TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

 As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 16

Hearing - Stop Up and Closing - O'Keefe Lane, East of Yonge Street, Between Dundas Street East and Dundas Square (Downtown)

2Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (Trinity-Niagara, Davenport, Midtown, Don River, East Toronto)

3Extension of Permit Parking Hours - Westport Avenue, between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road(Davenport)

4Introduction of Permit Parking - Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard(North Toronto)

5Introduction of Permit Parking - Baden Street, between Ossington Avenue and the West End of Baden Street (Trinity-Niagara)

6Introduction of a "No Parking" Prohibition -Kelway Boulevard, North Side from Castle Knockto Avenue Road (North Toronto)

7Installation of "Stop" Sign -Busy Street and Verral Avenue (Don River)

8Rescindment of One Hour Maximum Parking Regulation -Rhodes Avenue from Hanson Street to Danforth Avenue(East Toronto)

9Introduction of a "No Parking" Prohibition -Ridelle Avenue South Side from Bathurst Street to Manitou Boulevard (North Toronto)

10Transfer of Parking Regulations from East Side to West Side - Bocastle Avenue from Golfdale Road to Teddington Park Avenue (North Toronto) 16811

11Removal of "Stop" Signs - Intersection of Lawlor Avenue and the West Branch of Swanwick Avenue (East Toronto)

12Introduction of a "No Stopping Anytime" Prohibition -Waller Avenue, South Side, Windermere Avenue (High Park)

13Installation of On-Street Disabled PersonsParking Spaces - Millbrook Crescent (Don River)

14Amendments to Parking and Traffic Regulations -Simcoe Street between Queen Street West and Dundas Street West (Downtown)

15Provision of an On-Street Loading Zone for Disabled Persons - Front Street West, South Side, from Bay Street to Yonge Street (Revenue Canada - Toronto Centre Branch) (Downtown)

16Introduction of 1 Hour Maximum Parking Limit -Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Glenlake Avenue and Norma Crescent from Glendonwynne Road (High Park)

17Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control - Ellis Avenue and Grenadier Heights (High Park)

18Intention to Designation Under Part IV of theOntario Heritage Act - Draper Street Heritage Conservation District (Downtown)

19Implementation of Parking Regulations -Burnside Drive (Midtown)

20Adjustment of Parking Regulations -Pembroke Street from Gerrard Street East to Shuter Street (Downtown)

21Installation of Parking Spaces, and Stop Signs,and Provision of Two-side Parking -Chatham Avenue and Phin Avenue (East Toronto)

22Prohibition of Standing - Trinity Street, between Mill Street and Front Street East (Don River)

23Parking Regulations - Bloor Street West, Between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street (Trinity-Niagara)

24Installation of All-Way Stop Sign - Iona Avenue and Keystone Avenue (East Toronto)

25Parking Prohibition - Ronan Avenue, West Side, Snowdon Avenue to Golfdale Road (North Toronto)

26Removal of Parking Prohibition - Helendale Avenue North Side, West of Yonge Street (North Toronto) 16909

27Prohibition of Parking - Pote Avenue, West Side from St. Leonard's Avenue to Dinnick Crescent (North Toronto)

28Hearing - Installation of Speed Humps - Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue, and Barton Avenuefrom Brunswick Avenue to Albany Avenue (Midtown)

29Hearing - Alteration of Roxborough Driveby the Installation of Speed Humps (Midtown)

30Site Plan Application and Alteration to a Designed PropertyUnder Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -2223 Bloor Street West (High Park)

31Appeal of Denial of Application for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending - Bremner Boulevard, North Side, 23.3 metres west of York Street (Downtown)

32Appeal of Denial of Application for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending - Bremner Boulevard, South Side, 15.3 metres west of York Street (Downtown)

33Appeal of Denial of Boulevard Cafe and Request for Extended Hours of Operation - 913 Dundas Street West, Bellwoods Avenue Flankage (Trinity-Niagara)

34Tree Removal - 34 Rosedale Heights Drive (Midtown)

35Appeal of Denial of CommercialBoulevard Parking - Beatrice Street Flankage of982 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

36Construction of Fence - Dundas Street East Flankage - 99 Ashdale Avenue (East Toronto)

37Tree Removal - 179 Teddington Park Avenue (North Toronto)

38Tree Removal - 64 St. Ives Crescent (North Toronto)

39Tree Removal - 172 Fairlawn Avenue (North Toronto)

40Tree Removal - 52 Teddington Park Avenue (North Toronto)

41Tree Removal - 119 Hillhurst Boulevard (North Toronto)

42Appeal of Driveway Widening -103 Moore Avenue (Midtown)

43Intention to Designate Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act - 2 Strachan Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

44Vermont Square Park - Dogs-off-Leash Hours (Midtown)

45Residential Demolition Application -79 Dunfield Avenue (North Toronto)

46Residential Demolition Application -252 to 260 Dufferin Street (Parkdale)

47Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -57 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

48Installation of Speed Humps - Elm Ridge Drive, from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road (North Toronto)

49Naming of Private Lane - Joseph Salsberg Lane(Trinity-Niagara)

50Palmerston Area Traffic Calming - Euclid Avenue and Palmerston Boulevard Speed Hump Proposal (Trinity-Niagara)

51Air Canada Centre - Assumption of parts of Bremner Boulevard (Downtown)

52Port Industrial District and a Portion of the East Bayfront - Part II Study (Don River) 17026

53Variances from Chapter 297 - Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - (Downtown, Davenport)

54Realignment and Narrowing of Pavement -Adelaide Street West, West of Bathurst Street(Trinity-Niagara)

55Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Dufferin Grove Area bounded by Dufferin Street, Bloor Street West, Ossington Avenue and College Street (Trinity-Niagara) 17058

56Installation of Traffic Control Devices - Shaw Street, from Dundas Street West to College Street (Trinity-Niagara) 17063

57All-Way "Stop" Sign Control - Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue and Installation of Speed Humps - Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West (High Park)

58Directional Signage Programme -Fort York (Trinity-Niagara)

59Retention of Outside Planning Advice -50 Prince Arthur Avenue (Midtown)

60Request for Endorsement of Event for Liquor Licensing Purposes - Street Festival -Church Street, North of Carlton Street to Wood Street

61Amendment to Precinct Agreement -Railway Lands East (Downtown)

62Possible Precedents for Permitting Vending within25 M of Businesses Selling Similar Products (All Wards Within Former City of Toronto)

63Installation of Speed Humps - Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West (High Park)

64Naming of Public Street - Mathersfield Drive (Midtown)

65Signage Program - Exhibition Place (Trinity-Niagara)

66Tree Removal - 123 Sheldrake Boulevard (North Toronto)

67Other Items Considered by the Community Council

  City of Toronto

REPORT No. 16

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on December 9 and 10, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

  1

Hearing - Stop Up and Closing - O'Keefe Lane,

East of Yonge Street, Between

Dundas Street East and Dundas Square (Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 61 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council titled "Stop-Up and Closing of Public Lane O'Keefe Lane, Extending Between Dundas Street East & Dundas Square - Yonge Dundas Redevelopment (Downtown)" which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on November 18, November 24, December 1 and December 8, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. __ (__), as adopted

by Council December 16, 1998

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To stop up and close the public lane O'Keefe Lane, east of Yonge Street, extending between Dundas Street East and Dundas Square.

WHEREAS it is recommended that the public lane O'Keefe Lane, east of Yonge Street, extending between Dundas Street East and Dundas Square be stopped up and closed as a public lane;

AND WHEREAS notice of Council's intention to stop up and close the public lane was advertised in a daily newspaper on November 18, 24, December 1 and 8, 1998.

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

1.The public lane O'Keefe Lane, east of Yonge Street, extending between Dundas Street East and Dundas Square, described by W. Kowalenko, Esq., O.L.S., City Surveyor, as follows:

In the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of the Public Lane dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 705-88 (Unregistered) lying to the east of Lots 15, 16 and 17 on the east side of Yonge Street, known as O'Keefe Lane, the said Lots and Lane being according to Plan 22A, designated as PART 11 on Plan of survey 64R-15468, both Plans being in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64)

The northerly limit of Dundas Square and the southerly limit of Dundas Street East as confirmed under the Boundaries Act by Plan BA-597 (CT105506)

is hereby stopped up and closed as a public lane.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of December, A.D. 1998.

  MEL LASTMAN, NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 61 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Stop-Up and Closing of Public Lane O'Keefe Lane, Extending Between Dundas Street East & Dundas Square - Yonge Dundas Redevelopment (Downtown)":

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To authorize the stopping-up and closing of the public lane O'Keefe Lane, east of Yonge Street extending between Dundas Street East and Dundas Square, to accommodate the construction of a City owned public square and underground parking structure on Parcel D of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds in connection with the statutory processing of the proposal are accommodated in Yonge Dundas Capital Fund Account No. 216692.

Recommendations:

(1)That the public lane O'Keefe Lane, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2854, be stopped-up and closed as public lane, and placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(2)That an easement be reserved for Toronto Hydro, over a portion of O'Keefe Lane, for access, operation, use, inspection, repair, maintenance, reconstruction or alteration of the existing underground conduit and for the construction of additional or new services, with the exact location to be determined after construction, by survey;

(3)That the public hearing required to be held pursuant to the terms of the Municipal Act be held by the Toronto Community Council; and

(4)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing recommendations, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required and provide notice to the public.

Background:

The former Toronto City Council, at its special meeting of May 6, 1997, in considering Minute S16.2, directed, among other things, the Commissioner of City Works Services to initiate the street and lane closing process as may be required to undertake the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project. The closing of O'Keefe Lane, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2854, is necessary to accommodate the construction of a City-owned public square with a 250 space underground parking garage.

City Council, at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 adopted, as amended, Clause 26 in Report No. 10 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and in doing so authorized the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project to proceed.

Comments:

The development of Parcel D of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project, being the block bounded by Yonge Street, Dundas Street East, Victoria Street and Dundas Square, involves the acquisition by the City of Premises Nos. 285 to 301 (inclusive) Yonge Street, the surface parking lot at Premises No. 25 Dundas Street East (operated by the Toronto Parking Authority) and the public lane O'Keefe Lane, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2854. Parcel D is to be developed as a public square and a 250 space underground parking garage, which will be constructed and operated by the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA).

The cost to cover the at-grade physical adjustments, and the statutory processing, is estimated to be $14,209.00, and consists of:

(a)Removing and abandoning Bell Canada cable, estimated to be $2,709.00;

(b)Removing and abandoning Rogers cable, estimated to be $2,000.00;

(c)Reconstructing the standard curbs and sidewalks at both ends of O'Keefe Lane, estimated to be $6,000.00; and

(d)Paying the out-of-pocket expenses and other administration fees associated with the lane closing, estimated to be $3,500.00.

I have been advised by Urban Planning and Development Services officials that funds to cover these adjustments will be absorbed in the public square development budget.

In addition, I have been advised by officials from the Parking Authority that discussions are ongoing with respect to the below grade adjustments, consisting of abandoning the sewer and the possible relocation of Toronto Hydro's conduit at the north end of O'Keefe Lane, which will be carried out in conjunction with the construction of the parking garage. The issues, including the cost responsibilities, will be resolved prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council for the closing of the subject portion of O'Keefe Lane. The City will provide Hydro with an easement for the conduit once the new location has been determined and verified by survey.

This undertaking is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Laurie Robertson, Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings (392-7711)

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication, (October 14, 1998) from B.S. Onyschuk, Smith Lyons, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Marvin Hertzman Holdings Inc., and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

2

Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons

Parking Spaces (Trinity-Niagara, Davenport,

Midtown, Don River, East Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 19, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, Administrator, 392-7878

--------

TABLE "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

21Osler Street, east side, from a point 40 metres north of the curb line of Lindner Street to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. R. Maccarone, a resident of Premises No. 191 Osler Street).

23Albany Avenue, east side, from a point 118 metres north of Bloor Street West to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. M. Kovacs, a resident of Premises No.27 Albany Avenue).

23Glenrose Avenue, north side, from a point 131 metres west of Welland avenue to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. J. Reynolds, a resident of Premises No. 154 Glenrose Avenue).

25Winnifred Avenue, east side, from a point 142 metres north of Eastern Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. L. Gilbert, a resident of Premises No. 47 Winnifred Avenue).

26Woodfield Road, east side, from a point 72 metres north of Walpole Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. M. Nicholson, a resident of Premises No. 437 Woodfield Road).

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

20Montrose Avenue, both sides, from a point 114 metres north of College Street to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. T. Vinelli of Premises No. 221 Montrose Avenue has advised that the space is no longer required).

20Claremont Street, east side, from a point 59 metres south of Mainsfield Avenue to a point 7 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. Charlie Bagnato, the original applicant of Premises No. 269 Claremont Street has moved).

3

Extension of Permit Parking Hours - Westport Avenue,

between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road

(Davenport)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause to provide that the extended permit parking hours also apply to Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, and that authority be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 20, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Westport Avenue, between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Westport Avenue, between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule F of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate Westport Avenue, between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Betty Disero to have the permit parking hours on Westport Avenue, between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road, extended from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Westport Avenue, between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 3D, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Westport Avenue, between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

Given that the extension of permit parking hours on Westport Avenue, between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road, is an administrative procedure, it is recommended that the hours be amended to indicate 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

 4

Introduction of Permit Parking - Hillsdale Avenue West,

between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard

(North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 20, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the introduction of permit parking on Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard, on a street name basis, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, and 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

 Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking be introduced on Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard, on a street name basis, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, and 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday;

(2)(a)Should City Council approve the implementation of permit parking on Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard, Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended by introducing a new Schedule "AAA" to incorporate the new permit parking hours of 12:01 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, and 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday;

(b)Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard, be included in the newly created Schedule "AAA" of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(c)the existing "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition be rescinded on the south side of Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard; and

(d)the existing "One hour parking 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation be rescinded on the south side of Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard; and

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

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of July 22, 1998, had before it a communication (July 13, 1998) from Councillor Walker respecting Permit Parking on Hillsdale Avenue West.

The Toronto Community Council:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the implementation of permit parking on Hillsdale Avenue West between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard and to conduct a formal poll as soon as possible of residents on that block concerning the establishment of permit parking.

(2)directed that two options be given as to the hours permit parking will be in effect:

Standard restrictions (12:01 am - 10:00 am); and

Alternate restrictions (12:01 am - 5:30 pm on weekdays and

12:01 am - 10:00 am on weekends) as requested by several residents.

(3)acknowledged that it would abide by the results of the public poll and assuming a positive poll result, recommend the establishment of permit parking on Hillsdale Avenue West between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard.

Comments:

Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard, operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.53 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is currently prohibited at any time on the north side of the subject section of Hillsdale Avenue West. On the south side, parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, and permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Parking when otherwise allowed, is permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, we are required to conduct a poll of the residents to determine if there is support to introduce permit parking.

Ballots were mailed out on September 23, 1998, with the last date for filing a response being October 22, 1998. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

In order to accommodate the introduction of permit parking from 12:01 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, and from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday, the existing parking regulations should be rescinded on the south side of Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard.

 Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of permit parking on Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard. It is therefore recommended that permit parking be introduced on Hillsdale Avenue West, between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard, on a street name basis, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, and 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

 5

Introduction of Permit Parking - Baden Street,

between Ossington Avenue and the West End

of Baden Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 20, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the introduction of permit parking on Baden Street, between Ossington Avenue and the west end of Baden Street, on an area basis within permit parking area 3J, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking be introduced on Baden Street, between Ossington Avenue and the west end of Baden Street, on an area basis within permit parking area 3J , to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate Baden Street, between Ossington Avenue and the west end of Baden Street; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Joe Pantalone, on behalf of the residents, to introduce permit parking on Baden Street, between Ossington Avenue and the west end of Baden Street.

Comments:

Under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, we are required to conduct a poll of the residents to determine if there is support to introduce permit parking.

Ballots were mailed out on September 29, 1998, with the last date for filing a response being October 29, 1998. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of permit parking on Baden Street, between Ossington Avenue and the west end of Baden Street. It is therefore recommended that permit parking be introduced on Baden Street, on an area basis within permit parking area 3J, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

6

Introduction of a "No Parking" Prohibition -

Kelway Boulevard, North Side from Castle Knock

to Avenue Road (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the incidence of long term non-resident overnight parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $800.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking be prohibited on the north side of Kelway Boulevard between Castle Knock Road and Avenue Road from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and from 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Michael Walker, on behalf of area residents Works staff were requested to report on the introduction of a "No parking 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and from 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday" prohibition on the north side of Kelway Boulevard from Castle Knock Road to Avenue Road.

Kelway Boulevard operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.53 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is currently prohibited at anytime on the south side of the subject section of Kelway Boulevard and is permitted for a maximum period of three hours on the north side.

Works staff had received complaints from residents of Kelway Boulevard in the past regarding long term overnight non-resident parking as well as daytime commuter parking. The introduction of the above-noted parking prohibitions would address these concerns. Accordingly, it is recommended that parking be prohibited as described in Recommendation No. 1, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (November 17, 1998) from Councillor Walker addressed to Director, Transportation Services, District 1, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

 7

Installation of "Stop" Sign -

Busy Street and Verral Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to enhance operational safety at the intersection of Busy Street and Verral Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That a "Stop" sign be installed for eastbound traffic on Busy Street at Verral Avenue; and

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

 Comments:

At the request of residents of Verral Avenue, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of installing a "Stop" sign for westbound traffic on Busy Street at Verral Avenue to improve operational safety at this location.

Busy Street operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a maximum speed limit of fifty kilometres per hour. Verral Avenue operates one-way with a pavement width of 6.7 metres and a maximum speed limit of fifty kilometres per hour. These streets intersect to form a "T-type" intersection. No "Stop" signs are currently posted at this intersection.

Having evaluated the intersection of Busy Street and Verral Avenue against the technical criteria governing the installation of a "Stop" sign which encompasses such factors as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic controls and safety experience, I have concluded that a "Stop" sign should be installed for eastbound traffic on Busy Street at Verral Avenue to clearly establish right-of-way at this intersection.

I note that Works staff will also install additional one-way delineation signage in the vicinity of this intersection to address a secondary concern of residents respecting wrong way traffic operation on Verral Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator,392-7771

 8

Rescindment of One Hour Maximum Parking Regulation -

Rhodes Avenue from Hanson Street to Danforth Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To enable longer term parking by vehicles of persons visiting Rhodes Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $480.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That the one hour maximum parking restriction from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., from the 1^st to 15^th days of each month, April 1 to November 30 and daily from December 1 to March 31 of the next following year, on the east side of Rhodes Avenue from Hanson Street to Danforth Avenue, be rescinded;

(2)That the one hour maximum parking restriction from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., from the 16^th to the last day of each month, April 1 to November 30 on the west side of Rhodes Avenue from Hanson Street to Danforth Avenue, be rescinded; and

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

Comments:

In response to a request from East Toronto Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin, staff of Works and Emergency Services have investigated rescinding the one hour maximum parking restriction on Rhodes Avenue from Hanson Street to Danforth Avenue to enable longer term parking by persons visiting on the street.

Rhodes Avenue between Hanson Street and Danforth Avenue is a residential street operating two-way with a pavement width of 8.53 metres. Parking on this section of Rhodes Avenue is regulated as follows:

West Side

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from December 1 of one year to March 31 of the next following year;

-Parking is prohibited from the 1^st to the 15^th day of each month, April 1 to November 30;

-Parking is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. from the 16^th to the last day of each month, April 1 to November 30;

-Parking is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., from the 16^th to the last day of each month, April 1 to November 30; and

-Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

East Side

-Parking is prohibited from the 16^th to last day of each month, April 1 to November 30;

-Parking is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. from the 1^st to the 15^th day of each month, April 1 to November 30 and daily from December 1 to March 31 of the next following year;

-Parking is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily from the 1^st to the 15^th day of each month, April 1 to November 30 and daily from December 1 to March 31; and

-Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

Rescinding the one hour maximum parking on this section of Rhodes Avenue will not affect permit parkers as they are exempt from the City-wide 3-hour maximum parking restriction that would apply. However, this will allow trades people and non-residents visiting on the street to park for periods of time up to 3 hours. Although this addresses the request of the Ward Councillors, it should be noted that the potential presence of long term non-resident parkers (which might include commuters) could result in fewer parking spaces coming available on a frequent basis for permit holders.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

 9

Introduction of a "No Parking" Prohibition -

Ridelle Avenue South Side from Bathurst Street

to Manitou Boulevard (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To address the issue of long term non-resident overnight parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost of implementing the necessary signage is $800.00.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking be prohibited from 12:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. daily on the south side of Ridelle Avenue from Bathurst Street to Manitou Boulevard; and

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

Comments:

Councillor Michael Walker forwarded a petition from residents of Ridelle Avenue between Bathurst Street and Manitou Boulevard requesting the introduction of a "No parking 12:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. daily" prohibition on the south side of this section of Ridelle Avenue.

The above section of Ridelle Avenue operates two-way on a pavement width of 11 metres with a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is currently prohibited at anytime on the north side of Ridelle Avenue and is permitted for a maximum period of three hours on the south side.

Complaints had been received by Works staff in the past regarding long term non-resident parking on this section of Ridelle Avenue. This parking may be due, in part, to the presence of a number of high-rise apartment buildings on Bathurst Street in the vicinity of Ridelle Avenue.

Works staff have no objection to this proposal. It is noted that enforcement of this parking prohibition would be carried out on all vehicles, including those belonging to residents and their visitors as "selective" enforcement is not possible. With this understanding, parking could be prohibited as described in Recommendation No. 1, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (November 18, 1998) from Councillor Walker addressed to Director, Transportation Services, District 1, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

 10

Transfer of Parking Regulations from East Side to

West Side - Bocastle Avenue from Golfdale Road to

Teddington Park Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To transfer parking from the east side of Bocastle Avenue to the west side.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing parking prohibition on the west side of Bocastle Avenue from Golfdale Road to Teddington Park Avenue be rescinded;

(2)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Bocastle Avenue from Golfdale Road to Teddington Park Avenue; and

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

Comments:

In consultation with North Toronto Councillors Michael Walker and Anne Johnston, Works staff investigated the feasibility of transferring the existing parking prohibitions on the west side of Bocastle Avenue from Golfdale Road to Teddington Park Avenue to the east side in order to enhance visibility for motorists exiting driveways on the east side of the street and to facilitate snow removal and street cleaning activities.

The subject section of Bocastle Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.53 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Currently parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of Bocastle Avenue from Golfdale Road to Teddington Park Avenue and is permitted for a maximum period of three hours on the east side.

A site inspection recently conducted by Works staff revealed that there are 9 on-street parking spaces on the east side of the subject section of Bocastle Avenue, with a potential of 11 spaces on the west side. Accordingly, if parking were to be transferred to the west side of the street, there would be a gain of 2 on-street parking spaces. There are no properties fronting on the west side of the subject section of Bocastle Avenue.

In this regard, it is recommended that the existing parking regulations be adjusted as described in Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator - 392-7771

11

Removal of "Stop" Signs - Intersection of

Lawlor Avenue and the West Branch of

Swanwick Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To improve traffic operation on Lawlor Avenue in the vicinity of the off-set intersections of Lawlor/Swanwick (west branch) and Lawlor/Swanwick (east branch).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The funds necessary to remove the existing northbound and southbound "Stop" signs and install advisory signage in the estimated amount of $650.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That the northbound and southbound "Stop" sign on Lawlor Avenue at the west branch of Swanwick Avenue, be removed;

(2)That the operation of this intersection be reviewed in 6 months' time; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Tom Jakobek and in consultation with Councillor Sandra Bussin, staff of Works and Emergency Services have investigated the removal of the northbound and southbound "Stop" signs at the intersection of Lawlor Avenue and the west branch of Swanwick Avenue for a trial period to effect an operational improvement as described below.

Lawlor Avenue and Swanwick Avenue form two T-type intersections off-set by about 50 metres with Lawlor Avenue being the through street. Both Swanwick Avenue and Lawlor Avenue are residential streets with two-way traffic operation. Both intersections of Swanwick/Lawlor have all-way "Stop" sign control.

Staff have conducted "Stop" sign observance surveys at these intersections. The data collected indicated that the compliance with the "Stop" sign control on Lawlor Avenue at the north intersection was poor with only 5% of the vehicles recorded coming to a complete stop. Nearly 94% of the vehicles recorded made "rolling stops" while 1% failed to observe the "Stop" sign and rolled through the intersection at a moderate rate of speed. Compliance characteristics were similar at the south intersection where 3.5% of the vehicles recorded made a complete stop, 95.5% made a "rolling stop" and 1% rolled through the intersection.

The northbound and southbound "Stop" signs at the intersection of Lawlor Avenue and the west branch of Swanwick Avenue (the most northerly T-intersection) were implemented in 1991 to address residents' concerns about safety at this location. Although the installation warrants established by the Ministry of Transportation for all-way "Stop" sign control were not satisfied at this intersection, the less stringent guidelines adopted by the former City of Toronto Council for such measures were satisfied (1 accident deemed preventable by all-way "Stop" sign control had been reported in the previous 3 years and the majority of nearby intersections had all-way "Stop" sign control). Notwithstanding, the distance between this intersection and the intersection of Lawlor Avenue and the east branch of Swanwick Avenue is very short (about 50 metres as noted above) and the provision of two northbound and two southbound "Stop" signs in this short distance could be contributing to the poor level of compliance by motorists at both intersections.

As a means of comparison, a similar alignment of intersections exists one block east at the intersections of Scarborough Road with the east and west branches of Swanwick Avenue. However, only the intersection of the Scarborough Road and the west branch of Swanwick Avenue has all-way "Stop" sign control while the intersection of Scarborough Road and the east branch of Swanwick Avenue has partial "Stop" sign control (westbound only). Observations at the intersection of Scarborough Road and the west branch of Swanwick Avenue by Works staff have revealed that there is considerably better compliance with the northbound/southbound compulsory stop regulation on Scarborough Road than on Lawlor Avenue. This would seem to support the view that the close proximity of the "Stop" sign controls on Lawlor Avenue has a negative impact on motorists' compliance.

In view of the above, I suggest removing the "Stop" signs on Lawlor Avenue at the west branch of Swanwick Avenue, for a trial period initially, and that additional studies be conducted to see what impact this has on compliance with the "Stop" signs at the intersection of Lawlor Avenue and the east branch of Swanwick Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

12

Introduction of a "No Stopping Anytime" Prohibition -

Waller Avenue, South Side, Windermere Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1 be adopted; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on March 30, 1999, on any additional measures needed to improve safety at this intersection, such as making Waller Street one-way from Windermere Avenue to Lavinia Avenue, and adding physical barriers to the newly designated no-stopping zone.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit stopping at anytime on the south side of Waller Avenue, for a distance of 15 metres east of Windermere Avenue, in order to improve the flow of traffic and eliminate the sight line obstruction created by vehicles parked too close to the intersection.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $400.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Waller Avenue from Windermere Avenue to a point 15 metres east of Windermere Avenue; and

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

Comments:

At the request of High Park Councillor David Miller, Works staff investigated the feasibility of implementing a "No Stopping Anytime" prohibition to replace the statutory 15 metres to corner parking prohibition on the south side of Waller Avenue, east of Windermere Avenue, to prevent the parking of vehicles too close to the corner at Windermere Avenue. These parked vehicles are creating queues on Windermere Avenue and are obstructing motorists entering/exiting the intersection. This creates a conflict between pedestrians crossing the street on the east side of Waller Avenue and northbound/southbound motorists on Windermere Avenue attempting to enter/exit Waller Avenue.

Waller Avenue in the vicinity of Windermere Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is currently prohibited at anytime on the north side of the street. Parking is permitted for a maximum period of ten minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the south side of Waller Avenue, from a point 15 metres east of Windermere Avenue to a point 66 metres further east to facilitate a "Student Pick-Up/Drop-Off Zone". Parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour at all other times during the day until 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, within the limits of the "Student Pick-Up/Drop-Off Zone" to encourage parking turn-over during off-peak periods. The permit parking system does not operate on this section of Waller Avenue and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

In view of the safety concerns noted above, the temporary halting of vehicles within the 15 metre to corner parking prohibited area is not desirable. While these areas are sometimes used for loading purposes (a legal activity within a parking prohibited area), the hazard created at this location places pedestrians crossing Waller Avenue and motorists entering/exiting Waller Avenue at risk.

Accordingly, it is recommended that stopping be prohibited at anytime on south side of Waller Avenue for a distance of 15 metres east of Windermere Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (December 3, 1998) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

I am unable to attend the Toronto Community Council meeting on Thursday December 10, 1998, I am writing to you regarding the report, Introduction of a "No Stopping Anytime" prohibition for Waller Avenue, south side, Windermere Avenue to 15 metres east, that Transportation Services District I, prepared for Toronto Community Council.

Taking in consideration that Councillor David Miller conducted a poll on this matter, and the response was favorable, I am supporting the recommendations in the report.

  13

Installation of On-Street Disabled Persons

Parking Spaces - Millbrook Crescent (Don River)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the installation of disabled on-street parking at Millbrook Crescent, south side, from a point 90.5 metres east of Broadview Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east, be approved.

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

(1)deferred consideration of the installation of disabled on-street parking at Bartlett Avenue North, east side, from a point 158 metres south of Davenport Road to a point 5.5 metres further south, until its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999; and

(2)requested the City Solicitor to submit at that time the previously requested report on the status of the proposed laneway between Bartlett Avenue and Salem Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $600 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

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

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

Comments:

Works and Emergency Services staff have investigated the feasibility of installing a number of on-street disabled persons parking spaces at various locations as outlined on the attached Table "A" of this report.

All applicants are holders of valid disabled persons parking permits issued by the Ministry of Transportation and the designated space will not result in the deprivation of more than one on-street parking space.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, Administrator, 392-7878

--------

Table "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

21Bartlett Avenue North, east side, from a point 158 metres south of Davenport Road to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Mr. John Muccilli, a resident of Premises No. 389 Bartlett Avenue).

25Millbrook Crescent, south side, from a point 90.5 metres east of Broadview Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Ms. Shirley Caroline, a resident of Premises No.71a Millbrook Crescent).

 14

Amendments to Parking and Traffic Regulations -

Simcoe Street between Queen Street West and

Dundas Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to correct anomalies that exist in Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code resulting from the closure of a section of Simcoe Street as a public highway and conveyance of lands to Canada Life Assurance Company for redevelopment.

Funding Sources:

As stipulated under the terms of the development Agreement, the cost for removing the parking meters and posts and adjusting or removing regulatory signage associated with the road closure (estimated to be about $3,000.00) will be born by the developer.

Recommendations:

(1)That the one-way northbound regulation on Simcoe Street from Queen Street West to Elm Street be rescinded;

(2)That the disabled persons parking space on the east side of Simcoe Street from a point 130 metres north of Queen Street West to a point 5.5 metres further north, be removed;

(3)That the standing prohibition at anytime on both sides of Simcoe Street from a point 200 metres north of Queen Street West to a point 55 metres further north, be rescinded;

(4)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the west side of Simcoe Street from Queen Street West to Dundas Street West, be rescinded;

(5)That the regulation authorizing the operation of parking meters from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday for a maximum period of one hour at a rate of $0.25 for 15 minutes and $1.00 for 60 minutes, on the east side of Simcoe Street from Queen Street West to a point 200 metres north, be rescinded;

(6)That the regulation restricting parking for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, on the east side of Simcoe Street from Queen Street West to a point 200 metres north, be rescinded;

(7)That traffic operation be restricted to one-way northbound on Simcoe Street from a point 200 metres north of Queen Street West to Elm Street;

(8)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Simcoe Street from a point 255 metres north of Queen Street West to Dundas Street West;

(9)That standing be prohibited at anytime on both sides of Simcoe Street:

1. from Queen Street West to Pullan Place;
2. from a point 162 metres north of Queen Street West to a point 93 metres further north;

(10)That a "Stop" sign be installed for eastbound traffic on Pullan Place at Simcoe Street; and

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

Background:

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

Comments:

On October 8, 1998, the lands comprising Simcoe Street from Pullan Place to a point about 118 metres further north (in front of Premises No. 190 Simcoe Street) were conveyed to Canada Life Assurance Company and this section of roadway was stopped up and closed to vehicular traffic. Simultaneously, a new temporary road linking St. Patrick Street and Simcoe Street was opened as a public road.

Several traffic regulations respecting traffic operation and parking on the new link road were addressed in my report of June 10, 1998 entitled, Traffic and Parking regulations on the new east-west leg of Simcoe Street between Simcoe Street and St. Patrick Street (Downtown) (Clause No. 24 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 8) and the recommendations outlined therein were approved by City Council at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.

Regulations required to enhance traffic operation on the reconfigured section of Simcoe Street between Queen Street West and Dundas Street West were not discussed in my earlier report. In this regard, the appropriate amendments to several parking and operational regulations on Simcoe Street, as set out in the Recommendations above, should be implemented to enhance traffic circulation and safety.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton, Transportation Operations Co-ordinator, 392-1806

 15

Provision of an On-Street Loading Zone for

Disabled Persons - Front Street West, South Side,

from Bay Street to Yonge Street (Revenue Canada -

Toronto Centre Branch) (Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to keep the area fronting Premises No. 1 Front Street West clear of vehicles and to enhance pick-up/drop-off opportunity for disabled persons.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $500 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget. The removal of two parking meters to facilitate the implementation of the loading zone for disabled persons will result in the loss of about $6,040, annual revenue.

Recommendations:

(1)That a disabled persons loading zone be established on the south side of Front Street West, from a point 67.0 metres east of Bay Street to a point 15.0 metres further east;

(2)That the one hour maximum parking regulation from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on the south side of Front Street West, from Bay Street to Yonge Street, be rescinded;

(3)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on the south side of Front Street West, from Bay Street to a point 67.0 metres east;

(4)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on the south side of Front Street West, from a point 82.0 metres east of Bay Street to Yonge Street; and

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

Comments:

At the request of a representative of Revenue Canada - Toronto Centre Branch and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Kyle Rae, I have investigated providing an on-street disabled persons loading zone on the south side of Front Street West, from Bay Street to Yonge Street fronting Premises No. 1 (Revenue Canada - Toronto Centre Branch) to facilitate Wheeltrans pick-up/drop-off of disabled passengers.

This section of Front Street West is a divided roadway. The eastbound south branch of Front Street West, from Bay Street to Yonge Street operates on a pavement width ranging between 10.0 metres and 16.0 metres. Parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday (controlled by 16 parking meters) on the south side and stopping is prohibited at anytime along the dividing centre median.

An on-street loading zone for disabled persons should be established on the south side of Front Street West from a point 67.0 metres east of Bay Street to a point 15.0 metres further east, fronting Premises No. 1 Front Street West to enhance access to the curb for disabled persons visiting the Revenue Canada office and other federal department offices at Premises No. 1 Front Street West.

It is noted that vehicles displaying valid disabled persons parking permits issued by the Ministry of Transportation may temporarily stop in this zone while actively engaged in dropping off/picking up disabled passengers but these vehicles will not be able to park within the zone.

Implementation of this suggestion will result in the loss of two metered parking spaces on the south side of Front Street West in an area where on-street parking is in high demand throughout the day and the annual revenue for the City generated by these meters (as noted above). Although this might present an inconvenience to able-bodied persons conducting business in the area, the requirements for disabled persons visiting the federal offices outweigh the minor inconvenience that the loss of 2 parking spaces will create.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771,

 16

Introduction of 1 Hour Maximum Parking Limit -

Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to

Glenlake Avenue and Norma Crescent from

Glendonwynne Road (High Park)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To introduce a one hour maximum parking limit and extend the permit parking hours of operation on Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Glenlake Avenue (east branch) and on Norma Crescent from Glendonwynne Road to its terminus, in order to reduce long term non-resident parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $2,000 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That the amendments to parking regulations on Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Glenlake Avenue (east branch) and on Norma Crescent from Glendonwynne Road to its terminus be approved as outlined in Appendix "A"; and

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

Comments:

At the request of High Park Councillor David Miller on behalf of area residents, Works staff investigated the feasibility of implementing a one hour maximum parking limit from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, and extending the current permit parking hours of operation, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily, to operate from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily, on Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Glenlake Avenue (east branch) and on Norma Crescent from Glendonwynne Road to its terminus, in order to reduce long term non-resident parking.

Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Glenlake Avenue (east branch) operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. The following parking regulations are signed in the field on Glendonwynne Road:

East side:

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from Bloor Street West to a point 30.5 metres north;

-Parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from December 1st of one year to March 31st of the next following year, inclusive, and from the 1st day to the 15th day of each month, from April 1st to November 30th, inclusive, from a point 30.5 metres north of Bloor Street West to Kennedy Park Road;

-Parking is prohibited from the 16th day to the last day of each month, from April 1st to November 30th, inclusive, from a point 30.5 metres north of Bloor Street West to Norma Crescent; and

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from a point 50 metres north of Norma Crescent to a point 40 metres further north.

West side:

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from Bloor Street West to a point 30.5 metres north;

-Parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily from the 16th day to the last day of each month, from April 1st to November 30th, inclusive, from a point 30.5 metres north of Bloor Street West to Kennedy Park Road;

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from December 1st of one year to March 31st of the next following year, inclusive, and from the 1st day to the 15th day of each month, from April 1st to November 30th, inclusive, from a point 30.5 metres north of Bloor Street West to Norma Crescent; and

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from Norma Crescent to Glenlake Avenue (west branch).

As can be seen, the alternate side parking system is in effect on Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Norma Crescent and the permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily. Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours on the subject section of Glendonwynne Avenue.

Norma Crescent from Glendonwynne Road to its terminus operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily on the south side and parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

Accordingly, in order to address the concerns of area residents with respect to long term non-resident parking, the Recommendations in Appendix "A" should be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

--------

Appendix "A"

Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Glenlake Avenue (east branch):

(1)That the existing parking on the east side of Glendonwynne Road from a point 30.5 metres north of Bloor Street West to Kennedy Park Road for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from December 1st of one year to March 31st of the next following year, inclusive, and from the 1st day to the 15th day of each month, from April 1st to November 30th, inclusive, be adjusted to operate from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday during the same time periods;

(2)That parking be permitted on the east side of Glendonwynne Road from Kennedy Park Road to Norma Crescent for a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from December 1st of one year to March 31st of the next following year, inclusive, and from the 1st day to the 15th day of each month, from April 1st to November 30th, inclusive;

(3)That parking be permitted on the east side of Glendonwynne Road from Norma Crescent to a point 50 metres further north for a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday and from a point 90 metres north of Norma Crescent to Glenlake Avenue (east branch) for a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday;

(4)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Glendonwynne Road from a point 50 metres north of Norma Crescent to a point 40 metres further north;

(5)That the existing parking on the west side of Glendonwynne Road from a point 30.5 metres north of Bloor Street West to Kennedy Park Road for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from the 16th day to the last day of each month, from April 1st to November 30th, inclusive, be adjusted to operate from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday during the same time periods;

(6)That parking be permitted on the west side of Glendonwynne Road from Kennedy Park Road to Norma Crescent for a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from the 16th day to the last day of each month, from April 1st to November 30th, inclusive;

(7)That the permit parking hours of operation on the east side of Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Glenlake Avenue and on the west side of Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Norma Crescent be increased from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily; and

(8)That Schedule "P" of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate the east side of Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Glenlake Avenue and the west side of Glendonwynne Road from Bloor Street West to Norma Crescent.

Norma Crescent from Glendonwynne Road to its terminus:

(1)That parking be permitted on the south side of Norma Crescent from Glendonwynne Road to its terminus for a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday;

(2)That the permit parking hours of operation on the south side of Norma Crescent from Glendonwynne Road to its terminus be increased from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily; and

(3)That Schedule "P" of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate the south side of Norma Crescent between Glendonwynne Road and its terminus.

17

Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control -

Ellis Avenue and Grenadier Heights (High Park)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To implement an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Ellis Avenue and Grenadier Heights (south leg).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $1,000 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That "Stop" signs be installed for northbound and southbound traffic on Ellis Avenue at its intersection with Grenadier Heights (south leg); and

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

Comments:

At the request of High Park Councillor David Miller, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of installing an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Ellis Avenue and Grenadier Heights (south leg).

Ellis Avenue in the vicinity of Grenadier Heights (south leg) operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Grenadier Heights in the vicinity of Ellis Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. Right of way is controlled by a "Stop" sign for westbound traffic on Grenadier Heights. These two streets meet to form a "T"-type intersection.

   Ellis Avenue between Morningside Avenue and the Queensway is a long winding stretch of unimpeded roadway. There is currently no crossing location for pedestrians anywhere along this roadway, and residents have complained about the danger that exists for anyone attempting to cross the street. To establish a pedestrian crossing on Ellis Avenue, Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 should be adopted.

The installation of all way "Stop" sign control at this intersection would clearly establish right-of-way for motorists and provide a crossing for pedestrians attempting to access the ponds and park areas associated with High Park.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (December 3, 1998) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

I am unable to attend Toronto Community Council on Thursday December 10, 1998. I am writing to you regarding the installation of all-way "Stop" sign control for the intersection of Ellis Avenue and Grenadier Heights (south leg).

Taking into consideration that Councillor David Miller conducted a poll on this matter, and the response was favorable, I am supporting the recommendations in the report.

 18

Intention to Designation Under Part IV of the

Ontario Heritage Act - Draper Street Heritage

Conservation District (Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause to provide that Recommendations Nos. (3) and (4) embodied in the report dated November 23, 1998, from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board, be amended to read as follows:

"(3)that Council adopt the preservation guidelines set out in the Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study, attached to the report dated December 14, 1998, from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board; and

(4)that Council adopt the implementation procedure set out in the Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study, attached to the report dated December 14, 1998, from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the Draper Street Heritage Conservation District be designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council state its intention to designate the Draper Street Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

(2)That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

(3)That Council adopt the preservation Guidelines from pages 12 to 16 of the attached Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study.

(4)That Council adopt the Implementation procedure as shown on page 17 of the attached Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study.

(5)That Council request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to consult with the City Solicitor and the Managing Director of Heritage Toronto to prepare an amendment to the Part II Plan of the Official Plan to include the Heritage Conservation District boundaries as shown on the map in Appendix I, Map 1 and to make reference to the Guidelines (as contained in recommendations 1 and 3 above).

Background:

In 1997, at the initiation of the residents of Draper Street and on the recommendation of Heritage Toronto, the Council of the former City of Toronto passed a by-law declaring Draper Street a Heritage Conservation District Study Area. A Reference Group with representatives of Draper Street, Heritage Toronto and the City's Planning Department was formed to liaise with the community and to make recommendations for the Study. Draper Street property owners, residents, neighbours and other interested parties were invited to a Public Meeting held at Metro Hall in June, 1998.

The draft Study was circulated to City Departments for comment before it was adopted by the Board of Heritage Toronto. Heritage Toronto staff worked with Planning Department staff to provide specific guidelines for two properties within the proposed District. The guidelines for the property at 500 Front Street West were revised following discussions with the property owners' representatives.

The final report and recommendations were adopted by the Board of Heritage Toronto at a public meeting on November 18^th, 1998.

Comments:

The Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study is attached. The document provides an analysis of the district, a plan outlining the boundaries and guidelines for preservation, and an implementation strategy. Appendices include a building inventory and illustrations of the design guidelines.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the Draper Street Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239;

Fax: 392-6834

--------

(Communication (November 12, 1998) from the Managing Director,

Heritage Toronto, addressed to the Chair and Members, Heritage Toronto)

Recommendations:

1.That City Council state its intention to designate the area shown in the Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study as Appendix I, Map 1 as a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

3.That Council adopt the preservation Guidelines from pages 12 to 16 of the attached Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study.

4.That Council adopt the Implementation procedure as shown on page 17 of the attached Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study.

5.That Council request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to consult with the City Solicitor and the Managing Director to prepare an amendment to the Part II Plan of the Official Plan to include the Heritage Conservation District boundaries as shown on the map in Appendix I, Map 1 and to make reference to the Guidelines (as contained in recommendations 1 and 3 above).

Comments:

1.Background:

At its meeting of April 22, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto approved the draft Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study and authorized the establishment of a Reference Group to serve as a liaison between Heritage Toronto and the community. Jon Harstone represented Heritage Toronto on the Reference Group.

2.Discussion:

The Reference Group held two meetings to review the draft study and make recommendations about history, boundaries, guidelines and implementation. Draper Street property owners, residents, neighbours and other interested parties were invited to attend a public meeting held at Metro Hall on June 25, 1998.

Following the public meeting, the draft Study was circulated to City Departments for comment. Heritage Toronto and Planning Department staff met to develop specific guidelines for two properties within the Study area. The revised Study contains those additions.

Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (December 14, 1998) from Mr. George Waters, Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

To amend the report of November 23, 1998 from the Managing Director of the Toronto Historical Board.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That the November, 1998 report from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board, to the City of Toronto Community Council, be struck out and replaced by the attached report.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The recommendations contained in Heritage Toronto's report, "Designation Under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act - Draper Street Heritage Conservation District" were adopted by the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of December 9, 1998.

As Community Council was meeting, design guidelines affecting a single property were still being discussed by the owner and Heritage Toronto staff. Those guidelines have been finalized to the satisfaction of both parties. Heritage Toronto is therefore requesting that Council amend and replace those adopted by Toronto Community Council on December 9, 1998. The amendments are:

(3)That Council adopt the preservation Guidelines from pages 12 to 17 of the attached Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study; and

(4)That Council adopt the implementation procedure shown on page 18 of the attached Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study.

Contact Name:

Kathryn Anderson, Preservation Officer, Research

Toronto Historical Board

Tel: (416) 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: (416) 392-6834

(A copy of the "Draper Street Heritage Conservation District Study", referred to in the foregoing report from Mr. George Waters, Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

 19

Implementation of Parking Regulations -

Burnside Drive (Midtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)parking, on the sides currently permitted, be allowed for a maximum period of one hour on the east and south branches of Burnside Drive and the default three hour limit apply to the north and west branches; and

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

The Toronto Community Council, reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the introduction of permit parking on a section of the north branch of Burnside Drive.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (October 19, 1998) from the City Clerk, addressed to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

At its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, the Council of the City of Toronto adopted the following motion by Councillor Bossons, seconded by Councillor Johnston:

"WHEREAS City Council at its meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted, without amendment, Clause No. 21 of Report No. 8 of The Toronto Community Council, headed 'Implementation of Parking Regulations - Burnside Drive (Midtown)', which restricted parking to a maximum of 60 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the south, east, north and west sides (the inner crescent); and

WHEREAS this was brought forward to Toronto Community Council without a petition or poll being conducted of all residents on Burnside Drive; and

WHEREAS since installation of the parking restriction signs, several residents have called my office to raise concerns about the new regulations; and

WHEREAS in the interest of ensuring that all residents have input into this issue, I am conducting a survey requesting that residents indicate their choice for parking regulations on Burnside Drive;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT in accordance with Section 46 of the Council Procedural By-law, Clause No. 8 of Report No. 21 of Toronto Community Council, headed 'Implementation of Parking Regulations - Burnside Drive (Midtown)', be re-opened for further consideration;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, action of City Council respecting this Clause be rescinded;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Clause and the results of the survey be referred to Toronto Community Council for the hearing of deputations at its meeting on October 14, 1998, and the Clerk be requested to notify all residents of Burnside Drive of this deputation."

--------

(Clause No. 21 of Report No. 8 of the Toronto Community Council)

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

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

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Thomas L. McCulloch, Traffic Investigator

Tel. No. 392-7771

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (November 20, 1998) from Councillor Bossons:

The issue of parking on Burnside Drive was, at my request, considered by Toronto Community and City Councils this past summer and changes were made to implement one-hour parking restrictions on this street. Subsequently, I discovered that many residents were quite adversely affected by this change. I then asked for and received from City Council a reconsideration of this issue so that I could poll all residents to ensure that the most desired parking regulations would be implemented.

I conducted a survey of all residents, which provided several options for parking regulations on various sections of the street, the results of which were inconclusive. I wrote to all Burnside residents to explain the survey results.

In my view there was no truly clear cut result. I therefore have determined that there should be no change to the default three-hour regulation.

This matter is brought back to Toronto Community Council for deputations. I request that all residents on Burnside Drive be notified of this opportunity to make a deputation at the next meeting of the Toronto Community Council.

--------

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

-(November 24, 1998) from Mr. Allan Brass, addressed to Councillor Bossons;

-(December 8, 1998) from Mr. Wilfried Moll;

-(December 7, 1998) from Ms. Rose and Allan Brass;

-(November 17, 1998) from Councillor Bossons forwarding results of survey to all residents of Burnside Drive;

-(undated) a petition with 17 signatures in support of retention of the one-hour parking regulation; submitted by Mr. Allan Brass; and

-(December 4, 1998) from Mr. Joseph Umbrico.

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

-Mr. Allan Brass, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Mark Akselson, Toronto, Ontario.

 20

Adjustment of Parking Regulations -

Pembroke Street from Gerrard Street East

to Shuter Street (Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 2, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

  Purpose:

To adjust the temporal parking regulation on the east side of Pembroke Street from Gerrard Street East to Shuter Street to eliminate an overlap with the existing permit parking hours of operation.

Funding Sources:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That the "One hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" maximum parking regulation on the east side of Pembroke Street from Gerrard Street East to Shuter Street be rescinded;

(2)That parking be restricted to a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday on the east side of Pembroke Street from Gerrard Street East to Shuter Street; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Kyle Rae, works staff recently conducted an investigation into implementing alternate side parking on Pembroke Street from Gerrard Street East to Shuter Street. During the course of this investigation it was determined that there was conflict amongst the current parking regulations posted on the street.

On Pembroke Street from Gerrard Street East to Shuter Street, parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side and is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and by permit only from 3:30 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. daily on the east side.

As can be seen, the time period for the one hour regulation overlaps with the permit parking hours of operation. As this is misleading to motorists and causes potential enforcement problems, the one hour 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday regulation on the east side of the subject section of Pembroke Street should be adjusted, as noted in the Recommendations above, to operate from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday in harmony with the permit parking system.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Crocco, Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

21

Installation of Parking Spaces, and Stop Signs,

and Provision of Two-side Parking -

Chatham Avenue and Phin Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To increase the number of parking spaces on Chatham Avenue between Euston Avenue and Byron Avenue, to report on the feasibility of allowing double-sided parking on Phin Avenue, south of Chatham Avenue and to report on the feasibility of establishing additional all-way "Stop" sign controls on Chatham Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $400.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Chatham Avenue from a point 82.3 metres east of Euston Avenue to Byron Avenue be rescinded;

(2)That the one hour parking regulation from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on the north side of Chatham Avenue from Jones Avenue to a point 82.3 metres east of Euston Avenue be rescinded;

(3)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Chatham Avenue from a point 110.0 metres east of Euston Avenue to Byron Avenue;

(4)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, on the north side of Chatham Avenue from Jones Avenue to a point 110.0 metres east of Euston Avenue; and

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

Comments

At the request of area residents and in consultation with Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, staff have investigated the feasibility of providing additional parking spaces on the north side of Chatham Avenue between Euston Avenue and Phin Avenue, the possibility of allowing two-sided parking on Phin Avenue and the need for additional "Stop" sign control at the intersections of Chatham Avenue/Euston Avenue and Chatham Avenue/Byron Avenue.

1.Provision of additional parking spaces on Chatham Avenue

Chatham Avenue is a residential street operating two-way from Greenwood Avenue to Byron Avenue then one-way westbound from Byron Avenue to Jones Avenue with a pavement width of 8.6 metres. Parking on Chatham Avenue is regulated as follows:

North Side

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from a point 82.3 metres east of Euston Avenue to Byron Avenue;

-Parking is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from Byron Avenue to Greenwood Avenue;

-Parking is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, from Jones Avenue to a point 82.3 metres east of Euston Avenue; and

-Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum of three hours.

South Side

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from Jones Avenue to Phin Avenue;

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from Byron Avenue to Greenwood Avenue;

-Parking is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from Phin Avenue to Byron Avenue; and

-Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

Permit parking regulations apply on Chatham Avenue from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily.

Based on our assessment, an additional six spaces can be provided on the north side from a point 82.3 metres east of Euston Avenue to a point to 110.0 east of Euston Avenue without adversely affecting safe traffic operation on Chatham Avenue.

2.Provision of two-sided parking on Phin Avenue

Phin Avenue is a residential street which operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the entire east side of the street and on the west side from Chatham Avenue to a point 61.0 metres south. Parking is otherwise allowed on the west side by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. daily and for a maximum period of three hours at other times.

Considering the two-way operation and the pavement width of 8.5 metres, parking should not be implemented on both sides of Phin Avenue as vehicles would not be able to pass each other safely on the remaining 4.0 metres of unobstructed roadway.

3.Installation of "Stop" signs on Chatham Avenue at Euston Avenue and at Byron Avenue

Chatham Avenue/Byron Avenue and Chatham Avenue/Euston Avenue form "T" type intersections with Chatham Avenue being the through street. "Stop" signs are currently in place for southbound traffic on Byron Avenue and on Euston Avenue at Chatham Avenue. A recent 24-hour speed and volume survey recorded approximately 1,700 vehicles travelling on Chatham Avenue, while Byron Avenue and Euston Avenue carried fewer than 300 vehicles each. No collisions have been reported at either intersection within the past three years.

Having assessed traffic operation at these intersections against the Provincial installation guidelines for all-way "Stop" sign control, the installation of "Stop" signs on Chatham Avenue at either Byron Avenue or Euston Avenue is not justified. Specifically, the intersections are operating safely and right-of-way is clearly established at each intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

 22

Prohibition of Standing - Trinity Street, between

Mill Street and Front Street East (Don River)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to improve the turning radius for trucks entering/exiting the driveway at Premises No. 65 Trinity Street and to enhance operational safety on the street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

 Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the west side of Trinity Street from Front Street East to Mill Street, be rescinded;

(2)That standing be prohibited at anytime:

(a)on the west side of Trinity Street from Front Street East to Mill Street;

(b)on the east side of Trinity Street from a point 30.5 metres south of Front Street East to a point 80.0 metres further south; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Pam McConnell, I am reporting to the Toronto Community Council on prohibiting standing at anytime on the entire west side of Trinity Street, between Mill Street and Front Street East and on a section of the east side of Trinity Street in this same area, to deter illegal parking where applicable, improve the turning radius for trucks entering/exiting the driveway at Premises No. 65 Trinity Street and generally enhance operational safety along the street.

Trinity Street between Front Street East and Mill Street operates two-way and has a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side and is allowed for a maximum period of three hours on the east side. Permit parking is not authorized on the subject section of Trinity Street.

A site inspection has revealed that vehicles (often associated with the motion picture industry) unlawfully parked on the west side or lawfully parked on the east side in the vicinity of Premises No. 65 Trinity Street, make manoeuverability difficult for large vehicles turning at the entrance/exit gate at Premises No. 65 Trinity Street and occasionally impede traffic movement along Trinity Street.

Based on this assessment, standing should be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Trinity Street from Front Street East to Mill Street and on the east side from a point 30.5 metres south of Front Street East to a point 80.0 metres further south, to resolve the above-noted problems.

Implementing these changes will result in the loss of approximately 6 parking spaces on the east side of Trinity Street which might cause some inconvenience for patrons of local businesses and will preclude the possibility of vehicles legally stopping on the west side of the street to make deliveries which might present an inconvenience to some nearby business proprietors.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, 392-7771

23

Parking Regulations - Bloor Street West, Between

Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)parking regulations be changed to allow parking on Bloor Street West from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on the north side and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the south side between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street during weekdays; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (December 1, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone:

Recommendation:

(1)That parking regulations be changed to allow parking on Bloor Street West from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. on the north side and from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on the south side between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street during weekdays.

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

Attached please find a copy of a Transportation report on the introduction of parking during peak hours on Bloor Street West between Dufferin Street and Montrose Avenue. The report does not recommend the introduction of such parking. Please be advised that staff have filed similar reports for Bloor Street between Montrose Avenue and Bathurst Street.

However, at a recent meeting with the Korean Business Association, Bloorcourt Village BIA, Councillors Silva, Disero, Bossons and Adams all expressed support for introducing of staggered parking during peak periods with a six month review.

As you can see, the Commissioner does not support the introduction of parking on Bloor Street West. Yet, the introduction of such parking would not impede the flow of public transit (due to the existing subway corridor under Bloor Street). In addition, this type of parking arrangement is in existence on other major streets such as King Street West, College Street, and Dundas Street West without the negative consequences suggested in the attached report. Councillors Silva, Disero, Fotinos, Bossons and Adams support the introduction of parking along Bloor Street West with a six month review by the Transportation Section.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.

--------

(Communication (May 6, 1998) from the Acting Manager,

Central Traffic Region, City Works Services, addressed to Councillor Pantalone)

Further to your memorandum of February 3, 1998, in which you requested comments on the feasibility of allowing parking on the above-noted section of Bloor Street West during the weekday afternoon peak period, we advise that our review of this matter is complete. Based on our results, we do not recommend any changes to the parking regulations. A summary of our investigation is provided below.

 Bloor Street West, in this section, is a four-lane arterial roadway having a combined east-west daily traffic volume of 20,000 vehicles. The width of this section of Bloor Street West is generally 13.6 metres and each lane is approximately 3.1 metres wide. When parking is permitted there is only one lane of travel per direction.

The parking regulations on this section of Bloor Street West are generally as follows:

Three-hour parking is permitted during the times not listed in the above table.

The peak hour and average off-peak hour vehicular volumes are represented in the following table:

On this section of Bloor Street West, 650 vehicles per hour per lane is a reasonable estimate of through capacity, given the road characteristics and the high level of pedestrian and loading activity which occur in this vicinity. On-street parking is currently permitted on the north side of Bloor Street West, between Dufferin Street and Montrose Avenue, during the morning peak period and on both sides of Bloor Street West during off-peak periods. However, on-street parking does not cause any significant negative impacts to the operational efficiency of Bloor Street West during these periods because the affected traffic flows are relatively low.

During the afternoon peak period, permitting parking on either the north or south side of Bloor Street West would result in westbound and eastbound Bloor Street West being over-capacity. There is a high demand for parking on the above-mentioned section of Bloor Street West related to the numerous commercial establishments in the immediate area. As a result, motorists periodically park illegally during the peak periods. Observations by Department staff confirm that during the afternoon peak period, vehicle delays and queues increase significantly on these infrequent occasions when illegal parking does occur. If parking were to be permitted in the afternoon peak period, we would expect this type of congestion to occur routinely.

In addition to the arterial road capacity concerns, allowing parking in the peak periods may contribute to increased neighbourhood infiltration in this area. Typically, as congestion along an arterial increases, motorists seek alternative routes to reduce their total trip time.

Based on the above, we do not recommend allowing parking on either side of Bloor Street West during the afternoon peak period.

By copy of this letter, we are advising those Councillors whose wards are affected by this inquiry.

Please contact Vince Suppa, Investigations Supervisor, at 397-5436 if you have any additional concerns regarding this matter.

 24

Installation of All-Way Stop Sign - Iona Avenue and

Keystone Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that an all-way stop sign be installed at the intersection of Iona Avenue and Keystone Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (November 30, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek:

There is currently a stop sign located at Iona Avenue northbound at Keystone Avenue. However, residents have signed a petition requesting an "all-way stop" at this intersection.

I attach a copy of the Report prepared by Works and Emergency Services which does not recommend an all-way stop sign be installed.

Residents are still insisting that an all-way stop sign be installed at this intersection. I am therefore requesting that Council approve the installation of an all-way stop sign at the intersection of Iona Avenue and Keystone Avenue.

--------

Report (October 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1,

Works and Emergency Services, addressed to Councillor Jakobek

Further to my letter of September 18, 1998 regarding the above, Transportation Services staff have updated their traffic survey data on Keystone Avenue to assist in evaluating if the installation of speed humps on this section of Keystone Avenue is justified or if all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Keystone Avenue and Iona Avenue is warranted.

Keystone Avenue between Cedarvale Avenue and Patricia Drive is a residential street operating two-way with a pavement width of 8.53 metres. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street.

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting on August 21, 1997 adopted, as amended, Clause 28 in City Services Committee Report No. 10 entitled Installation of Speed Humps on City Streets which sets out five primary criteria that must be satisfied when evaluating requests for speed humps. Specifically, one of the criteria stipulates that the street should carry a volume of between 1,000 and 8,000 vehicles per day to warrant the installation of speed humps.

Our speed and volume surveys on Keystone Avenue, between Cedarvale Avenue and Iona Avenue and between Iona Avenue and Petricia Drive conducted for a four day period from September 4 - 7, 1998 confirmed the findings of our earlier traffic survey in 1992, recording a maximum traffic volume of 530 vehicles daily. Accordingly, the installation of speed humps on Keystone Avenue is not numerically warranted.

The study showed that 24.1% exceeded the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit of which, 5.7% were recorded travelling at a rate of speed 11 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit. These results are not unusual on a residential street. The volumes are, however, quite low.

Keystone Avenue and Iona Avenue form a T-type intersection and traffic operation is controlled by a "Stop" sign for northbound traffic on Iona Avenue at Keystone Avenue. We have evaluated this intersection for the installation of all-way "Stop" sign control against the criteria outlined in the Provincial Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Based on our assessment, the installation of all-way "Stop" sign control is not justified. Specifically, the two roadways do not have similar traffic volume/operating characteristics nor does the intersection show a high accident frequency (no accidents reported in the past 3 years).

25

Parking Prohibition - Ronan Avenue, West Side,

Snowdon Avenue to Golfdale Road (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 8, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $600.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

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

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

Comments:

On November 26, 1998 Councillor Michael Walker forwarded a request to Works staff on behalf of area residents requesting that parking be prohibited on the west side of Ronan Avenue between Snowdon Avenue and Golfdale Road, from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, similar to what is currently in effect on the east side of the same section of Ronan Avenue.

City Council, at its meeting held on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998 approved the prohibition of parking on the east side of Ronan Avenue between Snowdon Avenue and Golfdale Road from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., Monday to Friday as a means of deterring long term overnight non-resident parking. It now appears that motorists may be parking their vehicles overnight on the west side of the subject section of Ronan Avenue as many of the surrounding streets have regulations in place that would prevent non-resident overnight parking.

In this regard, the introduction of the above-noted parking regulation, in combination with regular parking enforcement, would effectively reduce the occurrence of long term overnight parking without adversely affecting short term parking by visitors or trades persons on this street.

Accordingly, it is recommended that parking be prohibited as described in Recommendation No. 1, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

 26

Removal of Parking Prohibition - Helendale Avenue

North Side, West of Yonge Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 8, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1:

Purpose:

As requested by the residents of Premises Nos. 30-38 Helendale Avenue, to remove the recently installed parking prohibition on the north side of Helendale Avenue from a point 69 metres west of Yonge Street to a point 30 metres further west.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking at anytime prohibition on the north side of Helendale Avenue from a point 69 metres west of Yonge Street to a point 30 metres further west be rescinded; and

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

  Comments:

City Council, at its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, in adopting Clause 15 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 12, approved the installation of a parking prohibited area on the north side of Helendale Avenue from a point 69 metres west of Yonge Street to a point 30 metres further west in order to prevent vehicles from parking at this location and blocking access to the driveways serving Premises Nos. 30 to 38 Helendale Avenue. Signs to give effect to this prohibition were installed on November 25, 1998.

Works staff had recommended the implementation of this parking prohibition at the request of an area resident and in consultation with North Toronto Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker. The owner of one of the properties had advised that access to the driveways servicing Premises Nos. 30 to 38 Helendale Avenue was constantly blocked due to the limited curb space in between in each driveway.

Parking is prohibited at anytime on the south side of Helendale Avenue from Yonge Street to Duplex Avenue. Parking is permitted by permit only on the north side from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and is allowed for maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily except for the recently installed prohibition noted above. Parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

The subject parking prohibition has stopped vehicles belonging to non-residents from parking in front of Premises No. 30 - 38 Helendale Avenue as requested by the residents. However, because Helendale Avenue is located near the Yonge Street/Eglinton Avenue business/entertainment area, there is a high demand for on-street parking and parking permit holders for Helendale Avenue often have difficulty in finding legal parking spaces until late at night. As a result, these residents used to park their vehicles in front of their properties, blocking their own driveways. While Chapter 400 of the Toronto Municipal Code prohibits the parking of vehicles in front of or within 0.6 metres of a driveway, the Toronto Police Service often will not tag vehicles so parked without receiving a complaint from the affected property owner/tenant. Because of the recently installed parking prohibition, residents of Premises Nos. 30 - 38 Helendale Avenue are now being tagged for parking in front of their own driveways and as a result, have requested Councillor Johnston's office as well this department to rescind the prohibition.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stephen Benjamin, Manager of Traffic Operations, District 1, 392-7773

27

Prohibition of Parking - Pote Avenue, West Side from

St. Leonard's Avenue to Dinnick Crescent (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 8, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the occurrence of long term daytime non-resident parking on the west side of Pote Avenue, from St. Leonard's Avenue to Dinnick Crescent.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $800.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Pote Avenue from St. Leonard's Avenue to Dinnick Crescent; and

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

Comments:

Councillor Michael Walker has forwarded a petition from area residents who support the introduction of a "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the west side of Pote Avenue from St. Leonard's Avenue to Dinnick Crescent.

Pote Avenue operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 metres with a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is currently permitted for a maximum period of three hours on both sides of Pote Avenue.

Works staff had received complaints in the past regarding long term non-resident weekday parking on Pote Avenue. A recently conducted site inspection revealed that there were numerous vehicles parked on both sides of the subject street. A check of neighbouring streets revealed that there are parking restrictions in effect that prevent long term non-resident parking.

In this regard, the introduction of the above-noted parking regulation, in combination with regular parking enforcement, would effectively reduce the occurrence of long term weekday non-resident parking.

Accordingly, it is recommended that parking be prohibited as described in Recommendation No. 1, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

 28

Hearing - Installation of Speed Humps - Brunswick Avenue

from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue, and Barton Avenue

from Brunswick Avenue to Albany Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 44 of Report 8 of the Toronto Community Council titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue, and Barton Avenue from Brunswick Avenue to Albany Avenue (Midtown) " which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998. notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on November 17, November 24, December 1 and December 8, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, Clause No. 44, as adopted by Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Brunswick Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue and the alteration of Barton Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Brunswick Avenue to Albany Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspape-r on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

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

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-4" (Pavement Alteration/Repair) the following:

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1998.

 Mayor City Clerk

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (November 27, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of speed hump polls of residents and to advise that all conditions for the installation of speed humps on Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue and on Barton Avenue from Albany Avenue to Brunswick Avenue have now been met.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information

Background

Toronto City Council at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, in adopting Clause 44 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, entitled "Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue and Barton Street from Albany Avenue to Brunswick Avenue - Proposed Speed Humps", approved the alteration of sections of the pavement of Brunswick Avenue and Barton Avenue, subject to favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy (adopted by Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997) requires that a poll of residents be conducted on streets being considered for speed hump installations, and that at least 60% of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal. A poll of residents was conducted by Works and Emergency Services staff between September 18, 1998 and October 16, 1998. Some 33% of eligible voters on Brunswick Avenue and 53% of eligible voters on Barton Avenue responded to the poll, and the results were as follows:

Accordingly, speed humps should be installed on Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue and on Barton Avenue from Albany Avenue to Brunswick Avenue as proposed.

I note that no drawing for the Barton Avenue proposal was available at the time of my

June 23, 1998 report to Toronto Community Council on this matter. Accordingly, the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5250 dated September 1998 illustrates the proposal for Barton Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Michael J. Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 44 of Report No. 8 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue, and Barton Avenue from Brunswick Avenue to Albany Avenue (Midtown):

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Brunswick Avenue and Barton Avenue by the introduction of speed humps on these streets.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $15,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Brunswick Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of the residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5229, dated June 1998";

(2)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Barton Avenue from Brunswick Avenue to Albany Avenue for traffic calming purposes by the construction of speed humps at specific locations to be determined by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council;

(3)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue, and on Barton Avenue, from Brunswick Avenue to Albany Avenue coincident with the implementation of the speed humps; and

(4)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Background:

The review of various traffic management options in the West Annex neighbourhood has been on-going for a considerable length of time. The City Services Committee of the former Toronto Council, at its meeting of June 7, 1995 directed staff to assist a residents' traffic committee in the development of an area plan. Staff have participated with Ward Councillors and concerned residents in attempting to develop suitable options. However, issues emerging in the area resulted in some difficulty in achieving consensus on an area-wide approach, although site-specific measures have been implemented at various locations. In continuing to deal with area concerns in this manner, written complaints of speeding on Brunswick Avenue from residents and their traffic committee have resulted in Brunswick Avenue becoming a focus for introducing measures to reduce the speed of traffic on streets in the area. Likewise, the adjacent section of Barton Avenue is also of concern in this regard.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor John Adams and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Avenue to reduce motor vehicle speeds on this street. A draft plan was presented at a public meeting on June 16, 1998. At this meeting the majority of residents were in favour of modifying the initial plan somewhat, and the one shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5229 has emerged to take into account the input received.

Brunswick Avenue is a collector street which operates two-way between Wells Avenue and Lowther Avenue and one-way southbound between Lowther and Bloor Street West. The street has a pavement width of 7.3 m, a speed limit of 40 km/h and carries about 1500 vehicles per day (Wells Avenue to Barton Avenue), 3300 vehicles per day (Barton Avenue to Lowther Avenue) and 1900 vehicles per day (Lowther Avenue to Bloor Street West). Parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side of Brunswick Avenue from Bloor Street West to Wells Street and on the west side from Bloor Street West to a point 38.1 m north thereof between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Parking is restricted to 60 minutes between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the west side from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue and permitted up to three hours elsewhere on the west side. The permit parking system is in effect between 12:01 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. from Bloor Street West to Wells Street.

Brunswick Avenue between Wells Avenue and Bloor Street West meets all of the primary criteria for the installation of speed humps as outlined in the former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy (adopted by Toronto City Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997). The most recent speed surveys (April 1998) have revealed that the proportions of traffic exceeding the speed limit between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, Lowther Avenue and Barton Avenue and Barton Avenue and Wells Street respectively are 31%, 5% and 37%. I note that the installation of speed humps will not affect the number of on-street parking spaces, as cars can park on speed humps.

Of particular concern to the residents was the traffic speed in front of Tyrrell Park and as noted on the attached diagram one speed hump could be established directly in front of this park. Other speed hump locations were established on the basis of recommended distances between humps and distances from traffic controls. In addition, the geometry of driveway ramps, presence of catch basins and maintenance hole covers and availability of existing poles were taken into consideration. Although the portion of Brunswick Avenue between Lowther Avenue and Barton Avenue has very little speeding, it does have the highest traffic volumes and is close to Loretto College and Private School. It is proposed that a single hump be established in this block. If speed humps are installed, the speed limit on the street would be reduced to 30 km/h.

As stipulated in the policy, once it has been determined that the speed hump installation is technically warranted, a City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street, and households on side streets whose only access is from the affected street. The policy notes that 60% of those responding should support the plan in order to authorize the installation.

Based on discussions at the meeting, Councillor Adams has requested that when this poll is conducted, a similar poll be conducted on Barton Avenue for the two blocks between Brunswick Avenue and Albany Avenue to determine if residents there are in favour of having speed humps on their portion of Barton Avenue. At present, field work and technical data have not been obtained for the subject section of Barton Avenue but could be completed before the actual poll and advertising.

The changes proposed to Brunswick Avenue as set out above and to Barton Avenue constitute alterations to public highways pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

These projects are pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mike Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711

29

Hearing - Alteration of Roxborough Drive

by the Installation of Speed Humps (Midtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report dated September 2, 1998, from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services, viz:

"(2)that the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps;".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to respond to the following communications:

-(November 10, 1998) from Ms. Kristen and Mr. Christopher Dingle;

-(undated) from Mr. and Mrs David Bermann;

-(October 20, 1998) from George Tiviluk, Q.C., addressed to Councillor Adams; and

-(November 27, 1998) from Ms. Jane and Stephen Smith.

The Toronto Community Council further reports that pursuant to Clause 30, contained in Report No. 11 of The Toronto Community Council headed "Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue (Midtown)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its Regular Meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on October 23, October 28, November 4 and November 11, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council on November 12, 1998.

The following addressed the Toronto Community Council on December 9, 1998:

-Ms. Catherine Orion-Leon, Whitehall Ad-Hoc Committee;

-Mr. Bill Deacon, North Rosedale Ratepayers' Association;

-Ms. Pat Faircloth, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Heather Conkie,Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Susan McArthur, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Erin O'Connor, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Lawrence Zucker, Kagan Zucker Feldbloom, Shastri, Barristers & Solicitors.

  The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, Clause No. 30, as adopted by Council on October 1, 1998

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Roxborough Drive by the installation of speed humps from Mount Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

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

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-4" (Pavement Alteration/Repair) the following:

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1998.

  Mayor City Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 30 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Roxborough Drive from Mount Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue (Midtown):

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $8,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Roxborough Drive, from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Roxborough Drive, from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5242, dated August 1998";

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Comments:

At the request of the Midtown Ward Councillors and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on this street.

Roxborough Drive is a local residential street, winding and hilly in nature, which operates two-way between Mt. Pleasant Road and Highland Avenue. The easterly portion of the street has a gradient of between 6% and 8% with a sharp curve while the westerly portion has more moderate gradients and a much gentler curve. Concerns about the speed of vehicles and loss of control have historically been focused at the sharp curve at the end of the steepest portion of the road. A flashing yellow light, with an advisory 20 kilometres per hour speed and sharp curve symbol signs have been installed to clearly indicate to motorists the need for extra caution at this location.

Roxborough Drive between Mt. Pleasant Road and Highland Avenue has a pavement width of 7.3 metres, a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and carries about 1,200 vehicles per day. Parking is permitted on the south side only, from a point 73 m east of Mt. Pleasant Road to a point 160 m further east for a maximum period of three hours. The permit parking system is not in place on this street.

Speed surveys have revealed that at least 59% of the vehicles are travelling in excess of the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit and at least 12 % are traveling more than 10 kilometres per hour over the limit. I also note that this survey was taken towards the Mt. Pleasant Road end of Roxborough Drive where the roadway is more level and speeds, particularly westbound, may not be at their maximum.

As the gradient from the sharp curve to the Highland Avenue end of the street is in excess of 5% speed humps cannot be safely installed on this section of Roxborough Drive. However, four speed humps could be installed on the remaining portion of the roadway as shown on the attached Drawing No. 421F-5242, dated August 1998. I note that the first hump west of the curve is placed approximately 70 metres from the curve and as a further precaution signs informing westbound motorists that speed humps are ahead would be posted in advance of the curve. With speed humps on the western portion and the recently installed traffic circle at the Highland Avenue end, the speed limit on this portion of Roxborough Drive should be reduced to 30 kilometres per hour.

In light of the historical speed related problems on this street and the current amount of speeding it is recommended that residents be polled to determine whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street, and households on Old George Place whose only access is from Roxborough Drive. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed to Roxborough Drive as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Mike Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (December 8, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a speed hump poll of residents and to advise that all conditions for the installation of speed humps on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue have been satisfied.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information

Background

City Council at its regular meeting of October 1 and 2, 1998, in adopting Clause 30 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, entitled "Proposed Installation of Speed Humps -Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue", approved the alteration of sections of the pavement of Roxborough Drive, subject to favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation. The proposed enactment of the draft by-law to give effect to the above was advertised in a daily newspaper on October 23, October 28, November 4 and November 11, and deputations were scheduled to be heard at the Toronto Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998. No-one addressed the Committee on this matter and further consideration was deferred to the December 9, 1998 meeting of the Community Council.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy (adopted by Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997) requires that a poll of adult residents (18 years of age or older) be conducted on streets being considered for speed hump installations, and that at least 60% of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal. A poll of adult residents of Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue and Old George Place ( a cul-de-sac off Roxborough Drive) was conducted by Works and Emergency Services staff between November 6, 1998 and December 4, 1998. Some 49 or 77% of eligible voters responded to the poll. The plan was supported by 35 (71%) and opposed by 14 (29%) of respondents.

Accordingly, the criteria for the installation of speed humps on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue as set out in the policy have been satisfied.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Michael J. Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711

--------

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

-(undated) from Ms. Pat Faircloth;

-(November 10, 1998) from Ms. Kristen and Mr. Christopher Dingle;

-(undated) from Mr. and Mrs David Bermann;

-(October 20, 1998) from George Tiviluk, Q.C., addressed to Councillor Adams; and

-(November 27, 1998) from Ms. Jane and Stephen Smith.

 30

Site Plan Application and Alteration to a Designed Property

Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -

2223 Bloor Street West (High Park)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)adding the following additional condition to Recommendation No. (1) embodied in the report dated December 2, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

"(e)that the alterations be done in accordance with the principle of reversibility, including full and adequate documentation of altered or removed features, so that they may be restored and the building re-used in the future as a cinema or venue for live theatre;"; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on potential zoning by-law amendments or other measures to enhance the preservation of historic theatres in the City of Toronto, and to consult with heritage advocates, theatre owners and others in regard to these measures.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the applicant and its tenant, Chapters Book Store, to attend a public meeting on the evening of December 16, 1998 regarding the plans and heritage issues.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report forwards staff recommendations on (1) the site plan application and (2) an Alteration to a Designated Property application for a bookstore to replace the Runnymede Theatre, located in Bloor West Village. The two variances required for this change of use have been approved by the Ontario Municipal Board and the application for Alteration to a Designated Property has been approved by the Toronto Historical Board, subject to the recommendations contained in this report.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council consent to this application for Alteration to a Designated Property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to permit the alteration of the Runnymede Theatre to a Chapters Bookstore on the condition that the owner enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement, so long as Chapters is the tenant and is operating the business as a bookstore in the premises, requiring:

(a)that the owner undertake the alterations in accordance with the drawings and elevations approved by City Council in respect of Site Plan Approval Application No. 398100 and as outlined in "Runnymede Theatre, Conversion to Chapters Bookstore": Architectural Intent, dated October 1998, prepared by Petroff Partnership Architects;

(b)that the owner, and/or Chapters Bookstore, engage the services of a restoration architect to review, advise and supervise all aspects of the conversion to ensure the preservation of the building's historic features;

(c)that the owner, and/or Chapters Bookstore's architect, prepare building permit plans that are to the satisfaction of Heritage Toronto staff; and

(d)that the owner, and/or Chapters Bookstore, post a letter of credit in favour of the City of Toronto in an amount of $200,000.00 to ensure the owner's obligations that the restoration work may be completed and the building preserved in the event the conversion fails to be realized.

(2)That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement to implement Recommendation No. 1 and including such further conditions as the City Solicitor, in consultation with Heritage Toronto staff, considers necessary to protect the City's interest.

(3)That City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with this application for 2223 Bloor Street West, namely the Roof Plan and Site Plan, and A-01, Floor Plans, A-02, both red lined by the applicant on December 2, 1998, Sections, A-03, Elevations, A-04, Perspective-Context, A-05, all date stamped as received October 15, 1998, all prepared by Petroff Partnership Architects, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(4)That, as a condition of City Council approval, the owner enter into an Undertaking, under Section 41 of the Planning Act requiring that:

(A)Develop and Maintain in Accordance with Plans

(1)the proposed development shall be undertaken and maintained substantially in accordance with the drawings referred to above;

(B)Loading and Unloading

(2)the owner shall serve this development with on-street loading/unloading from Runnymede Road;

(C)Encroachment

(3)the owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City with respect to the canopy proposed to be located over the road allowance, which must be a re-moveable architectural feature, with no advertisement, letters or numbers displayed on it;

(D)Heritage Issues

(4)the owner shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement as long as Chapters is the tenant and is operating the business as a bookstore in the premises;

(E)Studies Required by Civic Officials

(5)the owner shall submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development;

(6)the owner shall provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(7)the owner shall submit, for information purposes, a parking study to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, in accordance with the verbal undertaking made to the City Solicitor by the owner's solicitor at the Ontario Municipal Board.

(5)That the owner be advised:

(a)of the comments of the Chief Building Official respecting the Ontario Building Code;

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

(c)of the need to obtain other permits associated with construction activities (such as hoarding, scaffolding, etc);

(d)of the comments of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that there may be delays in obtaining permits from this department if the canopy requirements are not shown on the site plan when it is submitted for permit approvals;

(e)of the need to apply for an amendment to Metro Sign By-law No. 118;

(f)of the need to apply for a preliminary review notice and potentially, a minor variance to Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(g)of the need for the design of the Bloor Street West boulevard to meet Works and Emergency Services' guidelines for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics, providing, or preserving, a boulevard treatment consistent with the Bloor West Village B. I. A. streetscape standards.

Background:

A public meeting was held on June 10, 1998 to provide an opportunity for a public presentation of the proposal for a Chapters Bookstore in the Runnymede Theatre and to allow for questions and comments from the public. Many concerns were raised at the meeting regarding the loss of the neighbourhood theatre and the effects of a large format book store.

On June 17, 1998 a public hearing was held by the Committee of Adjustment on this proposal.

On June 24, 1998 the Committee of Adjustment approved the two variances required for the replacement of the Runnymede Theatre with a bookstore.

City Council at its meeting on October 1, 1998 authorized the City Solicitor to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board in opposition to the Committee of Adjustment decision respecting 2223 Bloor Street West - Runnymede Theatre, with an outside planner.

On November 5, 1998 the Ontario Municipal Board issued a decision which approved the proposed Chapters Bookstore in the Runnymede Theatre building, limited to the subject application and subject to site plan and heritage approval negotiations being completed.

On November 18, 1998 the Toronto Historical Board approved the application for Alteration to a Designated Property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Comments:

1.Project

The proposal is for the conversion of the Runnymede Theatre to a Chapters Bookstore.

2.Location

The 2,080 m2 building is located on the south-west corner of Bloor Street West and Runnymede Road, in the Bloor West Village, just north of the Swansea residential neighbourhood.

3.Requirements of Civic Officials

(a)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has set out requirements relating to loading, encroaching signage, work to be carried out within the street allowance, and a material recovery and waste reduction plan.

(b)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has set out various advisory comments respecting applicable legislation and submission required prior to building permit issuance.

(c)The Managing Director of Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board), supports the proposal, in principle, subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement being entered into, a letter of credit being posted for $200,000.00, a restoration architect being engaged and permit plans being completed to his staff's satisfaction.

4.Existing Planning Controls

(a)Official Plan Part I and Part II

The site has split Official Plan designations of Low Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area and Low Density Residence Area.

(b)Zoning By-law (438-86)

The site is split zoned MCR T2.5 C2.0 and R1S Z0.6. An application for two variances was made to the Committee of Adjustment in May 1998. The variances were required because the retail store use is not permitted in the rear portion of the building which is located in a residential district and the proposed non-residential floor area exceeds the 1,800 square metre by-law limit by approximately 300 square metres. The intent of the 1,800 square metre by-law limit is to prevent introduction of department store scale uses along "Main Street" business areas.

The application was approved by the Committee of Adjustment on June 24, 1998.

The Ontario Municipal Board approved the application in a decision dated November 5, 1998 in which the Board set out the hope that the retention of the building and internal ornamentation start a healing process and set norms for future interchanges between parties. There still remain site plan and heritage approval negotiations to be completed.

5.Planning Considerations

(a)Site Plan Approval

The proposal requires Site Plan Approval.

Site Planning

The applicant has submitted a plan that both provides a unique setting for a Chapters Bookstore and addresses restoration and preservation of the existing Runnymede Theatre, which was constructed in 1927-8, and originally used for vaudeville, and eventually turned into a 1500 seat movie theatre.

 The restoration of the exterior of the Runnymede Theatre will require a preliminary review notice under Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. This will determine whether approval of a variance to the Sign By-law is required to restore the original style of the indirectly illuminated vertical exterior sign, on this historically designated building. The interior work will result in the removal of the theatre seating and the creation of a replacement balcony type space for retail sales and a coffee shop with access by two new escalators.

The Toronto Historical Board has approved the proposed alterations to this historically designated building subject to conditions incorporated into the recommendations of this report. The owner and tenant have proposed to spend approximately $3 - 4,000,000.00 restoring and upgrading the building and preserving most historic elements of the Runnymede Theatre.

Parking

No off-street parking is proposed or required for this project. The owner's plans indicate two boulevard parking spaces on the Runnymede Road street allowance. The owner has produced permit evidence for both boulevard parking spaces which he plans to retain.

Loading and Unloading

Works and Emergency Services staff previously reviewed the potential loading for this project. The restraints of maintaining the historic building and the fact that the Zoning By-law does not require off-site loading facilities leave no alternative but to have the owner serve the development with loading/unloading from Runnymede Road.

Encroaching Signage

Works and Emergency Services staff have indicated that the proposed vertical indirectly illuminated exterior sign is in contravention of By-law No. 118, Respecting Signs Over Metropolitan Roads, therefore they are requesting it not be permitted.

Historical Aspects

The Toronto Historical Board has approved the proposal subject to conditions incorporated into the recommendations of this report. The Heritage Toronto recommendations and staff report are attached in Appendix A.

Contact Name:

Barry Brooks, Telephone: (416) 392-0758

Fax: (416) 392-1330, E-Mail: bbrooks@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Confirmed Municipal Address:2223 Bloor Street West.

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

PROJECT INFORMATION

--------

Appendix A - Comments of Civic Officials

1.Heritage Toronto (November 23, 1998)

At its meeting of November 18, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it the attached staff report, dated November 13, 1998. Following considerable discussion and deputations from the public, the Board adopted the following recommendations:

BD98-230Mr. Phillips moved, seconded by Ms Bossons, that Heritage Toronto support the proposal in principle, as shown in plans attached to Site Application #398100 and as outlined in "Runnymede Theatre, Conversion to Chapters Bookstore: Architectural Intent", dated October 1998, prepared by Petroff Partnership Architects, on the conditions following:

Carried

BD98-231Mr. Phillips moved, seconded by Ms Meurer, that the owner enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement.

Carried

BD98-232Mr. Pocock moved, seconded by Mr. Makuch, that the owner and/ or Chapters bookstore engage the services of a restoration architect to review, advise and supervise all aspects of the changes to the historic portions of the conversion.

Carried

BD98-233Mr. Phillips moved, seconded by Ms Bossons, that building permit plans be to the satisfaction of Heritage Toronto staff.

Carried

BD98-234Mr. Phillips moved, seconded by Ms Bossons, that the owner and / or Chapters Bookstore, post a letter of credit in favour of the City of Toronto in the amount of $200,000 to assure that the building may be secured in the event the conversion fails to be realised.

Carried

2.(November 13, 1998)

Recommendations:

1.That Heritage Toronto support the proposal, in principal, as shown in plans attached to Site Plan Application #398100 and as outlined in "Runnymede Theatre, Conversion to Chapters Bookstore: Architectural Intent", dated October 1998, prepared by Petroff Partnership Architects on the following conditions:

2.That the owner enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement;

3.That the owner and/or Chapters Bookstore engage in the services of a restoration architect to review, advise and supervise all aspect of the changes to the historic portions of the conversion;

4.That building permit plans are to the satisfaction of Heritage Toronto staff;

5.That the owner, and/or Chapters Bookstore, post a letter of credit in favour of the City of Toronto in an amount equal to the restoration costs in order to assure that the restoration work may be completed in the event the conversion fails to be realized.

Background:

The Runnymede Theatre was constructed in 1927-28 to the designs of Chapman and Oxley, Architects. Originally, designed with 1500 seats for vaudeville type productions, it has since been renovated on at least two occasions and is now divided into two cinema screening rooms. In 1990, the Conservation Review Board supported Councils decision to designate the exterior and interior of the Runnymede Theatre.

A Site Plan Application to convert this theatre to a Chapters Bookstore was received on October 20, 1998. Minor variances to change the zoning on a portion of the property were required and granted by the Committee of Adjustment, which was then appealed by two business owners and two local residents. That appeal has been heard by the OMB and a decision rendered on November 5, 1998. The OMB approved the zoning variances for Chapters Bookstore. On November 10, 1998, staff received an "architectural intent" statement from Petroff Architects for Chapters Bookstore. (Copies are available from Board Services)

Since this building is designated under Part IV of the OHA, Council has final authority to approve alterations to the building. As required by the legislation, this alteration is brought to your attention for comment and recommendation to City Council. Staff have met with the applicant to discuss their intent and how the changes might be implemented.

 Discussion:

As a long term tenant, Chapters is prepared to renovate and restore significant elements of this landmark theatre. The theatre is particularly noteworthy as one of the few remaining atmospheric theatres left in the country. It's twin, the Capitol in Cornwall, was demolished a few years ago by the Provincial Government. The reasons for designating the Runnymede included the interiors as well as the exterior. For the most part the proposed conversion is acceptable in principle. However, the Board should be aware that some of the alterations required for a bookstore will not be easily reversible should one ever want to use the building as a theatre again.

Chapters intends to restore the auditorium as well as the exterior. The enclosed second floor screening room which was installed in the 1980, will be removed and the auditorium will once again be open. The ceiling, proscenium arch and decorative plaster shell cornice will be restored and visible to public view. A new balcony or mezzanine level will be introduced. Plaster elements that are in poor condition or damaged will be restored and the period lighting will also be made workable. The stage area, including the flytower and related stage artifacts, will be not be disturbed and form part of the Chapters Bookstore. A new stepped floor will be added on top of the existing but the sides will pulled away from the side walls so as not to interrupt the pattern and detail of the pilasters along each wall. This will also provides shoppers with circulation aisles.

In order to provide street frontage and circulation, the current vestibule, lobby and side retail areas will be opened . This will require the removal of walls and lateral stairs to the balcony that now define the front areas of the theatre, ie., the vestibule, the lobby and the two retail stores to each side of the entrance. A sense of the historical spatial relationships will be interpreted by retaining the ceiling plan, including the dome, beams and plaster work, as well as the floor plan such as the terrazzo flooring in the vestibule area and other details as practically possible. The 1940's ticket booth will be retained in its present location.

The "architectural intent" also refers to restoring the 1928 marquee or awning as well as the vertical projecting sign. Removing the current sign will enable to "see" what exactly is behind the current sign. Chapters intends to add a window in this area which, on the surface, appears to acceptable.

Any new replacement elements such as windows and doors will be designed in a manner appropriate to the 1928 design. New store fixtures and lighting however will be designed as contemporary elements within the historic setting.

Conclusion:

The alterations required to adapt this 1928 theatre to a new use, a bookstore, requires compromises. All adaptive re-use developments do and this one is no exception. The questions then are: are the alterations absolutely needed to convert this theatre; if so how do we assure that they will be executed in a manner that does not detract from the historical and architectural significance; and how will the historic resource benefit from this proposal.

We acknowledge that it is regrettable that the lateral staircases cannot be retained as this would reinforce the historical pattern of circulation. We also have concern that the applicant may not be able to implement, for economic or architectural reasons, the proposed changes as intended, in particular the preservation of the dome and restoration of historical plaster and the marquee.

To that end, staff can support the proposed alterations in principle as contained in their "architectural intent", on the following conditions:

-The owner agree to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement;

-a conservation architect is hired to review, comment and supervise the restoration components of the conversion;

-building permit plans are completed to the satisfaction of staff; and

-a letter of credit is posted to assure that the heritage components can be restored and or protected in the event the proposal fails to be completed.

3.Urban Planning and Development Services (November 16, 1998).

 Zoning Review

A review of the information submitted indicates the proposal complies with the City's zoning by-laws.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

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

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

3.The property is designated historical, and the proposal requires the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

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

4.Works and Emergency Services (December 3, 1998)

Recommendations:

1.That the owner be required, as a condition of approval of the plans and drawings for the project, to:

(a)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development;

(b)Provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2. That the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance, including the proposed canopy, and to obtain any permits related to streetscape and construction activity, if required; and

3.That the owner be advised that the proposed sign within the Bloor Street West road allowance is not permitted.

Comments:

Location

South side of Bloor Street West, west side of Runnymede Road.

Proposal

To convert the existing theatre building into a Chapters Book Store comprising a total floor area of 2080 m².

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated December 1, 1998. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Parking

No off-street parking is proposed to be provided for this project. Given that the use of the premises as a Chapters Book Store was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, and that it was acknowledged at the OMB hearing that the Zoning By-law does not require the provision of parking, and further, recognizing that the current theatre use does not provide parking and that the building is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the non-provision of off-street parking is acceptable.

The plans show the provision of two boulevard parking spaces within the Runnymede Road street allowance which have been approved by this Department.

Loading

Staff of this Department previously investigated potential loading arrangements for this project. Given the constraints imposed by the retention of the existing historic building, recognizing that the Zoning By-law does not require the provision of on-site loading facilities and that other options to provide loading have proved to be unworkable, it appears that there is no alternative than to serve this development with on-street loading/unloading from Runnymede Road.

Refuse Collection

This project is classified as large commercial, which is not eligible for City refuse and recyclable materials collection. Therefore, the owner must retain the services of a private refuse collection firm.

Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan

The owner is required to submit a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan which will include:

(a)A description of the waste composition which shall be generated by the development and the expected quantity of each category of waste material;

(b)A description of the policies, programmes, processes and equipment which will be put in place to carry out material recovery and waste reduction;

(c)The provision of space required to store and/or process recovered materials; and

(d)Separate accommodation for the recovery, safe storage and disposal of hazardous waste, if any.

The owner is advised that staff of the Solid Waste Collections Section (telephone no. 392-1040) will assist in the format and content requirements in the preparation of the plan.

Encroachments

The plans show that a proposed new sign and canopy would encroach onto the Bloor Street West road allowance. The proposed canopy must be an architectural feature which is removable and must not display any letters, numbers or other advertisement. The owner will be required to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for this canopy and for further information is advised to contact Mr. K. Lane, Supervisor, Road Allowance Control Section (392-9312). The proposed "Chapter's" sign does not comply with By-law No. 118 and therefore, is not permitted.

Therefore, the inclusion of the sign and canopy on the site development plans does not imply their approval.

Work Within the Road Allowance/Permits

It will be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this Department in respect of any work within the road allowance and to obtain the necessary permits. The design of the Bloor Street West boulevard must meet this Department's guidelines for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics. In this regard, the applicant must provide, or preserve, a boulevard treatment consistent with the Bloor West Village B. I. A. streetscape standards. For clarification as to how these standards apply to this site, the applicant is advised to contact Jody Rosenblatt, Manager, Streetscape Program at 392-3808. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the necessary streetscape permits, if required, prior to construction. Other permits related to construction activity may also be required and the applicant is advised to contact the Road Allowance Control Section (RACS) at 392-4960 regarding the site specific permit/licence requirements.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise of the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing held with respect to 2223 Bloor Street West - Runnymede Theatre.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

That is report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto City Council, at its meeting on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended and adopted the September 16, 1998 report by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development regarding the subject premises. In so doing Council instructed the City Solicitor to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board ("the Board") and to retain an outside planner, if necessary, in opposition to a proposal to permit the conversion of the Runnymede Theatre into a Chapters Bookstore.

The applicant required variances as (1) the theatre is "split" zoned under the zoning by-law such that the proposed retail use is not currently permitted in the rear portion of the building and, (2) the by-law limits the amount of non-residential gross floor area that can be used for retail use to 1,800 square metres whereas the applicant was seeking 2,178 square metres of retail use. Those variances had been approved by the Committee of Adjustment and that decision was appealed by a number of area residents.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

At the hearing before the Board, the City and area residents presented their concerns regarding the lack of a proper planning process over this particular proposal, the proposed use, historical preservation, traffic and parking.

In its Order issued on November 5, 1998, the Board held that the proposal met all four tests under the Planning Act for the approval of minor variances. The application was approved subject to the condition that the use be limited to the retail sale of books, magazines, and similar and related goods as well as an ancillary café.

In his decision, the Board Member, Mr. Yao, held that allowing the residents' appeal would have the effect of "ensuring the destruction of the theatre", whereas the variances requested would "permit the retention of the building and internal ornamentation". Mr. Yao did however express concern over the divisiveness caused by the proposal, and set out his hope that there would be productive interchanges between the parties with respect to the site plan and heritage approval negotiations.

Further to this concern, the Board Member made the following suggestions:

1.It would have been helpful for either of the parties to have been able to call upon a mediation service prior to the Board hearing in order to facilitate the exchange of information.

2.The City might take note of the citizen concerns raised during the hearing, particularly in respect of the impact of "big box" stores on established retail strips.

3.The parties should be encouraged to establish an atmosphere of mutual respect. In particular, the application proponents could have provided plans to the area residents and local Councillors before the hearing.

Concerning the issues of traffic and parking, the Board held that there was no point in tying the variances to a traffic study. The applicant, through his counsel, had provided the Board with an Undertaking that he would produce a parking study for this area for the City for information purposes.

Conclusions:

The Board approved the subject application emphasizing that this approval would result in the retention of the building's historical structure and internal ornamentation. The Board also expressed its view that a better mediation and communication process should have been established, prior to the hearing, and that the City may wish to address the issue of "big box" retail in established commercial strips.

The City and the applicant are now in the process of negotiating the site plan and historical approvals. In this regard I understand that a report from Heritage Toronto is also before Toronto community Council with respect to the application.

Contact Name:

Marc Kemerer

Telephone:(416) 392-1228

Fax:(416) 392-0024

E-mail:mkemerer@city.toronto.on.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (December 3, 1998) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

I am writing to you regarding the site plan application No. 398100 to permit a conversion of a theatre (Runnymede Theatre) to a Chapters Bookstore at 2223 Bloor Street West and alteration to a designated property under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. As I will be unable to attend Toronto Community Council on December 10, 1998, I submit the following for your consideration:

As one of the Ward 19 Councillors, I was disappointed with the decision approved at the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the Runnymede Theatre. At this time, I concur with the report submitted by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and with regards to the application for Alteration to a Designated Property, the Toronto Historical Board have also given their approval, subject to the recommendations contained in this report, which I support.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (November 18, 1998) from Mr. Michael B. Morrisey, addressed to the Chair, Heritage Toronto, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

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

-Mr. Adam Brown, Brown, Dryer, Karol, Barristers & Solicitors;

-Mr. D. W. Jennison, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Richard D'Iorio, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Andrew Furman, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Ms. Joan Miles, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (undated) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

To provide Council with the Minutes of the November 18, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Historical Board, complete with attachments pertinent to deputations heard at that meeting.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

 Recommendations:

That the attached be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Please refer to the November 13, 1998 report of the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board, which is attached to the report from the Department of Planning and Development.

Contact Name:

Mr. John Blumenson,, Manager, Preservation Review,

Tel: 392-6827, ext 242,; Fax: 392-6843)

(A copy of the minutes, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

 31

Appeal of Denial of Application for

Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending - Bremner Boulevard,

North Side, 23.3 metres west of York Street (Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)Bremner Boulevard, both sides, between York Street and Lower Simcoe Street, be added to Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Schedule B - Public Highways Eligible for Designated vending;

(2)a permit be issued to Ms. Athanasia Mantis to vend on the sidewalk/boulevard on the north side of Bremner Boulevard, 23.3 metres west of York Street; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Bremner Boulevard, north side, 23.3 metres west of York Street;

OR

(2)(a)should your Committee approve the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Bremner Boulevard, north side, 23.3 metres west of York Street, that Bremner Boulevard, both sides, between York Street and Lower Simcoe Street, be added to Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Schedule B - Public Highways Eligible for Designated vending;

(b)subject to recommendation No. 2 (a) being implemented, a permit be issued to Ms. Athanasia Mantis to vend on the sidewalk/boulevard on the north side of Bremner Boulevard, 23.3 metres west of York Street; and

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

Background:

Ms. Athanasia Mantis, in her letter of October 19, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Bremner Boulevard, north side, 23.3 metres west of York Street.

Comments:

Ms. Athanasia Mantis, 61 Fairview Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M4K 1L8, applied on September 15, 1998 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Bremner Boulevard, north side, 23.3 metres west of York Street (Appendix 'B'). Ms. Mantis proposes to vend sunglasses and memorabilia.

Vending is feasible on Bremner Boulevard, north side, 23.3 metres west of York Street. However, the proposed vending location is not listed on the list of streets eligible for street vending privileges in Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Should your Committee recommend that vending be permitted on the north side of Bremner Boulevard, 23.3 metres west of York Street, Municipal Code Chapter 315 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code must be amended by adding Bremner Boulevard, both sides, between York Street and Lower Simcoe Street to Schedule B - Public Highways Eligible for Designated Vending Areas.

In the interest of expediency for this application, we notified the adjacent property owner of the proposed vending location and no objection was received.

Conclusions:

As this application complies with the physical requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and there were no objections received, it is recommended that the application be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

--------

(A copy of Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on December 9, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

32

Appeal of Denial of Application for

Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending - Bremner Boulevard,

South Side, 15.3 metres west of York Street (Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)Bremner Boulevard, both sides, between York Street and Lower Simcoe Street, be added to Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Schedule B - Public Highways Eligible for Designated vending;

(2)a permit be issued to Mr. Naim Khalili to vend on the sidewalk/boulevard on the south side of Bremner Boulevard, 15.3 metres west of York Street; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Bremner Boulevard, south side, 15.3 metres west of York Street;

OR

(2)(a)should City Council approve the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Bremner Boulevard, south side, 15.3 metres west of York Street, that Bremner Boulevard, both sides, between York Street and Lower Simcoe Street, be added to Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Schedule B - Public Highways Eligible for Designated vending;

(b)subject to recommendation No. 2 (a) being implemented, a permit be issued to Mr. Naim Khalili to vend on the sidewalk/boulevard on the south side of Bremner Boulevard, 15.3 metres west of York Street; and

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

Background:

Mr. Naim Khalili, in his letter of October 19, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Bremner Boulevard, south side, 15.3 metres west of York Street.

Comments:

Mr. Naim Khalili, 250 Milverton Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M4J 1V5, applied on September 15, 1998 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Bremner Boulevard, south side, 15.3 metres west of York Street (Appendix 'B'). Mr. Khalili proposes to vend sunglasses and memorabilia.

Vending is feasible on Bremner Boulevard, south side, 15.3 metres west of York Street. However, the proposed vending location is not listed on the list of streets eligible for street vending privileges in Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Should your Committee recommend that vending be permitted on the south side of Bremner Boulevard, 15.3 metres west of York Street, Municipal Code Chapter 315 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code must be amended by adding Bremner Boulevard, both sides, between York Street and Lower Simcoe Street to Schedule B - Public Highways Eligible for Designated Vending Areas.

In the interest of expediency for this application, we notified the adjacent property owner of the proposed vending location and no objection was received.

Conclusions:

As this application complies with the physical requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and there were no objections received, it is recommended that the application be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

--------

(A copy of Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on December 9, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

33

Appeal of Denial of Boulevard Cafe and Request for

Extended Hours of Operation - 913 Dundas Street West,

Bellwoods Avenue Flankage (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Bellwoods Avenue flankage of 913 Dundas Street West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(2)the cafe be required to close and clear by 10:00 p.m., 7 days a week, as set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back at the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on (a) staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe on the Bellwoods Avenue flankage of 913 Dundas Street West, because of a negative public poll; (b) the request for extended hours of operation of the boulevard cafe to 12:30 a.m., 7 days a week. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Bellwoods Avenue flankage of 913 Dundas Street West;

OR

(2)(a)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Bellwoods Avenue flankage of 913 Dundas Street West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(b)should City Council approve the boulevard cafe application on the Bellwoods Avenue flankage of 913 Dundas Street West, the cafe will be required to close and clear by 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week, as set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(c)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back at the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Background:

Councillor Joe Pantalone requested us to report on the denial of the boulevard cafe application on the Bellwoods Avenue flankage of 913 Dundas Street West.

Comments:

Mr. Oswaldo Luiz, owner of Naomi's Kitchen, 913 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario M6J 1V9, submitted an application on July 7, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Bellwoods Avenue flankage of 913 Dundas Street West. In addition, Mr. Luiz requested a closing time restriction of 12:30 a.m., 7 days a week.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 24.75 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 6 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 22 people.

This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes as set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

As the proposed cafe flanks a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 m from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated September 1, 1998 to October 1, 1998 was conducted on Bellwoods Avenue between Nos. 132 to 176 and 131 to 169, including 913 Dundas Street West, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in 2 languages). The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. Oswaldo Luiz was advised in writing on October 29, 1998, that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued. Furthermore, Mr. Luiz was advised that a further application for a boulevard cafe on the Bellwoods Avenue flankage of 913 Dundas Street West could not be considered for 24 months from the closing date of the public poll which was October 1, 1998.

The City Clerk's office has notified the owners and occupants within 120 m along both sides of Bellwoods Avenue from the proposed boulevard cafe, advising them of Mr. Luiz's request.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Luiz a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Bellwoods Avenue flankage because the poll result was negative.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal for the operation of a boulevard cafe on the Bellwoods Avenue flankage of 913 Dundas Street West, including the request to extend the operating hours to 12:30 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

34

Tree Removal - 34 Rosedale Heights Drive (Midtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 34 Rosedale Heights Drive, conditional on the applicant:

(1)agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism; and

(2)making a contribution to the City in order that a further replacement tree can be planted on City property in the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Community Council resubmits Clause 36 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Tree Removal - 34 Rosedale Heights Drive (Midtown)":

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree at 34 Rosedale Heights Drive.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 21, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that is growing too close to a garage has been filed by Mr. Stephen Harris, 34 Rosedale Heights Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M4T 1C3, owner of 34 Rosedale Heights Drive.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree.

(2)Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty centimetre diameter Norway spruce in fair condition and located at the southwest corner of a garage. The arborist report prepared by Ontario Tree Experts, that accompanies this application, states that the spruce tree is in good condition but poorly located and that it's growth is beginning to cause damage to the foundation and wall of the garage. The property is well treed with mature native species and if approval is granted for the removal of the spruce there is sufficient space on the property to plant a replacement tree. The spruce tree is healthy and if it remains it will live for several more decades. If the tree is not removed there is the potential as it becomes larger that it will damage the garage.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

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

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 27, 1998) addressed to Councillor John Adams, Midtown, from Mr. Stephen Harris and Ms. Leslie Buskard, advising that they did not receive notice of the meeting of the Toronto Community Council at which their application for the removal of a tree in their backyard of 34 Rosedale Heights Drive was considered; and requesting that City Council refer this matter back to the Community Council for further consideration.)

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, photographs, filed by Mr. Stephen Harris, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Mr. Stephen Harris, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

35

Appeal of Denial of Commercial

Boulevard Parking - Beatrice Street Flankage of

982 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Beatrice Street flankage of 982 Dundas Street West, notwithstanding the negative results of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking on the Beatrice Street flankage of 982 Dundas Street West because of a negative public poll. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Beatrice Street flankage of 982 Dundas Street West;

OR

(2)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Beatrice Street flankage of 982 Dundas Street West, notwithstanding the negative results of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Councillor Joe Pantalone requested us to report on the denial of the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Beatrice Avenue flankage of 982 Dundas Street West.

Comments:

Mr. Andrew Shkimba, owner of Country Foods Canada Inc., 982 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario M6J 1W6, submitted an application on February 24, 1998, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Beatrice Street flankage of 982 Dundas Street West, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').

We have examined this application and have determined that it meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking for one vehicle as set out in § 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

As the proposed boulevard parking flanks a residential district, the Municipal Code requires a public poll to be conducted of owners and tenants within 100 m of the proposed parking. If the majority of the cast ballots are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll, dated May 6, 1998, was conducted on the west side from 2 to 34 Beatrice Street and on the east side from 1 to 41 Beatrice Street, to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. Shkimba was advised in writing on June 16, 1998, that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued. Furthermore, Mr. Shkimba was advised that a further application for commercial boulevard parking at 982 Dundas Street could not be considered for 24 months from the closing date of the public poll which was June 5, 1998.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Shkimba a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Beatrice Street flankage because the poll result was negative.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to approve the commercial boulevard parking on the Beatrice Street flankage of 982 Dundas Street West.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

36

Construction of Fence - Dundas Street East Flankage -

99 Ashdale Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the property owner's request to construct a 1.9 m high wooden fence, which exceeds the maximum height permitted under the former Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 54-81. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the construction of a 1.9 m high wooden fence within the City's right-of-way on the Dundas Street East flankage of 99 Ashdale Avenue, subject to the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as described under the former Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 54-81.

Background:

Ms. Linda Leistner, owner of 99 Ashdale Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4L 2Y6, has requested permission to construct a wooden fence within the City's right-of-way on Dundas Street East.

The proposed fence will be 1.9 m high rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m allowed for in the former Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 54-81. In reviewing the application the proposed fence would not create an obstruction to the line of sight of motorists and pedestrians and would create no conflicts with existing underground utilities. The fence can easily and inexpensively be removed should the land be required for future municipal purpose.

Conclusions:

The proposed fence will not impact negatively on the City's right-of-way and can be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Robert Lee, 392-2972

37

Tree Removal - 179 Teddington Park Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 179 Teddington Park Avenue conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that causes concern due to I) the proximity of the tree to the house, ii) cracking of the driveway and iii) necessary drain repairs has been filed by Mr. David Hart Etlin, 179 Teddington Park Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 2C7, owner of 179 Teddington Park Avenue.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism;

(2)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal.

Comments:

The tree in question is a ninety-seven centimetre diameter silver maple in fair condition. The report prepared by Bostock Tree Service that accompanies this application states that the tree is viable and healthy and can be made safe by replacing all the existing cables and by selective pruning. The report also states that there have been problems with the drains in the past and recommends replacing the pipes to prevent further problems. The report also indicates the presence of a pruning wound on the main stem that could jeopardize the structural stability of the tree. The pruning wound would have to be examined in greater detail to determine the extent of decay that may be present. The silver maple is a common tree in Toronto's urban forest and if a permit for removal is issued there is sufficient space on the property for the planting of a large growing replacement tree.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657,

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (December 1, 1998) from Councillor Walker, addressed to the Commissioner of Ecomonic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from constituents I represent, Mr. and Mrs. Etlin of 179 Teddington Park Avenue, requesting my support for the removal of a silver leaf maple tree in their front yard on private property. The item is going to Toronto Community Council on December 9, 1998 and is before the full Council on December 16, 1998.

According to the residents, the mature tree has been a source of many problems and has forced them to incur several thousand dollars in expenses over the past eight years. Problems have included: cracking and uprooting of their driveway; drain blockages; the need for ongoing trimming/cabling of tree limbs and damage to their roof. The residents have offered to replace the silver leaf maple with another tree.

For these reasons, I support the residents request and ask that you report directly to Toronto Community Council on the issue. I appreciate your assistance in this matter.

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

 38

Tree Removal - 64 St. Ives Crescent (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 64 St. Ives Crescent, conditional on:

(1) the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(2)the applicant providing a detailed landscape plan for the property to be approved by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove three trees on private property in order to construct a new house has been filed by Mr. John Lloyd, Lloyd and Nodwell Landscape Architects, 59 Huntley Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4Y 2L2, agent for the owner of 64 St. Ives Cr.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on: I) the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the trees. ii) the applicant providing a detailed landscape plan for the property to be approved by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism;

(2)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign plans for the new house construction.

 Comments:

The trees in question are a thirty-two centimetre diameter white spruce, a forty-one centimetre diameter blue spruce and a forty-four centimetre diameter cherry, all in fair condition. All three trees are located in close proximity to the existing house and any proposal for construction of a new house would require the removal of the three trees in question. The arborist report prepared by Shady Lane

Expert Tree Care Inc., that accompanies the application states that all three trees are in declining health. The report states that the spruce trees are infected with Cytospora canker, a fungus specific to coniferous species, and that there is deadwood in the crown's of both trees. The report states that the cherry on the east side of the house has some dying limbs on the west side of the crown. The condition of the trees is not as poor as described by Shady Lane, in the opinion of staff, however if a detailed landscape plan is prepared for the property that incorporates large growing shade trees, the removal of the three trees in question would be an acceptable option.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the trees in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644; Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

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

--------

Mr. John Lloyd, John Lloyd & Associates Landscape Architects, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

 39

Tree Removal - 172 Fairlawn Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 172 Fairlawn Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property due to concerns with falling fruit, and branches interfering with the roof has been filed by Ms. Carol Ann Hall, 172 Fairlawn Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5M 1S8, owner of 172 Fairlawn Avenue.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal;

(2)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty centimetre diameter black walnut in fair condition. The black walnut tree is located approximately four metres from the rear foundation of the house and the crown of the tree overhangs the rear yards, roof and deck of 170 and 172 Fairlawn Avenue. The black walnut tree is a healthy and viable specimen and could be pruned to remove limbs that are interfering with the roofs of the houses.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644; Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

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

 40

Tree Removal - 52 Teddington Park Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 52 Teddington Park Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that has caused concern due to falling fruit and the proximity of the tree to the house has been filed by Mrs. Karen McCormick, 52 Teddington Park Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 2C6, owner of 52 Teddington Park Avenue.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree;

(2)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty centimetre diameter horsechestnut in fair condition. The tree is located approximately four metres north of the northeast corner of the house and the crown overhangs a rear deck. The report prepared by Bostock Tree Service that accompanies the application states that the tree is viable but that it sheds heavily onto the patio. The report also states that there is a frost crack in the main stem of the tree. Frost cracks are common in this species of tree and in this particular specimen the crack is not a cause for concern with respect to the structural stability of the tree at this time.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644, Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

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

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (December 7, 1998) from Ms. Barbara Stoll, Mr. Rudolf Stoll, Mr. Oliver Stoll and Mr. Jochen Stoll, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

 41

Tree Removal - 119 Hillhurst Boulevard (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 119 Hillhurst Boulevard, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a minimum 80 millimetre caliper red oak tree as replacement, or if that is not possible, a replacement tree satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

 Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that was pruned by a private tree service in excess of the applicants request has been filed by Mrs. Beth Lawrence, 119 Hillhurst Blvd., Toronto, Ontario, M5N 1N7, owner of 119 Hillhurst Blvd.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a minimum 80 millimetre caliper red oak tree as replacement;

(2)refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty centimetre diameter linden in fair condition. The report prepared by Bostock Tree Service that accompanies the application states that the linden is healthy and viable, however in heavy rainstorms the roots of the tree cause heaving of the lawn on the west side of the tree. The main stem of the linden leans slightly to the east and the tree service company removed much of the lower crown in the hope that this would help stabilize the tree. The applicant feels that the pruning has left the tree unsightly resulting in devaluation of the property. If a permit for tree removal is granted, the applicant would like to replace the linden with a large red oak in the spring of 1999.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One written objection was received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644, Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

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

--------

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

-Ms. Beth Lawrence, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Bruce Bostock, President, Bostock Tree Service.

(A copy of the letter of objection referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on December 9 and 10, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

 42

Appeal of Driveway Widening -

103 Moore Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations.)

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

The following motion by Councillor Bossons carried on the following division of votes:

"That the existing paving at 103 Moore Avenue be permitted to remain."

Yeas:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Disero and Silva - 5

Nays:Councillors Rae, Adams and Walker - 3

Upon the reopening of the question, the following motions were lost on the following division of votes:

By Councillor Bossons:

"That the existing paving at 103 Moore Avenue be permitted to remain."

Yeas:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero and Silva - 4

Nays:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow and Walker - 4

By Councillor Adams:

"That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code due to insufficient space to meet the required clearance from back of the City sidewalk and the landscaping requirements."

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow and Walker - 4

Nays:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero and Silva - 4

Upon a further reopening of the question, the following motions were lost on the following division of votes:

By Councillor Bossons:

"That the existing paving at 103 Moore Avenue be permitted to remain."

Yeas:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero, Fotinos and Silva - 5

Nays:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow, McConnell and Walker - 5

By Councillor Adams:

"That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code due to insufficient space to meet the required clearance from back of the City sidewalk and the landscaping requirements."

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow, McConnell and Walker - 5

Nays:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero, Fotinos and Silva - 5

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To comment on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the existing brick paving to remain in connection with the Driveway widening application, as it does not meet the paving specifications as required by the Code. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council request the removal of the existing paving fronting 103 Moore Avenue and that the area be paved in permeable materials such as ecostone or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as per the conditions of the permit issued.

 Background:

Mr. Richard Sadlowski, owner of 103 Moore Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4T 1V7, in his communication of July 20, 1998, requested staff to reconsider the request to change the newly paved area, in order to meet the City's paving specifications.

Comments:

Mr. Richard Sadlowski of 103 Moore Avenue, applied for driveway widening parking fronting his residence on October 3, 1997. The application was approved and subsequently a construction and paving permit No. SACP 97-P291 was issued on December 18, 1997.

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. One of the criteria of the Code requires that the proposed parking area be paved with semi-permeable material in accordance with the alternative paving treatment specifications set out in § 400-88, Schedule XXXV, Part II, or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

One of the conditions of the permit stated that the parking area was to be paved in accordance to the specifications for alternate paving treatment as illustrated in Appendix 'A'.

On June 3, 1998 the applicant called to advise that the work was completed. An inspection was conducted on June 15, 1998, and determined that the parking area was paved with brick pavers and not in conformity with the paving specifications and conditions on the permit issued. Mr. Sadlowski was left a notice advising to make changes to the paving in order to meet the required specifications, i.e. provide 25% of the surface area as porous.

Conclusions:

The paving does not meet the City's specifications for semi-permeable paving material, as required by the Municipal Code and as per the condition on the construction permit. It is therefore recommended that this request be denied by Council.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

43

Intention to Designate Under Part IV of the

Ontario Heritage Act - 2 Strachan Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 2 Strachan Avenue (Stanley Barracks) be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council state its intention to designate the portion of the property at 2 Strachan Avenue containing Stanley Barracks under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

(2)That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

At its meeting of November 18, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto adopted a motion recommending that the property at 2 Strachan Avenue (Stanley Barracks) be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property was included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties on June 20, 1973. Stanley Barracks has been occupied by Heritage Toronto for forty years and was the location of the City's Marine Museum prior to its recent relocation to The Pier.

Designation recognizes the historical importance of the site to the military history of Toronto. It also identifies the building's heritage features.

The Heritage Property Report (Long Statement of Reasons for Designation) is available with the supplemental agenda.

Comments:

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

The portion of the property at 2 Strachan Avenue containing Stanley Barracks is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. Constructed between 1840 and 1841 by the Royal Engineers of the British Army, the Officers' Quarters are the sole surviving component of the 'New Fort', now known as Stanley Barracks. For over a century, it served as the home of and a training ground for both the British and Canadian armies, and as the central military facility for the Toronto garrison. It is also associated with the origins of the North West Mounted Police (forerunner to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) who first trained here. Most of the complex was demolished in the mid-1950s. In 1998, Heritage Toronto ended its 40-year occupancy of the Officers' Quarters where it operated the City's Marine Museum.

The Officers' Quarters are a significant example of military architecture inspired by early 19^th century Georgian design. Constructed of Kingston and Queenston limestone, the building is covered by a steeply-pitched gable roof with nine stone chimneys. The two-storey symmetrical rectangular plan extends 16 bays on the north and south facades above a raised basement. All three levels have deep-set casement windows, and there are raised entrances on all of the walls. On the interior, the two stone staircases (extending from the basement to the second storey) inside the north and south entrances and the fireplaces are important features.

The Officers' Quarters are located on the south side of Princes Boulevard near the east end of Exhibition Place. (The designated area is marked by the existing berms and planters, but excludes the locomotive, boat and statue.) Historically, the site is linked to important events in the country's military history. An early example of stone building in the City, it is a rare and well-designed example of military architecture. The Officers' Quarters are also significant in their historical and contextual relationship to Fort York.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the property at 115 Princes Boulevard (Stanley Barracks) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

--------

Heritage Toronto

Heritage Property Report

Officers' Quarters, New Fort

(Stanley Barracks)

2 Strachan Avenue

November 1998

Table of Contents

Basic Building Data

Historical Background

1.Garrison Common

2.'New Fort'

Architectural Description

Context

Summary

Sources Consulted

Attachments:

IShort Statement of Reasons for Designation

IILocation Map

IIIPhotographs

IVInterior Plan, Stanley Barracks

--------

Heritage Toronto

Heritage Property Report

Basic Building Data:

Address:2 Strachan Avenue (south side of Princes' Boulevard, west of Princes' Gates)

Ward:20

Current Name:Stanley Barracks

Historical Name:Officers' Quarters, New Fort

Construction Date:1840-1841

Architect:Royal Engineers

Contractor/Builder:Royal Engineers

Additions/Alterations:post-1957 (for Toronto Historical Board): slate roof replaced with metal; stone chimneys rebuilt; exterior stairs reconstructed on south and east walls; windows restored on south wall; shutters restored; for earlier changes, see "Architecture and Engineering Study of Stanley Barracks" prepared for the Toronto Historical Board under the direction of V. N. (Peter) Styrmo,1991

Original Owner:British War Office

Original Use:military (barracks)

Current Use*:not applicable

Heritage Category:Landmark Heritage Property (Category A)

Recording Date:November 1998

Recorder:HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

--------

Historical Background:

1.Garrison Common:

In 1793, York was established as the temporary capital of the Province of Upper Canada and as a permanent military base removed from the American frontier. The lands along Lake Ontario between the townsite and the Humber River were reserved for the military. The placement of the west boundary of the Town of York at Peter Street in 1796 marked the first incursion into the reserve for residential development. In the 1840s, the military provided land to the City of Toronto for the Provincial Lunatic Asylum and the first exhibition grounds on Queen Street West. The Toronto Industrial Exhibition --forerunner to the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) -- opened on new and permanent exhibition grounds in the reserve east of Dufferin Street in 1878. By 1900, Exhibition Place extended east toward present-day Strachan Avenue and the site reserved by the Canadian military as 'New Fort' (the location of Stanley Barracks).

With the founding of York, the first British military post in Toronto was Fort York, established near the foot of modern Bathurst Street in 1793. Because the Toronto Islands originally were a peninsula attached to the mainland, there was only one entrance to the harbour, at its west end. The Fort York site was ideally sited to repel invaders, being located on the waterfront about one hundred metres north of the channel. (Since then, the shoreline has been moved nine hundred metres to the south through lake fill operations between the 1850s and the 1920s.)

As early as the 1820s, military officials wanted to replace Fort York with a new garrison. This desire stemmed from two problems. One was the need to build new barracks for the troops. As the facilities at the Old Fort had deteriorated rapidly after the War of 1812, there was a need for larger, better-ventilated, and permanent stone buildings. The other problem was defensive. By the 1830s, a sandbar - located approximately at the site of today's City Centre Airport - began to shift. This change made a position one kilometre west of Fort York better suited for a harbour defence. Accordingly, Lieutenant-Governor Sir John Colborne had plans developed for the 'New Fort' (Stanley Barracks) location.

2.'New Fort':

Colborne proposed to construct a number of stone buildings around a parade ground, and to surround them with stone and earth defences mounting heavy artillery. To supplement these defences, he hoped to build a battery on the new Queen's Wharf (which was to extend over two hundred metres into the harbour from the foot of Bathurst Street). On the peninsula side of the harbour, Colborne planned to erect three stone defensive towers as additional protection.

In the early 1830s, construction plans for secondary military posts such as Toronto were put off because the army's building programme in Upper Canada at that time exceeded budget estimates. It was not until the shock of the Rebellion of 1837 that work began on Toronto's new barracks, utilizing the 1833 plans. To finance construction, the army sold most of the eastern end of its Toronto military reserve, opening up the area south of Queen Street between Peter and Bathurst streets for urban development.

The 'New Fort' was built for 19,000 pounds in 1840-1841. Colborne's planned defences, however, were not constructed since the immediate crisis of the Rebellion had passed. The only security for the fort was a stockade surrounding its perimeter. Fort York continued to serve as Toronto's primary harbour defence until the Canadian army declared it obsolete in the 1880s. While the barracks at the New Fort were a great improvement over those at Fort York, they were hardly ideal. Furnaces were installed and other improvements were made to the barracks over the years, but soldiers constantly complained about their quarters. The New Fort also lacked storage space and married quarters, so Fort York fulfilled these functions until the 1930s when the City of Toronto restored it as a historic site museum.

  During the New Fort's early years, the garrison was made up of several famous British regiments, such as the Royal Canadian Rifles, the Seventy-First Highland Light Infantry, the Royal Artillery, and the Thirteenth Hussars. These troops played a significant role in the life of Toronto. They were major consumers of the city's goods and services, thereby contributing to the community's prosperity. The presence of an imperial garrison helped shape the character of the provincial capital, and the men of the garrison regularly rushed into the downtown to help put out fires. The troops were dispatched to help the civil authorities deal with civil disobedience, such as the riots that followed the passage of the Rebellion Losses Bill in 1849. The regimental bands from the New Fort performed for the people of Toronto, often as a 'public relations' gesture to undo some of the damage other soldiers had caused by their drunk or disorderly behaviour in the city.

The British army withdrew from Toronto in 1870, transferring responsibility for the city's military works to the new Dominion of Canada. The first detachment of the Canadian Permanent Force moved into the New Fort in 1872 to discharge their primary responsibility of training the Toronto militia regiments that provided defence for the community. In 1873, following the establishment of the North-West Mounted Police (later the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP), the first "Mounties" assembled and trained at the New Fort before beginning their journey to bring law and order to the Canadian West.

After 1883, the garrison was enlarged when 'C' Company of the School of Infantry moved into the New Fort. (In the 1890s, the School of Infantry was reorganized as the Royal Canadian Regiment.) The Royal Canadian Dragoons transferred to Toronto in 1893, adding a cavalry component to the garrison. At the same time, the federal government renamed the New Fort 'Stanley Barracks' in honour of the retiring governor-general, Lord Stanley of Preston (of Stanley Cup fame).

From Stanley Barracks, regulars and militia marched off to repel the Fenian raiders in the Niagara Peninsula in 1866, to suppress the Red River Rebellion of 1870, to put down the North West Rebellion in 1885, to assert Canadian sovereignty in the Yukon goldfields of the 1890s, and to participate in imperial defence in the South African War at the turn of the century. During World War I, the number of troops being trained in Toronto at any one time numbered in the thousands. Stanley Barracks was too small to house these men, so the army took over most of the CNE grounds, or 'Exhibition Camp' as it was named by the military. It was during this period that the New Fort was used for its most controversial purpose. Enemy aliens - German, Austro-Hungarian, and Turkish citizens - were interned for the war. Many were processed through Stanley Barracks on their way to camps elsewhere in the country. When the conflict ended, they returned to Canadian society through Stanley Barracks.

In the 1920s and 1930s, Stanley Barracks continued to house the Royal Canadian Regiment and the Royal Canadian Dragoons. World War II saw the reestablishment of Exhibition Camp. After the war, the army no longer needed Stanley Barracks. Abandoned by the Canadian army in 1947, the property was used briefly for public housing. Between 1951 and 1953, all of the buildings, with the exception of the Officers' Quarters, were torn down to create parking space for the Canadian National Exhibition. The entrance gates were salvaged and form part of the Spencer Clark Collection at the Guild Inn in Scarborough.

Stanley Barracks provided a home to the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame for a time in the mid 1950s. Then, the Toronto Civic Historical Committee, the forerunner of the Toronto Historical Board (renamed Heritage Toronto) took over the Officers' Quarters. In 1959, Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma opened the Marine Museum of Upper Canada in the building. It served as a museum facility until 1998 when the Marine Museum moved to its new Harbourfront location, 'The Pier.'

Architectural Description:

The design for the Officers' Quarters at New Fort is a modification of the plans for the building prepared by Colonel Gustavus Nicholls of the Corps of Engineers (Royal Engineers) in 1833. While not trained architects, the officers of the Royal Engineers received rudimentary training in architectural design as part of their curriculum at the Royal Military Academy in Woolwich, England. Individual talent, the availability of architectural pattern books, and international travel generally augmented this background. In Upper Canada, two stone redoubts erected in 1771 at Fort Niagara (to designs attributed to Chief Engineer John Montresor) blended function with high style, a combination that influenced subsequent military architecture in the province.

The Officers' Quarters at New Fort is designed in the Georgian style, influenced by English Palladianism and identified by its symmetry and Classical detailing. The building rises two stories (plus attic) over a full basement exposed in a dry moat. The building is constructed of stone, brick and wood with stone, wood and metal detailing. Above a base of Kingston limestone, the thick stone walls are built with Queenston limestone. A steeply pitched gable roof with metal cladding (replacing the original tin and 19^th century slate roofs) has nine large stone chimneys and stone parapets on the east and west gables. Designed to face north toward a parade ground, the long north façade is organized into 16 bays with an elevated entrance in the fifth bay from either end. The entrances are set in simple surrounds with rectangular transoms and Classical architraves. Single eight-panel wood doors have iron hardware. The entrances are reached by arched stone stairs that transverse the moat. Rectangular-headed window openings in all stories have stone lintels and sills. The openings contain recessed casement windows with 12-over-12 sash and display interior wood shutters.

The rear (south) wall facing Lake Ontario is identical to the principal (north) façade. On the side (east and west walls), single entrance doors are reached by stone stairs, while the upper stories contain rectangular-headed window openings.

The interior was originally organized as two distinct sections (once divided by a masonry wall to create self-contained units), with the east two-thirds housing the Officers' Quarters and the west third as the Barracks Master's Quarters. The wide central corridors that run in an east-west direction on the first and second stories are accessed by two cantilevered stone staircases with iron railings that rise from the basement to the second storey. Six of the original 39 fireplaces survive intact, although the stone mantels have been replaced with wood. Most of the wood floors, woodwork doors and hardware are original. The iron coal screen in the Plimsoll Room (on the north side, west end of the second floor) and the cast iron cook stove in the northeast corner of the basement are original artifacts. (The interior elements are described in the document, "Architecture and Engineering Study of Stanley Barracks", and the interior plans are appended as Attachment IV.)

Context:

The Officers' Quarters at New Fort originated as the centerpiece of a group of military buildings located on the north shore of Lake Ontario west of 'Old' Fort York. With the creation and gradual expansion of the Exhibition Grounds after 1878, New Fort was confined to the east end of the property near Strachan Avenue. The demolition of the other military buildings in the 1950s left the Officers' Quarters as the sole remaining component of New Fort.

The Officers' Quarters (Stanley Barracks) is located on the south side of Princes' Boulevard west of Strachan Avenue. Currently surrounded by a concrete parking lot, the building is located next to the Automotive Building and opposite the National Trade Centre, incorporating the Coliseum complex. The latter historical buildings are identified on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

The designated area is bounded by the existing berms and planters but excludes the current locomotive, boat and statue. Set apart from the neighbouring buildings, the Officers' Quarters is a landmark on the exhibition grounds.

Summary:

Historically, the Officers' Quarters of New Fort (Stanley Barracks) is linked to important events in the country's past. The inspiration to build the New Fort came out of a concern to protect Canada against American annexation. Then, during the trauma of the Rebellion of 1837, the government began the actual construction of the fort. The site was home to both the British and Canadian military in Toronto and served as an important training ground for troops who fought in Canada's little wars of the Victorian era and in the major conflagrations of the twentieth century. It is also associated with the origins of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

One of the City's oldest surviving buildings, the Officers' Quarters is an early stone structure in Toronto. As an example of early-19^th century military architecture, it is unique in the city. Its Georgian design exemplifies British military architecture in the city, province and country.

Located on the exhibition grounds, the Officers' Quarters is the oldest building in its original location at Exhibition Place and the sole surviving component of the New Fort. It is significant in its historical and contextual relationship to Fort York.

Sources Consulted:

Benn, Carl. 'Toronto's Forgotten Fort,' Toronto Historical Board Explore Historic Toronto 2 (1992).

______. Historic Fort York, 1793-1993. Toronto: Natural Heritage/Natural History, 1993.

Clerk, Nathalie. Palladian Style in Canadian Architecture. Parks Canada, 1984.

Dreyer, Fred. 'Three Years in the Toronto Garrison: The Story of the Honourable Gilbert Elliot, 1847-1850.' Ontario History 57 (1965).

Fortier, Paul. 'Fanciful or functional. The British military and Georgian architecture in Canada.' The Archivist (September-October 1990) 2-5.

Morton, Desmond. 'Sir William Otter and the Internment Operations in Canada during the First World War.' Canadian Historical Review 55 (1974).

Sendzikas, Aldona. 'The Last Bastion: The Story of Stanley Barracks.' MA Thesis, University of Toronto, 1990.

Styrmo, V. N. (Peter). 'Architecture and Engineering Study of Stanley Barracks'. Toronto Historical Board, 1991.

Kathryn Anderson

Carl Benn

November 1998

--------

Attachment I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

The portion of the property at 2 Strachan Avenue containing Stanley Barracks is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. Constructed between 1840 and 1841 by the Royal Engineers of the British Army, the Officers' Quarters is the sole surviving component of the 'New Fort', now known as Stanley Barracks. For over a century, it served as the home of and a training ground for both the British and Canadian armies, and as the central military facility for the Toronto garrison. It is also associated with the origins of the North West Mounted Police (forerunner to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) who first trained here. Most of the complex was demolished in the mid-1950s. In 1998, Heritage Toronto ended its 40-year occupancy of the Officers' Quarters where it operated the City's Marine Museum.

The Officers' Quarters is a significant example of military architecture inspired by early 19^th century Georgian design. Constructed of Kingston and Queenston limestone, the building is covered by a steeply-pitched gable roof with nine stone chimneys. The two-storey symmetrical rectangular plan extends 16 bays on the north and south facades above a raised basement. All three levels have deep-set casement windows, and there are raised entrances on all of the walls. On the interior, the two stone staircases (extending from the basement to the second storey) inside the north and south entrances and the fireplaces are important features.

The Officers' Quarters is located on the south side of Princes Boulevard near the east end of Exhibition Place. (The designated area is marked by the existing berms and planters, but excludes the locomotive, boat and statue.) Historically, the site is linked to important events in the country's military history. An early example of stone building in the City, it is a rare and well-designed example of military architecture. The Officers' Quarters is also significant in its historical and contextual relationship to Fort York.

44

Vermont Square Park - Dogs-off-Leash Hours (Midtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the dogs off-leash hours in Vermont Square Park be amended as follows:

(1)Dogs be permitted off-leash from 6:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. and from 7:30 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. from April 1 - October 31;

(2)Dogs be permitted off-leash from 6:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. and from 6:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. from November 1 - March 31.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (December 9, 1998) from Mr. Gary Lichtblau, Chair, Seaton Village Residents Association, addressed to Councillor Adams:

As you are aware, on the 2nd of December 1998, the SVRA held a second 'follow-up' public meeting at Palmerston School to review the trial "off-leash policy" put into place in Vermont Square Park at the beginning of the summer.

The follow-up meeting was announced by newsletter, poster and word-of-mouth in the neighbourhood. People who had expressed concern about the policy and wished to attend to follow-up meeting were informed personally.

The meeting was well attended. In addition to you, myself, and representatives from the City's Animal Control Division and Parks and Recreation Department, about twenty concerned residents attended. The majority of people attending were dog owners concerned that the trial policy would not be renewed. There were several non-dog owners also in attendance.

Reports were made regarding the success of the trial "off-leash" policy to date. Animal control representative Paul Michalik stated that his Department was complaint driven and that in the last 6 months, he had received no complaints with regard to dogs in Vermont Square Park. The Seaton Village Residents Association received two complaints at the beginning of the summer. Complainants were contacted prior to the meeting but no further complaints were registered. Generally informal inspections in the park at critical times showed that, with minor exceptions, the off-leash rules were followed. Non-dog owners, other users, particularly children, were about to use the whole park without fear of dogs. The SVRA announced that it would distribute the Animal Control Division's phone number in its next Newsletter. If can be stated that to date the off leash policy has been successful in managing conflicts between dogs, their owners and other users in the park.

The issue of park maintenance was discussed. It is clear that even moderate dog use of the park wears the grass badly. Bare patches were confined mainly to the central area of the park. It was suggested that a system or rotation might be instituted whereby dog owners would move to different areas of the park during the year to reduce wear and tear on the central area. The suggestion was generally accepted.

The final major issue involved the modification of "off-leash" hours. The majority of dog-owners in attendance wished to request an extension of "off-leash hours" during the winter season when park use by other users was not as intense. There was no objection, in principal, to the extension of hours. There was however, a long discussion about specific times. The majority of dog owners agreed to defer to the few non-dog owners in attendance, when they expressed a concern that extended "off-leash hours' not include the time of day just before dinner. There was also some concern about the brief time of day that children are going to school "Off-leash hours' were not to be extended on weekends as non-dog owner park use during the winter is more intense on the weekends. The winter season was generally agreed to be the time of year that Standard Daylight Time is in effect. Ultimately consensus emerged at the meeting about modified "off-leash hours". These times are shown below.

Besides summarizing the content of the meeting, this letter is also to request that Community Council consider a proposal to adjust the "Off-leash" hours in Vermont Square Park on a trial basis to be reviewed at another community meeting in the early summer of 1999. I make this request in view of the fact that complaints about the current have been minimal, and that all users have been positive in trying to deal with maintenance-related issues in the park.

The proposal involves a time-sharing arrangement that would allow dogs to run off-leash in the park at prearranged times as outlined below. At all other times dogs would remain on-leash as required by the existing by-law.

Off-leash hours for this revised proposal would be:

SUMMER HOURS

From April to October

Weekdays and weekends

Mornings 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

Evenings 7:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

At all other times dogs must remain on-leash.

WINTER HOURS

From November to March

Weekdays and weekends

Mornings 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

Evenings 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

At all other times dogs must remain on-leash.

As I mentioned above we would like to institute this proposal as a pilot project for a period of 6 months. The success of the policy would be reviewed by the community.

In order for the above described modifications of the policy to be put into place, we understand that it would require support from the City and an special exemption from the municipal by-law. We also understand that the proposal could be introduced onto the Community Council's agenda for their next December meeting. We would appreciate your support for the modifications to the "off-leash" policy in Vermont Square Park outlined above. Thanks for your continuing support.

 45

Residential Demolition Application -

79 Dunfield Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council:

(1)refuse to extend the conditions attached to residential demolition permit 366234 respecting 79 Dunfield Avenue;

(2)direct the City Clerk to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of $20,000.00, and that such sum shall, until payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permits to demolish the residential properties were issued; and

(3)receive the report (November 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend that Council refuse the applicant's request for a fourth extension to the conditions related to a residential demolition permit at 79 Dunfield Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

(1)That City Council refuse to extend the conditions attached to residential demolition permit 366234, and

(2)That Council direct the City Clerk to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of $20,000.00, and that such sum shall, until payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permits to demolish the residential properties were issued.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on July 6 & 7, 1992 the Council of the former City of Toronto approved the issuance of a permit to demolish the detached house at 79 Dunfield Avenue. This permit was based on the issuance of building permits to construct a pair of semi-detached residential buildings on the lot. Council issued the demolition permit on condition that a new building be erected no later than two years from the day demolition of the existing residential property commenced.

The permit was granted on a further condition that upon failure to complete the new building within the specified time frame, the City Clerk shall be entitled to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of $20,000 for each dwelling unit in the residential property in respect to which this demolition permit is issued and such sum shall, until paid, be a lien or charge upon 79 Dunfield Avenue.

Demolition of the single family detached house commenced on September 14, 1992. The new buildings were, therefore, required to be completed by September 14, 1994.

At its meeting held on May 30 & 31, 1994 Council granted a request from the applicant to extend the time for completion of the new buildings by one year to September 14, 1995.

As a result of concerns that Council was not evenly applying its authority to extend demolition permit conditions, Council adopted a policy for considering such requests at its meeting held on December 18 and 19, 1995 (Cl.13 of NHC Rpt. No. 1). Specifically:

A.Decision to Extend

In general, Council will not extend the time period to rebuild unless:

(i)Council is of the opinion, based on a letter from an appraiser appropriately accredited by the Appraisal Institute of Canada, provided at the sole expense of the applicant, that the project cannot economically proceed in its present form; or

(ii)There has been a change in circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as a labour dispute or "Act of God".

B.Terms of Extension

When allowing extensions, Council will:

(i)Limit the number of extensions to one per application; and

(ii)Limit the time of an extension to one year.

Subsequent to adopting this policy, Council twice more extended the time for completing the new building. At each of its meetings held on February 12 &13, 1996 and October 28 & 29, 1996, Council extended the time by an additional year, thus requiring the new building to be completed by September 14, 1997.

Comments:

Since 1992 the proposed redevelopment has changed form several times. While the original replacement building permit for a pair of semi-detached dwelling remains open, the applicant has been working with the City to expand the nature of the redevelopment. The latest proposal culminated in a rezoning of 79 Dunfield, and 85 and 97 Eglinton Avenue East to permit the construction of a 12 storey mixed use commercial-residential building. The applicant's solicitor has advised me that although this rezoning had been settled in his favour by the board on January 27, 1998, the owner does not intend to proceed with the project in its current form in the near future.

Council's 1995 decision to adopt a policy for extending demolition conditions was based, in part, on a concern that while it is reasonable in some circumstances to extend the conditions associated with residential demolitions, unevenly extending conditions can undermine the basis for and benefits of applying conditions in the first place. I understand the City Solicitor will be reporting to you separately on his view of this policy and the role it played in his successful defence of Council's decision to enforce its demolition conditions at 2451 St Clair Avenue West before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Conclusion:

I therefore recommend that Council adhere to its 1995 policy regarding the extension of demolition permit conditions and refuse the applicant's request for a fourth extension.

Contact Name:

David Brezer, P.Eng

Telephone: (416) 392-0097; Fax: (416) 392-0721

E-mail: dbrezer@city.toronto.on.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (November 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To update City Council on the application of the former City of Toronto's residential demolition control policy, with reference to a recent appeal by the owner of 2451 St. Clair Avenue West before the Ontario Municipal Board ("the Board").

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

$10,000 (plus interest) to be paid to the applicant appellant upon the release of the Board Order regarding 2451 St. Clair Avenue West. The Monies owing are to come from the Reduction in Prior Year Surplus Account - Account No. 699172.

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On November 27, 1986, Eli Messica, the owner of 2451 St. Clair Avenue West, applied to City Council of the former City of Toronto for a residential demolition permit under Section 33 of the Planning Act. At its meeting held on April 18, 1988, City Council authorized the issuance of the demolition permit subject to the City's standard conditions, authorized under the Act, that:

A new building be erected no later than two years from the day demolition of the existing residential property commenced, and that upon failure to complete the new building within the specified time frame, the City Clerk shall be entitled to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of $20,000 for each dwelling unit in the residential property in respect to which this demolition permit is issued and such sum shall, until paid, be a lien or charge upon the lands.

As Mr. Messica demolished the building on June 15, 1988, the new building was to be completed no later than June 15, 1990. Construction on the new building never commenced and between January 1990 and May 1995 Mr. Messica sought and obtained five separate extensions from City Council, all of which were subject to the standard City conditions.

This particular case had been the cause for some concern for City staff, given the number of extensions granted to Mr. Messica. In response to a request by Mr. Messica in 1990 that the City waive the conditions attached to his demolition permit, the City Solicitor, in a report dated April 15, 1990, opined that "allowing one waiver opens the door to others, hence emasculating the provisions of the [Planning] Act and "creates the potential for unfair treatment between applicants".

More recently, the former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of December 18 and 19, 1995 adopted the November 24, 1995 report from the then Acting Commissioner of Buildings and Inspections (who was also the City Solicitor), and thereby amended the City's residential demolition control policy to read, with respect to extensions:

A.Decision to Extend

In general, Council will not extend the time period to rebuild unless:

(i)Council is of the opinion, based on a letter from an appraiser appropriately accredited by the Appraisal Institute of Canada, provided at the sole expense of the applicant, that the project cannot economically proceed in its present form; or

(ii)There has been a change in circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as a labour dispute or "Act of God".

B.Terms of Extension

When allowing extensions, Council will:

(i)Limit the number of extensions to one per application; and

(ii)Limit the time of an extension to one year.

In that report, which addressed the number of extensions granted to Mr. Messica, the Commissioner made reference to a decision of the Board concerning 2361-63 Queen Street East where the Board "in halving the penalty amount, looked at whether an extension had been granted to ensure the City had acted in an even-handed manner". Given this decision, it was the opinion of the Commissioner that the City should adhere to a consistent policy regarding residential demolition control.

Council allowed a sixth and "final" extension on May 8, 1996 for Mr. Messica and notified Mr. Messica about the terms of the policy as amended.

Notwithstanding this notice, Mr. Messica did not build a new building, and consequently the $20,000 charge was applied and paid in February of 1997. Mr. Messica subsequently appealed the City's action to the Board.

At the hearing into the matter on September 2, 1996, the Board, in a verbal decision, dismissed the applicant's request for a further extension and upheld Council's decision to apply a financial charge. The Board noted that the City had reasonably allowed a number of extensions, had made it clear to Mr. Messica that the terms of the amended policy were to apply to his request. Importantly, the Board also found that there was a need to "maintain the purpose of the legislation" and advised that, in coming to its decision, it had had regard for the City's policy and for the consistent manner in which the City applied that policy.

On the facts of the situation, including Mr. Messica's claim of economic hardship, the Board reduced the amount of the charge, on equitable grounds, to 50% of the $20,000 imposed by the City. This decision was in keeping with an earlier Board decision, Anavrin v. City of Toronto, where the Board found that the $20,000 charge was excessive "at a time the development industry is reeling in difficulty far beyond anything we have seen for the last two decades".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

It is my opinion, based on the City's experience of defending the former City of Toronto's residential demolition control policy, that the City should maintain its consistency in applying this policy. In this regard, I concur with the recommendation contained in the October 15, 1998 report by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, "Residential Demolition Application - 79 Dunfield Avenue", that Council should refuse the request made by Compatible Investments Limited for a fourth extension to the conditions attached to the residential demolition permit issued for 79 Dunfield Avenue.

I also note that the circumstances in the case of 79 Dunfield Avenue are different from those with respect to 2451 St. Clair Avenue West. As one example, there is no appraiser's report, as required under the policy, pertaining to the most recent plans for 79 Dunfield Avenue which would justify an extension. Further, in all of the cases heard by the Board on the matter of residential demolition control, the Board has upheld both the City's refusal to extend the demolition conditions and the imposition of a financial charge. To allow an extension in the case of 79 Dunfield would, in my opinion, undermine the City's residential demolition control policy and would create a damaging precedent, particularly as, in the case of 79 Dunfield Avenue, the developer is simply seeking to reassess its proposal.

Conclusions:

On September 2, 1998, the OMB upheld the City's ability to impose conditions applied to a residential demolition permit at 2451 St. Clair Avenue West and reduced the amount of the charge by 50%. In making its decision, the Board placed significant emphasis on Council's clear and consistent policy regarding residential demolition control. Council should continue to adhere to this policy on a consistent manner.

Contact Name:

Marc Kemerer

Legal Division

392-1228

--------

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

-(December 7, 1998) from Ms. Cynthia A. MacDougall, McCarthy Tetrault, addressed to Councillor Michael Walker; and

-December 4, 1998) from Mr. Robert Singer, Compatible Investments Limited

Ms. Cynthia MacDougall, McCarthyTétrault, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

--------

(A copy of the following communications referred to in the foregoing reports, was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on December 9 and 10, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk):

-(September 25, 1998) from Mr. John C.T. Inglis, McCarthy Tetrault

-Ontario Municipal Board Decision dated September 29, 1998

46

Residential Demolition Application -

252 to 260 Dufferin Street (Parkdale)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the President, Toronto Parking Authority to report to the Toronto Community Council, as soon as possible, on the possibility of instituting underground parking at this location.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

In accordance with former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 146, Article II, Demolition Control, I refer the demolition application for 252-260 Dufferin Street to you to recommend to City Council whether to grant or refuse the application including conditions, if any, to be attached to the permit.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council authorize me to issue the residential demolition permit for 252-260 Dufferin Street.

Comments:

On November 19, 1998, the Director of Facilities and Real Estate applied on behalf of the City of Toronto for a permit to demolish the residential building at 252 to 260 Dufferin Street.

The City does not intend to construct a replacement structure, but to re-grade and landscape the site for parks purposes. The Council of the former City of Toronto approved the acquisition and redevelopment of this property for parks purposes at its meeting held on December 9, 1996 when it adopted Clause 1 of Meeting No. 1, Executive Committee Report No. 2.

  Conclusion:

In light of the 1996 action taken by the Council of the former City of Toronto to acquire and develop this property for parks purposes, I recommend that City Council authorize me to issue the demolition permit.

Contact Name:

Judi McBurney

Telephone:(416) 392-7963

Fax:(416) 392-0721

E-mail:jmcburn@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (December 7, 1998) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

I am writing to you regarding the Residential Demolition Application, 252 to 260 Dufferin Street.

I am unable to attend the Toronto Community Council meeting on Thursday December 10, 1998, and I would like to indicate my support for the recommendations in the report prepared by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

 47

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

57 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve Application No. 998092 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated roof sign at 57 Spadina Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Toronto Community Council, on harmonized fees for sign applications in the whole city, including the possibility of introducing a licensing system similar to that existing in the former City of Scarborough.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one illuminated roof sign at 57 Spadina Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

City Council refuse Application No. 998092 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated roof sign.

Comments:

The property is located on the south-east corner of Spadina Avenue and King Street West, in a reinvestment area (RA) district. The property accommodates a two storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to remove an existing illuminated third party roof sign and install a new illuminated third party roof sign in the same location (see Figure 3). The sign has a length of 14.6 metres and a height of 4.3 metres, with an area of 63 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that roof signs are not permitted in RA districts. The sign provisions in RA districts are similar to those in CR and MCR districts given the wide variety of uses permitted in this district. The former City of Toronto Council adopted this prohibition on April 24, 1995 based on a study of roof signs along main streets in CR and MCR districts. The rationale for prohibiting roof signs in RA, CR and MCR districts is that roof signs detract from the streetscape, and impact both the skyline views along our commercial streets and the views from adjacent residential districts.

Signs which were legally erected prior to the passing of the by-law and which do not conform to the current sign provisions of the Municipal Code are permitted to remain as legal non-conforming. At its meeting of April 1 and 2, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council adopted By-law 1996-0168 which further amended the sign regulations of Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code by deleting the replacement provisions for legal non-conforming signs. City Council adopted this recommendation because it was felt that the continued replacement of non-conforming signs would serve to prolong the presence of signs in areas where Council had decided that they are no longer desired and by permitting the erection of new non-conforming signs, the goal of attrition would take much longer to achieve. While the signs' faces and attributes can be changed, no changes are permitted to the sign structure, location or height of legal non-conforming signs.

In this instance, the applicant proposes to remove an existing roof sign and install a new roof sign of the same size in approximately the same location as the existing roof sign. The sign would consist of two illuminated sign panels oriented north-south and would be supported by six metal posts anchored to the roof of the building. The sign would be visible to residential uses immediately south of the site approximately 40 metres away, as well as to visitors to Clarence Square Park.

Since the prohibition of roof signs in 1995, I have consistently recommended refusal of traditional roof signs. I have only recommended approval of roof signs in a few instances, where the classification of "roof sign" was arguably a technical matter resulting from the sign being located partially above the roof level or when it was located fully above the roof level but integrated into the architecture of the building.

The current application proposes a traditional roof sign which will project 7.7 metres above the building roof line. In my opinion, a new roof sign at this location would contradict the intent of the Sign By-law. It would also set an unfortunate precedent for other properties in this area and on all of the main streets in the former City of Toronto.

Given the prohibition of roof signs in this district and the deletion of the replacement provisions for legal non-conforming signs, I consider the requested variance to be significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code. I am, therefore, recommending refusal of this application.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

--------

Mr. Danny Starnino, Cieslok Outdoor Ltd., appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

48

Installation of Speed Humps - Elm Ridge Drive, from

Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 2, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Elm Ridge Drive from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $15,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702

Recommendation:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Elm Ridge Drive, from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Elm Ridge Drive, from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5265, dated September 1998";

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from 40 km/h to 30 km/h on Elm Ridge Drive between Bathurst Street and William R. Allen Roadway coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

(3)That the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comment

At the request of North Toronto Ward Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Elm Ridge Drive from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road to reduce the speed of motor vehicles.

Elm Ridge Drive is a collector street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow of about 4,500 vehicles and a speed limit of 40 km/h. The pavement width varies from 8.5 m to 10.4 m in the sections with no median while in the sections with a median, each roadway is approximately 5.5 m wide. Parking is permitted on the south side of Elm Ridge Drive from the North Toronto ward boundary to Marwood Road (except on the William R. Allen Road bridge) and from Burmont Road to Manitou Boulevard. Parking is not permitted at any time on either side of Elm Ridge Drive from Bathurst Street to Manitou Boulevard. In general, parking supply is unaffected by the installation of speed humps.

Elm Ridge Drive, for the most part, consists of very short blocks (in the order of 90 metres in length). The exception to this is the block between Manitou Boulevard and Lawnhurst Boulevard which is about 190 metres in length. An 85^th percentile speed (the speed exceeded by 15% of the traffic) is 47 km/h. I note that the block between Manitou Boulevard and Bathurst Street which is slightly longer than the typical block (about 110 metres) has an 85^th percentile speed of 42 km/h.

To be consistent with the former City's Speed Hump Policy, one speed hump per block could be installed on the short blocks, and two on the Manitou Boulevard/Lawnhurst Boulevard block. The proposed locations for these speed humps are shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5265, dated September 1998. Six humps are proposed on the undivided roadway sections of Elm Ridge Drive, plus another four humps at two sections where there is a median.

It is not advisable to install speed humps on the bridge over the William R. Allen Road because of the potential for structural damage to the bridge. Speed humps are also not proposed west of the bridge at this time. I note that the land use east of the bridge is predominantly single family dwellings whereas west of the bridge it is mainly apartment buildings.

In light of the above and the apparent support for the proposal evident at a public meeting of November 26, 1998, hosted by the Elm Ridge Drive Traffic Committee, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine the amount of community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected portions of the street. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

One of the concerns of residents from neighbouring streets in the area is whether or not traffic volumes on their streets will be impacted because of traffic diversion from Elm Ridge Drive. Studies conducted so far on Glengrove Avenue (where 10 speed humps were installed in July 1998) suggest that there is minimal, if any, diversion of traffic with the introduction of speed humps. Traffic volumes will be monitored closely on Ridelle Avenue and Briar Hill Avenue to establish whether any traffic increases occur due to the installation of speed humps on Elm Ridge Drive. If remedial action is required one option would be to install speed humps on Ridelle Avenue and Briar Hill Avenue.

The changes proposed to Elm Ridge Drive as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure that the proposal does not unduly hamper their operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Michael J. Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (November 27, 1998) from Councillor Walker, addressed to the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Last night I attended a meeting for all residents on Elm Ridge Drive (Bathurst Street to Newgate Road) that was well attended. At this meeting Mr. Mike Harris presented a Speed Hump proposal to the residents. There was overwhelming enthusiasm from the members of this street to proceed as soon as possible with the installation of these devices and a unanimous vote was taken to request that a poll be taken on their street as soon as possible.

Mr. Harris at the meeting suggested that it would be feasible to have this item brought before the next Toronto Community Council on December 9, 1998. Therefore, I am requesting that you expedite this process.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (December 6, 1998) from Dr. Stephen Abrams, Ms. Rosetta Rutman and Mr. A. and Ms. J. Braun, enclosing petitions from 156 residents of Elm Ridge Drive and 292 residents of the North West Forest Hill neighbourhood and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (December 15, 1998) from Dr. Stephen Abrams, Toronto, forwarding various documents and petitions in opposition to the proposed installation of speed humps on Elm Ridge Drive from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

 49

Naming of Private Lane - Joseph Salsberg Lane

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the proposed private lane at the new development at 605 Adelaide Street West be named "Joseph Salsberg Lane."

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Estimated costs of $300.00 to be born by developer.

Recommendations:

(1)That the proposed private lane located at 605 Adelaide Street West, illustrated on Map A attached, be named "Joseph Salsberg Lane";

(2)That Crown Regal Estates pays the costs, estimated in the amount of $300.00, for the fabrication and installation of the appropriate signage; and

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

Background:

I have a request from Richard Weldon of Crown Royal Estates, 124 Merton Street, Suite 300, Toronto M4S 2Z2, to name the proposed private lane at the new development at 605 Adelaide Street West. Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva have consulted with residents and have suggested that the lane be named after Joseph Salsberg. Mr. Weldon has been advised of this suggestion and is in agreement with this selected name.

The lane is being named after Joseph B. Salsberg, remembered as a "humanist, labour leader, political activist, politician, Canadian Jewish News columnist, a man who dedicated his life to Yiddishkeit and to the advancement of social justice." Additional information on Joseph Salsberg is outlined in Appendix "A."

Comments:

The proposed name has been reserved by Toronto Planning, and has been circulated to staff of Heritage Toronto and Toronto Fire Services who are in agreement with the proposal.

The naming of the proposed lane "Joseph Salsberg Lane" is consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by the former Toronto City Council on July 11, 1988 (Clause 4, Executive Report No.22).

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416)392-1831

Fax:(416)392-0081

E-mail: dchristo@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

Appendix "A"

Letter from Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva dated November 27, 1998 to the City Surveyor

I am writing further to your September 17^th, 1998 letter regarding the naming of the lane at 605 Adelaide Street West. I have consulted with residents and am pleased to suggest that the lane be named after Mr. Joseph B. Salsberg - "Joseph Salsberg Lane."

In a February 1997 obituary published by the Canadian Jewish News (CNJ), Mr. Joseph B. Salsberg was remembered as a "humanist, labour leader, political activist, politician, CNJ columnist, . . . man dedicated all his life to Yiddishkeit and to the advancement of social justice."

Mr. Salsberg had deep roots both in this neighbourhood and in Toronto. Joseph Salsberg immigrated with his family to Toronto's West End from his native Poland when he was eleven years old. He left Lord Lansdowne Public School at age 13 to help support his family by working in the garment industry. He later became a well respected labour leader in Toronto's garment industry. He also sat as a Ward 4 alderman in the City of Toronto from 1938 to 1943. Becoming a Member of Provincial Parliament for St. Andrew/St. Patrick, he was well known for being the driving force behind the "Anti discrimination" legislation that banned discrimination in public places.

Thank you for your attention to my comments and I look forward to your favourable reply to my request.

50

Palmerston Area Traffic Calming - Euclid Avenue and

Palmerston Boulevard Speed Hump Proposal (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 3, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a proposal to replace existing traffic calming islands on Euclid Avenue between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West with speed humps and to install speed humps on Palmerston Boulevard between College Street and Bloor Street West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the costs of replacing traffic calming islands on Euclid Avenue between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West with speed humps, and also installing speed humps on Palmerston Boulevard between College Street and Bloor Street West, in the estimated amount of $30,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702. Funds for installing traffic calming measures in the Palmerston area were initially approved by the former Toronto City Council in its 1997 Capital Budget, and sufficient funds remain in the account for this purpose.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the pavement on Euclid Avenue and Palmerston Boulevard for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on EUCLID AVENUE from Harbord Street to Bloor Street West, and on PALMERSTON BOULEVARD from College Street to Bloor Street West, generally as shown on the attached prints of Drawing No. 421F-5281 dated October 1998, and Drawing Nos. 421F-5259, 421F-5260 dated November 1998";

(2)That approval be given to alter sections of the pavement on Euclid Avenue and Clinton Street for traffic calming purposes as described below:

(i)"The narrowing of EUCLID AVENUE, west side, from the lane first south of Ulster Street to a point 15 metres south thereof, from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 4.5 metres to 7.3 metres"; and

(ii)"The narrowing of CLINTON STREET, east side, from the lane first south of Bloor Street West to a point 15 metres south thereof, from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 4.5 metres to 7.3 metres";

(3)That approval be given to reduce the speed limit from 40 km/h to 30 km/h on Palmerston Boulevard from College Street to Bloor Street West, coincident with the implementation of speed humps;

(4)That By-law No. 1996-0463 authorizing the narrowing of sections of Clinton Street, Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Palmerston Boulevard, Ulster Street and Markham Street, be rescinded; and

(5)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Comments:

The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of October 7 and 8, 1996, approved a traffic management plan for the Palmerston area (bounded by Grace Street, Bloor Street West, Bathurst Street and College Street). The plan involved the narrowing of sections of the pavements to create mid-block chicanes and narrowed intersections by means of modular traffic calming islands on selected streets. This approval was the culmination of several years of effort by the Palmerston Area Residents' Association (PARA) to address concerns related to vehicle speeds and pedestrian safety in the neighbourhood.

In October 1997 traffic calming islands were installed on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue both between College Street and Bloor Street West. A similar proposal for Manning Avenue was dropped from the original plan at the request of residents, and traffic calming measures proposed for Markham Street and Palmerston Boulevard were deferred for further review. Following the installation of the traffic calming islands on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue, area residents expressed concern regarding the impact on parking, and the impact of illegal parkers on emergency vehicle operations.

As a result of local concern, Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva polled residents of Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue between College Street and Bloor Street West. The polls were conducted in April 1998 to seek residents' views on alternative proposals.

Based on the results of the poll, City Council, at its meeting of June 3, 1998, approved the following revisions to the Palmerson Area traffic management plan:

a)removal of all of the traffic calming islands (except for one island/hump combination) on Clinton Street between College Street and Harbord Street;

b)removal of all but one of the traffic calming islands on Clinton Street between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West;

c)removal of all but one of the traffic calming islands and the existing speed hump on Euclid Avenue between College Street and Harbord Street, and installation of four new speed humps; and

d)retention of all traffic calming islands on Euclid Avenue between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West.

Based on the most recent consultations between Transportation Services staff, Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva, and discussions with PARA representatives, it is recommended that the traffic islands on Euclid Avenue between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West be replaced by three speed humps as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5281 dated October 1998, and fourteen speed humps be installed on Palmerston Boulevard between College Street and Bloor Street West as shown on the attached prints of Drawing Nos. 421F-5259 and 421F-5260, both dated November 1998.

The proposed speed hump plan will create approximately five additional parking spaces on Euclid Avenue between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West. There will be no change to the parking supply on Palmerston Boulevard as a result of the speed hump plan. The parking regulations on Euclid Avenue will return to the previous alternate side conditions which were in effect prior to the installation of the traffic calming islands. As parking regulation amendments were not enacted for the initial changes, no amendments are necessary at this time. The current alternate side parking regulations on Palmerston Boulevard will remain unchanged.

As outlined in the former City of Toronto speed hump policy, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adult residents (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the street. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

     The changes proposed to Euclid Avenue and Palmerston Boulevard as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services are being advised to ensure that the proposals do not unduly hamper their operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

It is proposed that three separate polls be distributed, with one for Euclid Avenue between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, one for Palmerston Boulevard between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West and one for Palmerston Boulevard between College Street and Harbord Street. The polls will be conducted during January/February 1999, coincident with the statutory advertising for highway alterations, and the matter should be the subject of deputations at the February 17, 1999 meeting of the Toronto Community Council.

I note that minor "house-keeping" amendments to the Municipal Code to formalize earlier traffic calming work in this area are included in Recommendation No. 2 of this report.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nigel Tahair, Transportation Technologist

392-7711

51

Air Canada Centre - Assumption of parts of

Bremner Boulevard (Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 8, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1:

Recommendations:

(1)That the City accept the conveyances of lands designated as Part 6 on Plan No. 66R-17188 and Parts 8, 15, 17, 44, 50, 209 and 213 on Plan No. 64R-14994 and other lands pursuant to the Precinct R Agreement, and in accordance with the provisions of the Land Exchange Amendment and Restatement Agreement and the Air Canada Centre Land Exchange Agreement;

(2)That the lands designated as Part 6 on Plan No. 66R-17188 and Parts 8, 15, 17, 44, 50, 209 and 213 on Plan No. 64R-14994 be laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes and named to form part of Bremner Boulevard, subject to the completion of the conveyances and the necessary land registrations to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

(3)That the dedication of the north-south leg of Bremner Boulevard be deemed approved as a public highway less than 20 metres in width for the purposes of Municipal Act, Subsection 305(2) and Ontario Regulations 143/95 and 430/96;

(4)That concurrent with the dedication of the lands as set out in Recommendation No. 2, above:

(a)Parking be prohibited at any time on both sides of Bremner Boulevard between Lake Shore Boulevard West and York Street;

(b)That the north-south leg of Bremner Boulevard between Lake Shore Boulevard West and the east-west leg of Bremner Boulevard be designated one-way northbound;

(c)"Stop" signs be installed for northbound traffic on the north-south leg of Bremner Boulevard at the east-west leg of Bremner Boulevard;

(d)Authority be given to amend the appropriate schedules of Municipal Code Chapter 400 accordingly; and

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

Comments:

The Precinct R Agreement between Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Limited and the City of Toronto respecting the development of the Air Canada Centre provides that the owner (Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Limited) will construct or cause to be constructed, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, all infrastructure elements related to the development including among other things, all municipal services on Bremner Boulevard between York Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West. These municipal services consist of among other things, storm and sanitary sewers, watermains, district heating and cooling plant, pavements, sidewalks, curbs, boulevards, tree pits, lighting facilities and landscaping features. Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Limited is carrying out its obligations under the agreements relative to the design, contract administration and ongoing construction of these elements and to date, the street is being constructed to satisfactory standards in accordance with the configuration established in the Precinct R Agreement. The Precinct R Agreement also provides for the assumption of these elements by the City as soon as possible following their completion.

The Air Canada Centre is scheduled to open in February of 1999. Construction of the infrastructure elements has been proceeding under the inspection of Works and Emergency Services staff and is nearing completion. The status of the infrastructure works has been reviewed by staff and on the basis of an interim inspection, a number of minor deficiencies exist. Air Canada Centre representatives have advised that all outstanding infrastructure works associated with the streets will be completed by mid-December. In terms of the funding for the construction of the Interim Streets, the Air Canada Centre has provided the City with a Letter of Credit in an amount considerably in excess of the cost of completing the outstanding work and remedying any deficient infrastructure work as discussed above. This is in accordance with the requirements of the Precinct R Agreement.

The section of Bremner Boulevard to be assumed by the City is shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2209 dated December 7, 1998 and is designated as Part 6 on Plan No. 66R-17188 and Parts 8, 15, 17, 44, 50, 209 and 213 on Plan No. 64R-14994. The east-west leg of Bremner Boulevard has a right of way width of 27 m and the north-south leg has a width of 15 m. Although the latter leg of Bremner Boulevard has a width of less than 20 m, this segment should be deemed approved as a public highway as set out in recommendation No. 3, above.

Given the expected opening of the Air Canada Centre in February, it would be advisable for City Council to authorize the layout, dedication and naming of this section of Bremner Boulevard and the introduction of parking and traffic regulations at this time. The bills necessary to give effect thereto could be introduced subject to the timely completion of the property transfers and the respective by-laws stipulated to come into effect when the conveyances and the necessary land registrations respecting these conveyances are completed. This course of action would allow the street to be opened to the public during the first week of January if deemed desirable, well in advance of the scheduled opening date. It should be noted that the Precinct R Agreement also contains a number of conditions that must be met prior to stadium opening and the assessment of these aspects by City staff is ongoing. Representatives of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Limited have suggested a target of early to mid-January, 1999 for City approval of these conditions, again well in advance of the scheduled stadium opening date.

With respect to traffic and parking regulations, measures to accommodate the projected traffic operations involve the designation of the north-south leg as one-way northbound and the installation of 'Stop' signs at the intersection of the two legs of Bremner Boulevard and prohibiting parking any time on both sides of the street, as set out in Recommendation No. 4 above. The traffic levels and parking demands will be monitored on an ongoing basis as the facility becomes fully operational in order to determine operational needs of the new streets and traffic volumes generated by the site overall.

The signalization of this leg of Bremner Boulevard with York Street was approved by the former Metro Council at its meeting of July 3, 1996 (Metro Transportation Committee Report No. 11, Clause 10). I note that the traffic control signals have already been installed and are operating at this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

John Niedra, Manager

Infrastructure Asset Management and Programming

392-7835

52

Port Industrial District and a Portion of the

East Bayfront - Part II Study (Don River)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee identifying who has jurisdiction over land use on the Port Lands.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report explains why a Part II Plan for the Port Industrial District and a portion of the East Bayfront is required at this time to address a range of development proposals and to settle a variety of outstanding planning matters, in order to provide a clear planning direction for the future and to facilitate orderly development.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in consultation with all appropriate City departments prepare a Part II Study for the Port Industrial District and a portion of the East Bayfront east of the Parliament Street Slip.

(2)City Council indicate its position to the Ontario Municipal Board that any existing or future referral appeals, including those of Home Depot in respect of 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street and United Castan in respect of the Cherry Street corridor, not proceed to hearing until such time as the City completes a comprehensive Part II Study of the Port Industrial District and a portion of the East Bayfront as described in this report.

(3)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report back to Toronto Community Council for its January, 1999 meeting on a detailed schedule and work program for the proposed Part II Study and any resources that may be required to facilitate that Study.

A.Background:

In my report of November 6, 1998 entitled "Home Depot - Application No. 197019 for 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a retail warehouse in the East Bayfront Planning Area", I stated that I would be reporting to the December 9, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council on the need for a Part II study for the Port Industrial District. My report of that date also refers to a discussion I had with the TEDCO Board of Directors regarding the need for such a study.

I believe that such a study is required to address the land use issues that have arisen in the context of the Home Depot application, as well as a variety of other matters that are ongoing within the Port Industrial District, some of which were discussed in the report of November 6, 1998. An Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing conference on the Home Depot application is being held on December 21, 1998. A decision by Council to proceed with a Part II Official Plan Study for this area will inform the Board of the City's commitment to addressing a variety of planning issues in this area.

Section 16 of the former City of Toronto's Official Plan explains that Part I Plans outline general development policies for the city as whole. Part II amendments are intended to be consistent with the general policies of the Plan and to be approved by Council in order to provide more detailed guidance for the future planning and development of specific areas of the city. Part II Plans may vary any of the density or other provisions of the Plan in response to local circumstances and based upon appropriate local study.

Section 16.4 states that Council will consider large scale development proposals which may have a major impact on the structure or character of the city, or which may alter the form of streets and/or blocks of the city, only in light of a study of the area undertaken for the purposes of recommending Part II policies for adoption. Since the proposals under discussion could have a major impact on the structure and character of this part of the waterfront, I am proposing that this Part II Study be undertaken at this time.

At the same time, City Council has initiated a new Official Plan for the entire city. A number of issues including those related to areas of employment and industry and big box retail will have to be considered within this context.

The Part II Study will allow the City to examine the variety of existing proposals and ideas for change and to develop a plan for the future that will help to facilitate orderly development and provide planning certainty.

B.Planning Background:

The Part I Official Plan of the former City of Toronto consists of general policies regarding the nature of the waterfront itself and specific policies for the Port Industrial District.

The general Part I policies state that the primary goal for the waterfront is to provide increased and sustainable public enjoyment and use of the area by ensuring that:

-future developments and actions by both the public and private sectors will help to achieve the objectives of extending the richness, diversity and activity of city life into the waterfront;

-reducing its physical and perceptual isolation from the rest of the city;

-increasing and improving public access along the water's edge and between its parts;

-increasing the amount of public parkland and the availability, choice and awareness of recreational opportunities and public activities throughout the year;

-enhancing the waterfront as a place;

-contributing to the improved health and rehabilitation of the waterfront environment; and

-protecting and improving the Martin Goodman Trail as a continuous waterfront route.

Section 14.10 outlines Council's goal to protect and emphasize the contribution of the waterfront to the well-being of the city as the location of industrial jobs, public utilities and rail and road transportation facilities and commercial shipping activities. Council is to encourage the continuation and expansion of industrial activities in the parts of the waterfront which are appropriate for industrial use.

The site specific policies for the Port Industrial District are contained in Section 14.35 through 14.40. Essentially these policies discuss the primary role of the Port Industrial District as an area of industry and its changing need to accommodate general and light industry and some retail use. It also refers to opportunities for open space, parks, environmental and recreational opportunities.

Section 14.36 deals with increasing the attractiveness of the Port Industrial District to the public and industry by, amongst other things, landscaping and street improvements, securing parks and harbour viewing areas, reducing the area designated for Heavy Industrial uses, expanding a range of retail uses fronting onto Cherry and Leslie Streets, encouraging improved public transit, and ensuring that industries achieve a high standard of performance in terms of appearance, landscaping and environmental protection. Section 14.38 recognizes the ability of limited retail uses to enhance the district for public use.

The industrial designations found in the district include Restricted Industrial Areas, General Industrial Areas, Heavy Industrial Areas, and General Use Areas. No residential uses are currently permitted in this district.

C.Applications and Initiatives in the Area:

A variety of development applications and initiatives related to this area have arisen over the past few years that point to the need for providing greater clarity for potential investors and the public. These include the following:

1.Home Depot application

On June 27, 1997, Home Depot made an application for an amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for a big box retail store totalling 9,940 square metres (107,000 square feet) for a site at the intersection of Lake Shore Boulevard East and Cherry Streets. At its meeting of November 25, 1998, Council adopted my recommendation to refuse that request. Council's position will be reported to the Ontario Municipal Board pre-conference hearing of December 21, 1998.

2.Cherry Street application

On July 30, 1998, a joint application was submitted by United Castan Corporation and TEDCO for an Official Plan Amendment for a portion of the Port Industrial District that includes the western portion of the Port as well as the Home Depot site. That application requests redesignation from General Industrial and General Use to Medium Density Mixed Commercial-Residential for the area to the west of Cherry Street and, for the lands to the east, redesignation from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial and from General Industrial to General Use. Since that time TEDCO has withdrawn as a co-applicant. The remaining applicant, United Castan, has appealed to the Board for the City's failure to hold a public meeting on this application. This matter will also be before the Ontario Municipal Board at its pre-hearing conference of December 21, 1998.

3.Potential location of an Olympic Athletes' Village in the Port Industrial District

The area of the Cherry Street application was identified as a potential location for an Athletes' Village for the 2008 Olympics in the City's application to the Canadian Olympic Association in 1998.

It is anticipated that the final bid proposal will be submitted to Council in late 1999 at which point locations for venues and villages need to be confirmed. Further analysis will be carried out on all proposed venues and villages during 1999.

4.Costco Application at the Port Centre

On August 17, 1998, I received a letter from the solicitors for Costco Canada Inc., requesting an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the lands bounded by Lakeshore Boulevard East, Saulter Street, Commissioners Street and the Don Roadway in order to develop a warehouse membership club in the area of the Port Industrial District known as the Port Centre. This application will require the City to respond to the issue of whether a big box centre should be located in the Port Industrial District.

5.TEDCO Initiatives

TEDCO has prepared a streets and blocks plan of this area, representing their vision, based on their mandate. However, this plan does not have any official land use standing and TEDCO continues to work toward achieving it incrementally. Within that context, TEDCO has initiated a number of studies of transportation issues in the district to advance its plan.

6.Canada Marine Act

The Canada Marine Act has introduced further uncertainty about the lands used for Port activities and adjacent lands and the potentially changing mandates of the various waterfront agencies.

7.Other Matters

There are a number of other proposals and changes that have recently occurred in and around the Port Industrial District. It seems that the cruise ship industry catering to tours of the Great Lakes is becoming increasingly successful and requires space for loading and servicing of ships. The Port may be a logical place for some of this activity to occur.

D.Planning Issues:

1.Appropriate Land Uses in the Study Area

1.1Establishing Appropriate Industrial and Employment Uses and an Implementation Strategy

An important consideration for the Part II Study is to preserve and enhance the ability of this area to provide viable employment and appropriate industrial uses. For this reason I propose that industrial designations should be reviewed, within the context of both their successes and problems to date and within an overall context of the amalgamated City of Toronto. Employment uses would need to be considered within an overall context of other compatible uses. A review of industrial uses would include an analysis of the ability of the transportation network to support them as well as strategies for implementation.

TEDCO's plans for the Port Industrial District would be reviewed within the context of all the other ongoing proposals. A Part II Study provides the opportunity for appropriate changes to be considered and incorporated into the Official Plan to allow the City to speak with one voice about achieving economic investment on the waterfront.

1.2Retail Warehouse uses

My report of November 6, 1998 noted that the eventual acceptance of a complete application from Costco will require the City to reopen studies of the appropriateness of the Port Centre, a "power centre" of big box retail uses, within the Port Industrial District.

Council adopted my recommendation that in conjunction with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, I undertake a study of the land use, economic development and policy implications of permitting additional big box retail development within the South District, including the Port Industrial District, and that the recommendations on this matter be brought back to Toronto Community Council in 1999.

The study produced by the Centre of Commercial Activity at Ryerson on the cumulative impact of big box retailing on the former City of Toronto's retail strips and downtown, identified industrially zoned land close to major highways as the prime target for big box centres and specifically identified the Port and King Street West as being subject to this type of development pressure.

I see this retail study as one of the first, discrete parts to be produced in the initial stages of the Part II study. Clarification on this matter will provide assurances to both retail strips as well as big box merchants on the City's policies. I will be reporting on this study further in the new year. A potential Port Retail Centre, including the Costco proposal, would be evaluated in this context.

1.3Home Depot Site

At this time I have not determined what would constitute appropriate development on this site and on the lands immediately to the west and believe that a study of this portion of the East Bayfront is required. The East Bayfront working committee did not support a concentration of big box retail in the East Bayfront and other potential uses for these large sites between the Parliament Street slip and the Port, and in particular for the gateway Home Depot site, need to be identified.

1.4Residential Uses

Since the city's waterfront began to revitalize in the 1970's, there has been speculation about the potential of locating residential uses in the northwest part of the Port Industrial District, a matter which was raised formally in "Regeneration", a report of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront in 1991. It would seem, therefore, that regardless of the Cherry Street application and the status of the Olympic bid, the City needs to make a determination about whether residential uses are appropriate here, and if they are, what would be required to achieve them. This decision will also form the basis of a City Planning position on the appropriateness of this site for an Olympic Athletes' Village. I believe that a determination of this sort would appropriately occur within the context of the Part II Study I am proposing.

An evaluation of whether to permit residential redevelopment would mean that the City would need to do extensive built form, transportation, municipal services, and neighbourhood, school, and community service studies. I understand that United Castan have been preparing their own studies in this regard.

2.Transportation Issues

TEDCO has prepared extensive work on transportation improvements to the Port, an issue that seems critical to the ability of the area to be successful for employment purposes, and I understand that other transportation studies have been undertaken within the context of the Cherry Street proposal. In addition there are a variety of transportation studies that have been completed for this area, which are based on different development scenarios. As I mentioned in my report of November 6, 1998, the potential removal of the Gardiner Expressway to the east and west of the entrance to the Port will provide opportunities to reexamine the entire system of streets and blocks within this area.

The proposed Part II Study will offer the opportunity to deal with the problems at the Cherry Street entrance and other servicing problems, to consider the potential extension of Queens Quay East and to make the entire area safer for both trucks and recreational users and cyclists. Further, any redevelopment of this area would suggest the need to extend public transit here, a matter which should be examined in this context.

3.Greening the Port, the Lower Don Strategy and Other Environmental Matters

While the City has made a commitment in principle to the concepts of "Greening the Port", and Bringing Back the Don and both TEDCO and the City have been attempting to address this through individual projects and applications, the implementation strategy to ensure that these policies can occur in a consistent and successful way in this area needs further development. An implementation strategy to achieve these policies is required.

4.Built Form and Urban Design

An overall urban design plan that can be implemented throughout the Port Industrial District is another outstanding piece of work that should be prepared within the context of a Part II Study, in order to improve the attractiveness and cohesiveness of this entire area. To date, this work has occurred on an incremental basis only.

E.Terms of Reference of the Part II Study:

1.Boundaries of the Study Area

A comprehensive Part II Study of the Port Industrial District must include the site owned by Home Depot and the adjacent sites to the west as far as the Parliament Street Slip. I have shown the proposed boundary of the study area on Map 1, attached to this report. While a portion of the site is technically in the East Bayfront planning area, it lies at the entrance to the Port and, in conjunction with the properties immediately to the west, is a prominent waterfront location with views of the water from the roads on both the north and the east. It has been called an important gateway to the Port, where it will both set the tone for this area and also may be required to provide improved transportation linkages.

The remainder of the East Bayfront is not included in this study. It has been the subject of a Part II Study and working group recommendations resulting in Council's adoption of changes to the Zoning By-law in 1997. The East Bayfront By-law is before the Ontario Municipal Board and has been consolidated with the Home Depot hearing.

While there have been more development applications made for the northern part of the Port, I am also proposing to include the area south of the Ship Channel in the Part II Study. In 1997 Urban Planning and Development Services began to prepare a development concept plan for the area. This project has not proceeded due to the pressures for staff involvement in proposals on the northern part of the Port. This study was initiated as a way to deal with the extension of municipal servicing to the area, improving the street system including the need to resolve the alignment of Unwin Avenue, the resolution of a parks design for the North Shore park, now transferred from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to the City, and other matters around recreational uses and public access to the water's edge. This Part II Study would also give the City the opportunity to consider appropriate land uses on the Ontario Hydro site, which is for sale, and to review all the industrial designations within the context of the entire Port Industrial District.

2.Timing for the Part II Study

Given the urgency of the current development pressures and need to provide some clarity of vision for this area, I am proposing a process which would have a final report available in November, 1999. I am proposing to report back to Toronto Community Council in January, 1999 on a detailed work program and schedule and with any requests for resources that may be required in order to facilitate the preparation of this Study.

F.Consultation:

Extensive public consultation is a prerequisite of this study and I will report on a detailed consultation program in January, 1999. I would propose that immediately upon adoption of this report by Council, letters go out to the many stakeholders and interest groups involved, including but not limited to the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, landowners and tenants including Ontario Hydro and local community groups including the local film industry, Friends of the Spit, Southeast Toronto Industrial Awareness Organization (SETIAO), South East Area Industrial Advisory Committee (SEAIAC), the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the Toronto Harbour Commission (THC), and the Toronto Bay Initiative.

The process for undertaking this Study involves a technical team of city staff, coordinated by planning staff, in the areas of urban design, transportation, environment, parks, policy and economic development, to analyse the extensive materials produced to date for this area and to immediately assess any gaps in data and then to undertake any work necessary to address these gaps. The team would then put together a series of options and approaches for consideration and reporting.

G.Conclusion:

I believe that it is important for the City to provide a strong direction and vision for the future of the Port Industrial District. At the present time the variety of conflicting development proposals and outstanding planning matters should be addressed comprehensively through the preparation of a Part II Study.

Contact Name:

Elyse Parker

Telephone: 392-0069

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: eparker@city.toront.on.ca.

--------

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

-(December 8, 1998) from Mr. Peter Smith, Co-Chair, Portlands Action Committee and Public Liaison Committee;

-(December 8, 1998) from South-East Toronto Industrial Awareness Organization;

-(December 8, 1998) from Mr. Gary F. Reid, General Manager, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners;

-(December 8, 1998) from Mr. John Darling, Board Liaison Officer, Toronto Windsurfing Club;

-(December 8, 1998) from Mr. D.F. Given, President, Malone Given Parsons Ltd.;

-(December 9, 1998) from Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association, addressed to Councillor Rae and Members of Council; and

-(December 9, 1998) from Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, on behalf of Lafarge Corporation.

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

-Mr. Don Given, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Elizabeth Borek, on behalf of Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

-Mr. Tim Bermingham, Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Barristers & Solicitors; and

-Ms. Tanya Carinci, Cassels Brock & Blackwell.

53

Variances from Chapter 297 - Signs, of the Former

City of Toronto Municipal Code - (Downtown, Davenport)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following reports from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(November 17, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain two non-illuminated, projecting, banner signs for identification purposes at 332 Yonge Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998060 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain two non- illuminated, projecting, banner signs at 332 Yonge Street.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998060, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the west side of Yonge Street, in a mixed-use district. The property accommodates a two-storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain two non-illuminated, projecting, banner signs for identification purposes (see Figure 1). Each of the signs have a length of 0.3 metre and a height of 1.81 metres, with an area of 0.54 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the aggregate area of the signs (1.08 m²) exceeds by 0.30 m² the maximum 0.78 m² sign area permitted.

The size of signs above grade is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. The maximum area for a projecting sign is based on the amount of frontage the unit has on the street. In this instance, while the frontage of the building is relatively narrow (7.84 metres ), the signs only slightly exceed the maximum permitted size and their slightly larger size will not impact the streetscape and surrounding uses.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

(November 17, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one non-illuminated awning sign at 1216 Dufferin Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No.998085 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one non-illuminated awning sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998085, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the west side of Dufferin Street, between Lappin Avenue and Millicent Street, in a residential (R2) district. The property accommodates a two storey mixed-use building with residential uses on the upper storey and commercial uses at grade. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one non-illuminated awning sign to identify the ground floor commercial use (see Figures 1-3). The sign has a length of 2.1 metres and a height of 2.9 metres, with an area of 6.1 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that awning signs are not permitted in low density residential districts. This regulation is intended to minimize the visual impact of signs on the buildings, on the streetscape and on residential uses in the immediate vicinity. In this instance, the awning sign is located on the first floor level of this two storey building. The sign does not extend beyond the front walls of the adjacent buildings and does not obstruct the views of the existing signs on these buildings. Further, the sign is non-illuminated and will not impact the residential uses in the surrounding area.

For these reasons, I am recommending approval of this application.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca;

Telephone: (416) 392-0421; Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

(November 24, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain four illuminated logo signs at 155 Dalhousie Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998088 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain four illuminated logo signs.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998088, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on a block bounded by Mutual Street, Gould Street and Dalhousie Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates an eleven storey mixed-use building with residential uses on the upper storeys and commercial uses at grade. The property is listed under the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties.

The applicant is requesting permission to maintain illuminated logo signs on the north, east and west elevations of the building to identify the grocery store use (see Figures 1-5). The signs each have a length of 2.4 metres and a height of 2.4 metres, with an area of 5.8 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the sign on the east elevation obstructs or interferes with a window of the building; and

2.the signs project more than 0.45 metres from the wall of the building.

The first variance occurs because the sign on the east elevation obstructs a window on the second storey level of the building. In this instance, however, a locker room is situated in behind the window and therefore views will not be affected.

The second variance results from the extent of the signs' projection from the building face. The signs exceed the permitted maximum projection of 0.45 metres by 0.41 metres. In this instance, however, the applicant has advised that the additional projection was necessary in order to avoid obstruction to the exhaust grill.

While their location, approximately 6.3 metres above grade, will not endanger nor inconvenience pedestrians, Heritage Toronto staff have advised that they do not approve of the location of the signs on the building. Had Heritage Toronto staff had the opportunity to comment in advance of the signs being erected, they would have suggested that the signs not project beyond the corners of the building. However, given that the signs have already been installed and to avoid unnecessary damage to the building facade, I am prepared to recommend approval.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

54

Realignment and Narrowing of Pavement -

Adelaide Street West, West of Bathurst Street

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing and realignment of the pavement on Adelaide Street West between Bathurst Street and the north-south leg of Adelaide Street West to physically enhance the eastbound left turn prohibition on Adelaide Street West at Bathurst Street and create a sodded boulevard on the south side of the street to facilitate the planting of in ground trees.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the minor pavement realignment in the estimated amount of $30,000.00 can be accommodated within the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget authorization requests for the reconstruction of pavements sidewalks and curbs.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to realign the pavement on Adelaide Street West as follows:

"The realignment and narrowing of the pavement on ADELAIDE STREET WEST between Bathurst Street and the north-south leg of Adelaide Street West, from a width of 9.75 m to a width varying from 4.9 m to 6.75 m, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2210, dated November 23,1998"; and

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

Comments:

Adelaide Street West from Bathurst Street to the north- south leg of Adelaide Street West functions as a local collector street. It carries one-way eastbound traffic with a pavement width of 9.75 m. One hour parking is allowed on the north side of the street.

A planter box was installed at the north-west corner of the intersection of this segment of Adelaide Street West with Bathurst Street in 1992 as an interim means of physically channelizing eastbound right turning traffic southbound on Bathurst Street. This planter has been moderately successful; however, eastbound vehicles continue to make northbound left turns notwithstanding the existing turn prohibition.

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone, staff of Works and Emergency Services in consultation with Urban Planning and Development Services have developed a plan for this segment of Adelaide Street West which would improve the channelization of eastbound right turns at Bathurst Street as well as address the deficiency of green space in the area by providing for a widened south boulevard and corresponding narrowing of the pavement. This boulevard area, which could be sodded, would facilitate the planting of a row of street trees. The proposed pavement realignment, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2210, dated November 23, 1998, and described in Recommendation No.1, above, will not adversely affect the functioning of traffic on the street nor will it affect parking or access.

This street is approaching a condition requiring remedial maintenance in the near future and as such the minor realignment work can be implemented cost effectively at this time.

The realignment of the pavement on Adelaide Street West constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra

Manager of Programmes

392-7835

55

Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Dufferin Grove

Area bounded by Dufferin Street, Bloor Street West,

Ossington Avenue and College Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic in the Dufferin Grove Area by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $25,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Dewson Street, Sylvan Avenue, and Havelock Street in the Dufferin Grove Area bounded by Dufferin Street, Bloor Street West, Ossington Avenue and College Street for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Dewson Street from Ossington Avenue to Havelock Street, Sylvan Avenue from Havelock Street to Dufferin Street and Havelock Street from College Street to Bloor Street West, generally as shown on the attached prints of Drawing Nos. 421F-5284 and 421F-5285, dated November 1998".

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Dewson Street from Ossington Avenue to Havelock Street, Sylvan Avenue from Havelock Street to Dufferin Street and Havelock Street from College Street to Bloor Street West coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Comments:

Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva requested staff assistance in developing a speed hump plan for the Dufferin Grove Area in order to reduce vehicle speeds.

Existing Conditions

(1)Dewson Street from Ossington Avenue to Havelock Street

Sylvan Avenue from Havelock Street to Dufferin Street

Both streets have pavement widths of 7.3 metres and operate with two-way traffic. The maximum speed limit is 40 km/h. The following parking regulations are in effect:

North Side

-Parking is prohibited at all times.

South Side

-The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily, and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

-Parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday from Ossington Avenue to Concord Avenue.

Twenty-four hour speed and volume traffic surveys conducted on Dewson Street in July 1998 recorded approximately 3200 to 3500 vehicles per day, and of these about 43% exceeded the posted speed limit of 40 km/h., while about 14% travelled in excess of 10 km/h over the limit. On Sylvan Avenue, a twenty-four hour traffic survey conducted in April 1992 recorded approximately 3000 vehicles per day.

A suitable speed hump plan for these streets would consist of six speed humps on Dewson Street and two speed humps on Sylvan Avenue generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.

421F-5284 dated November 1998.

Havelock Street from College Street to Bloor Street West

Havelock Street from College Street to Bloor Street West has a pavement width of 7.3 metres and operates one-way northbound (Dewson Street to Bloor Street West) and southbound (Sylvan Avenue to College Street). The maximum speed limit is 40 km/h. The following parking regulations are in effect:

 Sylvan Avenue to College Street

*east side:Parking is prohibited at all times.

*west side:The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily, and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Sylvan Avenue to Bloor Street West

*east side:The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily, and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

*west side:Parking is prohibited at all times.

Twenty-four hour speed and volume surveys conducted on Havelock Street from Lindsey Avenue to College Street in July, 1998 recorded approximately 1000 vehicles per day, and of these about 66% exceeded the posted speed limit of 40 km/h., while about 19% travelled in excess of 10 km/h over the limit. On Havelock Street from Hepbourne Street to Bloor Street West, twenty-four hour speed and volume traffic surveys conducted in July, 1998 recorded approximately 1300 vehicles per day, and of these 70% exceeded the posted speed limit of 40 km/h, while 19% travelled in excess of 10 km/h over the limit.

A suitable speed hump plan for this street would consist of 11speed humps as generally shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5285 dated November 1998.

If speed humps were installed on either or both streets, they should be 7.5 cm high.

As outlined in the former City of Toronto speed hump policy, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adult residents (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the street. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed in the Dufferin Grove Area as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Joe Gallippi, Transportation Technologist, 392-7711

56

Installation of Traffic Control Devices - Shaw Street,

from Dundas Street West to College Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the operating speed of motorists using Shaw Street, from Dundas Street West to College Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary work in the estimated amount of $14,000 are contained in Works and Emergency Services Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Shaw Street, from Dundas Street West to College Street for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Shaw Street from College Street to Dundas Street West, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5299 dated November, 1998."

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Shaw Street from Dundas Street West to College Street, coincident with the implementation of traffic calming; and

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

Comments:

At the requests of Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva on behalf of area residents, a staff investigation has been conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Shaw Street from Dundas Street West to College Street to reduce the number of speeding motorists on this street.

Shaw Street from College Street to Dundas Street West operates one-way southbound with a pavement width of 7.32 metres and has a posted speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. A recent twenty-four hour speed and volume survey conducted on Shaw Street between College Street and Dundas Street West indicates typical daily traffic volume of approximately 3,100 vehicles, with an operating speed (85^th percentile) of 49 mph. In addition, Shaw Street is part of a designated bicycle route extending from Hallam Street in the north to King Street West in the south.

The traffic calming proposal is illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5299 dated November 1998 and consists of 7 speed humps located approximately 52 metres to 85 metres apart. In addition a reduction of the speed limit to 30 kilometres per hour is also appropriate to maintain safe operating speeds for motorists to travel over the humps.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that a speed hump installation meets technical criteria, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of the street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. At least 60% of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at a deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to Shaw Street roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to the public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. Consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, Administrator,

Tel. No. 392-7878

57

All-Way "Stop" Sign Control -

Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue and

Installation of Speed Humps - Tyndall Avenue from

Springhurst Avenue to King Street West (High Park)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an all-way "Stop" sign control at the Tyndall Avenue/Temple Avenue intersection and to reduce the incidence of speeding vehicles on Tyndall Avenue between Springhurst Avenue and King Street West by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $12,000, funds for which are available in the Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Tyndall Avenue, from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on TYNDALL AVENUE from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5300, dated November 25, 1998,"

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, on behalf of area residents, Works staff investigated the feasibility of installing an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue, as well as concerns regarding excessive speeding on Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West with the view to implementing speed humps on this section of road.

Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.8 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of Tyndall Avenue and on the east side, parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily and for a maximum period of three hours at other times.

Temple Avenue runs east from Tyndall Avenue and operates one-way westbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres with a 40 kilometres per hour speed limit. Right-of-way at the intersection of these two streets is controlled by a "Stop" sign for westbound Temple Avenue traffic.

Request for an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue

A recent eight-hour manual traffic survey (which included the morning and afternoon rush periods and the midday off-peak periods) conducted by Works staff at the above intersection recorded combined total of 864 vehicles travelling on Tyndall Avenue and a total of 228 vehicles travelling on Temple Avenue. A total of 125 pedestrians was observed crossing Tyndall Avenue at Temple Avenue and 116 pedestrians crossed Temple Avenue at Tyndall Avenue.

An examination of the Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersection revealed that from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997 (the most recent data available), there was only one reported collision, which was not pedestrian or cyclists related. This collision involved a westbound car stopped at the Temple Avenue "Stop" sign being rear-ended by another vehicle. The presence of an all-way "Stop" sign control would not have prevented this collision.

Works staff have evaluated this intersection against the criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs which encompass factors such as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience, and concluded that the warrants for an all-way "Stop" sign control have not been satisfied. Specifically, there are no physical characteristics at this intersection which impair visibility for either motorists or pedestrians approaching the intersection, and the intersection appears to be operating safely.

   As the main complaint received from residents about traffic operation on Tyndall Avenue appears to be the speed of traffic using this street, the use of an all-way "Stop" sign control to reduce the incidence of speeding is not desirable. Experience has shown that the presence of a "Stop" sign will effect the speed of traffic only within a very short distance of the sign, usually 30 to 40 metres and that speeds increase somewhat farther away from the "Stop" as motorists attempt to make up for lost time. Further, without the presence of rigorous police enforcement, the rate of compliance with unwarranted all-way "Stop" sign controls is poor. In light of this, other measures, such as the installation of speed humps, have proven to be effective in lowering operating speeds, improving safety and are self-enforcing. Similar installations on nearby streets such as Springhurst Avenue and Close Avenue have proven successful in substantially reducing traffic speeds over the entire street and improving traffic safety.

Installation of speed humps on Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West

Works staff recently conducted twenty-four automatic speed and volume surveys over a two-day period on the subject section of Tyndall Avenue. On average, Tyndall Avenue carries a combined total of 2,500 vehicles per day in both directions, with an operating speed (the rate of speed travelled at or under by 85% of all motorists) of 58 kilometres per hour and an average speed of 44 kilometres per hour. In order to address this speeding problem, Works staff have developed a traffic calming plan with the view of reducing operating speeds to range of 30 kilometres per hour.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5300 dated November 25, 1998 consists of six speed humps with spacings between the speed humps of approximately 40 to 86.5 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would also be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Speed Hump policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years of age and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this policy, at least 60% of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the poll results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to Tyndall Avenue, as described above, constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently by subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies have been undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stephen Benjamin, Manager of Traffic Operations, District 1, 392-7773

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (December 4, 1998) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

I am writing to you regarding the report submitted by Transportation Services District I, with regards to installation of speed humps on Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West, and an All-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue.

I am unable to attend the Toronto Community Council meeting on Thursday December 10, 1998, I am writing to support the installation of speed humps on Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West, subject to a poll being conducted by Works and Emergency Services staff.

With regards to the request for an all-way "Stop" sign control, at the intersection of Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue, I am recommending to Toronto Community Council that this item be deferred until such time, that a poll is conducted to determine if there is community support for this request, and if the above-noted speed humps are implemented, will there still be a need for stop sign control at this location.

Your consideration of the above is greatly appreciated.

58

Directional Signage Programme -

Fort York (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and Acting Managing Director, Heritage Toronto:

Purpose

To seek Council support for the fabrication and installation of signage which directs residents and visitors to Fort York and increases public awareness about the Fort.

Source of Funds

Funds to fabricate the new signs are available in the approved 1999 Heritage Toronto budget.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:

(1)Council endorse a directional signage programme to improve access to and increase the visibility of Fort York.

(2)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and Heritage Toronto develop an approach and programme for a comprehensive attractions signage programme for the City and report back to Council in the spring of 1999 on the programme.

Background:

Fort York is the birthplace of Toronto and is a nationally designated historic monument. It is one of Toronto's most important historic sites and its collection of historic buildings includes seven of Toronto's eight oldest buildings still on their original foundations. Fort York is cut off from the city by the rail corridor, Gardiner Expressway and Bathurst Street bridge. It is virtually invisible to the surrounding area and difficult to find. It deserves greater prominence and improved access. Until Bremner Boulevard is extended west of Spadina Avenue, and west of Bathurst Street as Fort York Boulevard, accessibility can be increased only by improved signage.

Comments:

Fort York Pilot Signage Programme

In the spring of 1998, the Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common (FFY) approached Urban Planning and Development Services and Heritage Toronto to develop an attractions signage programme for Fort York. The objective of this signage initiative was to improve the visibility and accessibility of Fort York. In order to test the programme in co-operation with the Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common, Heritage Toronto and Urban Planning and Development Services developed a pilot project of directional signage to direct visitors from the downtown tourist areas to Fort York. Heritage Toronto proposes to erect 12 signs aimed primarily at directing motorists to the fort. The sign prototype is shown below.

Heritage Toronto and Urban Planning and Development Services have consulted with staff in the Department of Works and Emergency Services regarding the design, location and production of the signs. Signs will be located on three routes from the downtown: along Front Street and Bathurst Street; along Bremner Boulevard and Lake Shore Boulevard West; and along Queens Quay West. All signs will be fabricated by Works and Emergency Services staff at the City's Eastern Avenue facilities.

Broader Attractions Signage Programme

The Fort York pilot signage programme is a useful first step in looking at a broader attractions signage programme for historic sites and attractions within the city. Toronto currently lacks a co-ordinated programme of cultural, historic, entertainment and commercial attractions signage. Planning staff have contacted National Capital Commission staff in the Ottawa-Hull area who have recently developed an attractions signage programme for that area. The programme is being implemented in three phases: phase one is directed at vehicular traffic along City streets; phase two will be installed along highways in the area; and the third phase is directed at pedestrians. All signage is part of the same design family but varies slightly to respond to the vantage point of the visitor. Funding for the signage is provided by the various attractions named by the programme.

City Works and Emergency Services staff are in the process of implementing attractions signage along the Gardiner Expressway, including Fort York signage. Continuation of this programme through a co-ordinated system of directional signage on city streets would have clear benefits to the City and to its attractions. The Fort York project should be viewed as a pilot for the development of a wider attractions signage programme which would be attractive, cost effective and easy to use and understand by visitors and residents.

Conclusion

The directional signage pilot project for Fort York proposed by Heritage Toronto is an important initiative which will help to increase the visibility of Fort York and should be endorsed.

In order to address the broader need for a comprehensive attractions signage programme for the city, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Services staff, in conjunction with Urban Planning and Development Services, should develop an approach and programme for a wider signage programme for submission to Council in the spring of 1999.

Contact Names:

Ian Cooper Jo Ann Pynn

Telephone: (416)392-7572Telephone: (416) 392-6827 ex. 243

Fax: (416)392-1330Fax: (416) 392-6834

E-mail: icooper@city.toronto.on.ca.E-mail: info@toronto.history.on.ca

59

Retention of Outside Planning Advice -

50 Prince Arthur Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 24, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To identify an appropriate source of funds for the retention of outside planning advice and to obtain further instructions in connection with the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Ontario Municipal Board has set aside eight days to hear this matter in addition to two prehearing days. Mr. Leon Kentridge of Kentridge Johnston Limited has been retained to provide evidence on the City's behalf subject to the identification of an appropriate source of funds, in accordance with Toronto City Council's instructions.

The funding implications should the hearing take the full eight days are that $26,000 plus GST and disbursements will be required.

I am recommending that funds be made available from the City's Corporate Contingency Account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)funds be made available from the City's Corporate Contingency Account to pay for the retention of outside planning advice for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing respecting 50 Prince Arthur Avenue, as set forth in the City Solicitor's report of November 24, 1998; and

(2)the City Solicitor be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of both the Committee of Adjustment's decision to refuse the consent application (No. A861-97) and the Council's decision of July, 29, 30 and 31, 1998 to refuse the application to remove the trees situated at 50 Prince Arthur Avenue, together with such other staff as may be appropriate.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, the Council of the City of Toronto gave consideration to Clause No. 7 contained in Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council and recommended refusal of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, site plan application, and the application to remove trees for 50 Prince Arthur Avenue. In addition, Council instructed the City Solicitor to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the refusal of these applications and to uphold the Committee of Adjustment decision refusing the requested variances and authorized the retention of outside planning advice subject to a further report to Council identifying an appropriate source of funds.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report is in accordance with City Council's instructions at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998. A prehearing was held by the Ontario Municipal Board on November 2, 1998. A further prehearing will be held on December 7, 1998. The hearing in this matter is scheduled to commence February 15, 1999 and as stated above, the Board has set aside eight days.

In addition to the matters previously reported on, in furtherance of the proposed development of the subject site the applicant has since applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever. This application was refused and the applicant has now appealed this decision. This appeal will be consolidated with the other matters before the Board at the upcoming hearing. Accordingly, Recommendation (2) above includes the requisite instruction to oppose such appeal..

Previously City Council refused the application to remove trees at this site. The applicant failed to appeal this decision through an apparent oversight and accordingly Council has todate not provided instructions with respect to this aspect of the hearing. The applicant has refiled their application and it was agreed at the prehearing that no further processing would occur and that the applicant's appeal of Council's refusal would be consolidated with the hearing of the other related planning matters. Recommendation (2) above includes the requisite instruction for me to support Council's decision in this regard.

Contact Name:

Sharon Haniford, Solicitor

Telephone: 392-6975

Fax: 392-0024

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

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (December 6, 1998) from Mr. Norman Crockatt, a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

 60

Request for Endorsement of Event for

Liquor Licensing Purposes - Street Festival -

Church Street, North of Carlton Street to Wood Street

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the street festival to be held on the city street allowance on Church Street, north of Carlton Street to Wood Street, and in the adjacent parking lot (property known as 411 Church Street) between the hours of 3:00 p.m. on February 13, 1999 and 1:00 a.m. on February 14, 1999, and that it has no objection to it taking place.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (November 20, 1998) from the General Manager, Molstar Sports and Entertainment:

I forward the following applications for submission to the next meeting of the Toronto Community Council on December 9, 1998, for their consideration and approval.

1.Liquor Permit

Applications will be made, subject to receiving Municipal approval, to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario for a Special Occasion Permit to serve alcoholic beverages within the City Street Allowance on Church Street, north of Carlton Street to Wood Street and in the adjacent parking lot (property known as 411 Church Street), between the hours of 3:00 p.m. on 13 February and 1:00 a.m. on 14 February, 1999.

The event is a street festival in celebration of the last Maple Leaf game at the Gardens, and will comprise a stage with live bands, refreshment tents and supporting facilities. The anticipated attendance is 2,000 and admission is by invitation only.

2.Street Closures over 24 hours duration

For the purpose of this event, and in order to have sufficient time for the installation or erection of the concert stage and tentage with appropriate lighting, heating and other amenities and facilities, application is being made to the City's Works and Emergency Services Department to close Church Street from Carlton Street to Wood Street, and the south curb lane of Wood Street from Church Street to Mutual Street, during the period 7:00 p.m. on Friday, February 12, to 12:00 noon on Sunday, February 14, 1999.

As shown on the enclosed map, note that the west-side curb lane on Church Street within the above area will remain free of structures to permit the passage of emergency vehicles at all times.

During the even, snack food and hot dishes will be served from facilities located in tents installed in the parking lot at the south-east corner of the Church Street-Wood Street intersection by a licensed caterer.

In respect of these applications, I confirm that copies are being forwarded to the Toronto Police Service, the Fire Department and to the City's Department of Health, for their information.

I look forward to receiving confirmation of the Community Council's endorsement of these applications, prior to submission to City Council. Please contact me directly at (416) 922-7477 if additional information is required.

--------

A copy of the Application for a Temporary Street Closing referred to in the foregoing communication was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with agenda for its meeting on December 9, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

61

Amendment to Precinct Agreement -

Railway Lands East (Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose

To seek Council authorization to amend the Revised Precinct B Precinct Agreement for the Railway Lands East to permit a new access/egress stair for GO Transit connecting to the York West Tramway.

Source of Funds

Not applicable.

Recommendation

It is recommended that:

(1)The Revised Precinct B Precinct Agreement for the Railway Lands East be amended to permit a narrowing of the York West Tramway by a maximum of .m. to permit the construction of a GO Transit access/egress stair at the north end of the Tramway.

Comments

Improvements to the York Street Tramway were secured though Precinct Agreements for the Railway Lands and were implemented as part of the Metro Convention Centre expansion. GO Transit is in the process of improving access and egress to the GO tracks at Union Station. One of the improvements will be a direct connection to the north end of the York West Tramway by way of a stair which is shown on Map 1.

Planning staff have reviewed the stair proposal and support it as it:

(1)introduces more pedestrian traffic into the York Street West Tramway which currently has very little pedestrian traffic;

(2)provides another access/egress for GO Transit patrons; and

(3)complements the use of the Tramway and pedestrian circulation in the area.

Section 5.1 (I) of the Revised Precinct B Precinct Agreement states that:

"CN Properties agrees that the Tramways shall have a minimum width of 6 metres and that the Tramways shall be widened at the request of the City to 9 metres upon 2 years written notice to CP Properties..."

The stair structure will restrict the width of the York West Tramway to 5.6 metres in one location only. It will also cover three horseshoes set in the concrete floor of the tramway which are part of a public art installation executed by urban design staff. During the construction period, which is intended to begin in January and last approximately two months, the width of the Tramway at this location will be restricted to 2.6 metres, which can accommodate current pedestrian traffic in the area.

I am therefore recommending that Section 5.1 (I) of the Revised Precinct B Precinct Agreement be amended to permit a maximum .5 metre reduction in the required width of the York Street Tramway in this one location.

Toronto Terminal Railways (TTR) and Canadian Pacific Properties Inc. (CP) are parties to this Precinct Agreement and will be signatories to the above-noted amendment. Planning staff have contacted both TTR and CP who concur with the change.

Contact Name:

Lynda Macdonald

Telephone: 392-7618

Fax: 392-1330

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

62

Possible Precedents for Permitting Vending within

25 M of Businesses Selling Similar Products

(All Wards Within Former City of Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998 deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on John Street, east side, 9 metres north of Richmond Street West, be refused; and

(2)City Council deny any changes to the distancing requirement between local business and vendors in Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 30, 1998) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on permitting a proposed vending location in the former City of Toronto road allowance within 25 m of a business selling similar products.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on John Street, east side, 9 metres north of Richmond Street West, be refused; and

(2)City Council deny any changes to the distancing requirement between local business and vendors in Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

OR

(3)should City Council approve the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on John Street, east side, 9 metres north of Richmond Street West, the BIAs of the former City of Toronto be notified of the proposed application and be given an opportunity to appear before the Toronto Community Council.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 16, 1998, in considering a report (June 10, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, entitled "Appeal of Denial of Application for Sidewalk Boulevard Vending Permit - John Street, east side, 9 metres north of Richmond Street West", deferred consideration of the matter until no later than its meeting to be held on December 9, 1998 and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the possible precedents involved in this application.

Comments:

Current Regulations:

Sidewalk/boulevard and curblane vending is governed by the provisions set out in Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which, in part, stipulates as follows:

315-8 A(2) (d) & (h)

"No portion of the designated area shall:

(d)Be located less than twenty-five (25) metres from any part of a business which sells to the public products similar to those proposed to be sold from the food vending vehicle, the portable display unit or the work station.

(h)In the case of a food vending vehicle or a portable display unit, be located within a twenty-five metres radius of an existing designated area for a food vending vehicle or a portable display unit, where the permit for the designated area is issued after September 16, 1991."

These regulations were introduced to:

(a)minimize the vending activity within the City's right-of-way to ensure safe and clear passage of pedestrian movement;

(b)prevent the proliferation of vending activity on the City's right-of-way;

(c)ensure that there is no direct competition with local businesses;

Sidewalk/boulevard vending provides a significant contribution to animating street activity. In the past couple of years, we have received a number of requests from vendors for permission to reduce the distancing requirement either from a local business or from another vendor. As these sidewalk/boulevard and curblane vendors are another physical obstruction to the City's right-of-way we did not entertain such requests nor recommend the reduction of the distancing requirements. In fact, we continuously receive complaints from local businesses and other vendors about the direct competition and the related problems (i.e. garbage, etc) associated with vending, requesting that we increase the distancing requirements.

Mr. Guadron's proposed location is within 14 metres of "The Sandwich Table" restaurant located at 150 John Street. He has a letter of support from the owner of the restaurant, provided that the hours of operation from the vending location be restricted from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., Monday to Sunday. Further, the owner wishes to reserve the right to withdraw his support, in the event the permit is not issued within one year from the date of the letter.

As indicated in the report of June 10, 1998, approving this request would set a precedent. Furthermore, the potential for cash deals between businesses and vendors, in trade for a letter of consent is highly probable, as well as bidding wars between vendors, where vending late at night is extremely lucrative, in areas such as the "Entertainment District".

Administration and monitoring of these types of permits will be difficult, if not impossible, as letters of consent could be rescinded at any time.

The request to approve a vending location even though it does not meet the distancing requirements subject to the letter of consent from the adjacent business operator would set a precedent and I would not recommend such a proposal.

Conclusions:

The street vending program seeks to balance the benefits that street vending businesses contribute in animating streets, providing a service and affording an opportunity for small business entrepreneurs with the demands of maintaining safe accessible sidewalks, pleasant streetscape environments and protecting existing business operations.

Amending the By-law to permit vending within twenty-five (25) metres of a business selling a similar product would jeopardise the consistency of the vending programme. However, if this is a request which Council wishes to support in principle, I recommend that the local BIAs' views are also considered, through a public process.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

63

Installation of Speed Humps - Springhurst Avenue

from Jameson Avenue to King Street West (High Park)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $5,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5276, dated October 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 km/h to 30 km/h on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West to reduce vehicle speeds. Six speed humps were installed on Springhurst Avenue from Dufferin Street to Jameson Avenue in December 1997.

Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Street to a point 85.3 metres south of King Street West has a pavement width of 6.2 metres, and 9.7 metres for the remaining portion closest to King Street West. This portion of Springhurst Avenue has a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h, and operates one-way westbound/northbound from Jameson Avenue to a point 85.3 metres south of King Street West, and two-way for the remaining portion. The following parking regulations are in effect on this block:

East Side

*The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m daily, and parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of one hour at other times, from Jameson Avenue to a point 85.3 metres south of King Street West.

*Parking is prohibited at all times from King Street West to a point 85.3 metres south thereof.

West Side

*Parking is prohibited at all times.

Twenty-four hour speed and volume surveys conducted between September 14, 1998 and September 19, 1998 recorded approximately 1100 to 1400 vehicles per day, and of these about 50% to 70% exceeded the posted speed limit of 40 km/h, while 10% to 20% travelled in excess of 10 km/h over the limit.

A suitable speed hump plan for this block would consist of five speed humps as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5276 dated October 1998. The proposal has one speed hump south of the sharp bend and four north of the bend.

In accordance with the Speed Hump implementation policy established by the former City Council, residents will be polled to determine whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll will be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed to Springhurst Avenue as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

 This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Joe Gallippi, Transportation Technologist, 392-7711

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (December 7, 1998) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

I am writing to you regarding the report submitted by Transportation Services District I, with regards to the installation of speed humps on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West.

I am unable to attend the Toronto Community Council meeting on Wednesday December 9, 1998, I am writing to support the installation of speed humps on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West and the recommendations in the report.

64

Naming of Public Street - Mathersfield Drive (Midtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the public street located between Mathersfield Drive and Pricefield Road, be named Mathersfield Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the public street located between Mathersfield Drive and Pricefield Road, illustrated on Map A attached, be named "Mathersfield Drive"; and

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

Background and Comments:

The land comprising the street located between Mathersfield Drive and Pricefield Road was closed as a park and laid out as public highway by By-law 1995-0657. The street which is proposed to be named, is now considered the southerly extension of Mathersfield Drive, laid out and dedicated by plan of subdivision 66M-2314, registered on November 17, 1997. As part of the plan of subdivision approval process, the proposed street name Mathersfield Drive was circulated to and approved for use by Planning and Development, Fire Services, Heritage Toronto officials and the Rosedale Ratepayers Association. Also, Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons do not object to the use of this street name. It is now appropriate that the unnamed continuation of the street be formally named Mathersfield Drive.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416) 392-1831; Fax: (416) 392-0081

E-mail: dchristo@city.toronto.on.ca

65

Signage Program - Exhibition Place (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community council recommends that:

(1)the issue of billboard signage on Lake Shore Boulevard be deferred until a final proposal is submitted by Exhibition Place; and

(2)the following report (December 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. (1) be adopted:

Purpose

To inform Council about a new signage program for Exhibition Place and to seek Council's support in principle for the approach described in this report.

Source of Funds

Not applicable.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:

(1)Council adopt in principle the approach to a signage system for Exhibition Place set out in this report with the exception of billboard signage on Lake Shore Boulevard.

(2)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services continue to refine that system and assist Exhibition Place with their request for proposals to the signage industry, and that a detailed review of all signs related to their height, size, number, extent of third party advertising, signage orientation and placement occur at the time of the submission of a final proposal by Exhibition Place.

Comments:

1.Background

At its meeting of August 13 and 14, 1997, the former Metro Council approved a report from the Acting Commissioner of Metro Planning to amend Metro By-law No. 211-79 to permit the erection of a sign overlooking the Gardiner Expressway identifying the location of the National Trade Centre and Exhibition Place and displaying event information and third party advertising. This sign has been contracted for and will be complete this year. The report seeking Metro Council's approval for this free-standing sign also identified the need for a complete review of signage on Exhibition Place grounds.

There are a number of reasons for embarking on such a review. To date, with the exception of the signage system developed for the National Trade Centre, and architectural signs that are integrated with buildings on the site, signage has been provided on an ad hoc and insufficient basis. Increased use of this 260 acre site for trade shows and other events has made wayfinding and identification of various buildings and parking facilities more critical than ever. Appropriate signage could also assist in the marketing of the site.

The Exhibition Place lands are zoned "G" for parks purposes. Chapter 297 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code respecting signage has very restrictive provisions for Parks districts befitting their primary function as places for use by the public for recreational purposes. There is no third party advertising permitted in a "G" zone. However, this categorization does not address the unique character and activities that occur at Exhibition Place and the corresponding need for signage of another order outside of what would normally be permitted in a "G" zone. Any sign program implemented by Exhibition Place needs to be financially self-supporting and the proposed sign program considers some opportunity for advertising and sponsorship by companies who support Exhibition Place. Variances for similar third party signage have previously been sought and achieved during the construction of the National Trade Centre in 1997.

2.The Entro Study

Exhibition Place contracted with Entro Communications, a firm that has extensive experience with signage programs on such projects as the Air Canada Centre, York University, University of Toronto, Pearson Airport, the International Centre, Skydome, as well as many parks and heritage sites. The consulting budget was $10,000 and the time schedule was about two months, commencing in August 1998.

The objectives of the study were to achieve the following:

*help to promote Exhibition Place as an entity by utilizing the established corporate image;

*help reinforce the prominence of the site;

*work within the historical context while creating a look appropriate for trade/consumer shows, sports and entertainment venues;

*provide a coordinated look between old and new;

*be suitable for a range of messaging technologies;

*be able to accommodate a range of users to find destinations in and around the site;

*be suitable for a range of building types;

*be cost effective and durable;

*provide Exhibition Place with a consistent look; and

*provide revenues to be self-funding.

The study process included a review of the site, an analysis of traffic patterns and visual encumbrances, an assessment of the current inventory of signage products and discussions with Exhibition Place and Urban Planning and Development staff and various site users including the National Trade Centre and the CNE. The consultant was given the opportunity to develop a system that would address the site conditions and deal with third party signage in an aesthetically acceptable manner.

The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place was presented with the proposal at its meeting of October 30, 1998, and approved it in principle at that time.

It is expected that a request for proposals (RFP) to identify a proponent who will fabricate, install, maintain the signage at no cost to Exhibition Place will be sent out in the new year.

3.Description of the System

The proposal as outlined by Entro is comprised of a family of sign types in the categories of identification, wayfinding and advertising. I will discuss advertising signs below in Section 6. I have attached samples of the proposed identification and wayfinding signage as Appendix A.

3.1Identification Signs include Gate Identification, Building Identification and Parking Identification

Gate identification signs are to be located at major entrances into Exhibition Place including the Princes', Dufferin and Dominion Gates, Ontario Drive, Newfoundland Drive and the entrance to the National Trade Centre. Building identification signs are intended to identify all buildings and may be one of two types - either a free-standing pylon or a wall-mounted plaque. Building signage that is architecturally integrated with the existing buildings will of course remain untouched. Parking identification signs will utilize the commonly understood "P" to designate parking lots.

3.2 Wayfinding signs includes pedestrian signage, vehicular signage and maps

Wayfinding signs are intended to help people find their way through the site and to their desired destination. Pedestrian and vehicle-oriented maps of Exhibition Place are located at entrances to the site, in order to provide overall orientation.

Pedestrian wayfinding signs are located at all pedestrian decision points and vehicle wayfinding signs are located at vehicle decision points. Vehicle wayfinding signs are intended to provide directions for pedestrians as well as for vehicles. These signs carry text which directs people through the site to their desired destination.

3.3 The Design of the Signage

The system that has been developed makes all signs look like they belong to a product family specifically designed for Exhibition Place. Such a strong distinctive look, with a consistent colour theme is intended to create a strong sense of place. Since the most recognizable element of the grounds is the Princes' Gates, it is being used as an icon at the top of all the signage. This is being represented in three different ways - as a cut-out at the top of the signage, incorporated into the signage and, in the case of the wayfinding signs, the utilization of the "Winged Victory Figure", the centrepiece of the Princes' Gates. These tops are critical to achieving the desired image and are an integral part of this system. They should not be sacrificed for budgetary reasons.

A typical sign would contain the corporate Princes' Gates logo at the top, either a white or blue sign face with the reverse colour letter and then a box below for advertising, corporate sponsorship, directional information or to be left blank.

Exhibition Place has established the directive that the sign program be self-financing. Therefore, up to one third of the bottom of the sign contains the opportunity for third party advertising in the form of static or electronic advertising or corporate sponsorship.

One of the characteristics of the system is that the signs are high, in order to give them prominence and to allow them to be read by crowds and not to be the subject of theft. A single pole structure is generally used, based on the pole system used at the National Trade Centre to facilitate pedestrian flow and also to allow for signage to be taken down when necessary for temporary events. Existing signs that are duplicated or inconsistent with the signage system being proposed will be removed. New temporary signage will be designed to be consistent with this program.

3.4 Locations of Signage

As part of their study, Entro included a site plan proposal locating the range of signs they have proposed. However, because of the limitations of the study, it was not the mandate of Entro to consider all the matters necessary to establish the precise location and orientation of any particular sign, its relationship to buildings, intersections, the streets and sidewalks. I believe that the site plan proposal forms a strong base for the next stage of the work, with certain exceptions which I will discuss below.

4.Comments on the System

Planning, Urban Design and Heritage Toronto staff have reviewed the signage program, and will be helping to refine the system in the context of the following:

*that the signage system support the "Structure Plan" prepared by staff of Urban Planning and Development Services and Exhibition Place and O&Y-SMG Canada, which was adopted by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place in 1998. This work provides an overall development framework for Exhibition Place;

*that the ultimate location of all signage be sensitive to the views identified in the Structure Plan. Areas of particular concern are the Fire Hall, Music Building, Bandshell, Princess Margaret Fountain and the National Trade Centre from Newfoundland Road;

*that views of historical facades be preserved by keeping building identification signs away from the main facades and conforming with Heritage Toronto's Signage Design guidelines;

*that the overall image of signage on the visual aesthetic of the grounds, including heritage buildings and structure view corridors and termini, must be positive;

*that signage be tested to ensure that it is not obtrusive and does not block views;

*that wherever possible vehicular and pedestrian signs be consolidated, and any other opportunities be taken to consolidate signs to reduce the potential for visual overload on the site;

*that signage will be examined within the context of both individual buildings including the twenty-six listed or designated historic buildings and structures;

*that signage proposed at three historic gateways and other primary entrances be carefully considered in terms of scale and type especially in front of the Princes' Gates, in order to determine the appropriateness of signage in these locations;

*that map directories located at most of the gateways and entrances be appropriately integrated into the grounds with space for cars or pedestrians to view them and that they be provided at the correct scale;

*that efforts be made to reinforce the pedestrian nature rather than the vehicle-oriented uses of the grounds. In particular, vehicular directional signs should be in keeping with the lower speed limits at Exhibition Place;

*that the precise location of bus, taxi signs, banner and street signage be assessed within an overall landscaping review of the site; and

*that any signage within 45 metres of the Gardiner Expressway be reviewed within the context of By-law 211-79.

5.Graphic Testing

Through the use of computer technology, I have been testing the impact of the selected signs in order to determine the appropriateness of their size, height, location and impact. Two systems have been utilized - a photographic model and a computer model.

At the time that a final system is proposed, my report will include drawings showing the impact of the signs within their context. I am proposing to continue this graphic testing and to work with staff of Exhibition Place in developing their request for proposals to the sign industry. Planning staff will then continue to work with the selected proponent to achieve a desirable product.

6.Billboard Advertising on Lake Shore Boulevard

My computer testing of the proposed billboard signage along Lake Shore Boulevard confirms my opinion that this is not supportable. At this time there are no billboards along Lake Shore Boulevard, which remains a relatively pristine waterfront boulevard. Not only would billboards impact the aesthetic experience of Lake Shore Boulevard, but also the public face of Exhibition Place as viewed from the lake shore. I also believe that it could compromise the quality of the public promenade envisioned along the north side of Lake Shore, including views to the waterfront. Staff of Heritage Toronto support my view that billboard signage should not be introduced onto Lake Shore Boulevard. This is the one part of the program that I cannot endorse as currently proposed. There may be other opportunities to achieve some of the Exhibition Place objectives for corporate sponsorship or self-financing on appropriately scaled and sited entrance signage.

7.Next Steps

Exhibition Place would like to send out a request for proposals to the sign industry in early 1999. I am proposing to continue my own in-house graphic testing in order to help refine the system, and then to provide input to help Exhibition Place structure their request for proposals. I would then assist Exhibition Place in the selection of a signage company to implement the proposal. Ultimately I will have comments on the final proposal within the context of any variance proposed to the sign provisions of the Municipal Code for the implementation of the system.

Conclusion

I am recommending that Council support in principle the signage program for Exhibition Place as described in this report with the exception of billboard signage on Lake Shore Boulevard and subject to the concerns I have expressed and comments listed in Section 4.

Contact Name:

Elyse Parker

Telephone392-0069

Fax392-1330

E-Maileparker@toronto.on

66

Tree Removal - 123 Sheldrake Boulevard (North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 123 Sheldrake Boulevard.

The following motion, placed by Councillor Walker, was lost on the following division of votes:

"That City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 123 Sheldrake Boulevard, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism."

Yeas:Councillors Disero, Jakobek and Walker - 3

Nays:Councillors Rae, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, McConnell, Pantalone and Silva - 7

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to provide more sunlight to a proposed deck and flower gardens has been filed by Mr. David Streight Milne, 123 Sheldrake Blvd., Toronto, Ontario, M4P 281, owner of 123 Sheldrake Boulevard.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal;

(2)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a sixty-five centimetre diameter American elm in fair condition. The elm tree is located along the west property line and the crown of the tree would provide shading from the afternoon sun to the proposed deck. The rear yard of the property is quite large and can accommodate plant material that requires direct sunlight and shade tolerant plant material under the canopy of the elm tree. The native elm tree is a rare and significant species in Toronto's urban forest and every effort should be made to incorporate this specimen into landscape plans.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

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

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (undated) from Mr. Robert Johnston, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

 67

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Front Yard Parking - 156 Golfview Avenue (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report, until the previously requested report on the implications of permitting front yard parking where there are more permit parking spaces available than permits issued, on the side of the street where permit parking is authorized:

(November 23, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement respecting Appeal of Denial of Front Yard Parking Application at 156 Golfview Avenue (East Toronto) Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, and recommending Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement.

Mr. John M. Leca, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b)Removal of Tree - 105 Hazelwood Avenue (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999:

(November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism respecting Removal of Tree - 105 Hazelwood Avenue (Don River), and recommending that City Council:

(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; OR

(2)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

Ms. Victoria Skanzoy, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(c)Removal of Tree - 63 Wolfrey Avenue (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999:

(November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism respecting Removal of Tree - 63 Wolfrey Avenue (Don River), and recommending that City Council:

(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; OR

(2)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

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

-Ms. Susan Konynenburg, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Ms. Sophie DeFrancesca, Toronto, Ontario.

(d)Request for Angled Driveway Widening - 228 Blackthorn Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999, to permit the Ward Councillor to have a site meeting; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to indicate in such future reports, the extent of the variances from the by-law.

(September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services respecting Request for Angled Driveway Widening - 228 Blackthorn Avenue (Davenport), and recommending that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto.

(e)Front Yard Parking Appeal - 42 Walker Avenue (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following matter until its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999:

(November 20, 1998) from Councillor Bossons respecting Front Yard Parking Appeal - 42 Walker Avenue (Midtown).

(f)Intention to Designate Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act - 11 King Street West (Montreal Trust Tower) (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on February 17, 1999:

(i)(November 20, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board respecting Intention to Designate Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act - 11 King Street West (Montreal Trust Tower) (Downtown), and recommending:

(1)That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 11 King Street West (Montreal Trust Tower) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

(2)That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

(ii)(December 8, 1998) from Mr. André Charron, Hammerson Canada

Ms. Cynthia MacDougall, McCarthy-Tétrault, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(g)Final Report - Rezoning Application No. 197006 to permit the Conversion of an Industrial Building at 320 Carlaw Avenue to 41 Live/Work Units, Artists' and Photographers' Studios and Warehouse Space. (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following final report:

(i)(November 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Rezoning Application No. 197006 to permit the Conversion of an Industrial Building at 320 Carlaw Avenue to 41 Live/Work Units, Artists' and Photographers' Studios and Warehouse Space. (Don River), and recommending:

(1)That City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to amend the City's Zoning By-law 438-86 as it affects the site at 320 Carlaw Avenue, shown on the Key Map, so as to:

(a)rezone the site I1 D3;

(b)exempt the site from Sections 2(definition of parking space), 4(4)(c)(ii), 4(6)(c), 4(12) and 9(1)(f) (uses permitted in an I1 district);

(c)permit the use of the existing building containing 41 live/work units in addition to light industrial uses;

provided that:

(1)residential amenity space is provided to the extent of at least 82 square metres of indoor space and at least 74 square metres of adjoining outdoor space;

(2)not less than 70 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the site, including not less than 29 parking spaces for the exclusive use of residents;

(3)the combined above-grade residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 12,582 square metres.

(2)That the owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

(ii)(December 9, 1998) from Mr. Adam Krehm, O'Shanter Development Co. Ltd.

Mr. Sada Sané, the applicant, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(h)Final Report - Rezoning Application No. 197005 to Permit the Conversion of an Industrial Building at 233 Carlaw Avenue to 42 Live/Work Units in Combination with Light Industrial Uses (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following final report:

(November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Rezoning Application No. 197005 to Permit the Conversion of an Industrial Building at 233 Carlaw Avenue to 42 Live/Work Units in Combination with Light Industrial Uses (Don River), and recommending:

(1)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to amend the City's Zoning By-law 438-86 as it affects the site at 233 Carlaw Avenue, shown on the key map, so as to:

(a)redesignate the site I1 D3;

(b)exempt the site from Sections 4(4)(b), 4(4)(l)(ii), 4(6)(c), 4(10)(a), 4(12), 9(1)(f) and 9(1)3(iii) of By-law 438-86, as amended;

(c)permit the use of the existing building containing not more than 42 live/work units and light industrial uses, provided that:

(i)residential amenity space is provided to the extent of at least 118 square metres of indoor space and at least 84 square metres of outdoor space;

(ii)not less than 47 parking spaces are provided to serve the project, including 7 spaces on site, 12 boulevard spaces and 28 spaces located at 1215 Dundas Street East. Not less than 29 of those spaces shall be for the exclusive use of residents of the building;

(iii)the combined above-grade residential gross floor and non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 9,944.00 square metres.

(2)That the owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

Mr. Sada Sané, the applicant, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(i)Universal Water Metering Program (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on March 30, 1999, or until City officials submit the reports requested in Recommendation Nos (2), (3) and (4), for deputations in the evening;

(2)requested the City Solicitor to report to the Toronto Community Council on whether small towns and villages which were amalgamated into the former City of Toronto can keep their flat rate bill as part of previous agreements;

(3)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report comprehensively to the Toronto Community Council on:

(a)the impact of the proposals set out in the report (October 19, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services on the former City of Toronto's Water Pressure Improvement Grant System;

(b)the potential long-term loss in the revenue and the impact on the other former municipalities of the proposals set out in the report (October 19, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services;

(c)the advantages, if any, of the former City of Toronto program as it relates to (i) voluntary participation; (ii) the value to the City of upgrading old and aging water pipes; (iii) on the savings inherent in the reduction of ruptures, given the replacement of piping on City property; and (iv) the health benefits of replacing old lead piping with copper;

(d)on a budget to supply one-third of the households with water meters, and a budget for water upgrades;

(4)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to advise the Toronto Community Council when water efficiency measures, such as low-flow toilets and water saver kits, will be provided universally to every household across the City; and

(5)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to advise senior citizens of the potential benefits of accepting water meters.

Ms. Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(j)Preliminary Report - Application No. 298003 to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to Permit the Construction of 13 Residential Units at 910 Logan Avenue (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)adopted the following preliminary report: and

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

(a)provide a special briefing to the Ward Councillors on this project;

(b)pursue the possibility of innovative affordability within the project; and

(c)examine stormwater management options both on-site, such as using permeable surfacing wherever possible, and off-site, such as the park to the north of the development.

(November 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on Application No. 298003 to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to Permit the Construction of 13 Residential Units at 910 Logan Avenue (Don River), and recommending that:

(1)I be requested to hold a public meeting in the area to discuss the application and to notify tenants and owners within 120 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(2)The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(k)Preliminary Report - 866 Avenue Road - Application 198006 for Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to Permit the Redevelopment of an Automobile Service Station to a Combined Gas Bar and Convenience Store (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having amended the following preliminary report by adding the words, "from North Toronto and Midtown" after the words, "Ward Councillors" in Recommendation No. (1), and having adopted the report, as amended:

(November 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 866 Avenue Road - Application 198006 for Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to Permit the Redevelopment of an Automobile Service Station to a Combined Gas Bar and Convenience Store (North Toronto), and recommending that:

(1)I be requested to hold a public meeting to discuss the revised application, and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site, area residents associations and the Ward Councillors.

(2)The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a report, audit and management plan which provides for the remediation of soil and groundwater from any hazardous materials on the site.

(3) The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement. The owner will be further advised of these requirements as they relate to this project by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(l)2300 Yonge Street, Application No. 998091: Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City Of Toronto Municipal Code (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999, to permit the Ward Councillor to have a meeting in the community:

(i)(November 26, 1998)Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 2300 Yonge Street, Application No. 998091: Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City Of Toronto Municipal Code (North Toronto), and recommending that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998091 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated "blade" signs.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998091, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(ii)(December 2, 1998) from Mr. David Y. Green, Yonge-Eglinton Centre

The motion to defer consideration of this matter was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Adams, Bossons, Bussin, McConnell and Walker - 5

Nays:Councillors Rae, Johnstone and Pantalone - 3

(m)Briar Hill Avenue between Caldow Road and Chaplin Crescent - Installation of Speed Humps. (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until January 20, 1999:

(November 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1 respecting Briar Hill Avenue between Caldow Road and Chaplin Crescent - Installation of Speed Humps. (North Toronto), and recommending:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Briar Hill Avenue, from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on BRIAR HILL AVENUE from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5282, dated October, 1998,"

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Briar Hill Avenue from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and

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

(n)Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - 9 - 17 Christie Street and 388 - 402 Clinton Street (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(November 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - 9 - 17 Christie Street and 388 - 402 Clinton Street (Midtown), and recommending that this report is to be received for information

(o)14 Prince Arthur Avenue - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)received the following report for information: and

(2)requested the Mayor to write thank-you letters to the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the Chair of Heritage Toronto, the Chair of the Annex Residents' Association and to the following expert witnesses who testified, in some cases pro bono - Mr. William Greer, Mr. Michael McClelland and Mr. Paul Johnston.

(November 24, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting 14 Prince Arthur Avenue - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Midtown), and recommending that this report is to be received for information.

(p)Front Yard Parking

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the General Manager, Transportation Division to respond to the request from the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, contained in the communication (November 24, 1998) from the City Clerk:

(November 24, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, forwarding the actions of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee of its meeting of November 19, 1998 and recommending that the Toronto Community Council be informed about the following concerns with regard to pedestrian dangers and that the Toronto Community Council and the Toronto City Council consider once again restricting front yard parking in the interests of greater safety for pedestrians:

(1)that front yard car parking requires that the adjacent sidewalk be sloped to accommodate the coming and going of car traffic; and

(2)that this makes the affected sidewalks unsafe for pedestrians - for seniors, children, and those travelling with wheelchairs, or baby carriages.

(q)The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure.

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested:

(1)the City Solicitor to expedite the submission of the necessary by-laws to City Council;

(2)the City Solicitor to submit the enabling by-law requested by Council, as set out in Recommendation No. 4(b) contained in Report 12, Clause 1 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, as soon as possible; and

(3)the Chief Financial officer and Treasurer to submit the report requested by Council on the best method of assigning limited budgetary authority to the Community Councils (as set out in Recommendation No. (4)(d) of Report 12, Clause 1 of the Special Committee), as soon as possible.

(November 6, 1998) from the City Clerk respecting the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure

(r)Speed Humps - St. Clements Avenue, Castlewood Road to Caldow Road (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999 on the feasibility of installing speed humps on St. Clements Avenue, Castlewood Road to Caldow Road:

(November 24, 1998) from Councillor Johnston respecting St. Clements Avenue - Request from Residents to Review the Feasibility of Installing Speed Humps on St. Clements Avenue, Castlewood Road to Caldow Road (North Toronto).

(s)Speed Humps - Melrose Avenue, Greer Road to Jedburgh Road (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report, at its meeting to be held on January 20, 1998, on the feasibility of installing speed humps on Melrose Avenue, Greer Road to Jedburgh Road:

(November 24, 1998) from Councillor Johnston respecting Melrose Avenue: Request from Residents to Review the Feasibility of Installing Speed Humps on Melrose Avenue, Greer Road to Jedburgh Road (North Toronto).

(t)30 Hayden Street - Ontario Municipal Decision/Order Granting Zoning By-law Variances (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(November 30, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting No. 30 Hayden Street, Ontario Municipal Decision/Order Granting Zoning By-law Variances (Downtown), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(u)Settlement of Objection to By-law No. 1994-0601 - Definition of Club, Concert Hall, Place of Amusement, Place of Assembly and Related Requirements (All Wards in the former City of Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(November 27, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting Settlement of Objection to By-law No. 1994-0601 - Definition of Club, Concert Hall, Place of Amusement, Place of Assembly and Related Requirements (All Wards in the former City of Toronto) and recommending this report be received for information.

(v)122 St. Patrick Street, Ontario Municipal Board Decision/Order Granting a Variance from Zoning By-law No. 267-73 of the former City of Toronto (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(November 30, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting No. 122 St. Patrick Street, Ontario Municipal Board Decision/Order Granting a Variance from Zoning By-law No. 267-73 of the former City of Toronto (Downtown) and recommending this report be received for information.

(w)1999-2003 Capital Program.

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)recommended to the Budget Committee that:

(a)with respect to the Garrison Creek, $75,000 be allocated for expenditures by the City, on the advice of the Garrison Creek Linkages Advisory Committee, on projects such as St. Hilda's Walk;

(b)the $113,000 budgeted in the 1999-2003 Capital Program Budget for Fort York Boulevard be designated for capital expenditure in 1999;

(c)the $350,000 previously recommended by the Toronto Community Council for allocation in the 1998 Capital Program Budget for improvements for the McCormick Community Centre, which have not, as yet, been done, now be designated for capital expenditure in 1999;

(d)funding of $100,000 be restored in the 1999 Parks and Recreation Capital Program Budget for environmental initiatives, as requested by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Parks and Culture;

(e)environmental initiatives currently funded through the Parks and Recreation Capital Program Budget be funded through the water rate;

(f)the Capital Program for future years be amended to reflect a continuation of current expenditures for environmental initiatives;

(g)$50,000 be approved for environmental testing and preliminary design work for the St. Jamestown Community Centre, the source of such funds to be provided from monies received under the provisions of Section 37 of the Planning Act;

(h)$350,000 be approved for design fees for the St. Jamestown Community Centre, such funds to be spent upon receipt of monies under the provisions of Section 37 of the Planning Act;

(i)$60,000 be restored for landscaping at the Lower Don and Hanlan's Point of the Toronto Islands;

(j)the Water Service Supply Section Account T25011 ($4.9 million) be set aside or deleted until such time as City Council has considered the issue of universal water metering;

(k)funding of $100,000 be restored for capital improvements to the auditorium floor ($35,000) and the west windows ($65,000) of the 519 Church Street Community Centre;

(l)funding of $25,000 be restored to replace the awnings on the west side of St. Lawrence Market North;

(m)funding of $260,000 be restored for the following capital improvements to St. Lawrence Market South:

i)$25,000 to repair leaking eaves troughs and downpipes;

ii)$50,000 to paint the soffits and exterior railings of the building;

iii)$125,000 to replace stairs at southwest access to the market; and

iv)$60,000 to re-surface the elevated ramps and the loading dock;

(n)funding of $285,000 be restored for the following capital improvements to St. Lawrence Hall:

i)$105,000 for the restoration of the stonework of the sills and cornices;

ii)$65,000 to replace decayed wood windows at the north (King Street) elevation;

iii)$70,000 to replace the carpeting at the stairs and various locations; and

iv)$45,000 to paint the walls and ceiling of the Great Hall;

(o)funding for the B.I.A. streetscape improvement program be increased by a net amount of $196,000;

(p)funds of $3.95 million be allocated in the Urban Planning and Development Services Capital Program Budget for urban design initiatives;

(q)the adoption of the following motion from Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor McConnell:

"WHEREAS there are commercial facade improvement programs for Dundas Street West Junction/Malta Village, Parkdale Village B.I.A., Old Cabbagetown B.I.A. and Downtown Yonge Street approved for 1997-98; and

WHEREAS applications are still being received by staff; and

WHEREAS to allow for the optimum number of new commercial facade improvement applications in each of these four areas;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council establish a reserve account for the City of Toronto's Commercial Facade Improvement Program and the Downtown Yonge Street Commercial Improvement Grant Program, incorporating funds in the amount of $280,000 approved in Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department's 1998 Operating Budget."

(2)(a)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with appropriate officials, to:

(i)report on which projects would be appropriately funded through the water rate as set out in Recommendation No. (5);

(ii)report on a source of funds for Recommendation No. (6);

(iii)with respect to Capital repairs to City Hall, reconsider and report on the fire safety issue, with a view to finding a fire exit from the Glass Walk, which would not require the $400,000 expenditure on the ceremonial ramp leading to the Pod;

(iv)elaborate and report on how the Task Force to Bring Back the Don could utilize the funding of $125,000 allocated for storm water projects for the Don River in the Works and Emergency Services Capital Program Budget;

(v)re-evaluate and report on the priority rankings of requests by the Toronto Police for facilities maintenance and /or enhancement;

(vi)report on the transfer of $600,000 from the Transportation Capital Program Budget to the Parks and Recreation Capital Program Budget for the Hydro Rail Corridor Bike Trail ($100,000) and the Humber River Bike Path ($500,000);

(vii)further examine and report on the proposed reduction of $275,000 in the Energy Retrofit Capital Program Budget, and in such report, to set out the time line and other ways to carry out the City's retrofit strategy, or alternatively, restoring the funds;

(viii)report on using the funds allocated for structural storm water projects for non-structural storm water projects as required, on the advice of the Wet Weather Master Planning Process Committee, storm water groups and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(b)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report on the request/proposal of the Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A. for a streetscape improvement program on Bloor Street;

(c)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on a program of cost-sharing to encourage homeowners to install or re-install water permeable front yard parking/driveway widening spots;

such reports to be submitted to the Budget Committee prior to City Council's consideration of the 1999-2003 Capital Program;

(3)concurred with the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee that expenditures be undertaken in 1999 for the Dufferin Jog Elimination;

(4)reaffirmed its support for a multi-purpose community facility in St. Jamestown as the top priority for community facilities; and

(5)supported the recommendation from the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee that the funds of $150,000 for the design of the St Jamestown Library be reinstated to ensure that the library and community centre design work is done in tandem.

The above recommendations were adopted unanimously as follows:

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Fotinos, Jakobek, Johnston, Layton, McConnell, Miller, Pantalone, Silva - 13

(i)(November 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, addressed to the Budget Committee;

(ii)(November 11, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, addressed to the Budget Committee;

(iii)(December 9, 1998) from Ms. Tanny Wells, Chair, Task Force to Bring Back the Don;

(iv)(undated) Motion from Councillor Miller;

(v)(December 10, 1998) from Ms. Karen Yukich, High Park Citizens' Advisory Committee;

(vi)(December 10, 1998) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Toronto Pedestrian Committee; and

(vii)(December 10, 1998) from Ms. Evelyn Garratt.

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

- Ms. Precy Beltran, Vice-President, Ontario Filipino Women's Club;

-Ms. Tanny Wells, Task Force to bring back the Don;

-Ms. Pat Cepin, Planning Committee for the new St. Jamestown Community Centre;

-Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

-Ms. Lisa Immen, Neighbourhoods Forum;

-Ms. Karen Yukich, High Park Citizen's Advisory Committee;

- Mr. Fred Luk, Filet of Sole Restaurant;

- Mr. Alex Ling, President of TABIA;

- Mr. Z. Uznanski;

-Mr. Ed Dosman, Garison Creek Advisory Committee; and

-Ms. Alison Kemper, 519 Church Street Community Centre.

     Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE,

Chair

Toronto, December 9 and 10, 1998

 (Report No. 16 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended by City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998.)