they are not in a position to comment on the feasibility of given corridors, from their perspective, until approached with a more detailed plan to acquire property or to implement a trail on their property.

(3)Identifying Suitable Corridors:

The consultant investigated over 400 kilometres of rail and hydro corridors within the boundaries of the new City of Toronto. Suitable corridor sections were identified based on a review of air photos and extensive site inspections. Physical constraints were identified and where necessary alternative alignments outside the corridors were proposed to maintain continuity of the corridor route. There are two typical major constraints; limited available width within some railway corridors and the crossing of arterial roadways and highways. For the purpose of producing the inventory of potential trail opportunities the acquisition cost or other compensation agreements that would be required to use a corridor were not considered as constraints. These factors will be considered in the development of the implementation plan and they may influence the identification of priority routes.

(4)Candidate Corridor Trail Projects:

Based on the inventory findings, the consultant has produced an inventory of 46 candidate trail projects in both rail and hydro corridors, representing approximately 204 kilometres of new trail opportunities. These projects have been divided into 23 First Group projects (124kilometres) which are considered the most easily do-able and 23Second Group projects (80 kilometres) which are considered do-able but have more significant constraints or barriers to overcome. The candidate projects are fairly evenly distributed across the City and connect with many of the existing open space trails. Together with the existing parks trails, these candidate trail projects provide a very real opportunity to create a comprehensive, well integrated network of off-street trails connecting all the communities within the City of Toronto.

There are generally fewer constraints to developing trails within active hydro corridors because they are wide (ranging from 30 to 100 metres) and relatively under utilized open spaces. The generous width of most hydro corridors provides a great degree of flexibility in aligning a potential trail. Ontario Hydro is supportive of passive recreational use of their corridors. Several corridor sections have paved multi-use trails and most have informal walking trails. The major constraint to providing continuous trails in hydro corridors is the lack of safe crossings of arterial roadways and, to a lesser extent, crossings of railway lines. Providing safe and convenient roadway and railway crossings will be essential to developing a successful trail system.

There are very few abandoned rail lines within the City and these tend to be very short spur lines. The City has recently acquired the CN Belt Line between Marlee Avenue and Caledonia Road which will connect to the existing Belt Line Trail east of the Allen Expressway. City staff are currently negotiating the purchase of the abandoned CP P.S. Lead spur line in the west end for trail purposes.

Several potential trail opportunities have been identified within active rail corridors, although some have only a few trains per day. There are many successful examples of trails adjacent to active rail lines, both here in the City of Toronto (the Lower Don Trail) and across North America. Some of Toronto's active railway corridors are just wide enough to accommodate a minimal width trail corridor. For the purposes of the study, rail corridor sections were considered feasible if there was a minimum of ten metres of available width between the track centre line and the edge of the corridor. This will allow for a fence to be set back 5 metres from the track centre line and a further 5 metres to accommodate a 3.0 to 4.0 metre trail and vegetation. It should be recognized that these are minimally acceptable dimensions. The desirable corridor spacing would include a 7.5 metre setback and a 7.0 metre (or wider) trail corridor. Developing a proposed trail within an active rail corridor will only be acceptable to the railways if they are satisfied that it does not interfere with the safe operation of their line.

(5)Preserving Future Trail Opportunities:

While there are few abandoned rail corridors at this time, railway companies are reviewing their operations and may be abandoning lines in the future. A number of secondary rail corridors which could have significant potential for trails if the rails were abandoned have been identified on a "Watch List" in the event that conditions change in the future. Ontario Hydro has recently decommissioned the Warden and Kennedy hydro corridors. Residential development has been proposed by the new owner of the north Warden corridor between the Finch hydro corridor and Highway 401. It is critical that these and other development proposals are monitored closely by planning staff to ensure that future trail opportunities are not lost when rail or hydro corridors are abandoned and redeveloped. I am recommending that policies be considered for inclusion in the City's new Official Plan to preserve future opportunities for trail development in rail and hydro corridors which are declared surplus.

(6)Developing An Implementation Plan:

Taking the inventory of candidate trail projects to the next stage will involve working closely with the railways, Ontario Hydro, City Council, the Toronto Cycling Committee and other individuals and agencies to develop an implementation plan which would address, among other things:

-priority trail projects based on overall network objectives and discussions with the railways and Ontario Hydro;

-a public consultation process for reviewing the proposed network as well as candidate projects;

-annual capital funding requirements for trail development and property acquisition, where necessary, and funding opportunities and potential partnerships with other levels of government and private corporations;

-Official Plan policies for preserving future trail opportunities in railway and hydro corridors; and

-integrating cycling trails with future transit initiatives in rail corridors.

Other important activities to implement the trail network include:

-monitoring hydro and railway corridors for future abandonments to ensure that the City is able to respond effectively as opportunities arise;

-exploring opportunities presented by Toronto's bid for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games and opportunities to connect Toronto to the Trans Canada Trail; and

-developing promotional material on the proposed trail network so that all levels of government, citizens and businesses are made aware of the significant city-wide benefits provided by this project.

Conclusions:

The City's consultant, Victor Ford and Associates, has identified 46 candidate trail projects within active and abandoned rail and hydro corridors in the City of Toronto. I am recommending that Urban Planning and Development Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and Works and Emergency Services be authorized to develop a multi-year implementation plan for trails in utility corridors in consultation with the Toronto Cycling Committee, Ontario Hydro, CN Rail and CP Rail. Further, I am recommending that we identify trail projects which could be started as early as next year so that they may be considered as part of the 1999 capital budget.

It is also important that the City move quickly to preserve future trail opportunities in rail and hydro corridors that have already been abandoned or are to be abandoned in the future. This will require close monitoring by planning staff. I will also develop policies for consideration as part of the City's new Official Plan for preserving future trail opportunities in utility corridors.

Contact Name:

Mr. Daniel Egan, City Hall Office, 392-1143, e-mail: degan@city.toronto.on.ca.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (June 6, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee at a joint meeting on May 25, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that a bicycle/pedestrian path be included in the planning and development of the Ontario Hydro lands, between Highway No. 401 and McNicoll Avenue and Pharmacy and Warden Avenues; and that such request form part of the discussions at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearings.

Background:

Mr. Michael Thomas, Executive Assistant to Councillor Mike Tzekas, Scarborough Wexford, appeared before the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee in connection with this matter.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it, the following reports and communication:

(i)(May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services responding to the direction of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on May19, 1998, for information on the status of Ontario Hydro Corridors in the new City and the City-wide significance of these corridors; advising that the remaining Ontario Hydro transmission corridors in the City of Toronto are going to remain active for some time; that this continuing primary function is necessary and important to the well-being of the City's residents and businesses, and should clearly be recognized; that the only other potential use of these corridors will, therefore, continue to be for secondary purposes, and there are many successful examples of such uses in a variety of land use contexts and under various planning objectives established across the City, which have benefited business and residents alike; stating that the City-wide significance of these corridors is that they can and do serve a variety of interests in a variety of ways; that opportunities exist to secure passive recreational walking, trail and cycling facilities within the current planning environment; and recommending that the Committee received this report for information.

(ii)(June 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing further information on the potential for recreational uses in the Hydro Corridors, and relevant economic strategies to achieve an enhanced level of use of both active and surplus Hydro Corridors; stating that it is clear that the City benefits from current uses of Hydro lands, and that there is the potential for additional parks and recreational needs to be addressed on existing and surplus Hydro lands; however, the costs of acquisition of large tracts of these surplus Hydro corridors is likely prohibitive; advising that the objectives of the City would be advanced by focusing on selective acquisition, potential public/private partnerships and dedication of lands through the development process; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(iii)(June 12, 1998) from Mr. Jack Becker, Public Co-Chair, Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee recommending to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that abandoned hydro and rail corridors be acquired by the City, through any means appropriate, and preserved as open spaces for use in the bike trails system, for transportation, and for other open space uses; and further recommending that for operational hydro and rail corridors, arrangements be made with the owners of the properties to permit the construction of an extensive bike trail network.

--------

Mr. Victor Ford, Victor Ford and Associates, Consultants, made a presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with respect to the foregoing matter.

Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-the map which was appended to the foregoing report dated June 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

-the Consultant's report.)

Contract No. T-8-98:

Bathurst Street Bridge Over the

Toronto Terminal Railway South of

Front Street - Structure Rehabilitation.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 1, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To increase the contract price for Contract No. T-8-98, Structure Rehabilitation on the Bathurst Street Bridge over the Toronto Terminal Railways so that additional repair work can be carried out.

Funding Sources:

Funding for this project has previously been approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No. C-TR055, Bridge Reconstruction Program. The Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation limit and that it falls within corporate debt guidelines. There are sufficient funds available in Capital Account No.C-TR055 to accommodate the extension of this Contract.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the contract price for Contract No. T-8-98, Structure Rehabilitation on the Bathurst Street Bridge over the Toronto Terminal Railways, be increased by $580,000.00 gross and $280,000.00 net to a total of $2,489,813.58 to accommodate additional repair work.

Background:

At its meeting on February 4, 1998, City Council adopted Urban Environment and Development Committee Report No. 1, Clause No. 9 awarding Contract No. T-8-98 Bathurst Street Bridge over the Toronto Terminal Railways south of Front Street to Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd. at a contract price of $1,909,813.58.

Discussion:

The Bathurst Street bridge is a nine-span structure and the most northerly steel truss span is owned by CN Rail. The southerly eight spans are under the City of Toronto's jurisdiction. In this contract the work includes repairs to the CN truss span and the cost of such will be recovered from CN Rail.

During the design stage, staff performed detailed visual inspections as well as a condition survey on the structure in accordance with the Structure Rehabilitation Manual issued by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. On this basis the scope of the repair work was determined.

After initiating the removal of deteriorated concrete on the substructure, it was found that the piers were in poorer condition than originally determined from the condition survey test results. In addition, the supporting steel for the sidewalks and the steel components on the truss span were found to be in a poorer condition than anticipated. This has resulted in the need for additional repair work.

Approximately $300,000.00 out of the $580,000.00 additional funds will be recovered from CN Rail and the Toronto Transit Commission.

Conclusion:

The contract price for Contract No. T-8-98 should be increased by $580,000.00 to a total of $2,489,813.58 to enable additional repairs to be completed.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. M. Chung, Manager of Structures, 392-8341.

Contract No. T-56-98:

F.G. Gardiner Expressway-Parliament Street

to Cherry Street Substructure Repairs.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1) approved the following report (May 29, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation; and

(2)directed that such report be forwarded to Council for information:

Purpose:

To award a contract for the F. G. Gardiner Expressway substructure repairs from Parliament Street to Cherry Street.

Funding Source:

The total project cost is estimated to be $1,759,723.75 and is summarized as follows:

(1)Bid Price Amount $1,607,723.75

(2)Construction supervision, 17 weeks at $6,000.00 per week (estimate)102,000.00

(3)Other costs (estimate)50,000.00

(a) quality control testing ____________

Total project cost $1,759,723.75

Funding for this project has been approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No.C-TR180, F. G. Gardiner Expressway, Don Valley Parkway to Humber River. The Treasurer certifies that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation limit and that it falls within corporate debt guidelines.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. T-56-98 for the substructure repairs to the F. G. Gardiner Expressway from Parliament Street to Cherry Street be awarded to G. Tari Limited who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $1,607,273.75; and

(2)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto.

Comments:

On May 27, 1998 The Bid Committee opened tenders for:

Contract No.T-56-98F. G. Gardiner Expressway-Parliament Street to Cherry Street Substructure Repairs

Name$ Amount

G. Tari Limited1,607,273.75

Underground Services (1983) Ltd.1,634,933.25

Bridgecon Construction Ltd. and Bridgecon Holdings Ltd.1,953,612.99

Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd.2,011,600.00

Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd.2,345,841.53

The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his sub-contractors, and also from the Treasurer regarding the surety company who issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.

Scope of Work:

The work in this contract comprises the refacing of concrete cross beams and concrete repairs to columns on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway from Parliament Street to Cherry Street.

Conclusion:

Contract No. T-56-98 should be awarded to G. Tari Limited who submitted the lowest price bid for this Contract.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. M. Chung, P. Eng., Manager of Structures, Metro Hall Office, 392-8341.

Contract No. EB9806RD:

Construction of Waterfront Drive from

Park Lawn Road to Palace Pier Court, Including

Road Construction, Streetlighting, Streetscaping

and Underground Utility Distribution Duct Work.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (June 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract EB9806RD for the construction of Waterfront Drive from Park Lawn Road to Palace Pier Court, including road construction, streetlighting, streetscaping and underground utility distribution duct work in Lakeshore - Queensway Ward.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This project is included in the Provincial-Municipal Infrastructure Agreement entered into by the former City of Etobicoke under the terms of the Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Works Program. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has confirmed that funds are available in the appropriate accounts for this project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract EB9806RD for the construction of Waterfront Drive from Park Lawn Road to Palace Pier Court, including road construction, streetlighting, streetscaping and underground utility distribution duct work be awarded to Vaughan Paving Ltd. for the total tendered price of $4,066,139.50 including all taxes; and

(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On May 20, 1998, the Clerk's Division of the Corporate Services Department, Etobicoke District, opened the following tenders for Contract EB9806RD.

Total Tender Price

As read out atAs corrected for

Number Tenderer openingarithmetic errors

(1)Vaughan Paving Ltd.$4,064,750.34$4,066,139.50

(2)Pave-al Ltd.$4,105,257.86

(3)Gazzola Paving Ltd.$4,116,432.04$4,149,388.04

(4)Ferma Road Construction$4,287,019.87$4,287,965.75

(5)Ferpac Paving Ltd.$4,314,474.23

(6)Grascan Construction$4,323,742.47

(7)James Dick Construction Ltd.$4,426,394.21

On May 30, 1994, Council for the former City of Etobicoke adopted the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole to approve the funding for the development of three priority infrastructure projects following the signing of the Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Agreement on January 24, 1994 which assured the City of the Federal and Provincial Governments commitment. The Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Agreement identified $16,738,485.00 for three priority projects. The first priority project, the preservicing of the Humber Bay Shores Development area (formerly referred to as the Etobicoke Motel Strip) would be funded through $6,260,000.00 as the Federal/Provincial share and $5,390,000.00 was approved by Council as the municipality's share.

The site of the works is shown on the attached plan.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Contract EB9606RD is the final contract to complete the works included in the Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Works Project.

Approved budgets for this contract to cover construction, contingencies, engineering costs and project administration are as follows:

City $3,500,000.00

TRCA Administrated Works$ 310,000.00

Toronto Hydro, Bell Canada and Rogers Cable$ 800,000.00

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the construction of Waterfront Drive from Park Lawn Road to Palace Pier Court in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department to Vaughan Paving Ltd., being the lowest tender received.

Contact Name:

Mr. T. Ellerbusch, P.Eng, Director of Engineering, Design and Construction, Etobicoke District, (416) 394-8399; fax (416) 394-8942.

(A copy of the map, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the June 15 and 16, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

TTC Streetcar Platforms and Bicycle Lanes

on Lake Shore Boulevard West

Between 30th Street and 40th Street.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report (May 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation;

(2)that the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to apply the "artist on design team" policy with respect to the aesthetics of the TTC platforms at these locations; and

(3)that the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, be requested to submit a report to the Commission with respect to this issue:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority to:

(1)install TTC streetcar platforms on Lake Shore Boulevard West at the following locations: westbound at Long Branch Avenue, 37th Street and west of 39th Street; and eastbound at 39th Street, 37th Street, Long Branch Avenue and 31st Street;

(2)advertise the necessary construction by-law for the platforms; and

(3)designate bicycle lanes on Lake Shore Boulevard West in the eastbound direction between 40th Street and 31st Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost of constructing the platforms is estimated to be $190,000.00. All costs associated with the installation of standard streetcar platforms will be paid for by the Toronto Transit Commission.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be given to proceed with construction of streetcar platforms on Lake Shore Boulevard West at the following locations: westbound at Long Branch Avenue, 37th Street and west of 39th Street; and eastbound at 39th Street, 37th Street, Long Branch Avenue and 31st Street;

(2)the eastbound curb lane of Lake Shore Boulevard West between 40th Street and 31st Street be designated for bicycles only;

(3)the appropriate City of Toronto by-law(s) be amended accordingly; and

(4)the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized.

Background:

At the request of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) staff, City of Toronto Works and Emergency Services staff have assessed the feasibility of constructing streetcar platforms on LakeShore Boulevard West between 30th Street and 40th Street. The platforms are needed to address concerns identified by TTC staff over the safety of patrons boarding and alighting streetcars on this section of Lake Shore Boulevard West. Specifically, because the curb lane is wider than required for one lane, motorists frequently form two traffic lanes adjacent to the streetcars, obstructing the view of the motorist closest to the curb. TTC operators have advised that, at times, motorists fail to stop when the streetcar doors are open. Streetcar platforms would provide a safe waiting area for TTC patrons while at the same time clearly defining a single lane of travel in the curb lane on Lake Shore Boulevard West.

Public Involvement:

The plans have been discussed with the affected Councillors and we are planning to present them to the Long Branch Business Improvement Association at its meeting on June 9, 1998. Additional public notification will be done through the placement of newspaper notices in the community newspapers, Etobicoke Life and Etobicoke Guardian.

Scope of Work:

With the provision of the platforms there is sufficient road width available to incorporate on-street bicycle lanes in both the eastbound and westbound directions as part of this project. In 1997, a traffic by-law was obtained for the designation of bicycle lanes on Lake Shore Boulevard West westbound between 22nd Street and 37th Street. A traffic by-law for the designation of an eastbound bicycle lane between 40th Street and 31st Street is being requested as part of this report.

Westbound bicycle lanes between 22nd Street and 30th Street are also being implemented as part of Phase 1 of the Lake Shore Boulevard Main Streets Project which was previously approved by Metro Council and is currently under construction. Bicycle lanes in the eastbound direction will be incorporated as part of Phase 2 of the Main Streets project which is not currently funded.

The scope of work is shown on the attached figures 1a, 1b and 1c.

To construct these improvements the following work will be undertaken:

(a)construction of seven raised concrete streetcar platforms at the locations previously identified;

(b)reconstruction of concrete curb and gutter;

(c)reconstruction of asphalt boulevard;

(d)minor grinding and resurfacing of asphalt pavement; and

(e)alterations to traffic control devices (i.e., pavement markings and signage).

Pavement marking plans for accommodating bicycle lanes between streetcar platforms and adjacent to streetcar platforms are currently being developed. Once these plans have been developed we will consult with the City Cycling Committee for their input prior to implementation.

The work is scheduled to be tendered in mid-August 1998 with construction commencing in September 1998.

Conclusions:

The construction of streetcar platforms on Lake Shore Boulevard West between 30th Street and 40thStreet will improve the comfort and safety for TTC passengers by providing a refuge area for them to board and alight streetcars. In addition, the introduction of the platforms has the added benefit of clearly defining one lane of traffic between the streetcar and the curb in each direction as well as allowing for the introduction of bicycle lanes.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ms. K.P. Llewellyn-Thomas, Manager, Project Planning and Design, 392-8590.

(A copy of the location plans, which were appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the June 15 and 16, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

TTC Streetcar Platforms on

Lake Shore Boulevard West at Park Lawn Road;

and Construction of Waterfront Drive.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority to construct TTC streetcar platforms on Lake Shore Boulevard West at Park Lawn Road and to advertise the necessary construction by-law for the streetcar platforms and for Waterfront Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost for the construction of TTC streetcar platforms is estimated to be in the order of $185,000.00 and will be paid for by the Toronto Transit Commission.

The total estimated cost for the construction of Waterfront Drive is $4,432,000.00 of which $1,535,000.00 is to be financed through the Canada/Ontario Infrastructure Works Programme and the remaining $2,897,000.00 has been financed by the former City of Etobicoke through Order No.10010.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)approval be given to proceed with the construction of TTC streetcar platforms on the west leg of the Lake Shore Boulevard West/Park Lawn Road intersection; and

(2)the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized.

Background:

This report deals with two separate but related projects which both affect the intersection of LakeShore Boulevard West at Park Lawn Road/Waterfront Drive.

TTC Streetcar Platforms on Lake Shore Boulevard West.

(i)In 1997, at the request of the Toronto Transit Commission staff, Transportation staff assessed the feasibility of constructing streetcar platforms on Lake Shore Boulevard West between Louisa Street and the Humber Loop. By adoption of Clause No.17 of Report No.29 of ThePlanning and Transportation Committee, the former Metropolitan Toronto Council approved the construction of TTC streetcar platforms on Lake Shore Boulevard West at Louisa Street, at Legion Road, opposite Christie Brown & Company and opposite 2201LakeShore Boulevard West. The platforms were constructed in 1997.

Platforms at Park Lawn Road were not constructed at that time because design and property acquisition issues could not be resolved in time for the 1997 construction season. The design issues have now been resolved and it is proposed to construct a farside westbound platform and a nearside eastbound platform on Lake Shore Boulevard West at Park Lawn Road.

(ii)Waterfront Drive:

Waterfront Drive is a new road which will form the south leg of the Lake Shore Boulevard West/Park Lawn Road intersection and bends to the east running parallel to Lake Ontario, towards Palace Pier Court. The road is required to service the Humber Bay Shores Development (the motel strip). The former City of Etobicoke enacted By-law number 1997-203 to authorize the construction of Waterfront Drive and the associated services. Construction has commenced on the installation of services and road construction is currently scheduled to begin in July 1998.

Scope of Work:

The intersection of Lake Shore Boulevard West and Park Lawn Road is configured with three eastbound lanes, two westbound lanes, and two southbound lanes one of which is a left-turn lane and the other operates as a shared left, through and right-turn lane. Since the southbound lanes operate as double left-turn lanes during peak periods, pedestrian crossing is currently prohibited on the east leg of the intersection.

As a result of the unique operations of this intersection, TTC and City staff have agreed to locate both streetcar platforms on the west side of the Park Lawn Road intersection. The construction of the westbound farside platform will require enlarging the northwest corner radius in order to accommodate southbound right turns by trucks. The platform will also be constructed 12 metres longer than a typical platform in order to accommodate storage for two vehicles behind a stopped streetcar, in the event they follow the streetcar through the intersection as the signals change. This will help to ensure the intersection is not obstructed by vehicles trapped behind a streetcar when it stops to load and unload passengers.

In order to maintain an acceptable level traffic of service, a minor widening of the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West is required in order to maintain three lanes of traffic in the eastbound direction.

In addition to the provision of the streetcar platforms, the Works and Emergency Services Department will be constructing Waterfront Drive as a four lane divided road which will form the south leg of the Park Lawn Road intersection.

To construct these improvements the following work will be undertaken:

(a)removal and reconstruction of the northwest corner curb, gutter and sidewalk at the LakeShore Boulevard West and Park Lawn Road intersection;

(b)construction of concrete curb and gutter;

(c)construction of concrete TTC streetcar platforms;

(d)construction of a concrete sidewalk;

(e)construction of asphalt pavement; and

(f)alterations to existing traffic control devices.

Construction on Waterfront Drive is scheduled to commence in July 1998 and the TTC streetcar platforms are schedule to be tendered in August with construction commencing in September, 1998.

Pedestrian and Cycling Issues:

A bicycle lane exists east and west of this location but cannot be provided at the intersection of LakeShore Boulevard and Park Lawn Road because of the constrained right-of-way. While we typically avoid large radii, the radius on the northwest corner of Park Lawn Road needs to be increased in order to allow longer vehicles to make a right turn without encroaching into the proposed TTC platform.

Conclusions:

The construction of TTC streetcar platforms on Lake Shore Boulevard West at Park Lawn Road is being funded by the TTC and will improve safety for transit passengers by providing a refuge area for them. The proposed streetcar platforms at the Park Lawn Road location are the final component of a project initiated in 1997.

The Works and Emergency Services Department will be constructing Waterfront Drive and related services as approved by the former Etobicoke Council at their meeting held on October 6, 1997. The reconfiguration of the south leg of the Lake Shore Boulevard West/Park Lawn Road intersection will be include in this work.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ms. K.P. Llewellyn-Thomas, Manager, Project Planning and Design, 392-8590.

Bayview Avenue from Balliol Street

to Soudan Avenue/Parkhurst Boulevard:

Request to Permit Parking in the Off-Peak Direction

During the Morning and Afternoon Peak Periods.

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

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the hours of operation of the parking meters on the west side of Bayview Avenue, between Balliol Street and Soudan Avenue, be extended to include the period from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and

(2)the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the recommendations of the East York Community Council, embodied in the following communication (May8, 1998) from the City Clerk; and

(2)that the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, in six months' time,on the effects of this change on TTC buses operating on this section of BayviewAvenue:

Recommendations:

The East York Community Council recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, the following:

(1)that parking on the west side of Bayview Avenue between Balliol Street to Soudan Avenue from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. be implemented for a trial period of six months or less; and

(2)requested the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation to report on the impact along Bayview Avenue as a result of the implementation of parking during this time period.

The East York Community Council reports for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee that it received the communication (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk.

Background:

The East York Community Council, at its meeting on May 6, 1998, had before it a communication (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, requesting comments from the East York Community Council to the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding a request from merchants on Bayview Avenue, between Balliol Street and Soudan Avenue/Parkhurst Boulevard to permit parking in the "off-peak" direction during the morning and afternoon peak periods due to a shortage of available on-street parking facilities.

Mr. Harvey Albert, East York, on behalf of the South Bayview Business Association, appeared before the EastYork Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (May21, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Community Council recommends to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that City Council approve parking on Bayview Avenue between Balliol Street and SoudanAvenue during the morning and afternoon peak periods in the off-peak direction.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, on May 6, 1998 had before it a communication (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, respecting Bayview Avenue from Balliol Street to Soudan Avenue/Parkhurst Boulevard: Request to Permit Parking in the Off-Peak Direction during the Morning and Afternoon Peak Periods, forwarding the Urban Environment and Development Committee's action of April20, 1998 with the request for the Toronto Community Council's input and report back.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (March31, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To assess the implications of a proposal from merchants on both sides of Bayview Avenue between Balliol Street and Soudan Avenue/Parkhurst Boulevard to provide parking in the "off-peak" direction during peak periods due to a shortage of available on-street and off-street parking facilities.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be forwarded to the Toronto and East York Community Councils for information.

Background:

A meeting held on February 27, 1998, attended by North Toronto Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, East York Councillors Michael Prue and Case Ootes, a representative of BayviewAvenue merchants and staff of the Parking Authority of Toronto and Works and Emergency Services, was convened, among other things, to consider the feasibility of allowing on-street parking at the existing parking meters on both sides of Bayview Avenue, from Balliol Street to SoudanAvenue/Parkhurst Avenue in the "off-peak" direction of travel during the weekday morning and afternoon peak periods. Staff have been requested by the area Councillors to submit a report simultaneously to the Toronto and East York Community Councils examining the implications of the above proposal to create additional on-street parking for patrons. Some business people are of the opinion that this may improve the viability of local businesses. Staff of the Toronto, East York and Metro Hall offices have participated in this assessment and the preparation of this report.

Comments:

The Bayview Avenue merchants' representative noted the urgency of having additional on-street and off-street parking facilities made available for patrons as there is insufficient parking supply to accommodate current needs. While it was agreed that the Parking Authority of Toronto wouldconduct a search for possible sites for an off-street facility in the immediate vicinity, a short-term solution is desired. The proposal is to allow parking at the existing parking metres on Bayview Avenue in the "off-peak" direction during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The stopping prohibition would be maintained in the peak direction of travel (i.e., stopping would still be prohibited on the west side of Bayview Avenue from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, and on the east side of Bayview Avenue from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday).

Bayview Avenue is a four lane arterial roadway which operates two-way on a pavement width of approximately 14 metres with a maximum speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. Two Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus routes (Bayview No. 11 and Davisville No. 28) operate on the subject section of Bayview Avenue.

The following parking regulations are in effect:

West side (within the Toronto Community Council area):

-Stopping is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday;

-Parking is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday;

-Parking is permitted for a maximum period of two hours from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturdays (controlled by parking meters from Davisville Avenue to Soudan Avenue/Parkhurst Boulevard); and

-Parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

East side (within the East York Community Council area):

-Stopping is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday;

-Parking is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday;

-Parking is permitted for a maximum period of two hours from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturdays (controlled by parking meters from St. Cuthbert's Road to Soudan Avenue/Parkhurst Boulevard); and

-Parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

The results of traffic volume surveys (taken at mid-block locations) on the subject section of BayviewAvenue are summarized in the following table:

Summary of Traffic Volumes on Bayview Avenue
Location:	Direction of Travel	No. of Vehicles - am peak hour	No. of Vehicles - pm peak hour	No. of Vehicles - typical off peak hour	No. of Vehicles - 24 hour
McCrae Drive/ Merton Street to Millwood Road	northbound	1000	1,200	700	13,900
McCrae Drive/ Merton Street to Millwood Road	southbound	1,700	1,200	900	15,700
Millwood Road to Manor Road East/ Flemming Crescent	northbound	900	1,100	800	12,700
Millwood Road to Manor Road East/ Flemming Crescent	southbound	1,600	1,100	800	15,000
Manor Road East/ Flemming Crescent to Soudan Avenue/ Parkhurst Boulevard	northbound	1,000	1,300	700	14,100
	southbound	1,600	1,200	900	15,400

To provide the basis of assessment and to put the above statistics into context, I note that the theoretical capacity of a roadway of this nature is 700 to 800 vehicles per hour per lane. This will be considerably less if the lane is also encumbered by vehicles jockeying in and out of parking stalls. As can be seen from the table, the traffic volumes exceed the capacity available in only one lane during both the morning and afternoon peak periods. Also, during the afternoon peak period, the volumes are essentially the same in both directions, meaning that there is effectively no off-peak direction.

Site investigations were conducted by staff during the off-peak periods when curb lane parking is permitted on both sides and traffic volumes are lower. We observed significant congestion and traffic delays for northbound and southbound vehicular traffic. Similar congestion has also been observed on weekends when parking in both directions is permitted. This congestion has an adverse impact on TTC bus operations, resulting in delays to transit passengers.

In view of the foregoing, rescindment of the parking prohibitions on the east side in the morning, and on the west side in the afternoon would in all likelihood result in severe traffic congestion along this section of Bayview Avenue, characterized by lengthened travel times, extensive delays and deterioration in the transit service.

It should also be noted that the traffic control signals on Bayview Avenue are controlled in a traffic adaptive mode (SCOOT) which responds to traffic conditions by receiving input from detector loops imbedded in the roadway. Peak period parking in the curb lanes would significantly impact the effectiveness of the SCOOT system to respond to traffic conditions during peak periods. Motorists on this section of Bayview Avenue would lose the advantages of an adaptive signal control system and would experience longer delays and more frequent stops. Revalidation of the system would be required and it may be necessary to relocate the existing detector loops.

Although parking may generally be seen to be of direct benefit to the business proprietors, there may be an unacceptable trade-off in that the traffic conditions could have the opposite effect and dissuade potential patrons from visiting the area during these times. The other problem that could grow out of conditions of this nature on the arterial route could be that frustrated drivers may be inclined to divert to the residential streets of Leaside and South Eglinton to by-pass Bayview Avenue.

Conclusion:

The existing parking prohibitions should be maintained on both sides of Bayview Avenue during the peak periods. The adverse impacts that would result from providing parking in the "off-peak" direction during peak periods outweigh any benefits that would be gained by the business proprietors with the provision of additional on-street parking.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Mr. Stephen Benjamin, Manager of Transportation Operations, 392-7771.

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021.

--------

Councillor Michael Walker, North Toronto, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Removal of Trees from the Sheppard Avenue

Right-of-Way at Burbank Drive/Bessarian Road.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, conditional upon the Toronto Transit Commission awarding the contract for Bessarian Station, and that no action be taken on the removal of trees until such contract is awarded:

Purpose:

To authorize the removal of seven trees in connection with the construction of the Sheppard Subway.

Funding Sources:

The costs associated with this work will be the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that authority be granted for the removal of seven trees from the Sheppard Avenue right-of-way in the area of Burbank Drive/Bessarian Road.

Discussion:

Metro By-law 211-74, Section 10, ss(i) and (ii), provides that, "no person shall injure, destroy, or cutdown any tree on a Metropolitan Road without the approval of Metropolitan Council".

The Sheppard Subway Bessarian Station will lie roughly below the centreline of Sheppard Avenue, extending approximately 60 metres west and 100 metres east of the Bessarian Road/Burbank Drive intersection. To minimize long term disruption to traffic, most of the excavation and station construction will take place below timber decking with four traffic lanes being maintained. To install the piles required to support the station walls and the decking, and to install the decking itself, will require the construction of road detours to carry traffic around the work area. Traffic will be detoured firstly to the southerly limit of the road right-of-way, and then detoured to the northerly limit of the right-of-way. In order to construct the required road detours it is necessary to remove seven trees that are currently within the right-of-way.

According to established procedure, the TTC has had an Arborist assess the trees and establish a replacement value. The TTC is responsible for the replacement value plus associated costs, in this case $3,699.00. These funds, and other funds collected as the result of the Sheppard Subway work, will be used for tree replacement in the Sheppard Avenue corridor, pursuant to existing procedure and practice. To enhance the streetscape of areas disturbed by construction and for general improvement within the corridor, the nature of the replacement trees and their location will be determined by the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, in consultation with the adjoining property owners, as the TTC submit proposals through the permit and review process. The TTC site plan application for Bessarian Station is expected to be submitted shortly and will include streetscape amenities and re-landscaping of the Parkette on the southwest corner of the intersection.

Conclusion:

In order to facilitate the construction of the Sheppard Subway, Bessarian Station, it is recommended that approval be granted to remove seven trees.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. David Butler, Manager, Sheppard Subway Traffic Operations, 392-5285.

Passenger Drop-Off Lay-By on Bloor Street East

Required for Private Sector Development.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to include in future reports respecting road construction or modifications, an indication as to whether the local Councillors whose wards are affected are in agreement with the revisions proposed.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is:

(1)to obtain Council authority to construct a development related sidewalk and road modification on Bloor Street East and to advertise the required construction by-law; and

(2)to obtain approval to amend the appropriate by-laws.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for this road modification is the responsibility of the developer.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)approval be given to proceed with the construction of a passenger drop-off lay-by at 321BloorStreet East;

(2)subject to construction of the passenger drop-off lay-by;

(a)the current stopping prohibition on the south side of Bloor Street East, between St.George Street and Mount Pleasant Road, currently in effect from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30p.m., Monday to Friday, except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, be rescinded;

(b)stopping be prohibited on the south side of Bloor Street East, from St. George Street to a point approximately 27 metres east of Jarvis Street, from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays;

(c)stopping be prohibited on the south side of Bloor Street East, from a point approximately 42 metres east of Jarvis Street to Mount Pleasant Road, from 3:30p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays;

(d)standing be prohibited at all times on the south side of Bloor Street East, from a point approximately 27 metres east of Jarvis Street to a point approximately 15metres further east thereof;

(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly; and

(4)the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized.

Background:

The construction of a passenger drop-off lay-by was requested by Eastern Construction on behalf of Rogers Cantel Inc., which is the developer of 321 Bloor Street East. The purpose of the lay-by is to allow Rogers Cantel Inc. employees a passenger drop-off area in front of the building. The lay-by will ensure that vehicular traffic is not disrupted on Bloor Street East as this activity occurs. The cost of design, construction, supervision and administration of this work is being paid 100percent by the developer. Details of the road modification required at this location are discussed below and shown on the attached plan.

Description of Work:

Bloor Street, east of Jarvis Street, is a five-lane roadway with a pavement width of approximately 16metres. A westbound left-turn lane exists on Bloor Street East at Jarvis Street. The current parking regulations on the south side of Bloor Street East at this location prohibit parking at all times and stopping in the afternoon peak period on weekdays. The existing sidewalk width on the south side, in front of 321 Bloor Street East is approximately 4.9 metres.

The proposed passenger drop-off lay-by on the south side of Bloor Street East is 15 metres long and 2.3 metres wide. The existing public sidewalk width of 4.9 metres will be reduced to 2.6metres, however, since the building is set back from the street line the actual walkway width is 6.7 metres. A "No Standing" regulation is recommended to be enacted within the lay-by to discourage long term parking.

To construct the lay-by the following work will be undertaken:

(a)removal and reconstruction of concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk;

(b)construction of concrete road base and asphalt pavement; and

(c)potential utility relocations.

Pedestrian and Cycling Issues:

2000 pedestrians use the south side of Bloor Street East during a typical eight-hour study period. The proposed sidewalk width is consistent with the sidewalk width just east of this location and is considered to be an acceptable trade-off since the alternative is to block vehicular traffic in the curb lane on Bloor Street East with the passenger drop-off activity.

While there is no physical impact on cyclists caused by the modification, there will be operational friction as motorists re-enter the curb lane traffic stream from the lay-by. However, the existing situation has cyclists moving around stopped vehicles in the curb lane, causing much the same conflict.

Summary:

A passenger drop-off lay-by has been requested by Rogers Cantel Inc. for the convenience of its employees at 321 Bloor Street East. The sidewalk beside the lay-by will be narrowed from 4.9metres to 2.6 metres in order to accommodate passenger drop-off although the actual walkway width will be 6.7 metres because of the building set back. All costs will be borne by the developer.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ms. Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas, Manager, Project Planning and Design, 392-8590, Fax: 392-4426.

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic, 397-5021, Fax: 392-4426.

Yonge Street Median Construction,

North York Boulevard to Ellerslie Avenue.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report (May 26, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation; and

(2)that the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to meet with officialsfrom the Toronto Transit Commission with respect to Phase 3 of the median extension, Sheppard Avenue to Highway No. 401:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority for the construction of a landscaped median along the centre line of Yonge Street, between North York Boulevard and Ellerslie Avenue and to advertise the required construction by-law.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

It is estimated that the cost of the median will be approximately $1.4 million including public art, construction, design fees, project administration fees and contingencies. Funds for this project are available in Account No. 005 313 7106 which holds development charges collected for streetscaping in the Yonge Street corridor.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be given to proceed with the construction of a landscaped median along the centre line of Yonge Street between North York Boulevard and Ellerslie Avenue;

(2)the existing two-way left-turn designation for the centre left turn lane on Yonge Street between Sheppard Avenue and Parkview Avenue be rescinded;

(3)the appropriate City of Toronto By-law(s) be amended accordingly; and

(4)the introduction of any Bills be authorized.

Background:

In 1988, the architectural firm of Moriyama and Teshima developed a streetscape concept for Yonge Street in the North Yonge Centre area which was adopted by North York Council in 1990. As part of this concept, a central landscaped median on Yonge Street was approved and detailed traffic analysis and design were subsequently undertaken to develop the project details. The first phase of the Yonge Street median, between Greenfield Avenue/Elmhurst Avenue and North York Boulevard was completed in the fall of 1992.

Since its implementation six years ago, the landscaped median has had beneficial affects on the street by reducing the hazard of pedestrian crossings by creating a mid-point refuge island, and by creating a green space in the downtown area.

On the basis of this success and as part of the City Centre review, the former City of North York approved a recommendation that the centre median be extended approximately 600 metres to cover the full length of the City Centre area.

Public Involvement:

A community meeting was held on May 7, 1998, after approximately 2,000 notices were distributed to residents and businesses from Sheppard Avenue to Church Avenue and from Tamworth Road to Willowdale Avenue. The project was well-received by those in attendance and no major concerns were raised.

Scope of Work:

The new construction will extend the existing median north from North York Boulevard to EllerslieAvenue. Construction of the median includes planters, integrated public art, paving, curbs, planting and electrical conduit for future lighting on the median. The provision of the median allows for the reorientation of the traffic lanes to provide a wider curb lane than exists today. This will allow cyclists to use the curb lane with greater ease.

The maintenance of plant material will be the contractor's responsibility for the first two years after implementation. Once the planting is well established, the Parks and Recreation Division of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department which is presently responsible for the existing median, will take responsibility for the maintenance of the new project.

To construct these improvements, the following work will be undertaken:

(a)construction of a 3.2 metre wide landscaped concrete median, which will include tree planters and a public art component; and

(b)roadway cuts to provide irrigation and power supply to the median.

No relocation of utilities or traffic signal plant is required.

Since the median will occupy the space currently designated as centre two-way left turn lane, it is appropriate to rescind the existing turning lane designation.

The project will be tendered in mid-July 1998, with construction beginning in mid-August 1998.

Conclusion:

On the basis of the benefits to the street and the community of the median constructed six years ago, it is desirable to extend the Yonge Street median to the north. This project, when completed, will improve the pedestrian environment, contribute to the greening of the downtown area and improve curb lane widths, benefitting cyclists. Funds for the construction of the median have been provided from development charges collected in the North Yonge Centre area.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas, Manager, Project Planning and Design, 392-8590, Fax: 392-4426.

Road Modifications Required for Private

Sector Developments: Various Locations.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (4), (5) and (6) embodied in the report (May 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, viz:

"(4)approval be given to proceed with the extension of the northbound bus bay on WardenAvenue in the vicinity of 1575 Warden Avenue;

(5)the appropriate City of Toronto by-law(s) be amended accordingly; and

(6)the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(i)deferred consideration of Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) pending discussions with York Region officials regarding Steeles Avenue; and

(ii)referred Recommendation No. (3) to the General Manager, Transportation Services, with a request that Councillor Brian Ashton be consulted with respect thereto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority to construct various development related road modifications on City of Toronto arterial roads and to advertise the required construction by-law.

Funding Sources:

Funding for these road modifications is the responsibility of the developers.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)approval be given to proceed with centre median modifications on Steeles Avenue West, west of Thompson Boulevard, to provide for an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane on SteelesAvenue West at a new development access to be constructed on the north side of Steeles Avenue West opposite Thompson Boulevard;

(2)approval be given to proceed with the extension of the concrete centre median on SteelesAvenue West, west of Dufferin Street to physically restrict the left-turn movements in and out of the property at 1514 Steeles Avenue West;

(3)(a)approval be given to proceed with the reconstruction of the concrete centre median on Kingston Road, south of Cliffside Drive, to provide for a southbound left turn lane at the southerly entrance at 2235-2245 Kingston Road (Andrews Motel); and

(b)in conjunction with Recommendation No. (3)(a), approval be given to remove or transplantthose trees in the centre median which will be affected by the reconstructionof the concrete centre median on Kingston Road, in the vicinity of 2235-2245 Kingston Road;

(4)approval be given to proceed with the extension of the northbound bus bay on WardenAvenue in the vicinity of 1575 Warden Avenue;

(5)the appropriate City of Toronto by-law(s) be amended accordingly; and

(6)the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized.

Background and Discussion:

As a condition of approving developments abutting City of Toronto arterial roads and allowing access to them, developers are required to fund road modifications to accommodate the traffic generated by their new developments. Funds for the design, construction, supervision and administration of this work have been received or are about to be received from the proponents in each case. Details of the road modifications required at each location are provided in TableNo.1 and are briefly discussed below. Sketches showing these modifications are appended to this report.

Steeles Avenue West at Thompson Boulevard:

A new access will be constructed on the north side of Steeles Avenue West opposite Thompson Boulevard to service a new mixed-use commercial, recreation and restaurant development. As a condition of site plan approval, the developer, Glen Corporation, is required and has agreed to fund the centre median modifications, in order to provide for exclusive eastbound left-turn lane west on Steeles Avenue at the new access.

1514 Steeles Avenue West, west of Dufferin Street:

As a condition of site plan approval for an expanded kiosk/convenience store, the developer, Petro Canada, is required to fund the extension of the concrete centre median on Steeles Avenue West, west of Dufferin Street, by 7.5metres. This median extension will physically restrict the left-turn movements in and out of the property and will improve the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The existing accesses will also be modified in order to meet the standards for commercial accesses.

2235-2245 Kingston Road (south of Cliffside Drive):

The owner of Andrews Motel, located at 2235-2245 Kingston Road, has requested a southbound left-turn lane on Kingston Road to provide improved access into their property. The owner is required to fund the reconstruction of the concrete centre median on Kingston Road which is required to provide this new lane. As a result of this construction, six trees will have to be removed or transplanted from the centre median.

1575 Warden Avenue (at Lupin Drive):

The existing Shell Canada Gas station located on the east side of Warden Avenue in the vicinity of Lupin Drive is redeveloping to permit the addition of a convenience store. To accommodate new accesses and circulation patterns, the existing northbound bus bay must be relocated approximately 25 metres to the north so that buses serving the TTC stop will not block the southerly access to the development.

Pedestrian and Cycling Issues:

In requiring that road modifications are made in order to accommodate traffic generated by new developments, pedestrian and cycling issues are always taken into consideration. In cases where road widenings are required, efforts are made to ensure that sufficient pedestrian walking times are provided at all signalized intersections. In addition to requiring road modifications, developers are also required to improve adjacent boulevards through streetscape improvements such as tree and sod planting and the provision of transit shelters. In the case of the road modifications described in this report, all proposals conform with the Department's guidelines for the accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists.

Scope of Construction:

To construct the above modifications the following work will be undertaken:

(a)removal and reconstruction of concrete curbs, gutter, sidewalks and medians;

(b)construction of concrete road base and asphalt pavement;

(c)construction of concrete medians;

(d)removal and reconstruction of catch basins and connections;

(e)removal and planting of trees; and

(f)utility relocations.

These modifications have been developed using current department standards for cyclists and pedestrians and no compromises have been made with respect to the space allocated to these users.

Conclusions:

As a condition of approval of development abutting City of Toronto arterial roads, various modifications are required to the road system. All costs will be borne by the developers.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ms. K. P. Llewellyn-Thomas, Manager, Project Planning and Design, 392-8590, Fax: 392-4426.

Table 1

Proponent	City of Toronto Arterial Road	Location	Description of Work
Glen Corporation	Steeles Avenue West	at Thompson Boulevard	Reconstruction of centre median to provide for an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane and construction of development accesses
Petro Canada	Steeles Avenue West	west of Dufferin Street	Extension of centre median and reconstruction of development accesses
253100 Investment Limited (Andrews Motel)	Kingston Road	south of Cliffside Drive	Reconstruction of concrete centre median to provide for a southbound left-turn lane
Shell Canada Limited	Warden Avenue	at Lupin Drive	Extension of the northbound bus bay by approximately 25 metres

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (June 11, 1998) from Councillor Brian Ashton, Scarborough Bluffs:

I would be very grateful if the Committee could note my opposition to the above item on the agenda for June 15, 1998.

The application is for the removal of a portion of the median on Kingston Road to allow the creation of a left-hand turn lane. The portion is question currently contains a number of trees and it is my belief that their removal would be detrimental to the streetscape and images of Cliffside Village.

I thank the Committee for its consideration of my request.

--------

Councillor Brian Ashton, Scarborough Bluffs, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Proposed Introduction of Left-Turn

Prohibitions at 2530 Weston Road.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 12, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To prohibit northbound and eastbound left turns to and from Weston Road at the access to 2530Weston Road.

Funding Sources:

The cost of the installation of the appropriate signage is the responsibility of the property owner.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)northbound and eastbound left turns at the access to 2530 Weston Road, located approximately 18 metres south of Fairglen Crescent, to/from Weston Road be prohibited at all times; and

(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

As a condition of site plan approval, the Developer agreed to accept limited access (out-right movement only) to Weston Road from the proposed development at 2530 Weston Road. Left turns to and from Weston Road are to be prohibited by by-law and restricted by the physical lay-out of the driveway. The left-turn prohibitions are necessary to reduce the collision potential at this site access, as well as to maintain efficient traffic flow on this section of Weston Road.

Discussion:

The development at 2530 Weston Road is on the southwest corner of Weston Road and FairglenCrescent. A Mighty Clean Coin Car Wash has been built and is now occupied at this location. Northbound and eastbound left turns at the access to Weston Road approximately 18metres south of Fairglen Crescent have been discouraged by the construction of a channelized access to promote one-way out-right only operation. The site also has an access on Fairglen Crescent which provides for all access movements to and from Weston Road. The proposed prohibition of left turns will increase motorist awareness of the intended operation at the Weston Road access.

Conclusion:

The prohibition of northbound and eastbound left turns at the access to 2530 Weston Road is a condition of site plan approval, is supported by channelization of the driveway, and will promote safe and efficient traffic flow on this section of Weston Road.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the June 15 and 16, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Proposed Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Designation:

Finch Avenue West Between Weston Road and a

Point 255 Metres West of Weston Road.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 14, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To designate the centre lane on Finch Avenue West for eastbound and westbound left turns only between Weston Road and a point 255 metres west of Weston Road.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate signage and pavement markings, estimated to cost $4,500.00, are contained in the Works and Emergency Services 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the centre lane on Finch Avenue West between Weston Road and a point 255 metres west be designated for eastbound and westbound left turns only; and,

(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

Following the recent reconstruction of Finch Avenue West, west of Weston Road, we have completed a pavement marking review and determined that a two-way centre left-turn lane is more appropriate than the previous hatched pavement markings in the area between Weston Road and a point 255 metres west of Weston Road.

Discussion:

Finch Avenue West in this vicinity is a four-lane arterial roadway. The adjacent land use consists of commercial businesses and there are several driveways on both sides on this section of Finch Avenue West. Prior to the recent reconstruction of Finch Avenue West the pavement markings in the subject area consisted of hatched markings between the eastbound and westbound median lanes. Because of the driveways a two-way centre left-turn lane is more appropriate than the previous hatched pavement markings. Designating the median lane on Finch Avenue West as a two-way centre left-turn lane would provide a lane for eastbound and westbound left-turning vehicles entering and exiting driveways on both sides of Finch Avenue West. It would also reduce potential conflict with through traffic in the eastbound and westbound median lanes. The estimated cost of installing the signs and pavement markings is $4,500.00.

Conclusion:

The designation of a two-way centre left-turn lane on Finch Avenue West, between Weston Road and a point 255 metres west of Weston Road, would provide a lane for left-turning vehicles entering and exiting driveways on both sides of Finch Avenue West.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

Proposed Parking Prohibition on the

West Side of Scarlett Road, Near the

Lambton Golf and Country Club Driveway.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 19, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To extend a parking prohibition on the west side of Scarlett Road, south of the Lambton Golf and Country Club driveway, in order to improve the sightlines and turning radii for motorists using this driveway.

Funding Sources:

The funds for this work are contained in the Works and Emergency Services 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost to install the required signs is $300.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the existing parking prohibition in effect at all times on the west side of Scarlett Road, between a point 74 metres north of Eileen Avenue and a point 48 metres further north thereof, be modified to be in effect from a point 52 metres north of Eileen Avenue and a point 70 metres north thereof; and

(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of Councillor Frances Nunziata, our Department reviewed the feasibility of improving sightlines and turning radii for motorists using the Lambton Golf and Country Club driveway. Councillor Nunziata requested that the existing "No Parking Any Time" zone on the west side of Scarlett Road, south of this driveway, be extended further south.

Discussion:

The driveway to the Lambton Golf and Country Club is located on the west side of Scarlett Road, between Foxwell Street and Eileen Avenue. Parking is prohibited at all times for a distance of 15metres beyond each side of the driveway. Beyond these points parking is prohibited from 7:00a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, while at other times parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Because there is limited parking demand in this area on the west side of Scarlett Road, and access and egress movements could be improved at this driveway, it would be appropriate to extend the existing "No Parking Any Time" zone 22 metres further south. This proposed parking prohibition would have a negligible impact on parking in this area.Conclusions:

The extension of the "No Parking Any Time" zone on the west side of Scarlett Road, south of the Lambton Golf and Country Club, would provide better sightlines and turning radii for motorists using this driveway without negatively impacting parking in this area.

Contact Name:

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (April 28, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber:

Please find attached a copy of the report staff prepared on the above noted issue. As the Committee members will note, a partial "No Parking Any Time" zone was implemented in this area last year.

However, the parking and access problems still persist. It would, therefore, be my request that the "No Parking" zone be increased by a few more metres in the southerly direction of the west side of Scarlett Road, at the Lambton Golf and Country Club.

I would like to request that this item be added to the agenda of the next Committee meeting and I would appreciate the opportunity of briefly speaking to this matter.

Thank you for your assistance.

--------

Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Bathurst Street and Robinson Street/Carr Street.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Bathurst Street and Robinson Street/Carr Street to replace the existing pedestrian crossover (PXO) at this location.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic control signal installations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals on Bathurst Street at Robinson Street/Carr Street is $81,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Bathurst Street and RobinsonStreet/Carr Street coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover;

(2)a northbound right-turn-on-red prohibition be introduced from Bathurst Street to Carr Street;

(3)a southbound right-turn-on-red prohibition be introduced from Bathurst Street to RobinsonStreet;

(4)pedestrian crossings of Bathurst Street be prohibited from the north curb line of RobinsonStreet to a point 30.5 metres south thereof; and

(5)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone, Transportation Division staff investigated traffic operations at the intersection of Bathurst Street and Robinson Street/Carr Street.

Discussion:

Currently, there is a pedestrian crossover on Bathurst Street adjacent to the north curb line of CarrStreet. A traffic study was conducted to determine the degree to which this intersection satisfies the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals. Observations revealed that the pedestrian and vehicle volumes and delays are currently sufficient to warrant the installation of traffic control signals at both Carr Street and at Robinson Street.

A review of the Toronto Police Service collision records for the five year period ending December31, 1996 disclosed a total of 29 collisions at this intersection. Seven of these were of the type considered potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Further, two of these collisions involved pedestrians.

Robinson Street is located on the west side of Bathurst Street, approximately 17 metres south of CarrStreet. Carr Street intersects Bathurst Street on the east side. Together, these two streets form a "far-right offset" intersection with Bathurst Street. Normally, from a safety perspective, we do not support the creation of a fully signalized offset intersection. However, in some cases (such as the location in question), the optimal operation is a modified fully signalized offset intersection. Therefore, to accompany this installation, we propose measures which will mitigate pedestrian and vehicle conflicts caused by the offset intersection geometry. Specifically, we would operate these traffic control signals in a manner which would allow Robinson Street and Carr Street traffic to proceed on separate green phases. This would significantly enhance pedestrian and motorist safety within this intersection, while resulting in only minor increases in delay for these side streets.

For the added safety of both pedestrians and motorists at this offset intersection, northbound and southbound right-turn-on-red movements would be prohibited. This would prevent these right-turning motorists from entering the large offset intersection on a red traffic signal indication, thereby reducing the potential for conflicts with east-west pedestrians and vehicles.

Adjacent traffic control signals on Bathurst Street are located 200 metres to the south of RobinsonStreet at Queen Street West. The adjacent control to the north is a pedestrian crossover located 250 metres to the north of Carr Street at Scadding Court. This spacing between traffic control devices is suitable with respect to the roadway geometry and prevailing traffic conditions in this area.

The estimated cost of the installation of the proposed traffic control signals and removal of the PXO is $81,000.00.

The installation of traffic control signals will result in the loss of curb side parking areas for approximately four vehicles on Carr Street because of the standard parking prohibition within 30.5metres of a signalized intersection. No parking spaces will be lost on Bathurst Street or Robinson Street.

Conclusions:

Traffic control signals are warranted and should replace the existing PXO at the intersection of Bathurst Street and Robinson Street/Carr Street to improve the operational safety of this intersection.

Contact Name:

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021.

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Broadview Avenue and Hillside Drive.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 19, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of BroadviewAvenue and Hillside Drive.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals at Broadview Avenue and Hillside Drive is $108,000.00.

Funding for this project has previously been approved by Metropolitan Council and the Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation limit and that it falls within corporate debt guidelines.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that traffic control signals be approved on Broadview Avenue at Hillside Drive.

Background:

This location was investigated in response to a request from a member of the public for pedestrian crossing protection on Broadview Avenue near the Massey Centre for Women and Daycare Centre at 1102 Broadview Avenue.

Discussion:

Broadview Avenue in this vicinity is a four-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 50kilometres per hour and a two-way 24 hour traffic volume of approximately 21,500 vehicles. At Hillside Drive there is a southbound near-side bus stop. The Massey Centre for Women and Daycare Centre is located immediately north of Hillside Drive at No. 1102 Broadview Avenue. The driveway of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints at No. 1099 Broadview Avenue on the east side of Broadview Avenue is immediately opposite Hillside Drive.

A pedestrian crossover (PXO) warrant study revealed that 233 pedestrians crossed BroadviewAvenue at this location in an eight-hour study period. Of these 233 pedestrians, 174 were delayed more than ten seconds before they could complete their crossing. Based on this information, both the pedestrian volume and delay warrants are 100 percent per cent satisfied and the installation of a PXO is justified.

We have evaluated the operational characteristics of a proposed PXO according to the guidelines that were developed for the "Audit of Operational and Physical Suitability at Pedestrian Crossovers in Metropolitan Toronto". The results are as follows:

Standards or Criteria to be met for Physical Suitability of a PXO	Met/Not Met	Comments
Vehicle operating speed less than 60 kilometres per hour	Not met	85th percentile speed is greater than 60 kilometres per hour
Not more than four lanes wide	Met	four lanes wide
Traffic volume less than 35,000 vehicles per day	Met	21,500 vehicles per day
No driveways or entrances nearby	Not met	driveway at 1099 Broadview
No significant volume of turning movements which interfere with the PXO	Not met	turns to and from Hillside Drive and driveway at 1099 Broadview
No visibility problems exist for either pedestrians or vehicles	Met	no visibility problems
No loading zones (including TTC) in the immediate vicinity	Not met	southbound TTC stop
Not less than 215 metres to another PXO or traffic control device	Met	traffic control signals are located 298metres to the north at CosburnAvenue and 237 metre to the south at Mortimer Avenue

This location does not meet four of the criteria listed above, specifically the operating speed, presence of driveways, high volume of turning vehicles and loading zone locations. In addition, we conducted a review of the Toronto Police Service collision records for the five-year period ending December31, 1996. During this period, there were three collisions involving pedestrians. The Toronto Police Service has been advised of the operating speeds on Broadview Avenue and asked to conduct radar enforcement in this area.

Given the foregoing prevailing conditions, a pedestrian crossover cannot be expected to perform in a satisfactory fashion at this location. Accordingly, traffic control signals would provide the best form of crossing control and are recommended for this location.

Due to the proximity of the driveway to No. 1099 Broadview Avenue to the intersection of Broadview Avenue and Hillside Drive, access to and from this driveway would also be controlled by the proposed traffic control signals.

Because of the distance to adjacent control devices, the installation of traffic control signals would not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial within the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the traffic control signals would provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.

Conclusions:

The installation of a PXO is warranted on Broadview Avenue at Hillside Drive. However, because this location fails to meet the "environmental standards" for the installation of a PXO, traffic control signals will potentially provide for a safer crossing environment and should be installed at this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Martin Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

Proposed Pedestrian Crossover:

Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that Council approve the installation of a pedestrian crossover at the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue, and that the appropriate officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (March 11, 1998) from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, Transportation Division:

This memo is to inform you that the Toronto Police Service has indicated to our Department that a crossing guard is not warranted at this location and will not be provided (see attached letter).

At its meeting on June 4, 1997, Metropolitan Council approved Clause No. 4 of Report No. 14 of The Planning and Transportation Committee which recommended that a pedestrian crossover (PXO) be installed at the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue, subject to a crossing guard being provided at such intersection.

Given that a crossing guard will not be provided, the pedestrian crossover will not be installed and our Department now considers this issue to be closed.

Please contact Richard Noehammer at 397-0506 if you have any questions or require additional information.

(Communication dated February 16, 1998, from

Staff Inspector Ron Taverner, Community Policing Support Unit,

Toronto Police Services.)

At your request, a traffic study was conducted at the abovementioned location. The conditions observed during the study indicate that school crossing guard supervision is not warranted. The relevant observations are:

(1)children have minimal involvement with motor vehicle traffic;

(2)accident reports covering the past 24 months for the location indicate there were no accidents involving elementary school children;

(3)the elementary school children that crossed did not appear to experience difficulty in crossing;

(4)traffic control provides adequate assistance for the children to cross safely; and

(5)the majority of elementary school children crossed in groups and or were escorted by adults.

We have enclosed a copy of the School Guard Site Evaluation Program, Policy Criteria and Procedure.

Should you require a meeting or want to discuss this information further, please contact the School Survey Section, Community Policing Support Unit at 808-7050.

--------

(Clause No. 4 embodied in Report No. 14 of

The Planning and Transportation Committee, headed

"Request for Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalk

- Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue", as adopted by

the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

at its meeting held on June 4, 1997.)

(The Metropolitan Council on June 4, 1997, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that a pedestrian crossover be installed at the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue, subject to a crossing guard being provided at such intersection.

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following communication (April 10, 1997) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, Ward 10, City of Toronto:

I have attached a copy of your Traffic Department's report of September 12, 1996, concerning a crosswalk.

Please ensure that the matter is scheduled for deputations and advise me as to when the community can attend.

(Communication dated September12,1996,

from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region,

Metropolitan Transportation Department.)

We have completed our investigation into the feasibility of installing a pedestrian crossover at the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue. Based on our investigation, the installation of a pedestrian crossover is not justified at this time.

We conducted an eight-hour pedestrian study to determine whether this intersection meets the minimum technical requirements for the installation of a pedestrian crossover. Our survey, conducted on September 9, 1996, revealed that a total of 215 pedestrians crossed Victoria Park Avenue in the vicinity of Swanwick Avenue, of which 56 were delayed significantly (greater than ten seconds) before finding a suitable gap to cross. The 215 pedestrians consisted of 196youths/adults, 13assisted children and six unassisted children.

Based on the volume of traffic on Victoria Park Avenue, the minimum technical requirements for the installation of a pedestrian crossover at this location is 275 pedestrian crossings during the busiest eight hours of the day. This requirement is not met. However, if this requirement were met, a second requirement would be applied which takes into account how many pedestrian were delayed more than ten seconds before being able to complete their crossing. This requirement also is not met. Both of these requirements must be met for a pedestrian crossover to be considered technically warranted.

We also considered the installation of a pedestrian refuge island near the intersection of VictoriaParkAvenue and Swanwick Avenue to assist pedestrians. However, this section of VictoriaPark Avenue is not wide enough to accommodate a pedestrian refuge island without widening.

We have reviewed the collision records of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service for the five-year period ending December 31, 1995. This review revealed that there has been one pedestrian-related collision reported in the vicinity of this intersection. This collision involved an eastbound-to-southbound right-turning vehicle which struck a pedestrian who was crossing Swanwick Avenue from south to north. There were no reported incidents involving pedestrians crossing Victoria Park Avenue at this location.

Therefore, given that the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue fails to satisfy the minimum technical requirements for a pedestrian crossover and has a good safety record, we cannot justify the installation of a pedestrian crossover, at this location, at this time.

If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 392-5243.

--------

Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the School Guard Site Evaluation Program, Policy Criteria and Procedure, which was appended to the foregoing communication (February 16, 1998) from the Toronto Police Services, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the June 15 and 16, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Procurement of Used Buses.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication (May 22, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission; and having directed that such communication be submitted to Council for information:

At its meeting on Wednesday, May 20, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) considered the attached report, entitled "Procurement Of Used Buses."

The Commission approved the Recommendation contained in the above report, as listed below, at an upset limit amount for procurement which was specified in a confidential report received from D.Gunn, Chief General Manager concerning this matter:

"It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)receive this report for information noting that it may be uneconomical to rebuild some of the current and future Flyer 12-Year rebuild candidate buses due to their condition and the intention is to procure used GM or RTS buses for rebuild in their place;

(2)delegate authority to the Chair, one other Commissioner and the Chief General Manager to approve the submission of bids which will result in the procurement of up to 100 used buses;

(3)delegate authority to the Chief General Manager to approve funds in the upset limit amount of $30,000.00 to cover the cost for travel and accommodation for staff to inspect used buses; and

(4)forward this report to the City of Toronto for information."

The foregoing is forwarded to City of Toronto Council for information.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 2, entitled

"Procurement of Used Buses".)

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)receive this report for information noting that it may be uneconomical to rebuild some of the current and future Flyer 12-year rebuild candidate buses due to their condition and the intention is to procure used GM or RTS buses for rebuild in their place;

(2)delegate authority to the Chair, one other Commissioner and the Chief General Manager to approve the submission of bids which will result in the procurement of up to 100 used buses;

(3)delegate authority to the Chief General Manager to approve funds in the upset limit amount of $30,000.00 to cover the cost for travel and accommodation for staff to inspect used buses; and

(4)forward this report to the City of Toronto for information.

Funding:

These purchases will be charged to Inventory Accounts and subsequently charged to the appropriate Rebuild Program Expense Account when the parts are removed from inventory.

Background:

To enable an 18-year bus life, the TTC rebuilds buses at the 6- and 12-year point in their life cycle. The Bus Fleet Status presentation on April 8, 1998 provided the Commission with the overall background to this report. The Bus Heavy Rebuild Program, started in 1995, currently rebuilds two six-year-old buses per week at a cost of $107,000.00 each; two 12-year-old buses per week at a cost of $117,000.00 each; and one 18-year-old bus per week at a cost of $140,000.00 each.

Discussion:

The following table illustrates the current 12-year bus rebuild schedule by bus model for the next five years.

The "Body Type" column in the table denotes whether the main structure is mono-coquet (MONO) or Tubular Space Frame (TUBE). Previous Commission reports have detailed the differences and relative advantages of the mono-coquet structure over the tubular frame structure.

Bus Heavy Rebuild Program - 12-Year Rebuild Schedule

Bus Model	Year Retired	Body Type	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
1983 GM T6H-5307N (Rebuilt 1995/98)	2007	MONO	18
1985/86 Flyer D-901 (Current Rebuild)	2003/4	TUBE	82	100	16
1987 GMC Classics	2011	MONO			84
1987 Flyer D-40-87	2005	TUBE				60
1988 Flyer D-40-88 (Rebuilt 1995/96)	2006	TUBE				15
1989 Flyer D-40-89 (Rebuilt 1995/96)	2007	TUBE				25	57
1990 Flyer D-40-90 (Rebuilt 1996/97)	2008	TUBE					43
Annual Total			100	100	100	100	100

Of particular interest, are the tubular-frame Flyer Model D-901 buses which are currently being rebuilt and the tubular-frame Flyer Model D-40 buses which are scheduled to start the rebuild late in 2000 with the first buses coming off the line early in 2001.

The Flyer D-901's are significantly more expensive to rebuild ($10,000.00 each on average) than the previous GM mono-coquet series and some of the individual buses may require incremental repairs exceeding $20,000.00. Given this premium, plus the risk of these repairs not lasting the required six years to retirement, it may not be economical to rebuild some of the buses in this series. It is estimated that up to 25 percent or 50 buses may have to be prematurely retired.

The Flyer D-40-87's are exhibiting serious corrosion-related structural failures now, to the point where extensive repairs are required to get them to their scheduled rebuild. There are 60 buses in this series and it is estimated that the majority will fail before their scheduled rebuild in 2001.

The Flyer D-40-88's and D-40-89's were rebuilt under the six-year program in 1995/6 and are now exhibiting corrosion around the windows. This work was not part of the scope of the 6-year program.

The Flyer D-40-90's were rebuilt under the six-year program in 1996/7. Extensive structural work had to be undertaken at that time due to corrosion causing significant frame failures. It is unknown, at this time, what level of structural work will be required at the 12-year point in the life of these buses.

In conclusion, the tubular frame design is problematic due to the uncertainty surrounding the longevity of any structural repairs. The structure does not lend itself to an economical wholesale frame replacement such as is the case with the GM mono-coquet structure. Any repairs are, of necessity, simply individual frame-member replacements, with no guarantee of the longevity of the unreplaced members.

It is therefore proposed to plan for the eventuality of premature retirement of some of these tubular-frame buses at their 12-year life and their replacement with used mono-coquet structure buses. The used buses would replace the premature failures in the rebuild schedule and thus ensure at least a six year life.

Staff are currently investigating the opportunities to purchase mono-coquet framed buses that have been retired from service (i.e. GM New Look and Classic buses and RTS buses). Efforts are being concentrated in the southern United States as there will generally be less corrosion than a bus thathas been exposed to the road salt conditions typical of a winter in Canada and the northern United States.

Based on research completed to date, used GM buses from transit properties located in the southern States meeting the TTC's requirements will be coming available in the near future. However, it will be necessary for staff to submit bids to buy these buses as they will be sold either on a publicly advertised competitive bid basis or at auction. Further, investigation has revealed it is unlikely that staff will be able to purchase 100 used buses from any one source. Realistically a number of sources will be required to purchase a total of 100 used buses.

The bid period for a sale by public tender is normally 3 weeks and if the buses are sold by auction, there is normally a 3 to 5 day inspection period followed by a one day auction. To be able to submit a bid to purchase buses that may become available, staff would first have to inspect the buses to determine if they are in an acceptable condition and meet TTC's requirements. This would also enable staff to determine a reasonable bid price depending on the condition of the buses.

It is therefore apparent that there would be insufficient time for staff to complete the inspection and determine a bid price as well as obtain Commission approval in time to submit a bid to purchase the buses.

Therefore, it is necessary to request that the Commission delegate authority to the Chair, one other Commissioner and the Chief General Manager to approve the submission of bids which will result in the purchase of used buses.

In addition, to ensure expeditious approval of funds to cover the cost of travel and accommodation for staff to inspect the used buses, it is recommended that the Chief General Manager be delegated the authorization to approve funds in the upset limit amount of $30,000.00 on an as required basis for associated travel and accommodation costs for inspection staff.

Justification:

The intention of this initiative is to purchase used mono-coquet structure buses to replace buses that have prematurely failed to the extent that a rebuild is not economically viable. It is assumed that the purchase price of the used bus plus its rebuild cost minus the salvage cost of the failed tubular frame bus would not exceed the cost of the rebuild plus the necessary structural repairs of the premature failure tubular frame bus.

Delegation of authority to the Chair, one other Commissioner and the Chief General Manager to approve the submission of bids which will result in the purchase of used buses as well as the travel and accommodation costs associated with inspecting buses is requested due to the potential requirement to participate in an auction or public bid for buses and the requirement to act quickly in this process.

Toronto Transit Commission

Family Pass/Celebrate Toronto Street Festival.

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

At its meeting on Wednesday, May 20, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) considered the attached memorandum dated May 20, 1998 from D. Gunn, Chief General Manager, entitled "TTC Family Pass/Celebrate Toronto Street Festival."

The Commission received the foregoing communication and requested a copy be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City Council for information.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 34(a), entitled

"Toronto Transit Commission Family Pass/Celebrate

Toronto Street Festival".)

The Commission, at its meeting on April 22, 1998, approved the City of Toronto's request to implement a special Family Pass for the Celebrate Toronto Street Festival, and requested staff to report at the next meeting on the anticipated risks and costs associated with implementing it.

Extending the "Sunday" conditions for the Family Pass to July 2 to 4, 1998 will result in a maximum worst case risk of approximately $65,000.00 in foregone revenues for the TTC (i.e., six people travelling on each Pass, with all trips on the Pass replacing trips previously made with other fare media). Since previous research has indicated that the average number of people using the Pass with "Sunday" conditions is approximately four, a more reasonable estimate of the range of maximum risk is $20,000.00 - $50,000.00 in foregone revenues (see Attachment"A").

The Celebrate Toronto Street Festival will present staff with an opportunity to conduct research with Family Pass purchasers by means of intercept surveys during the event. The research findings, along with promotional analyses of both the Celebrate Toronto and 1998 CNE Family Pass promotions will then be reported the Commission in the Fall, including a recommendation for future events of this nature.

(A copy of Attachment "A", which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the June 15 and 16, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Incorporation of the Terms of Reference for the

Sub-Committee on Pro-Transit Initiatives into the

Terms of Reference for the Environmental Task Force.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (June 10, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair, Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having expressed its appreciation to Councillor Kinahan for volunteering to serve on the previously proposed Sub-Committee on Pro-Transit Initiatives.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (June10, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair, Urban Environment and Development Committee:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Terms of Reference for the Sub-Committee on Pro-Transit Initiatives be incorporated into the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Task Force; and

(2)the Environmental Task Force report to Council through the Urban Environment and Development Committee with respect to transit-related issues.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) on January 12, 1998, established the Sub-Committee on Pro-Transit Initiatives with the following Terms of Reference, and the Chair of UEDC was requested to canvass the Members of the Committee in order to determine their interest in sitting on the Sub-Committee:

"Terms of Reference:

(a)to review initiatives, proposals, and reports related to the support and promotion of public transit and related modes of travel, and to ensure that these are considered in light of Official Plan objectives and policies addressing multi-modal integration and financial and environmental sustainability;

(b)to provide opportunities for input on pro-transit-related topics from other levels of government, agencies, municipalities, business representatives and members of the public; and

(c)to represent City of Toronto interests in the support and promotion of public transit to other levels of government and other municipalities."

Discussion:

Since the Sub-Committee on Pro-Transit Initiatives was established in January 1998, it has never become functional as no appointments were ever made to it.

In addition, City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, by the adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No.2 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled "Terms of Reference for Special Task Forces", interalia, adopted the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Task Force. Since the fundamental objective of the Environmental Task Force is to create a comprehensive Environmental Plan for the new City of Toronto, I would recommend that the Terms of Reference for the Sub-Committee on Pro-Transit Initiatives be incorporated into the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Task Force, and that the Task Force report to Council through the Urban Environment and Development Committee with respect to transit-related issues.

I have discussed this matter with Councillor Jack Layton, Chair of the Environmental Task Force, and he is in agreement with the foregoing recommendations.

Other Items Considered by the Committee.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, received this Clause, as information, subject to striking out and referring Item (d), entitled "PCB Waste Storage Management Issues in the New City of Toronto", embodied in this Clause, back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration.)

(a)Report on the Fixed Link to the

City Centre Airport Environmental Assessment.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following reports, communications and briefs regarding the proposed Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport, until its meeting to be held on September8, 1998;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate officials, to submit a consolidated report on this matter to its meeting to be held on September 8, 1998, such report to include:

(a)the reports previously requested by the Committee and City Council;

(b)a full business plan, to be prepared by the Toronto Harbour Commission, including whether general aviation movement will increase or decrease; and an analysis of such business plan;

(c)comments from the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on the proposal for the Fixed Link;

(d)estimated travel time from the Lester B. Pearson International Airport to the downtown core, if a proposed rail link from the airport to downtown is put in place;

(e)an analysis of the impact of the Fixed Link on air quality;

(f)an analysis of the economic impact on tourism and residential development;

(g)comments from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(h)consideration of the formation of a Work Group to develop a comprehensive Waterfront Policy;

(i)an examination of the impact the Fixed Link may have on tourism, specifically with respect to tour operations, and also the proposed height of the bridge;

(j)an examination of the impact of the Fixed Link on:

(i)traffic patterns along the waterfront, including various concrete traffic-calming options; and

(ii)the new residences presently being constructed; and

(k)a determination of the impact of the rail link from downtown to the Lester B. Pearson International Airport on the financial feasibility of the Fixed Link; and

(3)requested the Chair of the Police Services Board to submit to the Committee, in camera if necessary, its complete report on the Marine Police Unit's ability to service emergencies outside the Inner Harbour:

(i)(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services explaining the findings of the Federal Environmental Assessment concerning the Fixed Link (bridge) to the City Centre Airport; and recommending, provided the Environmental Assessment is approved by federal authorities, design and operational requirements for both the bridge and Bathurst Street, and new terms and conditions which should be added to the Tripartite Agreement as a condition of City Council agreeing to the construction of the bridge and to an exchange of land between the City and the Federal Government which will result in additional park space.

(ii)(June 1, 1998) from the City Clerk setting out the actions taken by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 19, 1998, with respect to the proposed Fixed Link (bridge) to the City Centre Airport.

(iii)(May 8, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, at its Special Meeting held on April 29 and 30, 1998, in adopting the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets, directed, inter alia, that the 1998Capital Program pertaining to the Toronto Harbour Commission (No. 60) be amended, and setting out the amendments made thereto.

(iv)(May 7, 1998) from the City Solicitor, responding to a request from the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) as to whether the report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled "Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport Environmental Assessment", should be on the UEDC agenda; providing the opinion that the aforementioned report should be considered by UEDC; and setting out the reasons for such opinion.

(v)(May 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting the Toronto City Centre Airport; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(vi)(undated) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting a Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(vii)(May 14, 1998) from Mr. Donald J. MacLean, Regional Director, Programs, Ontario Region, Transport Canada.

(viii)(May 20, 1998) and ( June 15, 1998) from Mr. Malcolm Horne, Heritage Planner, Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology and Heritage Planning Unit, Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

(ix)(May 18, 1998) from Mr. Gary F. Reid, General Manager, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC).

(x)(May 12, 1998) from Mr. Kevin Psutka, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association.

(xi)(May 13, 1998) from Mr. Roger D. Wilson, Toronto.

(xii)(May 15, 1998) from Dr. C. Douglas Creelman, Toronto.

(xiii)(May 19, 1998) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Environmentalists Plan Transportation.

(xiv)(May 19, 1998) from Ms. Freya Godard, Toronto Island.

(xv)(May 15, 1998) from Ms. Kittie Fells, President, Mid-City Naturalists' Group.

(xvi)(May 25, 1998) from Mr. Dennis I. Bryant, Toronto.

(xvii)(June 4, 1998) from Mr. Harve Sokoloff, Toronto.

(xviii)(June 9, 1998) from Mr. Simon Miles, Toronto.

(xix)(June 8, 1998) from Miss Jean Macdonald, Toronto.

(xx)(June 11, 1998) from Ms. Helen Hanson and Mr. Robert Hanson, Toronto.

(xxi)(June 12, 1998) from Mr. Robert I. Mitchell, Toronto.

(xxii)(June 7, 1998) from Mr. Paul M. Grant, Toronto.

(xxiii)(undated) from Ms. Peggie Sampson, Professor Emeritus, York University.

(xxiv)(June 11, 1998) from Mr. Carson Woods, Architect and Town Planner, and Representative of the Ontario Boating Forum.

(xxv)(June 10, 1998) from Mr. Jack Taylor, Maple, Ontario.

(xxvi)(June 16, 1998) from the Controller and CFO, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners.

(xxvii)(June 15, 1998) from Ms. Laurie M. Bruce, Project Manager, Dillon Consulting.

(xxviii) (June 16, 1998) from The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, headed "A Presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee".

--------

Mr. Paul Bedford, Executive Director and Chief Planner, Urban Planning Division, made an overhead presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with respect to the foregoing matter, and filed a copy of his presentation material.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Dr. Lance Levy, Chairman, Downtown City Airlines (DCA) Inc.;

-Mr. Eli Ophek, Toronto Bay Group, and filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Mr. John Bessai, Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association;

-Mr. Timothy Dobson, Toronto, and filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Mr. Irwin Doxsee, on behalf of the Ontario Boating Forum;

-Mr. John Morand, Director of Strategic Planning, and Mr. Gary Reid, General Manager, TheToronto Harbour Commissioners;

-Ms. Victoria Piersig, Toronto;

-Dr. Bill Freeman, Toronto;

-Ms. Debra Williams, Air Ontario;

-Ms. Mary Hay, Toronto Waterfront Coalition;

-Mr. Roger Wilson, Toronto, and filed a written brief with respect thereto; and

-Mr. Victor Pappalardo, Trans Capital Air and Stolport Corporation.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto;

-Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown;

-Councillor Jack Layton, Don River; and

-Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford.

(b)Subway Asbestos Removal - Program Requirements.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council the adoption of Recommendation No. (5) embodied in the following communication (May 21, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, viz:

"(5)forward this report to the City of Toronto Council requesting the necessary Project Approval adjustments set out in Appendices A, B andC, noting that no additional funds are required overall.":

(May 21, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) on May 20, 1998, approved Recommendations Nos. (1) to (5) contained in Report No. (33), entitled "Subway Asbestos Removal - Program Requirements".

(c)Toronto Transit Commission Financial Statements

for the Year Ended December 31, 1997.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communications, and having directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to the Audit Committee for its consideration:

(i)(May 21, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) on May 20, 1998, approved Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) contained in Report No. (29), entitled "Financial Statements of Toronto Transit Commission for Year Ended December 31, 1997".

(ii)(June 8, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission forwarding, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, the 1997 Annual Report for the Toronto Transit Commission.

(d)PCB Waste Storage Management Issues

in the New City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication and report:

(i)(May 19, 1998) from the City Clerk advising, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, of the actions taken by the Board of Health on May 12, 1998, with respect to PCB Waste Storage Management Issues in the New City of Toronto.

(ii)(May 7, 1998) Dr. Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health, recommending that the Medical Officer of Health, in consultation with Functional Leads from affected program areas, co-ordinate the development of policies and procedures to be applied to PCB transfers, PCB decontaminations and PCB waste storage sites in the new City, and report through the Board of Health.

(e)Profile Toronto: Immigrants in Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following report:

(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submitting a Planning Research publication, entitled "Immigrants In Toronto", which illustrates the settlement patterns of immigrants to Toronto from the 1996 Census; explaining that although immigration brings many benefits to the city, it also results in increased service costs, especially for education and training; that Toronto, Vancouver, and Mississauga as the main immigrant destinations must support the bulk of these costs; stating that to address these issues fairly requires partnerships between cities, school boards, the provinces and the Federal Government; that, in future, the City of Toronto could consider developing alliances with Vancouver and Mississauga in developing these partnerships with other levels of government; and recommending that the Committee received this report for information.

(f)Extension of Contract No. T-27-96:

Maintenance of Traffic Control and Related Devices.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council the adoption of the following report; and

(2)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to:

(a) consult with employee groups during the development of the consolidated service delivery plan; and

(b)submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with regard to the details of the tendering specifications, prior to re-tendering:

(May 26, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation recommending that Contract No. T-27-96 with Stacey Electric Company Limited be extended from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999, under the terms and conditions of the original contract, by exercising the "Option of Extension" clause (Part C, Section 15); advising that Contract No.T-27-96 was issued as a two-year contract from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1998, with two one-year extensions in 1999 and 2000, each of which requires the approval of Toronto City Council; that the Contract was written in this way to achieve cost savings in the area of maintenance of traffic control devices, while maintaining the quality of maintenance work; stating that these benefits have been experienced with the current electrical contractor, Stacey Electric Company Limited; and that the funds for the activities included within this Contract will be contained in the Works and Emergency Services Current Budget estimates for 1999.

(g)Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Lake Shore Boulevard East, 30 Metres West of

Kew Beach Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held in March 1999:

(May 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, recommending that traffic control signals be approved on Lake Shore Boulevard East, 30 metres west of Kew Beach Avenue; advising that the Subdivision Agreement for the new Woodbine Park residential subdivision requires the developer, EMM Financial Corporation, to fund the installation of traffic control signals on Woodbine Avenue in the vicinity of Kew Beach Avenue; stating that the estimated cost of installing these traffic control signals is $50,000.00, and that the signals will enhance pedestrian safety in this area.

--------

Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(h)Non-Concurrence with the Proposed

Installation of Traffic Control Signals

on Cherry Street at Commissioners Street.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting scheduled to be held on October5, 1998:

(May 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, responding to a request from the Toronto Community Council to study the feasibility of installing traffic control signals at the intersection of Cherry Street and Commissioners Street; advising that an audit of the physical suitability of the pedestrian crossover (PXO) at this intersection did not reveal any characteristics which would make this location unsuitable for a PXO, and that staff of the former City of Toronto report that the PXO has been operating satisfactorily since it was installed in 1984; that, after reviewing the potential impacts of redevelopment and reconstruction in the area, staff have concluded that traffic control signals will not likely be required at the aforementioned intersection in the next few years; and recommending that the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of CherryStreet and Commissioners Street not be approved.

(i)Traffic Control Signal Operation:

Eglinton Avenue West and Ennerdale Road.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)received the following report and communication; and

(2)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to review the "flashing don't walk" display at signalized intersections and submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of replacing it with a "flashing orange walking-person" display:

(i)(May 19, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation responding to a request made by Councillor Mihevc to review the existing signal time provided for pedestrians to cross Eglinton Avenue West at Ennerdale Road; advising that 15seconds walking time is provided for pedestrians to cross EglintonAvenue West at Ennerdale Road at all times of the day; that, in addition, an additional six seconds of clearance time (amber and all-red indications) provides an added level of safety; that, furthermore, in October 1996 the "Flashing Don't Walk" display was installed to enhance pedestrian safety; that, based on the above information, the existing pedestrian walk times provided at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Ennerdale Road are acceptable; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(ii)(February 3, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc, York Eglinton, requesting that staff re-examine the issue of the timing of the traffic control signals at Eglinton Avenue West and Ennerdale Road to allow pedestrians, especially seniors, more time to cross at this busy intersection.

(j)Traffic Control Signal Operation:

Jane Street and Annette Street/Baby Point Road.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following report and communication, inasmuch as the on-going monitoring of this location will continue:

(i)(May 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation responding to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on April 20, 1998, for a review of the operation of the traffic signals on Jane Street at Annette Street/Baby Point Road to determine whether the existing signal time provided for pedestrians to cross Jane Street is acceptable; advising that, notwithstanding the relatively comfortable crossing time provided, the investigation indicated that the time provided for pedestrians to cross Jane Street could be slightly increased by decreasing the green time for motorists on Jane Street, during all times of the day, without an undue reduction in overall intersection performance; stating that this change was made during the week of May 25, 1998; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(ii)(April 3, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, submitting correspondence relating to the intersection of Jane and AnnetteStreets; advising that she does not concur with assessment of the Transportation Department, embodied in the attached correspondence, regarding the safety of pedestrians crossing Jane Street at Annette Street/Baby Point Road; wherein it states that, based on a review by the Transportation Department, the existing traffic signal timing is currently meeting the needs of pedestrians crossing Jane Street at the aforementioned intersection; and requesting that this matter be placed on the agenda of the next Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting for the hearing of deputations.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Joan Miles, Toronto;

-Councillor Frances Nunziata, York - Humber; and

-Councillor Bill Saundercook, York - Humber.

(k)Request to Relocate the Existing Pedestrian

Crossover from Scarlett Road at Bernice Crescent

to Scarlett Road at Eileen Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication and report:

(i)(April 21, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, submitting a report from the Transportation Department wherein it states that the existing pedestrian crossover (PXO) at Scarlett Road and Bernice Crescent is serving the pedestrian crossing demand at a satisfactory level, and the relocation of this PXO to EileenAvenue is not advisable; stating that she cannot support the findings of the Central Traffic region in this matter; and requesting that this item be added to the agenda of the next Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(ii)(June 3, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation submitting, as requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee, a location plan of the area of Scarlett Road/Bernice Crescent/Eileen Avenue.

--------

Councillor Frances Nunziata, York - Humber, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(l)Request to Remove Traffic Signal Co-ordination:

Danforth Avenue, East Lynn Avenue to Woodbine Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following communication to the General Manager, Transportation Services, with a request that he submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, such report to include the implications of removing signal co-ordination on Danforth Avenue, from East Lynn Avenue to Woodbine Avenue:

(April 3, 1998) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, advising that he does not agree with the attached report (February 25, 1998) from the Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, Metro Hall, in response to a request from the Councillor for adjustments to traffic signal co-ordination on DanforthAvenue, from EastLynnAvenue to Woodbine Avenue, due to public complaints about speeding on this portion of Danforth Avenue; wherein it states that the Transportation Department has completed its investigation and has concluded that adjustments to signal co-ordination on this section of Danforth Avenue will not necessarily result in safer or overall slower traffic operations; and requesting that this matter be placed on the upcoming agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

--------

Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(m)Bill 104 - The Vital Services Act.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following communication and reports until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on July 13, 1998:

(i)(May 25, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, at its meeting held on May13 and 14, 1998, referred a Motion by Councillor Jakobek, seconded by Councillor Ootes, regarding Bill104 -the Vital Services Act, to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration.

(ii)(June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that the City of Toronto not enact a vital services by-law under authority of the Tenant Protection Act, given the expected high cost of its administration and potential for financial risk to the City, as further outlined in this report.

(iii)(June 9, 1998) from the City Solicitor reviewing the potential implications of the motion referred by City Council at its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, which proposes that the City enact a by-law requiring providers of vital services to adopt a program whereby the service providers would continue to provide services to tenanted properties despite the landlord's failure to make utility payments.

(n)Request to Provide On-Street Parking:

Lawrence Avenue East Between

Pharmacy Avenue and Birchmount Road.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the General Manager, Transportation Services, for inclusion in a previously requested study of this area; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the General Manager, Transportation Services, to submit a preliminary joint report thereon to the Scarborough Community Council in September 1998:

(May 22, 1998) from Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough-Wexford, submitting a copy of a staff report dated April 17, 1998, in response to a request made by Mr. Keysar Nasr of NASR Foods to provide on-street parking on LawrenceAvenue East between Pharmacy Avenue and Birchmount Road, wherein it states that Transportation staff are unable to justify a change in the parking regulations along the aforementioned section of Lawrence Avenue East at this time for the reasons set out in the report; and advising that Mr. Nasr has subsequently modified his request so that parking regulations are changed only on the north side of the aforementioned section of Lawrence Avenue East.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. George Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos & Pradman Architects, on behalf of Mr.K.Nasr;

-Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Scarborough City Centre; and

-Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford.

(o)East York Parking Contract with

APCOA Parking Development and Management Ltd.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication:

(May 11, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the East York Community Council on May6, 1998, referred the report dated April 23, 1998, from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, and the communications dated May 1 and 4, 1998, from the President, APCOA Parking Development and Management Ltd., to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration with respect to the recommended parking operation efficiencies available through technological advancements and the involvement of private parking management services to deliver parking operations in the City of Toronto.

(p)Application of Former City of Toronto's

1984 Special Legislation Respecting

Demolition Control to the New City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on July13, 1998:

(June 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor responding to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 19, 1998, during consideration of the conversion to condominium, and demolition, of rental housing before and after the proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act, for a report on the feasibility of amending the former City of Toronto's special demolition control legislation in the City of Toronto Act, 1984, so that the Act will apply to the whole of the urban area of the new City.

(q)Review of Level Crossings and the Construction

of Grade Separations in the City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following communication until its next meeting scheduled to be held on July 13, 1998:

(June 1, 1998) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, P.Eng., submitting recommendations pertaining to a proposed review of level crossings and the construction of grade separations in the City of Toronto.

--------

Mr. Tony O'Donohue, Toronto, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(r)Request for Review of the Composition of the

Canadian National Exhibition Association and

the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication:

(June 8, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, at its meeting held on June3,4 and 5, 1998, referred a motion by Councillor O'Brien, seconded by Councillor Brown, which contains the following operative paragraph:

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council request the Provincial Government to review the composition of the Canadian National Exhibition Association and the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place in concert with officials of the City of Toronto."

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE,

Chair

Toronto, June 15 and 16, 1998

(Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.)

Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links

� City of Toronto 1998-2001