TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999

ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 8

1 Parking Prohibitions: Anglesey Boulevard Between Islington Avenue and The Kingsway (Kingsway-Humber)

2 Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study Bloor Street West to Berry Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)

3 Parking Regulations: The Kingsway Between Anglesey Boulevard and Hartfield Road (Kingsway-Humber)

4 Left Turn Prohibitions South Intersection of Humberwood Boulevard and View Green Crescent (Rexdale-Thistletown)

5 Stop Street and Through Highway Designations: Bluewater Court and Fleeceline Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)

6 By-law to Establish Certain Lands as a Public Highway Legion Road and Manitoba Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)

7 Through Highway and One-Way Street Designations Legion Road North (Lakeshore-Queensway)

8 Designation of an Exclusive Right-turn Lane: Royal York Road, North of Evans Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)

9 Introduction of a Parking Prohibition South Side of Lake Shore Boulevard West West of Thirteenth Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)

10 Traffic Concerns: Fernalroy Boulevard Between Islington Avenue and Norseman Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)

11 Review of the Existing Road Allowance: Lambeth Road, east of St. Georges Road, and The Kingsway, between Canterbury Road and Lambeth Road (Kingsway-Humber)

12 Monarch Development Limited Application for Encroachment Agreements 10 and 12 Humber Boulevard (Kingsway-Humber)

13 Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - Recycle Plus Ltd., 63 Medulla Avenue - File No. Z-2269 (Lakeshore-Queensway)

14 Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

15 Proposal to Stop-Up, Close and Sell Portions of the Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent and Steeles Avenue West Road Allowances (Rexdale-Thistletown)

16 Status Report on Humber Bay Shores Area Infrastructure Program and Dedication of Waterfront Drive

17 Appointment of Etobicoke Councillors to Special Purpose Bodies

18 Appointment of Interim Replacements to Etobicoke Historical Board/Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee

19 Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board - Nazeer Bishay 22 Kingsview Boulevard (Kingsway-Humber)

20 Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code Wittington Properties Limited
South Side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent, North of Dundas Street West and East of Burnhamthorpe Road - File No. Z-2283

21 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 8

OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on June 23, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Mario Giansante, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999

Parking Prohibitions: Anglesey Boulevard

Between Islington Avenue and The Kingsway (Kingsway-Humber)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To request the introduction of "No Parking Anytime" prohibitions on sections of Anglesey Boulevard, between Islington Avenue and The Kingsway

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with installing regulatory signs are contained in the Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) parking be prohibited on the south side of Anglesey Boulevard, between The Kingsway and Lambeth Crescent;

(2) parking be prohibited on the north side of Anglesey Boulevard, between The Kingsway and a point 844 m west thereof;

(3) parking be prohibited on the south side of Anglesey Boulevard, from Wimbleton Road to the west intersection of Anglesey Boulevard/Pinehurst Crescent; and

(4) Schedule VIII of Chapter 240 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be amended to include these prohibitions, and as described in the attached by-laws (Attachment No. 1).

Background:

Anglesey Boulevard, west of The Kingsway, is a median divided collector road with a posted speed limit of 40 km/h (Attachment No. 2). Both the eastbound and westbound lanes are approximately 5.0 m wide. The shoulder of the road is surface treated along both sides of Anglesey Boulevard, between Lambeth Crescent and The Kingsway. Most of Anglesey Boulevard does not have sidewalks, and pedestrians must walk on the side of the road.

Parking is currently permitted on both sides of the road, for a maximum of three hours. Section 240-7B(8) of the Etobicoke Municipal Code prohibits parking adjacent the existing centre medians. This prohibition is a general "stopping and parking" regulation that does not require signing. There appears to be some confusion among police and parking enforcement officers over this particular prohibition that we will clarify at the earliest opportunity.

Anglesey Boulevard will be reconstructed in the fall of 1999. The eastbound and westbound travelled lanes will be reduced to 3.4 m in width. To improve pedestrian safety, curbside walkways measuring 2.13 m in width will be constructed on both sides of Anglesey Boulevard, at the following locations:

(a) on the south side, from Wimbleton Road to the west intersection of Pinehurst Crescent and Anglesey Boulevard, and from Lambeth Crescent to The Kingsway; and

(b) on the north side, from the Humber Valley Artificial Ice Rink to The Kingsway.

We also received several complaints relating to on-street parking along Anglesey Boulevard, immediately west of The Kingsway, during the public consultation process for the reconstruction of Anglesey Boulevard. This situation is attributed to 'spill over' parking from the adjacent apartment buildings.

Discussion:

The presence of parked cars near the existing pedestrian crossover at the west approach to Hartfield Road and Anglesey Boulevard, combined with the curvilinear alignment of Anglesey Boulevard, west of The Kingsway, is a significant safety concern for pedestrians. This condition is especially pronounced at night, and during periods of inclement weather. While the introduction of curbside walkways is expected to improve this situation, continuing to allow vehicle parking in these areas will eliminate any potential safety benefits provided by the walkways.

The deteriorating condition of the boulevards along Anglesey Boulevard, just west of The Kingsway, appears to be the result of long-term parking generated by the apartment buildings, and emphasises a need for parking prohibitions in this area.

Conclusions:

Prohibiting parking on aforementioned sections of Anglesey Boulevard is required to improve pedestrian safety, protect the boulevard areas, and to control 'spill over' parking demand from the residential apartment buildings.

Based on our review of these issues, and the support for these measures expressed by area residents during the community meetings on the 1999 reconstruction of Anglesey Boulevard, Council's approval of the above recommendations is appropriate.

Contact Name:

Allan Smithies, Manager, Traffic Planning/R-O-W Management - District 2.

(416) 394-8412; Fax (416) 394-8942.

(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study

Bloor Street West to Berry Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1) striking out the recommendation of the Etobicoke Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that the report dated June 16, 1999, from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy, Works and Emergency Services, be adopted; and

(2) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) the authorized roadway be widened to accommodate bus bays;

(b) the ex-filtration system be constructed as part of the Prince Edward Drive Project;

(c) traffic calming measures be considered during the design process; and

(d) the recommendation of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, embodied in the communication dated June 30, 1999, from the City Clerk, be adopted, subject to deleting the words 'and that significant monies are not wasted on the proposed maintenance of bus bays', so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

'The Toronto Pedestrian Committee on June 23, 1999, recommended to City Council that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee be involved in the next design stage of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study since it wishes to be assured that missing sidewalks are completed, and that greening efforts and pedestrian safety and comfort are maximized at corners and intersections.' ")

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that Alternative 12 outlined in the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study, submitted with the report (June 16, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy, be endorsed:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy, to meet with the Steering Committee to consider an Option 12A, an alternative design of 26 feet (8.0 m) with shoulder and swale (grass to grass) and submit a report thereon to Council at its meeting on July 6, 1999.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June 16, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy:

Purpose:

To seek endorsement of the functional design recommended for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1999-2003 Capital Works Program for the Transportation Services Division includes $1.3 million for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road in 1999.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study be endorsed, including the recommended functional design which consists of a two-lane, 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with curbs and gutters.

Background:

At its meeting on February 17, 1999, Etobicoke Community Council received a report (February 10, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy which provided the Terms of Reference to be used by City staff in undertaking the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study. Included in the Terms of Reference was a commitment to report on the findings and recommendations of this study to Etobicoke Community Council. This study is now complete and the results are summarized in this report.

Discussion:

A full copy of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study report is attached. A brief summary of this report is provided in the following paragraphs.

Study Purpose and Process:

The purpose of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study was to develop and evaluate alternative designs for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road, in consultation with the local community. For the purpose of this study, the local community was defined as the area bounded by Bloor Street West, the Humber River, Berry Road and Royal York Road/Mimico Creek.

Given that the work envisioned for the reconstruction involved only minor design changes, this project was considered "approved" under the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects (Class EA), and therefore no environmental assessment study was required. However, due to the level of interest in the community with respect to the design of Prince Edward Drive, a comprehensive planning and public consultation program was carried out, consistent with the process described in the Class EA.

The study process included the following:

(i) the collection and analysis of data to establish existing conditions in the areas of the natural environment, the socio-economic environment, the physical infrastructure, and transportation operations;

(ii) the identification of problems and opportunities to be addressed with the design of Prince Edward Drive, as established by the existing conditions review;

(iii) the identification and evaluation of alternative designs for Prince Edward Drive; and

(iv) The selection and detailing of a preferred alternative design.

Public Consultation:

The broader community was consulted at key decision points in this study process. Two public information centres (PIC's) and one public workshop were held. The first PIC was held on March 9, 1999 where information was presented on the assessment of existing conditions and identification of the problems and opportunities to be addressed by the design of Prince Edward Drive. A total of 120 people attended this PIC.

The public workshop was held on April 14, 1999 and was attended by 67 people. Attendees were provided with background information on road design topics, then were divided into small work groups. These work groups reported back on preferred design elements to be included in the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive. This information assisted in the development of alternative designs and in the detailing of the preferred alternative.

The second PIC was held on May 26, 1999 and was attended by 175 people. The evaluation of alternative designs and the rationale for the selection of the preferred alternative design were presented at this meeting.

In addition to these large public meetings, meetings were held throughout the course of the study with a Steering Committee comprised of individuals who represented various stakeholder groups in the community. This Committee assisted in the development of the study Terms of Reference and provided advice on all aspects of the study. Twelve Steering Committee meetings were held. These meetings were open to the public.

Study Findings and Recommendations:

Based on the physical and traffic data collected, the following problems were identified:

(1a) many areas of road base failure were identified and the existing asphalt pavement exhibits severe structural and age-related cracks and deterioration;

(1b) most of the roadside ditches are in poor condition and are not functioning effectively, resulting in occasional roadside ponding; and

(1c) there is a low level of compliance with the 40 km/h speed limit, with the majority of motorists travelling at or below 54 km/h.

The following opportunities were identified in consultation with the Steering Committee and reviewed by the broader community to assist in developing alternative designs:

(2a) improve aesthetics, increase greening, promote a sustainable community;

(2b) improve and increase pedestrian safety and crossing opportunities;

(2c) maintain and improve stormwater quality; and

(2d) promote alternative modes of travel.

A preliminary list of alternative designs was developed, including various combinations of road widths and drainage systems. This preliminary list included 13 alternative designs. These were subjected to a screening evaluation focussed on the following key areas:

(3a) the ability of the alternative to solve the identified problems and to provide for the identified opportunities;

(3b) safety impacts; and

(3c) physical constraints.

The screening evaluation was used to reduce the number of alternative designs to be considered for detailed evaluation. The conclusions of the screening evaluation were that 5 of the 13 alternative designs should be evaluated in detail, as follows:

(4a) Alternative No. 3 - a 7.3 metre (24 feet) wide road with curb and gutter drainage;

(4b) Alternative No. 4 - a 7.3 metre (24 feet) wide road with drainage swales;

(4c) Alternative No. 7 - an 8.5 metre (28 feet) wide road with drainage swales;

(4d) Alternative No. 9 - a 9.7 metre (32 feet) wide road with curb and gutter drainage; and

(4e) Alternative No. 12 - an 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with curb and gutter drainage.

The Do Nothing Alternative was also recommended to be evaluated for comparison purposes only. The detailed evaluation of these alternative designs was conducted using the following evaluation criteria:

(5a) living environment;

(5b) natural environment;

(5c) land use/economic impacts;

(5d) transportation/engineering/safety; and

(5e) cost.

The detailed evaluation of the alternative designs revealed that the many uses of the Prince Edward Drive road right-of-way are competing and that the preferred design must provide a compromise between these competing uses.

Alternative No. 12 - an 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with curb and gutter drainage was selected as the preferred alternative design. The main conclusions leading to this selection were as follows:

(6a) Alternative No. 12 meets the minimum requirements for bicycle friendly lanes, Alternative Nos. 3 and 4 do not;

(6b) Alternative No. 12 provides larger boulevard areas for street landscaping than Alternative Nos. 4, 7 and 9; and

(6c) the increased storm water runoff associated with Alternative No. 12 relative to Alternative Nos. 4 and 7 can be mitigated.

While these conclusions indicated that Alternative No. 12 does provide a compromise among the competing road uses, the pavement width associated with this alternative is narrower than has typically been used for two-lane collector roads. In addition, the curb and gutter provided with this alternative would require motorists who stop their vehicles to occupy the travelled lane rather than pulling onto the shoulder as they presently do. As a result of the narrower road width, combined with the curb and gutter design, concerns were raised that there may be problems for emergency vehicles passing stopped vehicles.

Comments on this recommendation were solicited from Emergency Services. Fire, Ambulance and Police Services indicated that they have no major concerns with the preferred design in general, but that they want to be involved in the detailed design stage. Following receipt of these comments, Alternative No. 12 was confirmed as the Preferred Design for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive.

The Fundamental Issue: Road Width versus Community Character:

The fundamental issue that was discussed and evaluated during this study was the issue of road width versus community character. The community consensus during the study was to limit the pavement width to the minimum width possible. The community feels that a narrower pavement width will change the character of the road, help limit the occurrences of non-compliance with the posted speed limit and reduce the attractiveness of Prince Edward Drive to through traffic.

The community's wishes were at odds with the evaluation of the road from a traffic operations perspective. This perspective would seek to have a wider pavement width to minimize the potential for adverse conditions arising from vehicles (including cyclists) having to pass one another if the condition warrants.

The recommendation from the study is a compromise between these two fundamentally divergent views, and seeks to achieve the desires of the community while continuing to have the road operate in a safe manner.

Staff are aware that the recommended functional design for Prince Edward Drive is a non-standard design and, therefore, because there is little or no experience operating collector roads of this width, we recommend that this be considered a pilot project. After construction, we will undertake a systematic review of the long term effects on traffic operations and safety of this road design. We will report back to Etobicoke Community Council on our findings, which may be used as the basis for considering similar collector road widths in the future.

Detail Design:

Other design elements recommended to be included, which require refining during the detailed design stage, are as follows:

(7a) maintenance of the existing bus bays at TTC stops;

(7b) provision of sidewalks where none are currently provided;

(7c) consideration of traffic calming measures which do not impact on Emergency Services response times;

(7d) provision of mitigating measures for potential increases in stormwater runoff;

(7e) intersection modifications at Bloor Street West and at Berry Road to improve motorist and pedestrian safety; and

(7f) street landscaping.

The community will be given the opportunity to provide input on the development of the detailed design.

A full description of the study findings and recommendations is available in the attached Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study report.

Timing:

The next stage in the process is to prepare a detailed design and tender contracts for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive. This stage will take six to eight weeks to complete. Therefore, assuming Etobicoke Community Council endorses the recommendations of this report, the earliest construction start date is September 1999. Due to the amount of construction work required, it is anticipated that the construction will be completed in two stages: the first in the Fall of 1999; and the second in the Spring of 2000. The timing of contract awards and the staging of construction will be finalized during the detailed design process.

Conclusions:

An extensive planning and consultation process has resulted in the recommendation that Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road be reconstructed as an 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with a curb and gutter drainage system. Funds are included for this work in 1999. Detailed design should begin as soon as possible to establish all of the components of this project and to enable construction to begin this year.

Contact Name:

John P. Kelly, Manager, Infrastructure Planning

Tel: 392-8340; Fax: 392-4426

(A copy of the Attachment referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Cycling Committee at its meeting held on June 21, 1999, adopted the Recommendations contained in the communication (June 20, 1999) from Mr. Jack Becker, Co-Chair, Toronto Cycling Committee, on behalf of the Working Group on Prince Edward Drive Bicycle Lanes, viz.:

(1) That the Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto City Council support:

(a) the construction of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the reconstruction of the road from Bloor Street to Berry Road;

(b) the installation of bicycle lanes on the paved shoulder of Berry Road from Prince Edward Drive at least to Park Lawn Road, or preferably to Stephen Avenue, and on Park Lawn Road from Berry Road to The Queensway; and

(c) the installation of a bicycle path on the east shoulder of Park Lawn Road from The Queensway to Lakeshore Road and the Martin Goodman Trail; and

(2) that should the Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto City Council adopt the Recommendation of the Transportation Services Division, i.e., that the road width be 7.9 metres, that the lane surface be designed in a manner that makes the lane appear as narrow as possible for motor vehicles and accommodate buses as well as cyclists by:

(a) building each lane with three strips of different material: an asphalt strip, a dark coloured paver strip, and a light coloured paver strip, thus making the driving portions of the lane appear narrower than it really is;

(b) making the asphalt strip width a maximum 2.5 metres to accommodate motor vehicles;

(c) adding an 0.8 metre-wide strip of dark coloured pavers next to the asphalt strip for buses and trucks to drive on; and

(d) adding 0.65 metre-wide strip of light coloured pavers as an unmarked area.

The Toronto Cycling Committee reports, for the information of the Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto City Council, having:

(1) reconfirmed its support for continuous cycling facilities from Bloor Street to the Waterfront as a means to allow safe cycling access from the greater Bloor/Royal York area to the Waterfront;

(2) received the communication (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee; and

(3) requested Ms. Nina Koskenoja, Member, Toronto Cycling Committee, to make a deputation to the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with this matter.

Background:

The Toronto Cycling Committee had before it a communication (June 20, 1999) from Mr. Jack Becker, Working Group on Prince Edward Drive Bicycle Lanes, responding to a request from the Toronto Cycling Committee on May 17, 1999, for a report to consider other alternatives to bicycle lanes, including alternatives on Prince Edward Drive or on adjacent roads; advising that the Working Group, comprised of Ms. Nina Koskenoja, Ms. Joan Doiron and Mr. Jack Becker, was established to review the concerns raised by the Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association and other area residents respecting the Toronto Cycling Committee's recommendation for the installation of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Project, and to meet with the appropriate City staff and other interested parties, including Mr. Ken Riddell, Ms. Rhona Swarbrick and Mr. Martin Collier respecting this matter; and recommending that:

(1) the Toronto Cycling Committee reconfirm its support for continuous cycling facilities from Bloor Street to the Waterfront as a means to allow safe cycling access from the greater Bloor/Royal York area to the Waterfront;

(2) the Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto City Council support:

(a) the construction of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the reconstruction of the road from Bloor Street to Berry Road;

(c) the installation of a bicycle path on the east shoulder of Park Lawn Road from The Queensway to Lakeshore Road and the Martin Goodman Trail; and

(3) should the Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto City Council decide to accept the recommendation of the Transportation Services Division, that the road width be 7.9 metres, the Toronto Cycling Committee recommend to the Etobicoke Community Council that the lane surface be designed in a manner that makes the lane appear as narrow as possible for motor vehicles and accommodate buses as well as cyclists by:

(a) building each lane with three strips of different material: an asphalt strip; a dark coloured paver strip; and a light coloured paver strip, thus making the driving portions of the lane narrower than it really is;

(b) making the asphalt strip width a maximum 2.5 metres to accommodate motor vehicles;

(c) adding a strip, next to the asphalt strip of 0.8 metre strip of dark coloured pavers, for buses and trucks to drive on; and

(d) adding a strip of 0.65 metres of light coloured pavers as an unmarked area.

The Toronto Cycling Committee also had before it a communication (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, respecting the use of Prince Edward Drive as a model for 'greening' the City.

The following Members of the Working Group on Prince Edward Drive Bicycle Lanes appeared before the Toronto Cycling Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Martin Collier; and

- Ms. Rhona Swarbrick.

(Communication dated June 20, 1999,

addressed to the Toronto Cycling Committee from

Mr. Jack Becker, Working Group on Prince Edward Bicycle Lanes)

Recommendations:

The Working Group on Prince Edward Drive Bicycle Lanes recommends that:

(2) the Etobicoke Community Council and City Council be requested to support:

(a) the construction of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the reconstruction of the road from Bloor Street to Berry Road;

(b) the installation of bicycle lanes on the paved shoulder of Berry Road from Prince Edward Drive, at least to Park Lawn Road, or preferably to Stephen Avenue, and on Park Lawn Road from Berry Road to The Queensway; and

(c) the installation of a bicycle path on the east shoulder of Park Lawn Road from The Queensway to Lakeshore Road and the Martin Goodman Trail; and

(3) should the Etobicoke Community Council and City Council decide to accept the recommendation of the Transportation Services Division, that the road width be 7.9 metres, the Toronto Cycling Committee recommend to the Etobicoke Community Council that the lane surface be designed in a manner that makes the lane appear as narrow as possible for motor vehicles and accommodates buses as well as cyclists by:

(b) making the asphalt strip width a maximum 2.5 metres to accommodate motor vehicles;

(c) adding a strip, next to the asphalt strip of 0.8 metre strip of dark coloured pavers, for buses and trucks to drive on; and

(d) adding a strip of 0.65 metres of light coloured pavers as an unmarked area.

Background:

The Toronto Cycling Committee, on May 17, 1999, established a Working Group comprised of Ms. Nina Koskenoja, Ms. Joan Doiron and Mr. Jack Becker to review the concerns raised by the Kingsway Sunnylea Residents Association and other area residents respecting the Toronto Cycling Committees recommendation for the installation of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Project. The Working Group was requested to meet with the appropriate City staff and other interested parties, including Mr. Ken Riddell, Ms. Rhona Swarbrick and Mr. Martin Collier, to consider other alternatives to bicycle lanes, including alternatives on Prince Edward Drive or on adjacent roads.

Discussion:

During the public consultation process, residents of Prince Edward Drive expressed their desire for the road reconstruction to support maintaining existing traffic volume and not increase it. The residents also voiced support that the road design should address the excessive road speeding that is going on and the design should encourage drivers to maintain posted speed level. Local residents voiced strong support for narrow lanes.

The Transportation Services Division, in the end and as usual, proposed wide lanes of 3.95 metres, wide enough for two cars to be side-by-side, despite the local residents' desire for narrow lanes. Instead of proposing a design to encourage driving at posted speed limits, Transportation Services Division proposed a lane width that is safe to drive on at the 100 km/h range. A near expressway lane width for a local, collector road was the proposed solution.

For some reason, the local residents gave up their desire for maintaining traffic volume and posted speed and seemed to support the wide lane design.

The Transportation Services Division proposed a road design that did not address on-road cycling for families or children. It has also neglected all calls to make on-street cycling safer. There is mounting pressure for more bicycle lanes on City roads:

(1) As a result of some cycling deaths in 1996, the Regional Coroner for Toronto investigated cycling deaths and safety in Toronto. A report was published in July 1998 with recommendations to improve the safety of cyclists. One of the recommendations called on the City to construct bicycle lanes on the roads (Recommendation No. 14). This report was adopted by Council.

(2) The Urban Environment and Development Committee, on April 19, 1999, requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the Toronto Cycling Committee for consideration of this matter and subsequent submission to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, as soon as possible, such report to also include information on, among others:

"ways of expanding the bicycle path network, both neighbourhood paths and major arterial roads, in all parts of the City and how it can be ensured that the bicycle path network is taken into consideration when capital monies are expended on building new roads or reconstructing existing ones."

(3) The Transportation Services Division has stated that the most economical way to build bicycle lanes is during road reconstruction/construction.

(4) Members of the Prince Edward Drive steering committee and the local community have expressed concerns that cycling in the City is unsafe. During the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive, there is an opportunity to start making the streets of Toronto safer for cyclists by constructing bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive.

(5) There is a demand for a safe cycling route and bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive, Berry Road and Park Lawn Road to allow families and others to cycle to the Waterfront and Mimico Creek waterfront facilities.

(6) The City has announced, as part of creating a new City Official Plan, that it will focus on a sense of community, quality of the natural and built environment with attention to pollution levels, quality of urban streets and buildings, parks, and open space systems, safety in the City, friendliness, and a method of renewing the City. Bicycle Lanes on Prince Edward Drive and other roads will support this initiative. Wide lanes, as proposed, would take away any local feeling.

(7) A member of the Prince Edward Drive Steering Committee stated at a committee meeting that the wider the lane, the faster she drives. Wide lanes seem to encourage speed and poor driving behaviour (weaving in the lane).

The Transportation Services Division proposal does not support upgrading the quality or beauty of the street, is not supportive of a Greening Toronto City and streets, and it is not a model for Toronto, liveable streets and improved quality of life.

Discussions were attempted to be held to look at other alternatives of bicycle facilities on Prince Edward Drive and for other adjacent routes. No alternatives were found.

Royal York Road was proposed as an alternative but the section from south of the current bicycle lanes (south of Eglinton) to the Lakeshore would need reconstruction which is not scheduled until 2003, or so. Also, this road would take cyclists away from the Mimico Creek Park destination on the Waterfront.

The Park Lawn Road alternative north of Berry Road is not seen as practical as Park Lawn Road has significant traffic and is narrow in this section with lane width of 3.1 metres. Also, a couple of hills would discourage families from using it.

Grenview Boulevard could be one alternative as it parallels Prince Edward Drive. The road is a local road with parking allowed on both sides. It is not a direct road, having a couple of jogs. The intersection at Bloor Street is a problem as it is not signalized and, based on past discussions on distances between traffic lights, it is not expected that the Transportation Services Division would move a Prince Edward Drive pedestrian crossing traffic light to this intersection as it would be close to Prince Edward Drive.

It is recommended to the Toronto Cycling Committee that it should continue to support full bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the reconstruction.

Car drivers would appear to have a narrow but sufficiently wide lane for driving at the posted speed of 40 km/h. Buses and trucks would have a sufficiently wide lane of 3.3 metres (asphalt and dark pavers) to drive on. Cyclists would have, for the most time as bus traffic is infrequent and trucks are restricted from Prince Edward Drive, an apparent lane of 1.45 metres to cycle on.

--------

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

- (May 27, 1999) from Ms. Rosemary Dunsmore, strongly objecting to any reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive, south of Bloor Street, that will change the character of the neighbourhood, encourage speeding and jeopardize the safety of pedestrians;

- (May 27, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, identifying problems and solutions to improve and maintain the pedestrian safety and restore the beauty of the area, compromised by over-dependence on and overuse of automobiles;

- (June 21, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hansen, recommending certain road features to be incorporated into the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive for public safety and environmental reasons;

- (June 23, 1999) from Mr. Ken Riddell, commenting on the process for community input into the Prince Edward Drive reconstruction project;

- (June 22, 1999) from Mrs. Sylvia Giovanella, President, E.F.R.R.A., supporting the Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association and the Transportation Department's recommended Option No. 12, for the widening of Prince Edward Drive to 26 feet curb face to face;

- (June 23, 1999) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, requesting that consideration be given to removing bus bays to reduce volume of run-off, reinforcing public transit as the priority traffic, and making it easier for pedestrians crossing, and continuing discussion about non-aggressive traffic calming measures to achieve a lower more consistent speed limit, etc.

--------

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

- Ms. Mary Campbell, President, Kingsway Sunnylea Ratepayers Association/KPRI;

- Mr. Frank Mills, Park Lawn Cemetery;

- Ms. Fiona Campbell, Communities in Bloom;

- Ms. Anna Teed;

- Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

- Mr. Dalton Shipway;

- Mr. Jack Miller;

- Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Protect Established Neighbourhoods (PEN);

- Ms. Nina Koskenoja, Toronto Cycling Committee;

- Mr. Steve Lindley;

- Ms. Janet Pounder, Sunnylea Jr. School Council;

- Ms. Isobel Povoa;

- Mr. Crawford Murphy, Toronto Cycling Committee;

- Ms. Janice Etter;

- Mr. Martin Collier;

- Mr. Morris Lewicky;

- Mr. Greg Ellis; and

- Mr. Trevor Pereira.

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide additional information on the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study as requested by Etobicoke Community Council at its June 23, 1999 meeting.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding implications of this report. Details on funding sources for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive are outlined in the report (June 16, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy considered by Etobicoke Community Council.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of June 23, 1999, Etobicoke Community Council considered a report (June 16, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy which recommended a functional design for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road (8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with curb and gutter drainage system).

The Etobicoke Community Council endorsed the staff recommendation and requested the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy, to meet with the Steering Committee to consider an alternative design, Alternative No. 12A, 8.0 metre (26 feet) with shoulder and swale (grass to grass), and submit a report thereon to Council at its meeting on July 6, 1999.

Discussion:

A comprehensive study, including public consultation, was undertaken to determine the most appropriate functional design for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road. Full details on the results of this study were presented in the report to Etobicoke Community Council. The functional design recommended to Etobicoke Community Council includes an 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with a curb and gutter drainage system (Alternative No. 12). The new alternative (Alternative No. 12A) is an 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road measured from the edge of the grass to the edge of the grass. This concept includes 11 foot lanes, 2 foot wide hard-surfaced shoulders, and a swale drainage system. These two designs are shown as Figures Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The new alternative was evaluated using the detailed evaluation criteria from the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study. The main advantages and disadvantages of this new alternative in comparison to the recommended alternative are summarized as follows:

Advantages:

(i) Shoulders and swales maintain existing road character; and

(ii) No anticipated increase in storm water runoff to Mimico Creek and the Humber River.

Disadvantages:

(i) The narrow lane width reduces cyclist safety, although the shoulder provides for emergency escape;

(ii) The lack of curbs enables vehicles to pass other vehicles on the right, using the shoulder and boulevard, causing a safety concern for pedestrians and cyclists;

(iii) The boulevard could be damaged by vehicles parking beyond the shoulder; and

(iv) The swales result in limited opportunities for improving the street landscaping (no large trees).

On the basis of this information, staff continues to support our original recommendation of Alternative No. 12 as reported to Etobicoke Community Council.

Etobicoke Community Council requested that staff canvass the opinion of the members of the Steering Committee on the new alternative. The Steering Committee is comprised of thirteen individuals who represent various stakeholder groups in the community. The responses received from the thirteen members of the Steering Committee indicate a majority favour the original staff recommendation of Alternative No. 12. Nine members indicated a preference for the staff recommendation, three members preferred the new Alternative No. 12A, and one member did not respond.

Conclusions:

As recommended to Etobicoke Community Council, Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road should be reconstructed as a two-lane, 8.0 metre (26 feet) wide road with curb and gutter drainage system. The Steering Committee for this project continues to support this recommendation.

Contact Name:

John P. Kelly

Manager, Infrastructure Planning

Tel: 392-8340

Fax: 392-4426)

Figures Nos. 1 and 2

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (June 30, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Toronto Pedestrian Committee on June 23, 1999, recommended to City Council that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee be involved in the next design stage of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study since it wishes to be assured that missing sidewalks are completed, that greening efforts and pedestrian safety and comfort are maximized at corners and intersections and that significant monies are not wasted on the proposed maintenance of bus bays.

The Toronto Pedestrian Committee reports for the information of Council that it supports the recommendations of the Toronto Cycling Committee at its meeting held on June 22, 1999, calling for the construction of bicycle lanes on Prince Edward Drive as part of the reconstruction of the road from Bloor Street to Berry Road embodied in Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of the Etobicoke Community Council entitled "Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Study, Bloor Street West to Berry Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)".

Background:

The Toronto Pedestrian Committee had before it a communication (June 23, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, regarding further greening of Prince Edward Drive to make it a more walkable area.)

(A copy of the communication (June 23, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, which was attached to the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

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

(i) (July 5, 1999) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, forwarding a response to the June 23, 1999, report to Etobicoke Community Council regarding the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Project; and

(ii) (July 5, 1999) from Ms. Helen Hansen, requesting approval of the Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction Project without bus bays and with striped lanes for cyclists.)

Parking Regulations: The Kingsway

Between Anglesey Boulevard and Hartfield Road (Kingsway-Humber)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that the report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, be adopted, as amended by deleting the words "until the Toronto Parking Authority requests permission to install additional metered parking stalls on the east side of The Kingsway, north of Anglesey Boulevard", so that the recommendation reads:

"that the existing "No Parking 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m." prohibition on the east side of The Kingsway, from Hartfield Road to a point 134 m south, and the limits of the on-street metered parking stalls, currently described in Schedule C of Section 87(11) of the Etobicoke Municipal Code, be maintained."

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To maintain the existing parking prohibition, and the limits of the on-street metered parking stalls, located on the east side of The Kingsway, between Hartfield Road and Anglesey Boulevard.

Funding Sources:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the existing "No Parking 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m." prohibition on the east side of The Kingsway, from Hartfield Road to a point 134 m south, and the limits of the on-street metered parking stalls, currently described in Schedule C of Section 87(11) of the Etobicoke Municipal Code, be maintained until the Toronto Parking Authority requests permission to install additional metered parking stalls on the east side of The Kingsway, north of Anglesey Boulevard.

Background:

At its meeting of May 26, 1999, Etobicoke Community Council considered a report from the Director, Transportation Services Division, District 2, entitled "On-street Parking Permits, The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard/Bexhill Court" (Attachment No. 1). Etobicoke Community Council was informed of the results of a public opinion survey of the area's apartment residents concerning our proposal to introduce on-street parking permits. The report recommended that:

(1) On-street parking permits not be introduced on Anglesey Boulevard, The Kingsway, or Bexhill Court;

(2) the Toronto Parking Authority repair and/or replace the existing non-functioning parking meters on Anglesey Boulevard, The Kingsway, and Bexhill Court;

(3) the Toronto Parking Authority review the rate structure and permitted times for metered parking in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard/Bexhill Court area; and

(4) the Toronto Parking Authority install additional metered parking stalls on the east side of The Kingsway, north of Anglesey Boulevard, and that Schedule C of Section 187 (11) and Schedule VIII of Chapter 240 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be amended accordingly, and as described in the attached by-laws.

Etobicoke Community Council adopted the first three recommendations. Recommendation (4), which revises the existing "No Parking 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m." regulation on the east side of The Kingsway, south of Hartfield Road, and increases the existing northerly limit of the on-street metered parking stalls on the east side of The Kingsway, was referred to staff for an additional report to be presented to the June 23, 1999, meeting of Etobicoke Community Council.

Discussion:

Parking is prohibited between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on the east side of The Kingsway, from Hartfield Road to a point 134 m south. The southerly limit of this prohibition ends at the existing northerly limit of the on-street metered parking stalls that currently extend north from Anglesey Boulevard. To allow the Toronto Parking Authority to install approximately 18 additional metered parking stalls on the east side of The Kingsway, north of Anglesey Boulevard, requires that this parking prohibition end at a point 52 m south of Hartfield Road.

We were advised by Councillor Lindsay Luby that area residents request that the existing parking prohibition remain until the Toronto Parking Authority installs the additional on-street metered stalls on the east side of The Kingsway, north of Anglesey Boulevard.

Conclusions:

The Toronto Parking Authority informed us that while they have no difficulty providing the additional metered stalls, they cannot, at this time, provide us with an exact installation date. This being the case, we will maintain the existing parking regulations until the Toronto Parking Authority requests permission to introduce the additional metered stalls.

Contact Name:

Allan Smithies, Manager, Traffic Planning/R-O-W Management, District 2

(416) 394-8412; Fax (416) 394-8942.

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Left Turn Prohibitions

South Intersection of Humberwood Boulevard

and View Green Crescent (Rexdale-Thistletown)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To prohibit northbound and eastbound left turns at the south intersection of Humberwood Boulevard and View Green Crescent.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of regulatory signs are contained in the Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) a left turn prohibition be introduced on Humberwood Boulevard at View Green Crescent (south intersection) for northbound traffic;

(2) a left turn prohibition be introduced on View Green Crescent at Humberwood Boulevard (south intersection) for eastbound traffic; and

(3) the associated by-laws (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

The housing development located on the west side of Humberwood Boulevard, at the south leg of View Green Crescent required the installation of an in-right/out-right intersection configuration because of the restricted sight lines created by the curve on Humberwood Boulevard. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Discussion:

Although the intersection was physically built to deter inbound and outbound left turn movements, the introduction of left turn prohibitions will legislatively preclude any such traffic movements at this intersection, thus reducing the potential for collisions.

Conclusions:

Left turn prohibitions for northbound and eastbound traffic at the south intersection of Humberwood Boulevard and View Green Crescent will effectively manage traffic flow, increase the traffic safety at this location, and allow the police to enforce the prohibited turns.

Contact Name:

Mark Hargot, Supervisor, Traffic Engineering, District 2

(416)394-8453; Fax (416)394-8942.

Stop Street and Through Highway Designations:

Bluewater Court and Fleeceline Road

(Lakeshore-Queensway)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the installation of stop controls on Bluewater Court at the east and west approaches to Harbourview Crescent, and the designation of Fleeceline Road as a through highway between the north limit of Lake Shore Boulevard West and the south limit Harbourview Crescent.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of regulatory signs are contained in the Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) a stop control be installed at the west approach of the east intersection of Bluewater Court and Harbourview Crescent;

(2) a stop control be installed at the east approach of the west intersection of Bluewater Court and Harbourview Crescent;

(3) Fleeceline Road be designated a through highway between the north limit of Lake Shore Boulevard West and the south limit of Harbourview Crescent; and

(4) the associated by-laws (Attachments Nos. 1 and 2) receive Council approval.

Background:

Bluewater Court and Fleeceline Road are part of the road network within the townhome developments east, west and north of Fleeceline Road. The roadways in this subdivision have been accepted for performance by the City. A map of the area is Attachment No. 3.

Comments:

Currently all the intersections within this subdivision are uncontrolled. Designating Fleeceline Road a through highway between the north limit of Lake Shore Boulevard West and the south limit of Harbourview Crescent will allow for the installation of stop controls at the east approaches of the intersections of Greystone Court and Fleeceline Road; and Granite Court and Fleeceline Road. Also, a stop control would be installed at the south approach of Fleeceline Road and Harbourview Crescent.

Installing stop controls on Bluewater Court at both intersections of Harbourview Crescent and Bluewater Court effectively makes Harbourview Crescent a through road.

Conclusion:

The aforementioned by-laws are required to create through roads and allow for stop controls to be installed, in order to safely manage the flow of traffic.

Contact Name:

Mark Hargot, Supervisor, Traffic Engineering, District 2

(416)394-8453; Fax (416)394-8942

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

By-law to Establish Certain Lands as a Public Highway

Legion Road and Manitoba Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends:

(1) the lands described as in Schedule "A" herein, in the City of Toronto, (formerly City of Etobicoke) be established and laid out as a public highway within the City and known as part of Legion Road;

(2) the lands described as in Schedule "B" herein, in the City of Toronto (formerly City of Etobicoke) be established and laid out as a public highway within the City and known as part of Manitoba Street;

(3) the enactment of the necessary by-law; and

(4) that all by-laws presently in force with respect to highways and streets shall apply to the said highways created under this By-law.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following communication (June 22, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Enclosed please find a draft Bill regarding the dedication of the above lands as part of Legion Road and Manitoba Street. We also enclose a letter from Mr. C. Lindsay, regarding the passage of the Bill for your information. Kindly have the herein Bill presented to the next Community Council meeting. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the writer. Thank you for your assistance.

Contact:

Patti Kennedy, Law Clerk

Tel: (416) 622-6601

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. 1999-

A By-law to Establish Certain Lands as

A Municipal Highway

WHEREAS the City of Toronto has acquired certain lands as hereinafter described and the Council of the City deems it appropriate and necessary to accept the said lands as a Public Highway forming part of Legion Road and Manitoba Street, in the City of Toronto;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to Subsection l (a) of Section 297 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O., 1990, as amended, Chapter M.45 provides that the Council of every municipality may pass by-laws for establishing and laying out highways;

AND WHEREAS Subsection 111 of Section 210, of the Municipal Act, R.S.O., 1990, as amended, Chapter M.45 provides that by-laws may be passed by the Councils of local municipalities to provide for the surveying, settling and marking the boundary lines of highways and giving names to them;

NOW THEREFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORONTO

ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

l. That the lands described as in Schedule "A" herein, in the City of Toronto, (formerly City of Etobicoke) be and the same are hereby established and laid out as a public highway within the City and known as part of Legion Road and all by-laws presently in force with respect to highways and streets shall apply to the said highway created under this By-law.

2. That the lands described as in Schedule "B" herein, in the City of Toronto (formerly City of Etobicoke) be and the same are hereby established and laid out as a public highway within the City and known as part of Manitoba Street and all by-laws presently in force with respect to highways and streets shall apply to the said highway created under this By-law.

3 That this By-law shall take effect upon its approval by the City of Toronto and upon its registration in the appropriate Land Registry Office.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

________________________ ______________________

Mayor City Clerk

SCHEDULE 'A'

P.I.N. 07622-0060

Part of Oxford Street and Part of Manitoba Street (stopped up and closed by By-law 6173) and Part of Lots 142, 143 and 148 on Plan M-137, City of Toronto (formerly City of Etobicoke) being Parts 33 and 41 on Plan 66R-17293 filed in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No.66).

P.I.N. 07622-0059

Part of Manitoba Street, Plan M-137 (stopped up and closed by By-law 1017) and Part of Lots 181 and 182 inclusive, Plan M-137, City of Toronto (formerly City of Etobicoke) being Parts 15 and 19 on Plan 66R-17558 filed in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No.66).

P.I.N. 07622-0057

Part of Lots 181 and 182, inclusive, Plan M-137, in the City of Toronto (formerly City of Etobicoke) being Parts 24, 25 and 26 on Plan 66R-17558.

SCHEDULE 'B'

P.I.N. 07622-0059

Part of Manitoba Street, Plan M-137 (stopped up and closed by By-law 2535), Part of Manitoba Street, Plan M-137 (stopped up and closed by By-law 6173), Part of Manitoba Street, Plan M-137 (stopped up and closed by By-law 1017) and Part of Lots 175 to 181 inclusive, Plan M-137, City of Toronto (formerly City of Etobicoke) being Parts 7 to 14 inclusive and Parts 16, 17 and 18 on Plan 66R-17558 filed in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No.66).

P.I.N. 07622-0057

Part of Lots 175 to 181, inclusive, Plan M-137, in the City of Toronto (formerly City of Etobicoke) being Parts 20, 21, 22, and 23 on Plan 66R-17558.

(A copy of the communication referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Through Highway and One-Way Street Designations

Legion Road North (Lakeshore-Queensway)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the designation of Legion Road North as a through highway between the south limit of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and south limit of Manitoba Street; and to propose a one-way designation of Legion Road North in the southbound direction between the south limit of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and the north limit of Manitoba Street.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of regulatory and information signs and pavement markings are contained in the Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Legion Road North be designated a through highway between the south limit of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and the south limit of Manitoba Street;

(2) Legion Road North be designated a one-way street southbound, from the south limit of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and the north limit of Manitoba Street; and

(3) the associated by-laws (Attachments No. 1 and 2) receive Council approval.

Background:

Legion Road North is new public roadway that is accessed from the eastbound Park Lawn Road exit of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway. This road was constructed as part of the overall transportation network required to accommodate the new condominium developments on the north side of Manitoba Street, west of Legion Road North and the future developments in the secondary plan area known as the Park Lawn Road /Lake Shore Boulevard Planning Area. The road will be physically opened as a public road allowance in the very near future, and in preparation for that opening, this report proposes some regulatory and informational traffic control measures to facilitate and manage the safe flow of traffic. A map of the area is Attachment No. 3, and a schematic drawing Attachment No. 4.

Comments:

Legion Road North currently terminates at the south limit of Manitoba Street. However, this roadway will be extended southward via a grade separation with the C.N.R. as future development progresses into the area south of Manitoba Street and the area between the railway line and Lake Shore Boulevard West; Legion Road will ultimately operate as the through highway between Lake Shore Boulevard West and the F. G. Gardiner Expressway.

Given that the access to Legion Road North from the Park Lawn Road exit of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway is designed as inbound only (at the present time) and that there are no driveway accesses from Legion Road North to the existing condominium development on the west side of the roadway, a one-way operation for southbound traffic is required until Legion Road is developed to its ultimate cross-section, including a northbound lane to the eastbound F. G. Gardiner Expressway ramp to Park Lawn Road.

Conclusions:

Adoption of this report and approval of these by-laws are required to create a through highway in the current and future road network in the area and allow for the appropriate traffic controls to be installed (i.e. a stop control on the Manitoba Street west approach).

Designating Legion Road North as a one-way street southbound between the south limit of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and the north limit of Manitoba Street is a required traffic control measure, given that there is no northbound vehicular access to the F. G. Gardiner Expressway from Legion Road North, and that there are no driveway accesses from Legion Road North to the condominium development on the west side of this roadway.

Contact Name:

Dominic Gulli, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 2.

(416) 394-9409; Fax (416) 394-8942.

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Designation of an Exclusive Right-turn Lane:

Royal York Road, North of Evans Avenue

(Lakeshore-Queensway)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the designation of an exclusive right-turn lane at the north approach of Royal York Road and Evans Avenue.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of pavement markings and regulatory signs are contained in the Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the most westerly southbound lane of Royal York Road between Evans Avenue and a point 30.5 metres north thereof, be designated as an exclusive right-turn lane (buses excepted); and

(2) the attached by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

Through the reconstruction of Evans Avenue, between Royal York Road and a point west of Ourland Avenue in 1998, improvements were made at the intersection of Royal York Road and Evans Avenue. One of these improvements was the establishment of an exclusive right-turn lane on Royal York Road, at Evans Avenue. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Comments:

Royal York Road, north of Evans Avenue, operates with three lanes for southbound traffic. The most westerly lane (curb lane) ends at the north approach to the intersection of the aforementioned roadways. The lane configuration south of this intersection consists of two lanes, one through lane and the curb (parking) lane. Therefore, southbound through traffic, north of the intersection, must merge into one lane of traffic. This manoeuvre is frequently occurring within the intersection, thus restricting traffic flow within the intersection and causing a potentially hazardous merging situation.

It was determined during the design stage of the reconstruction of Evans Avenue that a right-turn lane should be designated on the north approach of the intersection of Royal York Road and Evans Avenue to improve the management of traffic flow within the intersection. Given that a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus stop is located on the west side of Royal York Road, north of Evans Avenue, TTC vehicles would be exempted from this proposed restriction.

Conclusions:

The designation of a right-turn lane will enhance the management of traffic flow in the intersection of Royal York Road and Evans Avenue by prohibiting the use of the southbound curb lane to through traffic.

Contact Name:

Mark Hargot, Supervisor, Traffic Engineering, District 2

(416) 394-8453; Fax (416) 394-8942

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1 and 2, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Introduction of a Parking Prohibition

South Side of Lake Shore Boulevard West

West of Thirteenth Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a Parking Prohibition on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, west of Thirteenth Street, immediately in the front of the driveway to The Gatehouse in Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park at the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital site.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the introduction of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) parking be prohibited on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West from a point 76.0 m west of Thirteenth Street and a point 40.0 m west thereof; and

(2) the associated by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

A historic building located on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, west of Thirteenth Street in Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park and the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital site was recently renovated and opened as a community service facility (Map Attachment No. 2). The statutory three hour parking regulation is currently in effect on this section of Lake Shore Boulevard West, in the front of The Gatehouse. A request has been received from the Operating Board of The Gatehouse for a review of the parking regulations in front of The Gatehouse.

Discussion:

In order to provide some visual focus to this facility for those seeking the services provided within The Gatehouse and also to allow for ease of vehicular access to the driveway serving this facility and all of the facilities within the Colonel Smith Waterfront Park, this report proposes the prohibition of parking immediately in the front of The Gatehouse on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, on the east and west side of the vehicular driveway (for approximately 40.0 m). Management staff of The Gatehouse concur with this proposal.

Conclusion:

Introduction of this parking prohibition will allow The Gatehouse to have more prominence on the street without being obstructed by parked vehicles, additionally, the parking prohibition will allow for better sight lines for vehicles ingressing and egressing the site.

Contact Name:

Dominic Gulli, Manager, Traffic Operation, District 2

(416) 394-8409; Fax (416) 394-8942.

Traffic Concerns: Fernalroy Boulevard

Between Islington Avenue and Norseman Street

(Lakeshore-Queensway)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends:

(1) the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2;

(2) the existing "yield" sign at the intersection of Fernalroy Boulevard and Spring Garden Road be replaced with a "stop" sign;

(3) "Children at Play" signs, visible to north- and south-bound traffic, be installed in the vicinity of Laura Hill Park; and

(4) the speed and volume of vehicular traffic on Fernalroy Boulevard between Spring Garden Road and Norseman Street be reviewed in one year's time.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to accept a request from the Laura Hill Park Neighbourhood Association for improvements to Laura Hill Park as a joint venture project under the Park Playground Upgrade Policy in the 2000 Capital Budget, if funds are available.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To address the concerns of area residents with respect to the speed and volume of vehicular traffic on Fernalroy Boulevard between Spring Garden Road and Norseman Street.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signs are allocated in the Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that all-way stop controls not be installed at the intersection of Fernalroy Boulevard and Leland Avenue.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division, District 2 received various verbal requests for an all-way stop at the intersection of Fernalroy Boulevard and Leland Avenue. These requests were the results of concerns regarding the speed of vehicular traffic on Fernalroy Boulevard between Norseman Street and Islington Avenue. A map of the area is Attachment No. 1.

Comments:

To assess traffic conditions on Fernalroy Boulevard, the following information was obtained:

(1) manual approach counts conducted at the intersection of Fernalroy Boulevard and Leland Avenue;

(2) radar speed studies conducted on Fernalroy Boulevard near Leland Avenue;

(3) review of the three year collision history;

(4) historical review of traffic conditions on Fernalroy Boulevard; and

(5) road description, including parking restrictions, sidewalks and land use.

The following warrants need to be met in order to justify the installation of all-way stop controls on roads and streets considered to be neither arterial nor major collector streets:

(a) total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches must exceed 350 for the highest hour recorded; and

(b) a volume split should not exceed 65/35 for a four-way control.

(1) Manual Turning Movement Count.

(2) Intersection: Fernalroy Boulevard and Leland Avenue.

Count Type: Manual Date: Wednesday June 2, 1999

TIME	N/B	S/B	E/B	W/B	N/B+S/B TOTAL	TOTAL ENTERING INTERSECTION	BALANCE OF FLOW N+S/E+W
7-8 AM	18	16	8	10	34	52	65/35
8-9 AM	36	34	17	8	70	95	74/26
3-4 PM	27	24	15	12	51	78	65/35
4-5 PM	33	34	13	17	67	97	69/31
TOTAL	114	108	53	47	222	322	69/31
VEH/H	29	27	13	11	56	80	N/A

The following observations and analysis were derived from the traffic counts:

(a) the highest hourly volumes recorded at the intersections of Fernalroy Boulevard and Leland Avenue was 97 vehicles. This volume fails to satisfy the minimum vehicular volume requirement of 350 vehicles necessary to fully satisfy the volume warrant;

(b) the balance of flow for the highest hour recorded is 69/31 at the intersection of Fernalroy Boulevard and Leland Avenue. This split exceeds the maximum allowable 65/35 volume split for four-way control; and

(3) Radar Speed Studies.

The results of the radar speed studies conducted on Fernalroy Boulevard near Leland Avenue on June 2, 1999, between the hours of 7:00 - 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 - 6:00 p.m., indicate an 85th percentile speed of 47 m/h. The existing speed limit is 50 m/h.

(4) Collision Review

A review of the collision history on Fernalroy Boulevard between Spring Garden Road and Norseman Street revealed one reportable collision within this road section. This collision involved a single vehicle that lost control and was driven into the ditch. The driver was subsequently charged with careless driving.

(5) Historical Review

Manual traffic counts conducted on September 24, 1998 revealed a total vehicle volume of 88 vehicles with a volume split of 67/33. The radar speed study conducted on the same day concluded that the overall 85^th percentile speed was 50 km/h.

(6) Road Description

Road Classification: Fernalroy Boulevard and Leland Avenue are both classified as local roadways

Parking Regulations: Fernalroy Boulevard, Leland Avenue to a point 58 metres south of Leamington Avenue, no parking 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Lane Configuration: Fernalroy Boulevard and Leland Avenue, one lane in each direction

Speed Limit: 50 km/h on Fernalroy Boulevard

50 km/h on Leland Avenue

Sidewalks: Leland Avenue, west of Fernalroy Boulevard, both sides

Land Use: residential

Conclusions:

Traffic conditions at the intersection of Fernalroy Boulevard and Leland Avenue, do not warrant the installation of all-way stop controls. The results of the speed studies indicate that the speeds on Fernalroy Boulevard are within acceptable levels, and that police enforcement is not warranted.

Contact Name:

Kevin Akins, Traffic Technologist, Transportation Services, District 2

(416) 394-6046; Fax (416)394-8942

--------

Ms. Tara Prouty, Laura Hill Park Neighbourhood Association, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a petition signed by 112 residents in the vicinity of Fernalroy Boulevard, requesting a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h; installation of a four-way stop at Fernalroy Boulevard and Leland Avenue; installation of a stop sign and/or a physical divider at the intersection of Fernalroy Boulevard and Spring Garden Road; and, upgraded play equipment for Laura Hill Park.

Review of the Existing Road Allowance: Lambeth Road, east of

St. Georges Road, and The Kingsway, between Canterbury Road and

Lambeth Road (Kingsway-Humber)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To advise Etobicoke Community Council whether portions of the existing road allowance for Lambeth Road, between St. Georges Road and The Kingsway, and The Kingsway, between Canterbury Road and Lambeth Road, are surplus to municipal requirements.

Funding Sources:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the existing road allowance for The Kingsway, between Canterbury Road and Lambeth Crescent, and Lambeth Road, between St. Georges Road and The Kingsway, be maintained.

Background:

In Decision No. A-309/98ET, the Committee of Adjustment approved a minor variance application by Dr. Karl Nizami to construct a detached two-car garage at the south-west corner of the rear yard of his property at 256 The Kingsway. As a condition to approval, the Committee required that Dr. Nizami either remove an existing fence located within the Lambeth Road right-of-way, or enter into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto recognizing its location.

At its meeting of March 30, 1999, the Etobicoke Community Council received a report from the Director, Transportation Services Division, District 2, entitled "Dr. Karl Nizami's Major Encroachment, 256 The Kingsway." The report recommended that the Etobicoke Community Council approve a request from Dr. Nizami to enter into a major encroachment agreement recognizing the location of a fence within the Lambeth Road right-of-way (Attachment No. 1).

Etobicoke Community Council referred the report back to the Director, Transportation Services Division, District 2, for further review. Staff was also directed to report to the Etobicoke Community Council within three months on ". . . whether or not the subject property [existing road allowance on Lambeth Road and The Kingsway] is surplus to the City's requirements and can be offered for sale to the abutting owners."

Rather than pursue an encroachment agreement, Dr. Nizami removed the fence from the Lambeth Road right-of-way. This satisfied the condition to approval required by the Committee of Adjustment, and Dr. Nizami was issued Building Permit No. B-88485 on May 19, 1999. He has expressed no desire to purchase any portion of the abutting road allowance on The Kingsway or Lambeth Road frontages of his property.

Comments:

The Kingsway is classified as a collector road in the Etobicoke Official Plan, with a minimum required right-of-way width of 36 m. The section of The Kingsway, between Canterbury Road and Lambeth Road, has a two-lane cross-section carrying approximately 4,000 vehicles per day in both directions (Attachment No 2). There are 18 residential properties adjacent to the west side of The Kingsway, between Canterbury Road and Lambeth Road, and 9 on the east side. There are ditches on both sides of the road, and a sidewalk is located on the east side of this section of The Kingsway, close to the lot lines of the abutting residential properties.

Lambeth Road is a two-lane local road with an existing right-of-way width of 20 m. It carries approximately 1,000 vehicles per day in both directions. There are three residential properties adjacent the south side of Lambeth Road, between St. Georges Road and The Kingsway. Humbertown Shopping Centre is located on the north side of Lambeth Road.

The existing right-of-way width for The Kingsway, between Canterbury Road and Lambeth Road, is 36 m. The road allowance width for The Kingsway narrows to 23 m across the frontage of Humbertown Shopping Centre between Lambeth Road and Ashley Road. The Kingsway road allowance from Ashley Road to Anglesey Boulevard varies between 30 m and 36 m. The existing road allowance for The Kingsway, between Canterbury Road and Lambeth Road, has been in place since at least the 1940s. Over the years, many of the properties that abut these roads have introduced plantings and other landscaping features that extend into the municipal right-of-way.

It can be argued that existing and anticipated future traffic conditions do not justify a 36 m road allowance for this section of The Kingsway, and that the existing right-of-way width could be reduced and the surplus sold to abutting property owners. However, this requires:

(1) an Official Plan amendment recognizing a new minimum road allowance for this section of The Kingsway;

(2) screening under the Class EA provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, including a detailed examination of all private and municipal utilities that are located within the existing right-of-way;

(3) the relocation of the sidewalk on the east side of this section of The Kingsway (this may impact the existing ditches and the trees situated within the road allowance); and

(4) a substantial number of abutting property owners prepared to purchase the surplus road allowance at current market value.

The majority of property owners along this section of The Kingsway have used the public right-of-way for many years, and at only the cost of their own annual maintenance. While some may decide to take advantage of a proposal to purchase the surplus road allowance in front of their homes, many will undoubtedly decide not to, and will continue to use the road allowance as they have in the past.

Conclusion:

The existing 20 m road allowance for Lambeth Road is the recommended minimum requirement for a local road in the Etobicoke Official Plan, and there are no portions of the existing right-of-way that are considered surplus.

A preliminary review of our road allowance requirements in this section of The Kingsway shows that the existing width may be more than necessary; however, this cannot be confirmed without a comprehensive analysis of the existing and proposed location of public and private utilities within the road allowance.

We have no record of abutting property owners on The Kingsway, between Canterbury Road and Lambeth Road, requesting to purchase portions of the existing road allowance. In our opinion, it is unlikely that many of the adjacent property owners will take advantage of an offer to purchase surplus road allowance at current market values. The costs involved in disposing of a few small segments of former right-of-way, especially the relocation of the sidewalk on the east side of the road, will not make the exercise particularly worthwhile from a cost-benefit perspective. For these reasons, we recommend against considering the existing road allowance for The Kingsway, between Canterbury Road and Lambeth Road, surplus to municipal requirements.

Contact Name:

Allan Smithies, Manager, Traffic Planning/R-O-W Management, District 2

(416) 394-8412; Fax (416) 394-8942.

Monarch Development Limited

Application for Encroachment Agreements

10 and 12 Humber Boulevard (Kingsway-Humber)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To authorize two Major Encroachment Agreements for landscaping proposed in the Humber Boulevard and Bloor Street West rights-of-way at 10 and 12 Humber Boulevard (Attachment No. 1), and to authorize a one-time payment equal to five years' annual rental fees in lieu of annual rental fees.

Financial Implications:

The Etobicoke Road Allowance Encroachment Policy requires that the applicant pay a $700.00 administrative fee for each of the Major Encroachment Agreements. Five hundred dollars of each fee is refundable, should Council decline to approve the application. Additionally, the Policy requires an annual rental fee of $10.00 per square metre of public land area occupied for as long as the encroachment remains. The annual rental fee for 10 Humber Boulevard is $461.50, and for 12 Humber Boulevard the annual rental fee is $1,716.20. The combined annual rental fees would amount to $10,889.00 (i.e., [$461.50+$1,1716.20] X 5) for a five year period.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Etobicoke Community Council approve the applications for Major Encroachment Agreements;

(2) the City Solicitor be instructed to prepare the Agreements; and

(3) the applicant be required to submit a one-time $10,889.00 payment-in-lieu of annual rental fees, and a one-time $1,400.00 application fee that represents the City's administrative costs.

History:

During the site plan approval process to permit construction of two residential condominium buildings at 10 and 12 Humber Boulevard, the applicant submitted a landscape plan that was approved by the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control. As a condition of site plan approval, Monarch Construction Limited is required to install 46.15 square metres of vegetation on the public right-of-way at the north-west corner of Bloor Street West and Humber Boulevard, adjacent to 10 Humber Boulevard. This is necessary to screen a two-metre high fence at a highly visible entrance to Etobicoke, and is illustrated in the approved plan (Attachment No. 2).

The applicant also proposes to install 171.62 square metres of landscaping on the Humber Boulevard right-of-way adjacent 12 Humber Boulevard. This encroachment, which includes vegetation, a low masonry wall and paving stones, is also described in the approved landscape plan (Attachment No. 3), but was not required by the Site Plan Agreement.

Discussion:

The encroachments are subject to the terms of the Etobicoke Road Allowance Encroachment Policy. The property owner is required to maintain the encroachments in good repair, and to insure the City of Toronto against liability claims. As required by the Policy, all abutting property owners located within sixty (60) metres of the site have been notified of the application and given an opportunity to appear in deputation.

After completion of this development, ownership of the property will be transferred from the builder to the condominium corporations, who then become responsible for the payment of annual rental fees. When payment of annual rental fees goes into default with non-condominium properties, fees can be added to the tax roll. Given that condominium corporations do not pay property taxes, collection of the rental fees via the tax roll would require annual distribution of the charges among all individual unit owners' tax accounts. This is a labour intensive procedure that significantly diminishes the net value of the revenue, and will not be popular among the condominium owners. Assuming equal distribution of rental fees per unit, each of the 57 unit owners at 10 Humber Boulevard, for example, would be invoiced only $8.10 per year (e.g., $461.50 per year/57 units). Also the City's choice of method for distribution; i.e., equal distribution among unit owners versus distribution based on unit size may be questioned. This introduces a potential for legal action against the City.

Threatening removal of the encroachments to enforce rental fee payment, in the case of 10 Humber Boulevard, would be contrary to the City's objectives, since we required that the applicant install the landscaping as a condition to approval.

Conclusions:

These properties are located in The Kingsway area, and draw significant attention from outside Etobicoke. It is in proximity to such historical landmarks as The Old Mill, and the Humber River Valley. The proposed landscape encroachments improve the appearance of the boulevard area and at no cost to the City of Toronto. Requiring a one-time payment-in-lieu of annual rental fees alleviates rental fee collection difficulties, streamlines the administration of the Encroachment Agreements, and maximizes the net value of the revenue received.

Contact Name:

Douglas Robertson, Supervisor, Right-of-Way Management, District 2.

(416)394-8360; Fax 394-8942.

Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - Recycle Plus Ltd.,

63 Medulla Avenue - File No. Z-2269 (Lakeshore-Queensway)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations in the report (November 12, 1998) and a supplementary report (June 22, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that:

(1) the application by Recycle Plus Ltd. for amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the operation of a recycling facility at 63 Medulla Avenue, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced reports and the conditions imposed by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy; and

(2) the whole issue of waste transfer/waste processing facilities be referred to the Official Plan process for review.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December 9, 1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder, at which time the Etobicoke Community Council deferred consideration of the following report (November 12, 1998) to the January 20, 1999 meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council for a continuation of the statutory public meeting.

The Etobicoke Community Council also reports, at its meeting held on January 20, 1999, having further deferred consideration of the matter to a future meeting of the Community Council to allow for further discussion of certain issues:

The Etobicoke Community Council continued the public meeting on June 23, 1999.

The Etobicoke Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, having directed staff to monitor the operation on this site and all similar sites in the Etobicoke District by random spot checks to ensure that they are in compliance with the conditions to approval.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (November 12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To review a proposal to amend the Zoning Code to permit the operation of a recycling facility at 63 Medulla Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by Recycle Plus Ltd. be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Background:

The subject site is located on the east side of Medulla Avenue, just north of Coronet Road (Exhibit No. 1). The property is occupied by two industrial buildings. The front, westerly building is occupied by Cryotech Recycle Inc. (an aluminum recycling business) and Monstur Fleet Service and Maintenance (a truck and trailer repair business). The easterly building is occupied by Recycle Plus Ltd.

In 1986, the Committee of Adjustment approved variance application A-202/86 to permit the operation of a bio-medical waste transfer station from the subject site (Laidlaw Technologies Inc.). In 1997, Laidlaw Technologies Inc. relocated their operations and Recycle Plus Ltd. moved into the building from the City of Mississauga. Following the establishment of the facility, the City identified that the operation was not a permitted use. An application to legalize the operation with outside storage was made to the Committee of Adjustment in January, 1998, and was refused. The application has been appealed by the owners of Recycle Plus Ltd. to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The site is rectangular in shape and approximately 1.5 ha (3.8 acres) in size. The majority of the site is occupied by buildings and paved area with a landscaped area adjacent to Medulla Avenue. The rear easterly building, occupied by Recycle Plus Ltd., is served by nine overhead doors located on the north and south sides of the building. A chain link fence has been erected around the perimeter of the site. The Recycle Plus Ltd. portion of the property is further enclosed with chain link gates to contain site operations and vehicular movements. The operation is not visible from Medulla Avenue.

The subject site and surrounding lands are zoned Class 2 Industrial (I.C2) and are occupied by a variety of industrial uses. A rail spur is located at the rear of the property. The immediately abutting industrial businesses are as follows:

North: Merisel (computer products)

South: Hymopak Ltd.(plastic bags and packaging)

East: Just Skids Recycling Incorporated and Pallet Rental Systems Inc.

West: Domtar Industries (paper products)

Proposal:

Recycle Plus Ltd. is proposing to amend the Class 2 Industrial (I.C2) provisions of the Zoning Code to permit the operation of a recycling/waste transfer facility, including office space, within an existing 1 969.6 m� (21,202 sq.ft.) industrial building. The principal wastes that will be transported to and handled on site are non-hazardous and include metal, glass, paper, plastics and non-residentially generated ICI organics (industrial, commercial and institutional). All waste is to be handled indoors with no outside storage.

Recycle Plus Ltd. has applied to and received a Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of the Environment and Energy to operate the facility 24 hours a day. The certificate has been appealed by a number of business owners in the area.

Exhibit No.1 is a map showing the location of the property. Exhibit No. 2 is a reduction of the site plan.

Comment:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Industrial in the Official Plan. Section 4.7.12 of the Plan encourages the development of waste disposal/recycling facilities subject to regulation in order to ensure public safety and land use compatibility. Application for these types of uses shall also be subject to the approval of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, including licencing and site plan control. An amendment to the Plan is not required.

Zoning Code:

The site is zoned Class 2 Industrial (I.C2) which does not list a waste transfer/ recycling facility as a permitted use. In the event of approval, a site specific by-law should be passed to incorporate provisions to reflect the project as approved.

Land Use and Site Design Considerations:

The applicant is proposing to legalize the operation of an existing waste recycling/transfer facility in an industrial area. The site is not in proximity to lands zoned for residential, institutional or recreational developments. The Development Engineering Division of the City Works Services has not identified any concerns with the capacity of the existing infrastructure of watermains, storm and sanitary sewers to accommodate the proposal (Exhibit No. 3). The Transportation Planning Section of City Works Services has indicated that the level of truck traffic generated by the facility would have no significant impact on the surrounding road network (Exhibit No. 4).

The facility is located at the rear of the property, behind an existing industrial building, and as such is not visible from the street. Although the facility is visible from the rear yards of the adjacent industrial properties, these yards are used as loading, delivery, storage and parking areas.

The conditions of the Certificate of Approval, as approved by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy and currently under appeal, require that all activities relating to the unloading/loading processing, transfer and storage of processed and unprocessed waste and residual waste must be conducted indoors at all times. In order to control odour all doors shall be closed at all times except during loading and unloading of all wastes. The Certificate includes requirements for cleaning/washing and disinfecting the facility to control litter and odours. In addition, the applicant must implement a pest control plan for the site. In the event that the operator of the facility does not comply with the conditions of the Ministry's approval, the Certificate can be revoked and the operation closed. The applicant has indicated that all operations will be conducted within the building with no outside storage areas.

Given the location of the operation at the rear of the property, and the requirements of the Certificate of Approval to address issues with respect to odour, litter and pest control, the facility would have limited impact on the operation of the adjacent industrial business. In the event of approval, staff recommend that the amending by-law include provisions to prohibit outside storage.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of this application, no objections have been expressed by the following departments:

Fire Department Toronto Hydro

Realty Services Development Engineering, Works & Emergency Services

Comments from Parks and Recreation Services remain outstanding.

The Transportation Planning Section of Works & Emergency Services requires that the proposed parking layout be introduced with the appropriate pavement markings. In addition, these parking areas are to remain free of recycling materials and storage containers (Exhibit No 4).

The Waste Management Division has verbally advised that they have no concerns with the proposal provided the conditions of the Certificate of Approval are adhered to and that the amending by-law specifically prohibits outside storage and processing of recyclable product.

Urban Planning and Development requests that the applicant provide details of site lighting to ensure on-site security.

Community Meeting:

On October 6, 1998, approximately 15 people, representing the interests of several area businesses, attended an on-site community meeting to tour the existing facility and comment on the operation. Concerns were expressed regarding truck traffic, handling of organic materials, odour, litter, pests, hours of operation, loss of property values, impact on City sewer capacities, operation of future recycling operations from the site and precedent.

The concerns related to planning matters have been discussed in this report.

Staff note that another application for a recycling facility for construction waste is pending within the immediate area and local businesses are concerned that additional approvals for operations of this nature could have long-term impacts on the viability of their businesses. Any requests for these types of facilities in a Class 2 Industrial (I.C2) zone would be subject to an application for by-law amendment. Each application is evaluated based on the locational attributes of the individual site and type of operations proposed and would be subject to separate Certificate of Approval from the MOEE. As a result, any approvals granted with respect to the subject application would not create a precedent for the approval of future applications for waste transfer/recycling operations.

Conclusion:

The proposed recycling facility is located at the rear of an industrial property, adjacent to the loading and delivery areas of the surrounding industrial operations. The site is not located on a major roadway and is not visible from the street. No outside storage is proposed. The conditions of the Certificate of Approval, as approved by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE), address the potential concerns associated with odour, pests, vermin and litter. Given the context of the site, and the nature of the proposed operation, staff are of the opinion that the requested waste transfer/recycling operation will not have an impact on the adjacent land uses or level of service of abutting roadways.

In the event of approval, the following conditions should apply:

Conditions to Approval:

(l) Fulfillment of the following conditions by the applicant prior to the enactment of an amending by-law:

(i) Submission of a revised plan indicating security lighting to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control and the posting of an appropriate financial guarantee.

(ii) Receipt of comments from Parks and Recreation Services.

(2) The amending by-law shall provide for the operation of a waste transfer/recycling facility with no outside storage permitted.

Contact Name:

Richard Kendall, Principal Planner, Community Planning, West District,

Telephone: (416)394-8227; Fax: (416)394-6063

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (June 22, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To advise Community Council of the applicant's request to amend their submission to include a provision for the outside storage of empty containers and/or trailers in conjunction with the operation of a recycling facility at 63 Medulla Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that in the event that the application by Recycle Plus Ltd. is approved, any permission for outside storage should be limited to clean, empty containers, in accordance with the conditions outlined in this report.

Background:

Recycle Plus Ltd. has proposed to amend the Class 2 Industrial (I.C2) provisions of the Zoning Code to permit the operation of a waste disposal/recycling facility, including office space, within an existing 1,969.6 m� (21,202 sq.ft.) industrial building. The principal wastes that will be transported to and handled on-site are non-hazardous and include metal, glass, paper, plastics and non-residentially generated ICI organics (industrial, commercial and institutional).

This application has been the subject of a staff report and public meeting. The meeting, which was originally scheduled for December 9, 1998, was held, and subsequently deferred. The applicant has requested that this matter be brought back to Community Council for a continuation of the public meeting.

Proposal:

Recycle Plus Ltd. are now proposing to amend their application to include a provision for the outside storage of empty containers and/or trailers (Exhibit No.1). Consideration is being requested for the storage of up to 3 trailers, 5 front-end containers, and 10 roll-off containers along a portion of the south property line. In addition, an area approximately 12 m (40 ft.) by 12 m (40 ft.) has been identified for the storage of wheeled carts at the southeast corner of the property (Exhibit No. 2). The area identified is used for site circulation and loading purposes and its use for container storage should not affect the parking supply or other on-site functions.

The combined site is rectangular in shape and approximately 1.5 ha (3.8 acres) in size. The rear easterly building, occupied by Recycle Plus Ltd., is served by nine overhead doors located on the north and south sides of the building. A chain link fence has been erected around the perimeter of the site, and the Recycle Plus Ltd. portion of the property is further enclosed with chain link gates to contain site operations and vehicular movements.

Comment:

Official Plan and Zoning Code:

As noted in the original staff report, the Industrial designation of the site in the Official Plan would allow the development of a waste disposal/recycling facility at this location. The Class 2 Industrial (I.C2) zoning of the site however, does not recognize a waste disposal/recycling facility as a permitted use. In addition, the Supplementary Regulations for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities do not allow outside storage. In the event of approval, the site specific by-law should incorporate provisions for an outside storage component.

Land Use Considerations:

The applicant is proposing to legalize the operation of an existing waste disposal/recycling facility. The site is located internal to a large industrially zoned community and is not in proximity to lands zoned for residential, institutional or recreational purposes. Also, the facility is located at the rear of the property, behind an existing industrial building. Although the facility is visible from the rear yards of the adjacent industrial properties, these yards are used as loading, delivery, storage and parking areas. Under the prevailing Class Two Industrial (I.C2) zoning, outside storage is a permitted use provided that such storage is not located within a required setback which abuts a street, does not exceed a certain height, and is properly screened from more sensitive land uses.

While the Supplementary Regulations for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities prohibit outside storage (including storage in parked trucks or enclosed containers), they do not address the storage of empty containers. The intent of this prohibition was to prevent waste or recyclable products from being stored or processed outside.

The conditions of the Certificate of Approval, as approved by the Ministry of the Environment require that all activities relating to the unloading/loading, processing, transfer and storage of processed and unprocessed waste and residual waste must be conducted indoors at all times. In order to control odour all doors shall be closed at all times except during loading and unloading of all wastes. The Certificate includes requirements for cleaning/washing and disinfecting the facility to control litter and odours.

Conclusion:

The storage of empty, clean containers at the rear of the site should have limited visibility from Medulla Avenue and would be consistent with other outside storage permissions currently provided for in the Zoning Code for the adjacent industrial properties. Provided that the storage is restricted to empty, clean containers, and the Certificate of Approval can be amended to include this condition, consideration could be given to the limited storage of containers as identified in the letter from the applicant's consultant. The prohibition on the outside storage and processing of recyclable product should continue. In their letter, the applicant has identified a planting area, which is proposed to be introduced along the southerly property line to screen the outside storage component. Details of this planting area in conjunction with the introduction of screen fencing should be submitted prior to the enactment of an amending by-law.

In the event of approval, the following conditions should apply:

Conditions to Approval:

(1) Prior to the enactment of an amending by-law:

(i) The Ministry of the Environment advises that the Certificate of Approval can be amended to provide for the outside storage of clean empty containers in conjunction with the operation of a waste disposal/recycling facility.

(ii) The applicant submits details of security lighting, screen fencing and planting to the satisfaction of Urban Planning and Development Services and the posts an appropriate financial guarantee.

(2) The amending by-law shall provide for the operation of a waste disposal/recycling facility with outside storage restricted to clean, empty containers only. The outside storage and processing of recyclable product would be prohibited.

Contact Name:

Richard Kendall, Principal Planner, Community Planning, West District,

Tel: (416)394-8227; Fax: (416)394-6063

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

--------

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

- Mr. David Tang, representing Recycle Plus Ltd, in support of the application; and

- Mr. Adam J. Brown, Brown Dryer Karol, representing a client group in opposition to the establishment and operation of a waste transfer/recycling facility at 63 Medulla Avenue.

The Etobicoke Community Council received the following communications in connection with the foregoing matter:

- (May 26, 1999) from Mr. Adam J. Brown, Brown Dryer Karol, Barristers & Solicitors, opposing the application, on behalf of a group of property owners location in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, and asking that the City's by-laws be enforced immediately to prohibit the current use of the property;

- (July 21, 1998) from Mr. P. D. Petrie, Willms & Shier, on behalf of a client group formed in opposition to the establishment and operation of a waste transfer/recycling facility at 63 Medulla Avenue, stating reasons for opposition and grounds for refusing the application;

- (August 14, 1998) from Mr. P. D. Petrie, of Willms & Shier, further to the July 21, 1998 submission particularly with respect to various aspects of the Ministry of the Environment certificate of approval and the implications thereof for the City;

- (November 4, 1998) from Mr. P. D. Petrie, Willms & Shier, further to the July 21, 1998 communication, particularly addressing the statements made in the report (November 12, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, West District;

- (January 6, 1999) from Mr. K. Jaffary, Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, forwarding a copy of a communication (January 6, 1999) addressed to Mr. P. D. Petrie, outlining areas of agreement and disagreement in the terms proposed on behalf of the client group, and requesting that the matter proceed;

- (January 12, 1999) from Mr. P. D. Petrie, Willms & Shier, forwarding a copy of his response to the January 6, 1999 communication from Mr. K. Jaffary;

- (January 15, 1999) from Mr. K. Jaffary, Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, forwarding a copy of a communication (January 15, 1999) addressed to Mr. P. D. Petrie, advising that no agreement has been reached on the resolution of the matter, and that his client's position remains in accordance with the January 6, 1999 correspondence;

- (January 18, 1999) from Mr. P. D. Petrie, Willms & Shier, forwarding a copy of his response to Mr. Jaffray, and requesting that this and all previous submissions be placed before the Community Council.

Exhibit No. 1

Exhibit No. 2

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 9, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, as amended by deleting reference to 3725 Lake Shore Boulevard West from Recommendation (2) and inserting it in Recommendation (1) to read as follows:

(1) legal and staff representation be provided for the appeals regarding 98 Meadowbank Road, 12 Kinsdale Boulevard and 3725 Lake Shore Boulevard West, and;

(2) legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeal regarding 31 Old Oak Road.

Purpose:

To advise Etobicoke Community Council of Committee of Adjustment Decisions which have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and to recommend whether legal and staff representation is warranted.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) legal and staff representation be provided for the appeals regarding, 98 Meadowbank Road and 12 Kinsdale Boulevard, and;

(2) legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding 31 Old Oak Road and 3725 Lake Shore Boulevard West.

Comments:

The application and appeal is summarized as follows:

(i) Address: 98 Meadowbank Road

Ward: Markland-Centennial

Application No. A-83/99ET

Applicant: Victor Wroblewski

Appellant: Victor Wroblewski

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The property is currently occupied by an existing single family detached dwelling and detached garage. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures and construct a new two-storey single family detached dwelling with an attached three car garage.

Decision of Committee

of Adjustment: Refused

Comments: The variances sought relate to reduced front yard setback (Zoning Code requires 12 m, applicant proposes 9.3 m), side yard setbacks (Zoning Code requires an aggregate of 4.45 m, applicant proposes 3.66 m), increased building height (Zoning Code permits 9.5 m, applicant proposes 10.45 m) and three car garage on a lot whose frontage is insufficient (Zoning Code requires a lot frontage of 27 m, site is 22.25 m). Staff have reviewed the requested variances with respect to the Zoning Code requirements which have not been adequately addressed by the proposal. Legal and staff representation should therefore be provided for the hearing.

(ii) Address: 12 Kinsdale Boulevard

Ward: Lakeshore-Queensway

Application No. A-98/99ET

Applicant: Jason Daniel Grenke and Charmine Deborah Grenke

Appellant: Jason Daniel Grenke and Charmine Deborah Grenke

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The subject lands are occupied by a 3-storey, 16-unit apartment building. The applicant proposes to convert the existing indoor parking spaces into habitable space for the purposes of creating a one-bedroom and two-bedroom dwelling unit for a total of 18 units. A total of 24 Zoning Code parking spaces are required, 9 of which are to be within the building. The applicant will provide a total of 23 on-site parking spaces, only two of which meet the requirements of the Zoning Code.

Decision of Committee

of Adjustment: Refused

Comments: Staff have reviewed the requested variances with respect to the Zoning Code requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and required landscaped area, both of which have not been adequately addressed by the proposal. The location of the proposed units at the rear of the building also raises some safety concerns. Legal and staff representation should therefore be provided for the hearing.

(iii) Address: 31 Old Oak Road

Ward: Kingsway-Humber

Application No. A-72/99ET

Applicant: Vera S. Dayneka

Appellant: Chris Hornsby

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: To permit the construction of a one-storey porch addition which will have a reduced front yard setback of 5.95 m (20 ft). The Zoning Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.93 m (26 ft).

Decision of Committee

of Adjustment: Approved

Comments: This property was the subject of a previous Committee of Adjustment application for a larger front porch addition which was refused by the Committee. The current application has been revised and the depth of the porch has been decreased. The variance was granted by the Committee of Adjustment and the abutting neighbour to the west has appealed. Staff have not identified a significant planning issue that would warrant legal representation.

(iv) Address: 3725 Lake Shore Boulevard West

Ward: Lakeshore-Queensway

Application No. A-118/99ET

Applicant: Sam Sgro

Appellant: Sam Sgro

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The property is located on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, at 38th Street and is occupied by a one-storey public garage. The applicant is seeking permission to continue to sell used cars for a period of five years from the public garage. Section 330-39L of the Etobicoke Zoning Code only permits the sale of used cars in conjunction with new car sales.

Decision of Committee

of Adjustment: Refused

Comments: The variances identified only relate to the use of the existing public garage for the sale of used vehicles, for a period of five years. Planning staff have not identified a significant planning issue in conjunction with the variance request. Although Transportation staff had identified a parking issue in their comments to the Committee, they did not feel that legal representation was warranted.

Conclusion:

The appeals regarding 98 Meadowbank Road and 12 Kinsdale Boulevard involve substantive planning issues and warrant legal and staff representation. The appeals regarding 31 Old Oak Road and 3725 Lake Shore Boulevard West do not involve substantive planning issues. Legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is not warranted for these appeals.

Contact Name:

Richard Kendall, Principal Planner, Community Planning, West District

Tel: (416) 394-8227; Fax: (416) 394-6063

Proposal to Stop-Up, Close and Sell Portions of the Alcide Street,

Codlin Crescent and Steeles Avenue West Road Allowances

(Rexdale-Thistletown)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the stopping-up, closing, and offering for sale of part of the Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent, and Steeles Avenue West road allowances.

Financial Implications:

The City will realize revenue from the eventual sale and exchange of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the portions of Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent, and Steeles Avenue West road allowances, shown in heavy outline on the attached plan, be declared surplus to City requirements and stopped-up, closed, and offered for sale to the abutting owner/s, subject to the reservation of any necessary easements for municipal services or public utilities;

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to give notice to the public of the intention to stop-up, close, and sell the subject portions of road allowances; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

The subject property is in the former City of Etobicoke.

Signet Development Corporation (Signet), the abutting owner, has requested that the City take the steps necessary to stop-up, close, and sell the various portions of road allowances so that they can be assembled with their property for purposes of industrial development. Part of the proposal provides for Signet to exchange land with the City for the relocation of Alcide Street.

Comments:

The subject property includes portions of the Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent, and Steeles Avenue West road allowances adjacent to an industrial land assembly completed by Signet. In order to maximize the potential land uses, the relocation to the west of part of Alcide Street is proposed. Other remnant pieces of Steeles Avenue West and Codlin Crescent are contemplated to be included in the exchange.

A poll was taken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining the properties and no interest was expressed in these parcels of land other than for the reservation of any easements required for municipal services or public utilities.

Conclusion:

The property is not required for municipal purposes and should be declared surplus and sold to the abutting owner/s.

Contact Name:

Francois (Frank) G. Bedard, Manager, Realty Services, Etobicoke-York Districts

Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax No.: (416) 394-8895 (ecc99081.wpd)

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (June 16, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To advise Community Council that the Province's plans for a potential future transitway station on the north side of Steeles Avenue West, between Albion Road and Alcide Street, will not affect the proposed westward relocation of Alcide Street.

Financial Implications:

City Funding is not required. There are no implications on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services' report, dated May 17, 1999, concerning the stopping-up, closing and sale of portions of the Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent, and Steeles Avenue West road allowances, be advanced for consideration by Community Council.

Background:

At its meeting on May 26, 1999, Etobicoke Community Council deferred consideration of a report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, dated May 17, 1999, regarding the stopping-up, closing and sale of portions of the Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent, and Steeles Avenue West road allowances, required in conjunction with the proposed westward relocation of Alcide Street. The relocation of Alcide Street is proposed by Signet Development Corporation to facilitate the consolidation and development of their land holdings south of Steeles Avenue West.

Staff recommended deferral of the report pending the resolution of property protection and access issues concerning the Province's plans for a potential future transitway station on the north side of Steeles Avenue West, between Albion Road and Alcide Street, in the Highway 407/Parkway Belt West Corridor.

Comments:

City Planning Division staff, in consultation with Transportation Services Division staff, have concluded their discussions with the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario (MTO), concerning the proposed transitway station. MTO has agreed to revise their access plan to be compatible with the proposed westward relocation of Alcide Street.

Staff are now in a position to seek authority from Community Council to proceed with the closure of portions of road allowances required in conjunction with the proposed relocation of Alcide Street and to finalize associated land exchanges.

Conclusion:

MTO has agreed to reconfigure access to the potential future transitway station to be compatible with the proposed westward relocation of Alcide Street. The Commissioner of Corporate Services' report, dated May 17, 1999, concerning the stopping-up, closing and sale of portions of the Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent, and Steeles Avenue West road allowances should be advanced for consideration by Community Council.

Contact Name:

Mike Wehkind, Program Coordinator, Transportation Planning, West District

Tel: (416) 394-8217; Fax: (416) 394-6063

Status Report on Humber Bay Shores Area Infrastructure Program

and Dedication of Waterfront Drive

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director of Engineering Services, Districts 1 and 2:

Purpose:

To obtain authorization to dedicate Waterfront Drive as a public highway, to assume the road for maintenance and to provide an update on the status of the Humber Bay Shores development area.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Waterfront Drive be dedicated as a Public Highway;

(2) the City assume the road for maintenance purposes; and

(3) 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.

Background:

The former Motel Strip area which is now known as Humber Bay Shores covers approximately 20 hectares and is bounded by Lake Shore Boulevard West, Park Lawn Road, Palace Pier Court and Lake Ontario. The area has been the subject of a number of development plans over the past 25 years. In 1992, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved the Secondary Plan for the area which provided for the creation of a public link between the Humber Bay Parks and the mouth of the Humber River.

A Development Plan, to be implemented jointly by the former MTRCA, Etobicoke and Metropolitan Toronto, divided the development of the area into 2 phases. Phase I of the Plan included the assembly of the necessary properties for the park and Waterfront Drive (this land would then be dedicated to the municipality), provision of shoreline protection and lake filling, landscaping the area, and construction of a portion of the waterfront trail between the Humber Bay Parks and the mouth of the Humber River. Phase II of the Development Plan included the implementation of a new Master Plan for the Amenity Area, including the possible construction of recreational facilities or additional landscaping.

As work for Phase I of the Development Plan got underway, the Canada/Ontario Infrastructure Works (COIW) program was announced and the City was able to include upgrades to the area's infrastructure with the contribution of $6.26 million from the Provincial and Federal Governments. The municipal contribution of $5.39 million in combination with the COIW funds allowed for the implementation of an Infrastructure Program to provide essential servicing to the area. This report requests authority to dedicate Waterfront Drive as public highway and provides the details of the work which has now been completed.

Details of the Work to Date:

The Infrastructure Program developed to satisfy the preservicing requirements of the Humber Bay Shores development area is shown below with the construction schedule and budgeted amounts for each component of the program. Each component of the program is explained in detail below the table.

Infrastructure Program for the Humber Bay Shores Development Area

Component	Construction Timeframe	Budgeted Amount
Lake Shore Boulevard West - Watermain	September - October, 1996	$ 1,300,000.00
The Queensway Pumping Station	July, 1995 - November, 1996	$ 1,850,000.00
Storm Water Management Facility	December, 1996 - March, 1999	$ 480,000.00
Waterfront Drive (Storm/Sanitary/Watermain)	October - April, 1998	$ 3,710,000.00
Waterfront Drive (Road / Bicycle & Pedestrian Trail / Ductwork / Streetscaping / Landscaping)	July, 1998 - December, 1998	$ 3,110,000.00
Land Acquisition and Hydro		$ 1,200,000.00
TOTAL	July, 1995 - March, 1999	$ 11,650,000.00

The Queensway Pumping Station:

The existing sanitary lift station on The Queensway was expanded and upgraded due to the age of the existing facility and the increase in capacity requirements expected by the redevelopment of the Humber Bay Shores area.

Lake Filling:

The lake filling component of Phase I of the Development Plan began in September, 1996 and needed to be complete before the watermain and storm and sanitary sewers could be installed. This is shown on Attachment No. 1.

Watermains:

A new 300 mm diameter watermain was installed on Lake Shore Boulevard West from Park Lawn Road to Palace Pier Court to upgrade service to the existing properties and expected development in the Humber Bay Shores area, and to form part of a looped system through the Humber Bay Shores area. In addition another section of watermain was installed along Waterfront Drive from Palace Pier Court to Park Lawn Road to provide servicing for all future developments in the Humber Bay Shores area and to complete the looped water distribution system for the area as well.

Sanitary Sewer:

A sanitary sewer on Lake Shore Boulevard West and on Waterfront Drive was installed to provide for ready access and servicing of all future developments in the Humber Bay Shores area.

Storm Water Management:

The storm sewer installed along Waterfront Drive from Palace Pier Court to Park Lawn Road is the minor system being used to collect and transport storm water runoff from a two year design storm. The storm sewer collects water from the 20 hectares of the Humber Bay Shores area and outlets into the Etobicoke Storm Water Management Facility which is described below. A Master Grading Plan was developed for the whole area that would allow water from storms greater than the 2 year storm event to be directed to flow overland through a depressed area in the waterfront parkland into Lake Ontario.

The Etobicoke Storm Water Management Facility (ESWMF) has been designed to treat the 2 year storm event. It is a pilot project and will be monitored to determine its effectiveness in treating storm water. It is shown in Attachment No. 2. The facility consists of a connection to the newly constructed storm sewer incorporating a junction chamber maintenance hole with an adjustable sluice gate. In this chamber, floatable materials, large debris and all accidental oil spills are captured allowing for their easy removal. The outlet of this connection into the ESWMF is submerged to avoid disturbing the view of the naturalized and landscaped shores.

The facility itself consists of a series of four self containing cells and a wetland area. Impermeable nylon reinforced polyvinyl chloride (PVC) curtains are suspended from the floating pontoons to divide the cells which serve to contain the captured storm water. Strategically placed openings in the curtains will limit the movement of the water as it enters from the storm sewer to allow for the sediments and other substances to settle down to the bottom of the cells. As the water enters the wetland area, the final biological cleaning process will take place before the water flows into Lake Ontario.

The existing configuration of the bay was incorporated into the design resulting in minimal disturbance to the ground. In addition, the pontoon system for the cell curtains was constructed for pedestrian access, to allow the public a closer view of the wetlands.

Road Works and Streetscaping:

Works within the road allowance of Waterfront Drive included the construction of the roadway, median island, streetscaping details such as paving stone, pedestrian and roadway lighting, Waterfront Trail, landscaping and the installation of a duct structure for the use of utilities such as Bell, Rogers Cable TV, Hydro and the City's underground plant.

The 450 metre section of Waterfront Drive from the 'Central Place' to Palace Pier Court was constructed with concrete to distinguish this area from the rest of the road as it is intended to be closed for vehicular traffic and used by pedestrians during special occasions. This is shown in Attachment No. 3. Speed tables have been built at the existing and proposed road intersections as traffic calming measures.

Along the length of Waterfront Drive, customized light standards were developed for roadway and pedestrian lighting. Slate blue colouring was used to perpetuate the lighting scheme used along the western waterfront.

The portion of the Waterfront Trail located within the Waterfront Drive road allowance is composed of an asphalt trail for cyclists and rollerbladers, and a concrete walkway with decorative paving stones for pedestrians. There are paving stone enclaves located along the pedestrian trail for benches and bicycle racks. Limestone retaining walls were installed at the gateway, and a raised centre median with a precast coping wall was installed to accommodate plantings and trees.

Landscaping within the road allowance consists of deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs, perennials, and grasses. High canopy, hardy trees were planted along both the north and south side of Waterfront Drive from Park Lawn Road to Palace Pier Court, while smaller trees and shrubs were planted within the roadway median, and in clusters framing the Humber Bay East Park entrance, surrounding the Lake Shore Boulevard West/Waterfront Drive gateway and around the 'knoll'. The grasses are interspersed within the rest of the road allowance.

Attachments No. 4 and No. 5 show the project components of the infrastructure program which are now complete. Outstanding tasks include seeding of the meadow areas, final turf establishment, tree and shrub planting, beach feeding and placement of street furniture within the Waterfront Park area as well as construction of a local park just west of the Newport Development between Waterfront Drive and Lake Shore Boulevard West.

It should be noted that Waterfront Drive has not been officially named as yet. It is expected that Ballot Boxes to name the road will be set up at the June 19, 1999 official opening of Humber Bay Park and Waterfront Drive. Based on these submissions a name for the road will be submitted by staff to the Etobicoke Community Council for its recommendation to City Council.

Waterfront Drive has been constructed to satisfactory standards and is registered with the Land Registrar for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto. It should now be assumed by the City and dedicated as public highway.

Conclusion:

Phase I of the Humber Bay Shores Development Plan has been completed. As well, the Infrastructure Program for the Humber Bay Shores development area has been completed with contributions from the Federal and Provincial Government of $6.26 million and $5.39 million from the former City of Etobicoke. The infrastructure has been designed to enhance storm water quality and to reflect the natural setting of Waterfront Park. Phase II of the Development Plan, which includes the provision of landscaping and recreational facilities, will be implemented subject to the availability of funds.

Now that the road works have been completed, and the right-of-way transferred to the City of Toronto, it is appropriate for the City to legally assume the road for maintenance purposes and dedicate it as public highway.

Contact Name:

Tom Ellerbusch, P.Eng., Manager, Design & Construction, District 2

(416) 394-8399; Fax (416) 394-8942.

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1-5, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of June 23, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Appointment of Etobicoke Councillors

to Special Purpose Bodies

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the membership of the Mimico Village Business Improvement Area be increased by one Member of Council to provide for the appointment of two Members of Council to the Mimico Village Business Improvement Area; and

(2) Councillor Blake Kinahan, Lakeshore Queensway, be appointed to the Mimico Village Business Improvement Area for a term of office expiring November 30, 2000, and/or until his successor is appointed.")

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends:

(i) the appointment of Members of the Etobicoke Community Council to those special purpose bodies noted below for a term of office expiring November 30, 2000, and until their successor are appointed, unless indicated otherwise;

(ii) that the Councillor previously appointed by City Council to the business improvement areas noted below remain in office until November 30, 2000, and until their successors are appointed, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act;

(iii) that leave be granted for the introduction of any necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto; and

(iv) that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

--------

In accordance with the foregoing recommendations, Members of the Etobicoke Community Council are hereby recommended for appointment, as follows:

COMMUNITY AND RECREATION CENTRES -

BOARDS OF MANAGEMENT

(1) Thistletown Multi-Service Centre (Rexdale-Thistletown):,

E. Brown

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREAS - BOARD OF MANAGEMENT

(2) Islington Village Business Improvement Area (Kingsway-Humber):

G. Lindsay Luby

(3) Kingsway Business Improvement Area (Kingsway-Humber):

B. Kinahan

G. Lindsay Luby

(4) Lake Shore Business Improvement Area (Lakeshore-Queensway):

B. Kinahan

I. Jones

(5) Long Branch Business Improvement Area (Lakeshore-Queensway)

I. Jones

(6) Mimico Village Business Improvement Area (Lakeshore-Queensway):

I. Jones

(7) Mimico by the Lake Business Improvement Area (Lakeshore-Queensway):

B. Kinahan

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June 1, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To implement Council's process for appointing Members of Council to local special purpose bodies, and to regularize the terms of Councillors appointed to local business improvement areas as set out in the Municipal Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Etobicoke Community Council:

(1) give consideration to Members' preferences outlined in Schedule 1, and recommend to City Council the appointment of Members of Council to those special purpose bodies outlined in such Schedule for a term of office expiring November 30, 2000, and until their successors are appointed, unless indicated otherwise;

(2) recommend to City Council that the Councillors previously appointed by City Council to the business improvement areas outlined in Schedule 2 remain in office until November 30, 2000, and until their successors are appointed, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act; and

(3) also recommend to City Council that leave be granted for the introduction of any necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Council has directed that the nomination process for appointing Members of Council to local special purpose bodies be conducted through the Community Councils rather than the Striking Committee (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 3 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, adopted as amended by Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999).

Comments:

Community Councils have been delegated the authority to nominate Councillors for appointment to program operating boards (e.g. boards of management for business improvement areas, community/recreation centres, and arenas), external organizations of local significance supported by the City through discretionary grants, and external organizations of local significance to which Council makes appointments due to legislation or invitation.

Schedule 1 contains a list of Councillors' preferences for appointments to the special purpose bodies listed therein.

Schedule 2 contains a list of Councillors who were previously appointed by City Council to local business improvement areas for a term of office expiring May 31, 1999, and until their successors are appointed. Subsequent to these appointments, the City Clerk's office was advised that, in accordance with the Municipal Act, these appointments should have been for the term of Council, and until their successors are appointed.

Conclusion:

By recommending a slate of nominees, the Community Council will implement Council's process for appointing Councillors to local special purpose bodies. By recommending that the Councillors who were previously appointed to local business improvement areas remain in office until November 30, 2000, and until their successors are appointed, the Community Council will regularize these appointments in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Joanne Hamill, Manager of Community Councils and Committees (392-4339)

--------

(The Etobicoke Community Council also had before it a copy of each of Schedules 1 and 2 referred to in the foregoing report dated June 1, 1999, from the City Clerk, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Appointment of Interim Replacements to Etobicoke Historical

Board/Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 9, 1999) from the Chair, Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC:

Purpose:

To request Council's endorsement of the appointment of two new members for the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the following persons be appointed to the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC, on an interim basis, and until their successors are appointed.

- Mr. Nicholas Doran; and

- Ms. Gretchen Green O'Brien.

Financial Implications:

None.

Background:

The Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC has been operating without a full complement of seven citizen members since September of 1998. Two of the former members have moved out of the area, and a third member submitted her resignation at the beginning of the year. Pending City Council's

determination of the appointments to the various Boards and Committees, the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC wishes to maintain an adequate membership to fulfill its current mandate.

Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board - Nazeer Bishay

22 Kingsview Boulevard (Kingsway-Humber)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 27, 1999.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the confidential report dated June 15, 1999, from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, respecting a settlement proposal in conjunction with an Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled for July 30, 1999, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June 15, 1999) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson:

Purpose:

This report represents a status report regarding the matters involving Nazeer Bishay and 22 Kingsview Boulevard.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

This matter has a lengthy history, which is outlined below.

Mr. Nazeer Bishay is the owner of 22 Kingsview Boulevard. He sought and obtained a building permit for the purpose of constructing a dwelling at that address. During the course of construction, Mr. Bishay strayed from the building permit as follows:

1. The height of the building was 10.27 metres, rather than the permitted 9.5 metres;

2. The rear yard setbacks were 22.24 metres and 22.42 metres, rather than the permitted 22.72 metres;

3. A patio enclosure was not shown on the plans;

4. The front yard driveway was not delineated from the balance of the front yard, allowing vehicles to travel virtually anywhere on the front yard, in contravention of the Zoning Code; and

5. The drainage pattern was not in accordance with the plans submitted.

As a result, Mr. Bishay was prosecuted under both the Building Code Act and the Etobicoke Zoning Code, resulting in convictions and fines totalling $5,350.00. Those convictions were appealed by Mr. Bishay, and the appeal is now scheduled for June 28, 1999.

The City also obtained a mandatory Order from the Court, requiring that Mr. Bishay build in accordance with his building permit. Mr. Bishay's appeal of that Order was dismissed.

Two contempt Orders have been obtained against Mr. Bishay, relating drainage and landscaping. A third contempt Motion, relating to the patio enclosure, the rear yard setback and the height, remains outstanding, pending the outcome of Mr. Bishay's appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (as set out below).

In order to "legalize" the rear yard setback, the patio enclosure and the height, Mr. Bishay applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a variance. That variance request was denied. Mr. Bishay appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Ontario Municipal Board dismissed Mr. Bishay's appeal.

In May, 1998, Mr. Bishay brought forward a site specific zoning by-law request, again attempting to "legalize" the rear yard setback, patio enclosure and height. In a report dated May 27, 1998, submitted to this Committee, Karen Bricker, Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, recommended "that the application be refused and that the applicant be invited to appear in deputation before the Etobicoke Community Council." Mr. Bishay and his counsel did appear before Etobicoke Community Council. Etobicoke Community Council refused his application.

Mr. Bishay appealed this refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board. That appeal was scheduled to be heard on June 14, 1999.

Discussion:

Prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing date, Mr. Bishay approached the City, with a view to a possible settlement. The parameters of settlement and our comments thereon will be provided to you under separate confidential cover.

On June 14, 1999, the Ontario Municipal Board, Mr. G. Harron presiding, heard Mr. Bishay's adjournment request. In attendance before the Ontario Municipal Board were Mr. Bishay, the City, through Paul Zuliani and the writer, and six area residents. After hearing submissions from Mr. Bishay, the City and the area residents, Mr. Harron adjourned the hearing to Friday, July 30, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. at the offices at the Ontario Municipal Board, 655 Bay Street, 16^th floor, Toronto, Ontario. This hearing is peremptory and will proceed on that date, settlement or no settlement.

Conclusions:

There are no real conclusions to offer in the Bishay matter, in that so many issues remain outstanding.

Contact:

John R. Hart, Solicitor

Tel: (416) 622-6601, Fax: (416) 622-4713, email: rrgk@istar.ca

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (June 15, 1999) from Mr. John R. Hart, Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Barristers, Solicitors, such communication to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code

Wittington Properties Limited

South Side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent, North of Dundas Street West

and East of Burnhamthorpe Road - File No. Z-2283

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

WHEREAS a public meeting was held by the Etobicoke Community Council on May 26, 1999, pursuant to Sections 17 and 34 of the Planning Act, to obtain the views of all interested parties with respect to a site specific proposal for amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code regarding an assembly of four properties located on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent, north of Dundas Street West and east of Burnhamthorpe Road; namely, a redesignation of the lands from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and a rezoning from Second Density Residential (R2) to Sixth Density Residential (R6) to permit the development of a residential condominium project with two point block buildings of 10 and 12 storeys, joined by a 4-storey connecting building and a total of 155 units; and

WHEREAS The Etobicoke Community Council adjourned the public meeting, sine die, to allow the applicants to come back with a proposal for stacked townhouses or a project that will allow them to build to the permitted F.S.I. of 2.5 on the site; and

WHEREAS by letter dated June 8, 1999, the Solicitor for the applicant has advised that this decision has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board; and

WHEREAS by subsequent letter dated June 15, 1999, addressed to the Ontario Municipal Board, the Solicitor for the applicant has requested that a one day pre-hearing conference be scheduled in this matter as soon as possible to assist in identifying parties and issues; and

WHEREAS the applicant has not come back with a revised proposal for either stacked townhouses or a project that will allow them to build to the permitted F.S.I. of 2.5 on the site; and

WHEREAS the City Solicitor should represent the City at the Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing and subsequent hearing:

Therefore, The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

1. the report (May 6, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, regarding a site specific proposal for an amendment to the Official Plan Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and a rezoning from Second Density Residential (R2) to Sixth Density Residential (R6) to permit the development of a residential condominium project with two point block buildings of 10 and 12 storeys, joined by a 4-storey connecting building and a total of 155 units on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent, north of Dundas Street West and east of Burnhamthorpe Road, be received;

2 the application by Wittington Properties Limited be refused;

3. the City Solicitor be directed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board to defend City Council's position, and retain outside planning consultants; and

4. the City Solicitor be authorized to attend a pre-hearing conference to assist in identifying parties and issues regarding the application made by Wittington Properties Limited.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 6, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a site specific proposal for an amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Code with respect to an assembly of four properties located on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent, north of Dundas Street West and east of Burnhamthorpe Road. The applicant is requesting a redesignation of the lands from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and a rezoning from Second Density Residential (R2) to Sixth Density Residential (R6) to permit the development of a residential condominium project with two point block buildings of 10 and 12 storeys, joined by a 4-storey connecting building and a total of 155 units.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. The application by Wittington Properties Limited be revised by reducing one floor from each building to reflect two point block buildings of 8 and 10 storeys in height with one additional floor on each building set back as a penthouse level as discussed in this report.

2. The application as revised pursuant to recommendation 1 above be approved, subject to a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, the conditions outlined in this report.

3. Subject to the conditions set out in this report that by-laws to implement the Official Plan and Zoning to permit the revised development be introduced at Council.

Background:

The application was submitted on December 18, 1998, and contemplated two point block buildings of 12 and 14 storeys joined together at the base with a total of 172 residential units. A reduction in the required condominium parking standard from 1.6 spaces per unit to 1.45 spaces per unit was also requested. Following a community meeting and discussions with Planning staff, the application was revised and now proposes two buildings of 10 and 12 storeys with a total of 155 units. The applicant has formalized these revisions by way of an application for Site Plan Control approval which was submitted on April 9, 1999. This application is currently in circulation and will be the subject of a delegated Site Plan approval, subject to the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law. Further revisions to the application were submitted on April 27, 1999, to increase setbacks at the two storey penthouse levels of each building and on April 29, 1999, to withdraw the request for a reduction in the condominium parking standards.

Staff would also note that the abutting property to the west, the Islington United Church, has submitted preliminary plans for the upgrading of their site and the provision of additional on-site parking. The Church is proposing additional on-site parking as a result of the loss of parking spaces which were previously located on the Wittington lands to the east and used by the Church through a lease agreement. Planning staff have requested the Islington United Church to proceed by way of a Site Plan Control application.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The site is located on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent between Dundas Street West and Burnhamthorpe Road (Exhibit No. 1). The lands are designated Low Density Residential by the City Centre Secondary Plan and are zoned Second Density Residential (R2). The unpaved lands, currently used as a parking lot, are subject to site specific By-law No. 8134, which permits the lands to be used for parking in association with the adjacent church and commercial uses fronting on Dundas Street West.

The irregularly shaped parcel was formed through the assembly of four parcels of land which front on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent. The assembled parcel includes the three single detached dwellings known as 7, 9, and 11 Burnhamthorpe Crescent and the vacant and unpaved parking area to the east of the Islington United Church. This half hectare (1.27 acre) site stretches from the Royal Bank parking lot on the east, to the Islington Church parking lot on the west. The site has a total frontage of approximately 106 metres (350 ft.) on Burnhamthorpe Crescent. Lot depth varies from a maximum of approximately 60 m (197 ft.) to a minimum of 37 m (121 ft).

All adjacent properties fall within the boundaries of the City Centre Secondary Plan. Surrounding Official Plan designations, zoning categories and land uses are as follows:

North: Low Density Residential. First Density Residential (R1) and Private Open Space (POS) - To the north of Burnhamthorpe Crescent are located eight single detached, one to two storey, residential dwellings. Three are located at the west end of the Crescent opposite the Church. A gap exists between the dwellings where the Mimico Creek Valley comes right up to the street. These lands are opposite the west end of the site and are part of the Islington Golf and Country Club. The remaining five dwellings are located at the east end of the Crescent with three properties opposite the east end of the subject site.

East: Commercial-Residential Strip which would permit mixed use development up to a maximum height of 14 m (46 ft) or approximately 5 storeys. Limited Commercial (CL) - one-storey Royal Bank Building fronting on Dundas Street West.

South: Commercial-Residential Strip which would permit mixed use development up to a maximum height of 14 m (46 ft) or approximately 5 storeys. Limited Commercial (CL) - One and two storey buildings containing retail and residential uses with surface parking to the rear. Frontage on Dundas Street West.

West: Institutional Second Density Residential (R2) - The Islington United Church with pitched roof and steeple. A public City lane which can be accessed from Burnhamthorpe Road and terminates at the West end of the subject property.

Proposal:

The applicant has requested a site specific amendment to the City Centre Secondary Plan and a Zoning Code amendment to permit the development of a luxury residential condominium building oriented towards the "empty nester" market segment at a density of 300 uph (121 upa) and a floor space index (FSI) of 4.0.

As identified in the most recent plans, the proposed condominium development would consist of two point block buildings linked by a central 4 storey structure formed around a semi-circular forecourt and drop-off area (Exhibit No. 2). The point block building at the east end of the site (east building) and the west end of the site (west building) would be 10 storeys and 12 storeys in height, respectively. Through the use of changes in material, colour and setbacks the elevation design establishes four vertical elements; a 1 and 2 storey base, an articulated masonry middle, a well defined building cap through the use of a cornice feature of the eighth (east building) and tenth (west building) floors. The two penthouse floors are generally setback a minimum of 1.2 m from the respective eighth and tenth floors of the east and west buildings (Exhibits No. 3A and 3B).

The condominium units would consist of 35 one bedroom and 106 two bedroom units for a total of 141 units. The applicant has requested approval for a maximum of 155 units to allow for the creation of more units should smaller units be in demand during the marketing of the project. The average size of the proposed units would be 125 m² (1,345 sq. ft.). The point block structures will typically contain 7 units per floor. The central building element will have two through units per floor and the penthouse levels will each have 4 to 5 units per floor.

Two access driveways to the project are proposed off Burnhamthorpe Crescent. One would provide access to the centrally located forecourt via a circular drop-off driveway and the other would provide an access to the underground garage ramp at the west side of the site. In order to accommodate driveways at these locations on Burnhamthorpe Crescent, the applicants have requested the westerly extension of the two way traffic operation on Burnhamthorpe Crescent, from the Royal Bank property to the westerly end of the subject site. All parking will be provided in a two to three level underground parking garage and will be supplied in accordance with the condominium parking standard of 1.6 spaces per unit, including 0.2 spaces per unit of visitor parking. A secondary access to the site is also proposed from the public lane off Burnhamthorpe Road. This access would be controlled by a gate, will provide residents with a secondary means of access and will accommodate loading and servicing functions. The applicant also proposes to maintain an access over its lands from the public lane to the adjacent Pharma Plus property to the south.

The building would be setback 3 to 5 m (10 to 16 ft) from the future street line of Burnhamthorpe Crescent after required road widening dedications. Side and rear yard setbacks will generally comply with a minimum 5 m (16 ft) setback to accommodate landscaping, buffering and outdoor amenity areas. Approximately 38 percent of the site would be provided as landscaped open space.

Exhibit No. 1 is a key map of the area. Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 3A, and 3B are reductions of the proposed site plan and elevations. A summary of information as provided by the applicant is listed in Table No. 1.

TABLE No. 1

Official Plan existing requested	Low Density Residential (City Centre Secondary Plan) High Density Residential (City Centre Secondary Plan)
Zoning existing requested	Second Density Residential (R2) Sixth Density Residential (R6)
Site Area	0.5135 ha	(1.27 ac)
Proposed number of Units	155
Density	302 uph	122 upa
Gross Floor Area	20,143 m²	216,825 sq.ft.
Floor Space Index	3.9
Building Coverage	2 352 m²	25,318 sq.ft.	45.8 %
Paved Area	855 m²	9,203 sq.ft.	16.7 %
Landscape Area	1928 m²	20,753 sq.ft.	37.5 %
Building Heights East structure Central Element West structure	10 storeys 4 storeys 12 storeys	33 m 17 m 39 m	108 ft. 56 ft. 128 ft.
Parking Required 1.6 per unit @155 units	217 resident spaces	31 visitor spaces	248 total spaces
Parking to be Provided 1.6 per unit @155 units	217 resident spaces	31 visitor spaces	248 total spaces

Comments:

Official Plan:

The site is located within the City Centre Secondary Plan area and is designated Low Density Residential. Densities are assigned in this Secondary Plan on the basis of distance from the Subway, and the applicant's lands are assigned a density of 198 uph (80 upa) and an FSI of 2.5. As noted, the applicant is proposing to redesignate the site from Low Density to High Density Residential with a special site policy to permit a density of about 300 uph (121 upa) and an FSI of 4.0.

In order to consider applications for higher residential densities, the Etobicoke Official Plan establishes the types of sites that would be suitable for greater intensification. Proposals to intensify under-utilized residential sites may be permitted, subject to the criteria set out in section 4.2.19 of the Plan.

Staff's review of this application confirms that the site is appropriate for redevelopment at a scale that recognizes its location at the edge of the City Centre area. The site provides the opportunity for transition in scale from the single detached residential communities outside the City Centre area to the higher density, high rise developments to the south. The site is well served by retail facilities, social services, transit, road network, and recreational amenities.

Staff have had regard to the criteria contained in Section 4.2.19 of the Plan for the redesignation of land for high density residential development. The evaluation of these criteria is attached as Exhibit No. 4.

While the proposal generally complies with these criteria, the primary issues that arise from the review are the density, massing and height, which are discussed below.

Density and Massing:

Staff's evaluation of the proposed FSI of 4.0 has concluded that the mass and volume of the buildings proposed is generally acceptable as a result of the design measures incorporated into the project. The utilization of two point block buildings with a connecting element has distributed the mass of the buildings across the site. The separation between buildings achieves a void providing sky exposure and sunlight through the site to Burnhamthorpe Crescent. Strong articulation of the building and substantial material changes effectively reduce the visual scale and impact of building mass. The site is well designed with an appropriate amount of landscaping and on-site amenity.

The proposed density, expressed in units per hectare (uph), is a measure of impact that the resulting number of residents will place on both physical infrastructure such as roads, sewers and water and services such as fire protection, parkland and social services including education facilities. The City Centre is one of Etobicoke's principal concentrations of high density housing with a well established infrastructure of both hard and soft services. Circulation of the application has not identified any service concerns that could not be addressed. The proposed FSI and density are therefore found to be acceptable.

The School Boards, however, have raised concerns with the capacity of existing schools. The Toronto District School Board has indicated that the schools currently designated to accommodate students from the proposed development are Islington Junior Middle School and Etobicoke Collegiate Institute. The students anticipated from the proposed development currently cannot be accommodated at these schools and alternate accommodation and arrangements will be required for these students. (Exhibit No. 5). The Toronto Catholic District School Board has indicated in their preliminary comment that both the elementary and secondary schools serving this area are oversubscribed and could not accommodate additional enrollment in permanent or temporary facilities (Exhibit No. 6). Staff note that the School Boards can pursue an Educational Development Levy to secure contributions in order to increase school capacities. Staff are therefore not recommending that a levy be imposed as a condition to approval of this application.

Height:

The Secondary Plan applies a general height limit of 8 storeys to future residential developments. The intent of this policy is to encourage a greater diversity of building forms and moderate the height of existing high rise towers and adjacent low density, low rise communities. The City Centre Plan also permits higher buildings, up to a limit of 66 m (approximately 22 storeys), at key locations where shadow, wind and other negative impacts are minimized, and where such development is otherwise consistent with the Site Specific Policies in Section 3.0 of the Secondary Plan. Urban Design guidelines are appended to the City Centre Plan to assist council in considering development applications. One of the urban design criteria requires buildings to maintain a 45 degree angular plane from the lot line of the nearest single family dwelling abutting the Secondary Plan boundary.

The Wittington lands are not subject to a Site Specific Policy in Section 3.0 of the Secondary Plan and the property is not considered to be a key location. However, as a residential site used for a parking lot, the property is presently under-utilized and represents an appropriate development opportunity. The site is at the edge of the City Centre Plan area and represents a transition from nearby low density neighbourhoods outside the Plan area to the high density, high profile core area of the City Centre.

The applicant's plans originally called for two point block buildings of 12 and 14 storeys. Staff's preliminary reaction to these plans was that the buildings were too high. Given the Secondary Plan policies, the location of the site near the edge of the Secondary Plan boundaries and the low to medium rise context of the block, an 8 storey building should form the benchmark for height considerations.

The current proposal contemplates two point block buildings of 10 and 12 storeys linked by a 4-storey building. The easterly 10 storey building as shown on Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 3A and 3B is located directly across and is closest to the single detached dwellings on the north side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent. Due to the proximity of these single detached dwellings, the easterly building is lower in profile and further setback from the front property line. Building elevations have been designed to emphasize a street related base of two to three storeys to provide an improved street relationship and continuity with the single detached dwellings on the opposite side of the street. Building articulation and demarcation has also visually moderated building mass on the north elevation. A pre-cast concrete cornice placed at the top of the eighth floor of the building provides a strong, continuous demarkation and cap to the building providing the eight storey benchmark which planning staff had been requesting.

In reviewing the overall height of the applicant's proposal, staff have considered the shadow impacts of the proposed development and the compliance with a 45 degree angular plane. Notwithstanding that the single detached properties on the north side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent are within the Secondary Plan Boundaries, these homes likely represent the ultimate development potential of these lands. Staff feel that an application of the 45 degree angular plane to these properties would be in keeping with the intent of the secondary plan urban design criteria. Data provided by the applicant indicates that the east building proposed by the applicant, with a height of 8 storeys and a 2-storey penthouse, would marginally exceed the angular plane test to the lot line for 8A, 10 and 12 Burnhamthorpe Crescent. After reviewing the most recent plans, Planning staff can support one additional penthouse floor above the eight storey limit setback from the wall of the building. With an 8-storey building and a one storey penthouse appropriately setback, the project can achieve full compliance with the 45 degree angular plane test. Staff are recommending that the east tower be permitted a height of 8 storeys with a 1- storey penthouse setback from the main wall of the building to make the penthouse floor less visible.

With respect to the height of the west tower, the applicant has also requested an increase in height above 8 storeys. The applicant has requested that the west building be 10 storeys in height with a 2 storey penthouse setback above the tenth floor. Staff have reviewed the impact of the request for additional floors and have concluded that a 10 storey building in this location is acceptable as the impact of this additional height above 8 storeys is minimal at this location. The single detached homes on the north side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent are further away from the west building than they are from the east building. Immediately across from the west building, the top of bank of the Mimico Creek Valley comes up to the street edge. The 10 storey building complies with the angular plane provisions of the Official Plan and has a minimal impact on the adjacent Islington United Church. To go above this height on the west tower, however, the additional height would only be acceptable provided that it is appropriately designed and its visual impact is minimized. Staff have reviewed the applicant's proposal for two penthouse floors above the 10 building storey building. As noted in the discussion above with respect to the height of the east building staff are prepared to accept one additional floor above the 10 storey west building provided that it is well set back from the main wall of the building as a penthouse. Staff are recommending that the applicant's proposal be amended to reduce the overall height of the west tower from 10 storeys and two penthouse levels to 10 storeys with one penthouse storey.

The design of the proposed development with 8- and 10-storey buildings and a one- storey setback penthouse is acceptable and represents an appropriate form of development on this site and a transition into the Kipling Islington City Centre Area.

Zoning Code:

The property is zoned Second Density Residential (R2). Staff are recommending that the site be rezoned to Sixth Density Residential (R6) which would reflect the higher densities proposed. The amending by-law should provide the necessary exemptions to reflect the proposed development in terms of number of units, floor area, height, building stepping, landscaped open space, setbacks, fencing and accessory structures. Site specific By-law No. 8134 which permits parking for church and commercial uses on a portion of the lands should be repealed.

Transportation Analysis:

A Traffic Impact Study submitted by the applicant, dated February 1999, and prepared by BA Consulting Group, concluded that the amount of vehicle traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development can be accommodated on the surrounding road network without any significant impact. The Traffic Planning Section of Works and Emergency Services has accepted the findings of the report and note that the study was based on a 172 unit development. The reduction in the number of residential units from 172 to 155 would reduce the traffic impact of the current development proposal on the surrounding road network (Exhibit No. 7).

Transportation Planning staff have also advised that the provision of a two-way vehicle traffic along Burnhamthorpe Crescent, from Dundas Street West to the west end of the subject site, is acceptable from a traffic planning and operational perspective; however, such a change would require approval from the Etobicoke Community Council and the adoption of a by-law amendment. Such a requirement should be imposed as a condition of Site Plan Control approval should the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments application be approved. Transportation staff have also indicated that the location and design of the three proposed driveways to the site are acceptable, subject to minor technical modifications.

The following transportation improvements and requirements have also been requested and will be secured through a development agreement or conditions of Site Plan Control approval:

- the dedication of a 2.1 m widening across the Burnhamthorpe Crescent frontage of the site;

- reconstruction of Burnhamthorpe Crescent form Dundas Street West to Burnhamthorpe Road, to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services;

- reconstruction of the Public Lane from the west property limit to Burnhamthorpe Road;

- a mutual right-of-way across the southwest corner of the site to 4890 Dundas Street West (Pharma Plus) must be provided to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor in order to implement the access arrangement proposed by the applicant;

- the submission of below grade parking plans identifying the number of parking spaces provided, visitor and tenant parking arrangements, security and access measures to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services;

- submission of a comprehensive vehicle access and parking management plan for each stage of the construction process; and

- details with respect to solid waste management must be provided to the satisfaction of the Co-ordinator of Waste Management Programming, Works and Emergency Services Department.

Landscape Open Space and Recreational Amenities:

The proposed site plan would allow for 38 percent of the proposed condominium lands to be devoted to landscape open space. This would be consistent with the landscape percentages associated with other approvals for similar high density residential development within the City Centre Secondary Plan. Outdoor amenity space has been appropriately located adjacent to indoor amenity areas to improve recreational opportunities and interaction between the indoor and outdoor spaces. Setbacks along Burnhamthorpe Crescent will permit tree planting and a public sidewalk. The east building has been pulled away from the rear and side property lines to achieve a planted buffer from adjacent uses. This buffer would be further enhanced through the provision of fencing along the rear and side property lines and will be examined in detail at the site plan review stage.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of this application, no objections have been expressed by Realty Services, Canada Post Corporation and the Health Department.

The following agencies have no objection to the development subject to their listed conditions of approval: Fire Department, Toronto Hydro, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Exhibit Nos. 9, 10, 11).

The Technical Services Division of Works & Emergency Services has advised that the developer will be financially responsible for all work proposed within the road allowance and will be required to enter into a Development Agreement (Exhibit No. 12). The following technical requirements shall also be provided to the satisfaction of the Division:

- the existing water main and sanitary sewer must be flow tested to determine if pressure and capacity is adequate for the proposal;

- a storm sewer must be provided on Burnhamthorpe Crescent from Dundas Street West to the west limit of the property;

- a storm water management report, incorporating quantity and quality control measures, will be a requirement for the development;

- the developer will be required to install a public sidewalk on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent from Dundas Street West to the west limit of the property;

- the building shall be constructed to condominium standards; and

- the developer shall submit environmental (soil and ground water) information for peer review.

Economic Development Division, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism and Culture have indicated that they wish to review final details with respect to indoor and amenity details and the Landscape Plan as a condition of Site Plan Control (Exhibit No. 8). They have also indicated that the parkland dedication requirement for this development should be based on 0.5 ha per 300 units and taken as cash-in-lieu. They further advise that the provision of a suitable on-site children's play facility should be allowed for within the scope of this development.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has reviewed the amendment application and has no objection to the proposed redevelopment. They further note that site specific changes in land use are a local responsibility and subject to municipal assessment (Exhibit No. 13).

Conclusions:

The Wittington property is located on the edge of the City Centre boundary north of the Islington Village. The site is a transitional site from the low density residential areas outside the City Centre area to the higher density core. The proposed intensification of this City Centre property for residential uses is appropriate. Staff have reviewed the applicant's proposal and are recommending that the height of the two buildings be 8 and 10 storeys with permission for a one storey penthouse on each building setback from the wall of the building as specified in the Zoning By-law. Staff are recommending that the application be revised to reflect these heights and that, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, the by-laws to amend the Official Plan and Zoning Code be introduced to Council.

In the event of approval, the following conditions should apply:

Conditions to Approval:

1. Fulfillment of the following conditions prior to the enactment of an amending by-law:

a. Consultation with the Public Art Advisory Committee regarding the provision of public art; and

b. Signing of a Development Agreement containing the recommended road dedications, infrastructure improvements, public art component, financial guarantees and the payment of the necessary fees associated with the preparation execution and registration of same.

2. The site specific amending by-law shall rezone the site to Sixth Density Residential (R6). The amending by-law should provide the necessary exemptions to reflect the proposed development in terms of number of units, floor area, height, building stepping, landscaped open space, setbacks, fencing and accessory structures. Site specific By-law No. 8134 which permits parking for church and commercial uses on a portion of the lands should be repealed.

3. Further detailed consideration of the proposal under Site Plan Control to include inter alia:

(i) Signing of a Site Control Agreement which may include, among other matters, payment of necessary fees associated with the preparation, execution and registration of same, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

(ii) Submission of a landscaping plan detailing fencing, curbing, grading, street trees, planting, and tree preservation details to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control, and posting of an appropriate financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans.

(iii) Submission of a Parking Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Traffic, Transportation and Development Engineering Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department to ensure appropriate on-site parking is provided at all phases of construction.

(iv) Provision of on-site services, including storage of waste and recyclable materials, the provision of stormwater management facilities or cash-in-lieu payment, the signing of agreements, and the posting of financial guarantees, if required by the Works Department.

(v) Submission of revised plans for the below grade parking structure to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services.

(vi) Mutual Use and Maintenance Agreement addressing the mutual right-of-way driveway, garage ramp and level one of the underground parking garage to the satisfaction of the Works Department and City Solicitor.

(vii) The developer to pay the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of issuance of building permits and 0.5 ha per 300 units cash in lieu of parkland dedication.

(viii) A construction site management plan to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

Contact Name:

Paul Zuliani, Senior Planner Tel: (416)394-8230

Community Planning, West Office Fax: (416)394-6063

Exhibit No. 1

Exhibit No. 2

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (June 30, 1999) from Mr. Alan Vihant, Director, Development, Wittington Properties Limited, urging City Council to reject Etobicoke Community Council's recommendation that the City Solicitor attend the OMB hearing to defend the Community Council position, and retain outside consultants for the full hearing.)

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that the Applicant's solicitor is a partner at the same law firm as his son, who is not a real estate lawyer and does not personally act on these files, and is representing applicants and has worked on related files.)

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Lesbian and Gay Pride Week - June 21-27, 1999.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having endorsed the proclamation of June 21-27, 1999 as "Lesbian and Gay Pride Week" in Toronto.

(b) Variance to the Etobicoke Sign By-Law -

Urban Outdoor Trans Ad, 3 Queensway Lions Court.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having concurred in the following report:

(June 7, 1999) from the City Clerk, submitting the decisions of the Etobicoke Sign Variance Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 20, 1999, and in particular, refusal of an application by Urban Outdoor Trans Ad for a variance to the Etobicoke Sign By-law to permit a Standard Outdoor Advertising ground sign at 3 Queensway Lions Court which was deferred, at the request of the applicant, for deputation at the June 23, 1999 meeting.

--------

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

- Mr. Christopher Williams, Aird & Berlis, on behalf of Urban Outdoor Trans Ad; and

- Mr. David Mackie, Urban Outdoor Trans Ad.

(c) Community Arts in the New City.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received notification from Mr. Clifford Dyke that he would not be able to attend the meeting in deputation with respect to the issue of community arts in the new City of Toronto, therefore this item was not considered.

(d) Stop Control Assessment: Thirtieth Street and Rimilton Avenue

(Lakeshore-Queensway).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, evaluating the effectiveness of the current stop control operation at the intersection of Thirtieth Street and Rimilton Avenue, and recommending that the intersection of Thirtieth Street and Rimilton Avenue continue to operate with stop signs controlling northbound and southbound traffic.

(e) Proposed Third-Party Commercial Advertising Sign on Public Road Allowance -

63 Park Lawn Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(June 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, advising, for information only, that an application by Mediacom Inc. for permission to install a billboard sign within the Gardiner Expressway road allowance in the vicinity of 63 Park Lawn Road, which was deferred by Etobicoke Community Council pending clarification of existing policies relating to third-party signs on public property, has been withdrawn.

(f) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code, Harvey Sawh, 63 and 65 Winterton Drive - File No. Z-2296

(Markland-Centennial).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(June 4, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application received on April 27, 1999, from Harvey Sawh to amend the Residential (R1) zoning and the Official Plan (Utilities) of a site at 63-65 Winterton Drive to permit a 10-unit retirement home; and recommending that:

(1) this report be received and that the application continue to be circulated, and

(2) upon completion of a Planning staff report, a public meeting to consider the application be scheduled for a meeting of Community Council.

(g) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code, City of Toronto/The Toronto Parking Authority,

7 and 9 Monkton Avenue - File No. Z-2297 (Lakeshore-Queensway).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(June 9, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application received on May 11, 1999, from The Toronto Parking Authority to amend the Low Density Residential designation of the Official Plan and the Residential Second Density (R2) zoning of 7 and 9 Monkton Avenue to permit a 25-space surface public parking lot, and recommending that:

(1) this report be received and that the application continue to be circulated, and

(2) upon completion of a Planning staff report, a public meeting to consider the application be scheduled for a meeting of Community Council.

(h) Supplementary Report - Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code,

1051234 Ontario Limited, 7 McIntosh Avenue (Lakeshore -Queensway).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following report back to the Director of Community Planning, West District, in order that the Lakeshore-Queensway Councillors may have opportunity to visit the site with staff, including the Toronto Parking Authority:

(June 7, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, advising Etobicoke Community Council of the status of the application by 1051234 Ontario Limited, and their request to have the Zoning By-law amendment placed before City Council for adoption.

(i) New Development Applications for West District (Etobicoke).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having

(1) received the following report; and

(2) requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to bring forward a report indicating the measures needed to control regrading of properties within and adjacent to valleylands and ravines:

(June 23, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing a summary of new development applications for the West District (Etobicoke) received since May 11, 1999.

(j) Proposed Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code

1308684 Ontario Limited, 3085 Bloor Street West and 20 Thompson Avenue

- File No. Z-2293 (Lakeshore-Queensway).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(May 3, 1999) from Mary L. Campbell, President, Kingsway Sunnylea Residents Association/KPRI, addressed to the Solicitor representing 1308684 Ontario Limited, proposing that 20 Thompson Avenue remain residential with a minor variance for "alternative use" to compliment is function as part and parcel of 3085 Bloor Street West.

(k) Edenbridge Yard, West District (Kingsway-Humber).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) adopted the following report; and

(2) referred the recommendations to the Policy and Finance Committee, as directed in Clause 2 of Report No. 9 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee entitled "Parks Yard Revitalization Study", adopted by Council at its meeting held on May 11, 12 and 13, 1999:

(June 2, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, responding to Etobicoke Community Council's request for a report on the Edenbridge Yard, with specific reference to the possibility of retaining the property in the City park system; and recommending that:

(i) the Edenbridge property be retained as parkland and the service building therein be retained by the Department pending completion of further studies; and

(ii) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.

(l) Proposed Wind Turbine - Colonel Samuel Smith Park.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(June 1, 1999) from Mr. Michael Harrison, President, CCFEW), forwarding a copy of correspondence from Citizens Concerned About the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront (CCFEW) to the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative (TREC), advising of the group's wish to be able to support the siting of a renewable energy wind turbine on the Toronto waterfront, but not if Colonel Samuel Smith Park is considered as a location.

(m) Minutes of Etobicoke Boards and Committees.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the Minutes of a meeting of the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC held on Wednesday, May 12, 1999.

(n) Crime S.C.O.P.E. - Disbanding of Sub-Committee.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(June 16, 1999) from Mr. William Goursky, Interim Chair, Crime S.C.O.P.E., advising that the Community Standards Sub-committee of Crime S.C.O.P.E. has been disbanded effective June 8, 1999.

(o) Changes to the City's Planning Documents to Permit Second Suites As-of-Right.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held an informal public meeting to obtain the views of the Etobicoke community with respect to second suites in single-detached and semi-detached houses, and having referred the comments received from the following persons to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at the July 12, 1999 public meeting on proposed amendments to the Official Plans of the former Borough of East York, Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and Cities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York, and amendments to the Zoning By-laws of the former Borough of East York and Cities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Toronto and York in respect to second suites:

- Mr. Gunter Ganzhuebner, expressing a concern about on-street parking and a fear that front yards would be paved to accommodate additional persons;

- Mr. Donald Wheeler, noting that residents purchase their single-family properties expecting the neighbourhood to remain as such; expressing a concern that there will be extra vehicles and garbage on the street, posing a potential danger for children and removing the aesthetic and safety features of the area; suggesting the establishment of a "Neighbours' Bill of Rights" and a group to which tenants and landlords will be directed, as part of the lease agreement, for information pertaining to the City's by-laws, particularly in the instances of absentee landlords;

- Mr. Terry Reardon, noting in particular the need to strengthen the municipality's right of entry in order to enforce regulations;

- Ms. Elaine Bourke, strongly in favour of the proposed amendments as being important for seniors and single parents being able to maintain their own homes in terms of income and security, and the provision of affordable accommodation;

- Mr. Henry Baun, in favour of the proposed amendments, noting that intensification in other areas of the City has helped to enliven the communities and created neighbourhoods where people care about and help each other;

- Ms. Silvia Rosatone, in favour of the proposed amendments, as a way for residents to provide independent accommodation for family members; and

- Mr. Michael Savage, who expressed opposition to the proposed amendments, giving examples of problems in his own immediate neighbourhood, and stressed the need for enforceable regulations.

The Etobicoke Community Council also received the following communication in connection with the foregoing matter:

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Mary Campbell, President, Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association/KPRI, requesting that the issue of basement apartments and also the New Toronto Official Plan be revisited after the summer period to allow for appropriate input from constituents and ratepayer groups.

Respectfully submitted,

MARIO GIANSANTE

Chair

Toronto, June 23, 1999

(Report No. 8 of The Etobicoke Community Council, including additons thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999.)