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

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 9

1 Construction of Chain-Link Fence - 165 Dowling Avenue (High Park)

2 Installation of Underground Cables - 111 Bond Street and 122 Bond Street (Downtown)

3 Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 174 Madison Avenue (Midtown)

4 Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East (Don River and East Toronto)

5 Draft Zoning By-law - Lands Within and Abutting the Nordheimer Ravine (Midtown)

6 Boulevard Cafe - Fronting 1862 Queen Street East and on the Rainsford Road Flankage (East Toronto)

7 Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - 207-217 Roslin Avenue (North Toronto)

8 Draft By-law - Installation of Speed Humps - Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East
to Eastwood Road (East Toronto)

9 Draft By-law - Narrowing of the Pavement - Pinewood Avenue, Kenwood Avenue, Raglan Avenue and Wychwood Avenue, at their respective Intersections at St. Clair Avenue West (Midtown)

10 Cash Payment in Lieu of Parking under Section 40 of the Planning Act - 70 Bond Street (Downtown)

11 Interim Control By-law 241-1998 - 16 Avondale Road - Application for Consent under Chapter 276, and Article I, Ravines of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (Midtown)

12 Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 280 Coxwell Avenue (East Toronto)

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

14 Prohibition of Stopping and Prohibition of Parking - Gloucester Street, both sides, from Yonge Street to Church Street (Downtown)

15 Temporary Road Closures - "Taste of the Danforth" Event (Don River and East Toronto)

16 Provision of a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area" with Short Term Parking - Carlaw Avenue from Danforth Avenue to McConnell Avenue (Don River)

17 Parking Regulations - Argyle Street, north side, between Ossington Avenue and Givins Street (Trinity-Niagara)

18 Parking Regulations - Davenport Road, south side, west of Bartlett Avenue North (Davenport)

19 Parking Regulations - Rosedale Valley Road between Park Road and Bayview Avenue (Midtown and Don River)

20 Designation of Exclusive Westbound right and left-turn lanes - Charles Street East at Yonge Street (Downtown)

21 Proposed Designation of an Exclusive Southbound Right Turn Lane - Shaw Street at Bloor Street West (Davenport)

22 Parking Regulations - Atlantic Avenue, between Liberty Street and the C.N.R. Right-of-way (Trinity-Niagara)

23 Lane System bounded by Jones Avenue, Endean Avenue, Sproat Avenue and Leslie Street (Don River)

24 Reduction of Speed Limit - Coe Hill Drive between the Queensway and Windermere Avenue (High Park)

25 Prohibition of Parking anytime - Glebeholme Boulevard north side, from a point 41.5 metres east of Monarch Park Avenue to a point 12.5metres further east (East Toronto)

26 Provision of On-Street Loading Zone for the Disabled at the Rear of 100 St. George Street, University of
Toronto, Sydney Smith Hall - Huron Street, east side, Harbord Street to Willcocks Street (Downtown)

27 Prohibition of Standing at anytime - Wellesley Street West, north side, from Bay Street to Queen's Park Crescent (Downtown)

28 Installation/Removal of On-street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (High Park, Trinity-Niagara and Midtown)

29 Tree Removals - Extension of the Light Rapid Transit (LRT) on Queen's Quay West (Downtown)

30 East Bayfront - Home Depot OMB Hearing - Retention of Outside Market Expert (Don River)

31 Park Naming - Rosedale Valley Area (Midtown)

32 Heritage Toronto: Appointment of Interim Board Members

33 Building Permit - Construction of a Third Floor Patio - 2446-2448 Bloor Street West - "The Fan", "Billy Bob's" and "The Wedgewood Restaurant" (York Humber, High Park)

34 Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

35 Living Stones Project (Trinity-Niagara)

36 Liquor Licence Renewal - Cheater's Tavern (2087 Yonge Street) (North Toronto)

37 Parking Regulations and Installations of Parking Meters/Machines - Bloor Street West, north side, between Christie Street and Crawford Street (Davenport)

38 Installation of Road Narrowing at Pedestrian Crossover - Merton Street in the vicinity of Premises No. 71 (North Toronto)

39 Councillor Appointments to Local Special Purpose Bodies

40 Committee of Adjustment Appeal - 735 Avenue Road (Midtown)

41 Use of Nathan Phillips Square - June 25, 1999 to July 1, 1999 - Du Maurier Downtown Jazz Festival

42 Use of Nathan Phillips Square - July 24, July 31, August 7 and August 14, 1999 - Famous Players Movies and Music in the Night

43 Gore Vale Avenue between Queen Street West and Dundas Street West - Operational Safety (Trinity-Niagara)

44 Traffic Island Green Space - Bloor Street West and Christie Street - Public Art Potential

45 Installation of Traffic Control Signals and Realignment of Intersection - Intersection of Victoria Park Avenue at Musgrave Street (East Toronto)

46 Ontario Municipal Board Appeal of Demolition Permit Extension - 29 Clark Street (Don River)

47 Proposal by Tribute Homes to affix Advertising Signage on a Construction Trailer in the Gunns Road Allowance (Davenport)

48 Parking in the Area of Ashbridges Bay (East Toronto)

49 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 9

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on June 8 and 22, 1999,

submitted by Councillors Pam McConnell and Kyle Rae, Chairs)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999

1

Construction of Chain-Link Fence -

165 Dowling Avenue (High Park)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 7, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a request to construct a 1.2 metre high chain-link fence within the public right of way fronting 165 Dowling Avenue which exceeds the maximum height of 1.0 metre permitted under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the construction of a 1.2 metre high chain-link fence within the public right of way fronting 165 Dowling Avenue, provided the owner enters into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

Mr. Karl Schneider, 30 Larchmere Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M9L 2N3, submitted an application on March 25, 1999 to construct a 1.2 metre high chain-link fence in front of 165 Dowling Avenue.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined there are other similar fences in the area and that this fence would not negatively impact the public right of way.

Details of this fence are retained on file with my Department.

Conclusions:

As the fence will not negatively impact the public right of way, this installation should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

2

Installation of Underground Cables - 111 Bond Street and

122 Bond Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the report dated July 7, 1999, from the Chairman, Telecommunications Steering Committee, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the June 7, 1999, report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, respecting the installation of cables by Ryerson, be approved, subject to three amendments, as follows:

(a) the agreement be amended to require Ryerson to provide to the Telecommunications Steering Committee, through the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, technical information on all of the above and below ground installations, cabling, structures and conduits or ducts which Ryerson uses for telecommunications purposes that cross or use City rights-of-way or other City property;

(b) the agreement between the City and Ryerson include the requirement that the City be notified of any contemplated third-party use of the cable, wire, conduit, or right-of-way, such that the agreement will be subject to re-negotiation; and

(c) Ryerson be required to make available for the use of the City, extra fibre optic wires, if and when installed, and space inside the conduit to be installed for City installation of fibre optic wiring; and

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

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Steering Committee to the Inter-departmental Working Group on Telecommunications to report directly to Council on this matter.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 7, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request to install two communication cables under and across Bond Street, linking 111 Bond Street with 122 Bond Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the installation of two communication cables under and across Bond Street linking 111 Bond Street with 122 Bond Street, provided the owner and such other licensees as may be required by the City Solicitor enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto, agreeing to:

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

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

(c) remove the cables upon receiving 90 days notice so to do;

(d) pay an annual encroachment fee as approved by City Council for this type of use (1999 rates are $20.00 per lineal metre of cable in the area bounded by Lake Ontario, Bathurst Street, Bloor Street and Jarvis Street and $10.00 per lineal metre of cable elsewhere in the City within the public right of way, which fee shall automatically increase on the first day of January in each year by the percentage increase in the All Items Index of the Consumer Price Index (not seasonally adjusted) for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area); and

(e) accept such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interests of the City.

Comments:

Mr. Manuel Ravinsky, Co-ordinator, Campus Planning and Construction, acting on behalf of the owner, Ryerson Polytechnic University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, submitted an application for permission to install two communication cables under and across Bond Street, linking 111 Bond Street with 122 Bond Street. The communication cables will provide a connection for computer and telephone systems.

Conclusions:

As the installation of the communication cables will not negatively impact the public right of way or existing underground utility and City services, the communication cables should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 7, 1999) from Councillor John Adams, Chairman, Telecommunications Steering Committee:

Purpose:

To support the request from Ryerson to install two communication cables subject to three amendments. The amendments derive from an interim policy being recommended by the Telecommunications Steering Committee. The mandate of the Steering Committee, as directed by Council in January 1999, is to develop and recommend on strategy and policy and ensure City-wide co-ordination respecting the use of the municipal rights-of-way and other municipal property.

Financial Implications:

There are no new costs associated with approval of the recommendations in this report. There is, however, in-kind benefit to the City in the recommended interim policy for City agreements respecting telecom access, and facilities accruing to the ownership and/or use of the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the June 7, 1999 report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the installation of cables by Ryerson, be approved subject to three amendments as follow:

(a) the agreement be amended to require Ryerson to provide to the Telecommunications Steering Committee through the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, technical information on all the above and below ground installations, cabling, structures and conduits or ducts which Ryerson uses for telecommunications purposes that cross or use City rights-of-way or other City property;

(b) the agreement between the City and Ryerson include the requirement that the City be notified of any contemplated third-party use of the cable, wire, conduit, or right-of-way such that the agreement will be subject to re-negotiation;

(c) Ryerson be required to make available for the use of the City, extra fibre optic wires if and when installed, and space inside the conduit to be installed for City installation of fibre optic wiring; and

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

Background:

The Toronto Community Council (TCC) on June 22, 1999 had before it a report from the Works and Emergency Services Department respecting the installation of underground cables at 111 and 122 Bond Street. TCC submitted this matter to Council without recommendation having requested the Telecommunications Steering Committee to report to Council at its meeting of July 6, 1999.

The properties on Bond Street are both owned by Ryerson Polytechnic University. The University has only recently acquired one of the buildings and it wishes to link the property with the rest of campus buildings by means of the under-street conduits. In order to install the cables, Ryerson has requested consent of the City for access to the municipal right-of-way.

Comments:

The Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Division, has determined that installation of the cables proposed by Ryerson will not negatively impact the public right-of-way, or interfere in any manner with existing underground utility and City services.

In addition, the type of use being proposed by Ryerson does not warrant the comprehensive Municipal Access Agreement (MAA) required by the City for telecom carrier companies. Accordingly, the Steering Committee concurs with the encroachment agreement terms and annual fee being recommended for Ryerson by the Transportation Division.

Interim Telecommunications Policy:

At its meetings of June 15 and July 7, 1999 the Steering Committee determined that certain information is required by the City to develop corporate-wide telecommunications policy and strategy. This includes, but is not limited to, the need to gather an inventory of all above and below ground installations, structures, conduits and cables that are now in place on City rights-of-way used for the purpose of telecommunications.

Another determination by the Steering Committee is to uphold the philosophy that municipalities should receive compensation to cover all of the costs they incur when granting parties access to and use of public rights-of-way, and other such terms as are reasonable to protect the City.

The Telecommunications Steering Committee has also examined the standard terms and conditions of the MAA as part of its work towards recommending a City-wide telecommunications strategy to Council.

Accordingly, the Steering Committee is recommending the adoption of the June 7, 1999 report from the Transportation Division respecting the installation of cables by Ryerson, subject to three amendments. The following amendments are in accordance with the interim policy that is being recommended to Council:

- the agreement be amended to require Ryerson to provide to the Telecommunications Steering Committee through the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, technical information on all the above and below ground installations, cabling, structures and conduits or ducts which Ryerson uses for telecommunications purposes that cross or use City rights-of-way or other City property;

- the agreement between the City and Ryerson include the requirement that the City be notified of any contemplated third-party use of the cable, wire, conduit, or right-of-way such that the agreement will be subject to re-negotiation; and

Ryerson be required to make available for the use of the City, extra fibre optic wires if and when installed, and space inside the conduit to be installed for City installation of fibre optic wiring.

Conclusion and Next Steps:

The Telecommunications Steering Committee has convened two meetings and is reporting to the July 20 meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee. The Steering Committee will be making a number of recommendations with a view to co-ordinating City telecom matters, and as first steps toward developing a City-wide telecom strategy and associated policies. Consistent with those recommendations, the Steering Committee is reporting to Council as directed, to recommend approval of the installation of underground cables and conduit by Ryerson, subject to the amendments in this report.

Contact: Laurie McQueen, Office of the CAO.)

3

Appeal - Front Yard Parking -

174 Madison Avenue (Midtown)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for front yard parking at 174 Madison Avenue, subject to the applicant:

(a) complying with the criteria set out in Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(b) agreeing to pay the cost of planting a shade tree on the municipal right-of-way in the neighbourhood; and

(c) installing only 2 "tire" tracks of ecostone with no gravel sub-base, such that excavation is limited to three inches in depth.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for front yard parking at 174 Madison Avenue, which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is an appeal and a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

(1) That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 174 Madison Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; or

(2) That, should the Toronto Community Council consider this proposal, this report be deferred to the May 26, 1999 meeting of the Toronto Community Council, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report at that time on the results of a poll for the hearing of deputations.

Background:

Ms. Maya Zimmerman-Litman and Mr. Mel Litman, owners of 174 Madison Avenue, have requested an appeal to staff's decision to refuse the application for front yard parking at this location.

Comments:

City Council, at its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, approved a number of amendments to former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400, governing front yard parking. However, Ward 23, Midtown, was deferred back to Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations.

Under the circumstances, the regulations, in part, governing front yard parking as existed prior to October 1998, are still in effect in Ward 23, Midtown. Specifically, the current criteria for the Midtown Ward prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street or the property is within an area authorized for permit parking.

Ms. Maya Zimmerman-Litman, co-owner of 174 Madison Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5R 2S5, submitted an application for front yard parking on November 13, 1998. The application was refused since permit parking is authorized on the odd side of this portion of Madison Avenue within permit parking area 5D.

Given that the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking, no public poll was conducted for this location.

Conclusions:

As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking, this location is not eligible for front yard parking as it does not meet the front yard parking regulations as it pertains to Ward 23, Midtown.

For the Committee's information, the location was also reviewed under the new regulations of front yard parking as it pertains to some of the former City of Toronto Wards and the property does meet the new regulations because permit parking is not authorized on the same side of the street.

Under the circumstances, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (May 14, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of the poll conducted in connection with front yard parking at 174 Madison Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council may recommend that City Council approve the application for front yard parking and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of March 30, 1999, had before my report dated March 15, 1999, respecting an Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 174 Madison Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of the report until its meeting to be held on May 26, 1999, for deputations, and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report at that time on the results of the poll.

Comments:

Ms. Maya Zimmerman-Litman, co-owner of 174 Madison Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5R 2S5, submitted an application for front yard parking on November 13, 1998. The application was refused as the proposal did not meet the current criteria of the Municipal Code. The refusal was appealed to the Toronto Community Council, which requested that the formal poll be conducted.

The polling was conducted in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 90, Polling and Notifications Procedures, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The area polled was on both sides of Madison Avenue, from Nos. 179 to 215 on the odd side and between Nos. 150 to 184 on the even side. The deadline for receiving the ballots was May 13, 1999. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

The majority of the ballots cast were in favour of the parking proposal.

Conclusions:

As the polling results were in favour of front yard parking at this location, it is recommended that it be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

At its meeting on May 26, 1999 Toronto Community Council considered an application from Ms. Maya Zimmerman-Litman and Mr. Mel Litman for Front Yard Parking at 174 Madison Avenue. Toronto Community Council deferred the application to its next meeting on June 22, 1999 and requested that the Urban Forestry Section review the application for front yard parking at 174 Madison Avenue as it pertains to the City-owned tree at that property.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Specifications for Construction Near Trees, as set by the Urban Forestry Section for the former City of Toronto, regarding tree protection be adhered to until the harmonization of the tree protection by-law.

Background:

The tree in question is a ninety-one centimetre Silver Maple in fair to good condition, valued at $5883.65.

Applications for Front Yard Parking are submitted to the Works and Emergency Services Department for their review. If the application meets the Urban Forestry Section's Specifications for Construction Near Trees, the application is accepted as it pertains to City-owned trees. The Specifications for trees greater than 50 centimetres in diameter require that: "No grade change or impermeable surface treatment is permitted within 4 metres of the base of the tree. Permeable surface treatment such as gravel, chipped brick, turf stone or ecostone is permitted up to 2.4 metres of the tree base. Excavation between 2.4 metres and 4 metres must be hand dug and roots must not be cut." If the application does not meet the Specifications, it is denied.

Conclusion:

The front yard parking application submitted by the owners of 174 Madison Avenue meets the Urban Forestry Section's Specifications for Construction Near Trees which have been designed to minimize the potential injury to trees caused by shared uses on City boulevards. The proposal includes the use of an eco-stone treatment, which will allow grass to grow through holes in the surface treatment. This will allow for the exchange of oxygen, nutrients and water, which the tree needs.

In order to further reduce the impact of the front yard parking area on the tree, the applicant may wish to consider utilizing the smallest possible area, such as creating only strips on which the tires could drive or by simply placing crushed stone, chipped brick or gravel at grade with no removal of topsoil.

Contact:

Vicky Jeffery

392-7390

--------

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

- (May 20, 1999) from Yik Tse;

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. Peter Rozee and Ms. Francesca Patterson;

- (June 21, 1999) from Mr. Peter Rozee; and

- (June 21, 1999) from Woon Ting, Joyce, Ann and Sue Chan.

--------

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

- Ms. Maya Litman, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Mel Litman, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Peter Rozee, Toronto, Ontario.

4

Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East

(Don River and East Toronto)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 7, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy:

Purpose:

To obtain approval to implement bicycle lanes on Jones Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the proposed work in the estimated amount of $40,000.00, are available in Capital Account TR804 - Traffic Calming and Bicycle Lanes.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Bicycle lanes be implemented on both sides of Jones Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East, as detailed in Appendix A attached hereto;

(2) In conjunction with the implementation of the bicycle lanes, the parking and no stopping regulations detailed in Appendix B attached hereto be approved; and

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

Background:

Toronto City Council, at its meeting of June 3, 1998, in adopting Clause No. 34 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, authorized the statutory advertising of by-laws necessary to implement the Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route and bicycle lanes on both sides of Jones Avenue between Danforth Avenue and Queen Street East. At the July 22, 1998 hearing respecting the proposed enactment of the draft by-law, Toronto Community Council recommended that the draft by-laws be amended by deleting reference to the proposed Jones Avenue bicycle lane and the Chatham Avenue section of the proposed Danforth Avenue By-Pass bicycle route in order that additional public consultation be conducted on these streets.

At its meeting of July 29, 30, and 31, 1998, City Council adopted Clause No. 6 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, which approved the proposed Danforth Avenue By-Pass bicycle route, except for the Chatham Avenue section. The Danforth Avenue By-Pass bicycle route, between Broadview Avenue and Jones Avenue, was subsequently installed in the fall of 1998.

This report presents the results of the additional consultation, the impacts on parking and the implementation timing for the proposed Jones Avenue bicycle lanes.

Discussion:

Additional Public Consultation:

The offices of Councillor Bussin and Councillor Jakobek, in consultation with Transportation Services staff, sent out a joint survey to obtain input from the residents in the area of the proposed bicycle lanes. The majority of the survey respondents indicated that they favoured the proposal.

Impacts on Parking:

As noted in previous reports, the restriping of the road to provide bicycle lanes will significantly increase the number of parking spaces on the north section of Jones Avenue. Currently, parking is prohibited at all times on the east side of Jones Avenue between Danforth Avenue and Myrtle Avenue and between Gerrard Street East and Endean Avenue. With the implementation of the bicycle lanes, 82 permit parking spaces will be added to the east side of Jones Avenue between Chatham Avenue and Endean Avenue.

Implementation:

As part of the Transportation Services Division's Capital Works Program, the reconstruction of Jones Avenue from the Canadian National Railway tracks to Strathcona Avenue is scheduled to begin in late July, 1999 with a scheduled completion date near the end of August, 1999. The striping of Jones Avenue between Danforth Avenue and Queen Street East to install the proposed bicycle lanes will be timed to coincide with the completion of the reconstruction project.

Contact Name:

Daniel Egan

Manager, Pedestrian and Cycling Infrastructure

Tel: (416) 392-9065

Fax: (416) 392-4426

--------

Appendix A

Schedule Additions to Article IV

Required to Implement the Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

Add the following:

194-6 Lanes designated principally for the use of bicycles.

Highway	Side and Location	Between
Jones Avenue	Both, adjacent to curb lane used for parking	Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East

--------

Appendix B

Parking Regulation Amendments Required to Implement the

Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

(1) Delete the following:

400-76-Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited times or Days
Jones Ave.	East	Danforth Ave. and Mytrle Ave.	Anytime
Jones Ave.	East	Gerrard St. E. and Endean Ave.	Anytime

(2) Add the following:

400-77-Schedule XXIV - No Stopping

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited times or Days
Jones Ave.	East	A point 30.5 metres south of Danforth Ave. a Chatham Ave.	Anytime

(3) Add the following:

400-79-Schedule XXVI - Permit Parking

Part A: 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Street	Side	Between	No. of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Jones Ave.	Odd	From Endean Ave. to Chatham Ave.	82	All Times

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Proposed Jones Avenue - Bicycle Lanes

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (June 21, 1999) from Mr. Kevin Bourassa, in support of the application, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

5

Draft Zoning By-law - Lands Within and

Abutting the Nordheimer Ravine (Midtown)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the draft By-law attached to the report (June 21, 1999) from the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2) the recommendations contained in the report (May 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on June 22, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 21, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report appends a draft zoning amendment by-law that would prohibit the erection of a building or structure within 10 metres of the specified ravine impact area of the Nordheimer Ravine, subject to certain exceptions for and addition to, or replacement of, an existing building.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the draft by-law has no financial implication for the City and requires no funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

(2) the draft By-law attached to the report (June 21, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto, and

(3) that the recommendations in the report (May 25, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the report (May 25, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services at its meeting of June 22, 1999. Among other things, the report recommends approval of an amendment to the Zoning By-law to prohibit, with exceptions, development within 10 metres of the ravine impact area for the Nordheimer Ravine, as shown on maps attached to the Draft By-law.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The draft By-law will, if enacted, implement the recommendations of the planning report.

Contact Name:

John A. Paton

Legal Services Division

Telephone: 392-7230

Fax: 397-4420

e-mail: jpaton@toronto.ca

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86, as amended,

respecting lands within the Nordheimer Ravine.

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

1. Section 12(2) of Zoning By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended by adding the following exception:

___. No person shall, on a lot that abuts or is located wholly or partially within the Ravine Impact Area of the Nordheimer Ravine, as shown on outlined by heavy lines on the maps at the end of this exception, use or erect a building, structure or addition for any purpose, other than those required for flood and/or erosion protection or those related to federal, provincial or municipal infrastructure, unless the building, structure or addition is set back not less than 10.0 metres from the Ravine Impact Area, provided that;

(i) any building or structure existing within the Ravine Impact Area on July 6, 1999, may be replaced, provided that the replacement building or structure does not have any greater gross floor area or height and is in the same position relative to the lot lines as the building or structure it replaces; and

(ii) an addition may be made to a building or structure existing on July 6, 1999 that is not set back 10.0 metres from the Ravine Impact Area, provided it is no closer to the Ravine Impact Area than any existing wall of the existing building or structure.

(Maps to be attached)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (May 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the lands in and within 10 metres of the Nordheimer Ravine be subject to a restrictive exception which would implement a "Ravine Impact Area". The line defining the "Ravine Impact Area" would be consistent with the current line defining the boundary of the Nordheimer Ravine. Such a regulation would:

(i) be consistent with the environmental policies of the Official Plan;

(ii) be complementary to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's fill and top-of-bank regulations;

(iii) have appropriate regard for the relevant policies of the Provincial Policy Statement regarding significant valley lands; and

(iv) be consistent with the policies enacted for the lands generally abutting the Park Drive Ravine.

This report is based on the findings of the study approved by Council of the former City of Toronto pertaining to the Park Drive Ravine which found that privately held ravine lands can contribute to the sustainability and diversity of the ravine as long as an appropriate mechanism is in place to regulate the position of buildings and related development on any given lot. The adoption of the recommended regulations will ensure that such a mechanism is in place respecting the lands abutting the entire Nordheimer Ravine.

Financial Implications:

There are no requirements for any municipal expenditure associated with this approval.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council amend Section 12(2) RESTRICTIVE EXCEPTIONS of the Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, for the former City of Toronto by:

(a) adding a "Ravine Impact Area" and stating that no person shall, on a lot which is located wholly or partially within 10 metres of the Ravine Impact Area of the Nordheimer Ravine, or within the Nordheimer Ravine, use or erect a building, structure or an addition for any purpose, other than those required for flood and/or erosion protection or those related to federal, provincial or municipal infrastructure, unless the building, structure or addition is set back 10 metres from the Ravine Impact Area, except that:

(i) an addition can be made to a building or structure existing at the time of the passing of this by-law that is within 10 metres of the Ravine Impact Area, provided the proposed addition is no closer to the Ravine than any existing wall of the existing building or structure; and

(ii) any building or structure existing within 10 metres of the Ravine Impact Area at the time of the passing of this by-law may be replaced, provided that the replacement building or structure does not have any greater floor area or height and is in the same position relative to the lot lines as the building or structure it replaces; and

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare and submit to Council the necessary by-laws.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In accordance with the recommendations of Clause 7 of the Land Use Committee Report 10, adopted by Council of the former City of Toronto on July 14, 1997, I was requested to report back on a process and timetable for developing "Ravine Impact Boundaries" for ravine areas throughout the former City of Toronto. In this Department's report, also of July 14, 1997, respecting the Nordheimer Ravine, I advised that I would begin the requested study by reviewing the issues pertaining to the lands abutting the Nordheimer Ravine. At that time, it was also stated that the study would be limited initially to this ravine due to the constraints of staff resources and the priorities related to questions associated with the relationship of the top-of-bank to the defined ravine limit and known development activity within this area, particularly the then proposed construction of four houses on Glen Edyth Drive.

On July 14, 1997, the Council for the former City of Toronto adopted By-law No. 1997-0371 (see Map 1) which had the effect of prohibiting for a period of one year, the erection of any building or structure within 10 metres of the Nordheimer Ravine. Subsequently, at its meeting on June 3 and 4, 1998, Council of the City of Toronto adopted By-law No. 318-1998 which served to extend the Interim Control By-law applying to these lands for a further period of one year.

Comments:

1. Location

The ravine is generally located to the southeast of the intersection of St. Clair Avenue West and Bathurst Street and runs to the southeast almost to Davenport Road at Poplar Plains Road.

2. Planning Considerations

2.1 Background

City Council of the former City of Toronto adopted the Interim Control By-law for the Nordheimer Ravine (By-law 1997-0371) at the same meeting as it adopted the amendments to By-law 438-86 imposing a Ravine Impact Boundary (or Area) for the lands abutting the Park Drive Ravine. The amendments to By-law 438-86 for the Park Drive Ravine imposed restrictions on the use and development of the lands generally within the first 10 metres from the boundary of the Park Drive Ravine and within the ravine. Subsequent appeals pertaining to two specific properties which were also dealt with in this report continue to be the subject of ongoing appeals involving the City and the property owners. However, it should be noted that the By-law was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board as it applied to the balance of the approximately 170 properties affected by this change to the By-law.

At the time of the passing of the Interim Control By-law for the lands abutting the Nordheimer Ravine, I noted in my report that there were active building permit applications to allow the construction of 4 new homes on lots now known as Nos. 11, 15, 17, and 19 Glen Edyth Drive. Three of these new houses have now been completed on lands immediately abutting the ravine. The construction of these houses has resulted in significant negative impact on the slopes and vegetation abutting the ravine. The proposed revisions to the Zoning By-law would have restricted the issuance of building permits for the construction of these houses had the amendments been in place prior to the applications for these building permits.

2.2 Character of the Ravine

Toronto's ravines are one of the most significant physical features of the City and were important in determining the structure of the City. They continue to play an important role within the City as part of the ecosystem, as a major feature of the drainage system within the City and as areas of natural amenity and recreation. During the development of the City, roads generally bypassed the ravines, streams were allowed to continue to run through them and development generally was not undertaken within the ravines. Today, however, quality urban land is scarce and due to their amenity, lots abutting or within the ravines are highly marketable for residential development. These characteristics, coupled with current engineering techniques which can overcome many of the physical constraints to building on, or adjacent to, steep slopes, make the ravines more vulnerable to development.

The Nordheimer Ravine terminates at its southern end at the former shoreline of glacial Lake Iroquois. Consequently, the steepness of the ravine slopes diminishes towards the Davenport Road end of the ravine and there is significant residential development in this area. The original streambed within the ravine has long been buried and is no longer visible as it traverses eastwards towards what is now known as the Rosedale Valley Ravine and into the Don River. More recently, the natural water seepage from the ravine slopes has been captured in two wetland areas. A program also has been undertaken by the City to introduce and protect existing native vegetation within these wetland areas and on the abutting slopes.

The vegetation of the ravines plays an important role in absorbing carbon dioxide and improving air quality. In addition, the vegetation within the ravines absorbs significant amounts of urban noise, giving the surrounding areas a sense of calm and quietness. This is especially evident at the bottom of the ravines where steep ravine walls create a natural barrier to urban sounds. This noise buffering capability is eroded as development encroaches into the ravines and development starts to generate its own sounds.

In general, it is estimated that while the majority of the plant species documented in the Nordheimer Ravine are native to the area, there are significant intrusions of Manitoba maple, Norway maple, Siberian elm and other non-native species which tend to reduce the biodiversity and the richness of the overall species mix. A large portion of the ravine bottom has been cleared over the years as a result of various construction activities, including the construction of the TTC subway. However, as further development encroaches into the ravine, there is greater potential for slope failure, erosion of topsoils, the introduction of retaining walls and the replacement of native species with invasive species. The loss of natural vegetation in the ravine also has a significant negative impact on wildlife habitat.

2.3 Erosion Control and Protection at the Top-of-Bank

The encroachment of development close to the top-of-bank has historically led to problems with erosion. The causes of such erosion can be traced to increased runoff, dumping of garden refuse on the ravine slopes with the resulting destruction of existing vegetation, and increased pedestrian traffic on the ravine slopes. As well, some erosion occurs around the bases of bridges and along retaining walls built to extend rear yards abutting the ravine.

If this area were being subdivided today (rather than in the early part of the 1900's), in accordance with principles of sound ecological planning and best management practices, it would be likely that development would not be permitted so close to the top-of-bank, nor would the lower areas of Russell Hill Road or Glen Edyth Drive have been allowed to encroach into the original landform of the ravine. More likely, a buffer zone would have been required that would provide effective protection of the forest edge from the effects of wind and sun exposure, as well as to protect against undue loading of the top-of- bank and diversion of ground water. Due to the age of the development in the area, however, this level of protection and stewardship has not generally been practised. This has left this ravine subject to considerable urban stress similar to many other ravines within the City.

2.4 Urban Structure

The Nordheimer Ravine plays a significant role in the network of ravines within the City and is the southerly extension of the Cedarvale Ravine running north from Tichester Road. It was also originally connected to the Park Drive Ravine to the southeast, but the natural character of this connection has been lost due to landfill and the development of the city. However, the ravine remains an important natural open space and landscape within the urban environment and significantly adds to the quality of urban life.

The ravine also provides a significant recreational resource for jogging, walking, cycling, tobogganing and other passive recreational activities. In most cases, the existing residential dwellings on top of the ravine slopes are set back a reasonable distance and masked by substantial vegetation. Such setbacks help to ensure that the scenic quality of the ravine is maintained, as well as the stability of the ravine slopes.

The Official Plan addresses the issues of managing and preserving our natural heritage and ravine resources. As these resources are limited within the context of urban life and vulnerable, it is appropriate that land management practices and responsible land stewardship should be practised systematically to sustain the ravine system for future generations.

2.5 Current Processes for Regulating Development

Development regulation is the primary function of the General Zoning By-law 438-86 and other site-specific by-laws. These by-laws serve to implement the policies of the Official Plan. Development within any defined ravine area is also subject to Ravine Control (as defined in Chapter 276, Ravines of the former City of Toronto's Municipal Code) and Site Plan Approval.

These regulatory mechanisms are generally legislated through the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act which gives the City certain additional legislative authority to regulate specific matters not defined within the Planning Act. Ravine preservation is one such matter. The Municipal Code consolidates many of the specific by-laws/processes which may affect an application for development. Other relevant policies are contained in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority policies, the former Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan and in the Provincial Policy Statement.

(a) Provincial Policy Statement

The Provincial Policy Statement came into effect on May 22, 1996. Ravines are not specifically defined in the Provincial Policy Statement, but significant valley lands are classified as Natural Heritage features.

The Provincial Policy Statement (Policy 2.3) recognizes all valley lands within the area including Toronto as significant, as they may constitute the only remaining natural areas in the municipality. As such, these valley lands can form the basis for a natural heritage system within the planning area. The Provincial Policy Statement also suggests the provision of a 50 metre buffer for significant valley lands. The 10 metre buffer recommended by this report is a compromise between that recommended in the Provincial Policy Statement and the current reality of no required buffer.

(b) Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan

The Nordheimer Ravine is within the Metropolitan Green Space System identified in the former Metropolitan Toronto's Official Plan (Metroplan). The objective of designating the Metropolitan Green Space System in Metroplan is to plan and manage this system and abutting lands in a way that protects and rehabilitates the integrity of the natural features and ecological functions, improves physical connections to other green spaces, meets recreational and leisure needs of the Toronto population, and enhances the form of the City.

The policies in Metroplan seek to achieve the Metropolitan Green Space System through, among other things, participation in initiatives for the protection and regeneration of significant natural areas. Significant natural areas include, but are not limited to, sensitive and ecologically fragile areas and aquatic systems, and terrestrial habitats, as identified by the Province, the TRCA and/or a Municipality. Such areas may include: ravines, wetlands, wood lots, environmentally significant areas, areas of natural and scientific interest, valley land impact zones, environmental impact zones and waterfront impact zones.

The policies in Metroplan also state that no new buildings or structures, other than replacements, minor extensions or accessory structures are to be permitted within ravines or within a minimum of 10 metres from the edge of significant natural areas, where these extend beyond the ravine slopes; except where the Area Municipality is satisfied, after consulting with Metro and the TRCA, that the proposal does not detract from the objectives of the Plan and is in accordance with policies in Metroplan.

(c) City of Toronto Official Plan

The current policies of the Official Plan respecting Ravines and Open Space areas have evolved over a long period of time. Starting in 1960 with the Natural Parklands report, policies respecting the preservation of open space and the ravine systems have increasingly provided greater protection for the preservation of the natural environment. In 1983, Council of the former City of Toronto adopted Official Plan Amendment 228 by By-law 344-83, designating the lands within the Nordheimer Ravine as a Ravine. The delineation of the boundaries of the ravine were incorporated in Appendix 'A' (Ravine Maps) of the Plan.

The current Official Plan (Cityplan) for the former City of Toronto modified the previous Open space designation by splitting it into three classifications - Open Space, Natural Areas and Environmentally Significant Areas. The Nordheimer Ravine is designated as a Natural Area and Ravine. Policies with respect to Ravines and Natural Areas are found in Section 2 of the Plan, while Parks and Open Space policies are located in Section 4.

The policies generally stated throughout Section 2.3 of the Plan direct Council to protect and enhance Natural Areas, Environmentally Significant Areas, Ravines and the natural Lake Ontario shoreline. Section 2.4 of the Plan further deals with issues pertaining to development in and abutting ravines and sets criteria for review if development is proposed within the ravine areas. More specifically Section 2.48 of the plan recognizes that development adjacent to ravines has potential for significant impact upon the ravines and encourages the establishment of "a buffer zone at least 10 metres adjacent to the Ravine, Natural Area or Environmentally Significant Area within which all development is to be discouraged, and where 10 metres is clearly impractical, provide as large a setback from the boundary of the Ravine, Natural Area or Environmentally Significant Area as is possible". Section 2.54 also addresses the issue of slope stability as it affects the safety of built structures and their occupants. These sections of the Plan suggest that Council should address the issues of the protection and enhancement of these areas and that a buffer zone adjacent to the ravines should be enacted.

(d) The former City of Toronto's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended)

The general Zoning By-law sets regulations for the development of land including: permitted uses, maximum lot coverage density, minimum lot frontages, setbacks, height, and the requirements for open space and parking, among other matters. The first comprehensive by-law for the former City of Toronto was enacted in 1952, well before the City introduced protective measures for the Nordheimer Ravine (1983), and substantially after most of the current development abutting the ravine.

The authority for the enactment of the Zoning By-law is derived from the Provincial Planning Act. This Act allows municipalities to regulate the use of land and set standards for most forms of development. As such, the Zoning By-law can be used to ensure that development is set back from the designated Ravine. At the present time, however, there are no specific regulations in the General Zoning By-law restricting development within ravines. With the exception of the lands within and abutting the Park Drive Ravine, the process of regulating development within ravines has only been undertaken by way of the designation of the Ravines within the Official Plan and with the corresponding regulations found in the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

(e) City of Toronto Act and Ravine Control By-law

In 1971, The City of Toronto Act was enacted giving the City legislative powers to regulate ravine preservation by way of by-laws. The City enacted its first Ravine Control By-law in 1981. It was not until 1983, however, that it enacted By-law 344-83, designating the Nordheimer Ravine limits.

In 1994, the City of Toronto passed By-law 1994-0751, which incorporated the Ravine Control By-law into the City's Municipal Code, under Chapter 276. The Code currently requires Council consent for any development, change of grade or removal of vegetation within Ravines and also defines certain exemptions. Lands which are subject to the Ravine Control process are only those lands wholly located within the ravine boundaries as identified in Chapter 276.

In situations where consent of Council is required under Chapter 276 of the Code, an application is filed with Urban Planning and Development Services and distributed to other civic departments for comment. Once a satisfactory proposal is achieved, the recommendations included within a staff report are presented to the Toronto Community Council and City Council for approval. If approved, the City Solicitor is usually directed to prepare a Ravine Control Agreement.

(f) Site Plan Control

Pursuant to Chapter 165, Article III of the Municipal Code, the proponent of any development within a designated ravine is required to obtain Site Plan Approval prior to being able to obtain a building permit. This requirement allows the City to fully regulate all details of the development and to ensure that appropriate landscaping is undertaken, including all aspects related to grading, drainage and the definition of suitable plant material.

(g) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

In addition to the municipal approval process, there are two regulations that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) applies to development proposals within and adjacent to ravines. The first regulation is Ontario Regulation 158 under the Conservation Authority Act which regulates the following:

(i) placement of fill within Fill Regulated Areas;

(ii) the building or renovation of structures within a flood plain; and

(iii) the alteration of a watercourse.

Most lands that back onto a ravine are considered by the TRCA to be within a Fill Regulated Area under Ontario Regulation 158. The TRCA must approve by permit any placing of fill, construction of any sort (e.g. swimming pool, greenhouse, fencing, etc.), renovation, addition or alteration to an existing building and alteration to a watercourse. The intent of the Regulation is to prevent development that could lead to damage by floods or erosion and to protect the public.

The second regulation is the TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) which was put in place in 1994. The TRCA's VSCMP governs the way development is to occur within ravines and aims to protect and rehabilitate ravine corridor landforms, features and functions while being sensitive to development opportunities. The intent of the Authority's VSCMP is to prevent new development that would introduce risk to life and property associated with flooding, erosion and slope stability and/or is not compatible with the protection and rehabilitation of surrounding natural features and functions. In order to afford some protection to a ravine, the TRCA prescribes a minimum 10 metre setback from the stable or predicted long-term stable top-of-bank.

2.6 Effectiveness of Current Land Use Regulations

The focus of this report has been to review the currently available regulatory tools to determine their ability to deal with proposed development within and abutting ravine areas.

From a planning perspective, Toronto's ravines are a fundamental feature of the City's infrastructure and a significant determinant in the form of the development within the City. They also represent a resource and an amenity which cannot be recreated or replaced. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the Nordheimer Ravine be protected through the implementation of a buffer zone adjacent to the designated ravine to ensure the stability of the ravine edge and the maintenance of a naturally vegetated area adjacent to the ravine.

With the exception of the Park Drive Ravine, at present the General Zoning By-law does not implement the policies of the Official Plan to encourage at least a 10 metre setback for development proposals adjacent to the Nordheimer Ravine, or as large a setback as possible where a 10 m setback is impractical. This is a "regulatory gap" in the By-law, given the intent of the Official Plan to preserve and enhance the ravine system.

2.7 Development Adjacent to the Nordheimer Ravine

The majority of the 92 properties abutting the Nordheimer Ravine are developed with residential buildings within the relatively flat tableland portion of the site and with varying amounts of their rear yards reaching into the ravine slope (see Map 2). This tableland has provided a suitable area for building, while the sloped rear yards have provided a desirable, wooded slope providing significant privacy. This has resulted in a pattern of low density development which respects the natural characteristics of the ravine. Buildings have generally been placed well above any areas of significant slope to ensure slope stability and also to ensure that the scenic value of the ravine is not compromised by development perched on the edge of the ravine. In certain recent instances, however, the pressures of new development have pushed the limit of this traditional pattern of development with the construction of new homes and accessory uses verging at the edge of the ravine slopes, the cutting of existing vegetation and by creating obtrusive and highly visible features from within the ravine. In some instances in other ravines, development close to the ravine edge has caused increased erosion and even failure of the ravine slope.

Restricting development within ravines and establishing a development buffer adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas, such as ravines, is a recognized planning practice in many municipalities. This report recommends that the setback be a minimum of 10 metres, consistent with Section 2.48(c) of the Official Plan and the practice of the TRCA in its Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. The 10 metre setback is also appropriate from a scenic and visual analysis perspective in that it ensures that most house-form, residential buildings will be set back sufficiently so that the majority of their bulk will not be visible from within the ravine. Obviously, local circumstances, such as ravine slopes and other factors including the density of vegetative cover, determine how much of a building can be seen.

3. Conclusions:

Having regard for the City's Official Plan policies respecting the protection of the ravine system, this report concludes that the City's Zoning By-law needs to be amended to:

- provide greater protection of the natural heritage features of the Nordheimer Ravine;

- maintain its visual and scenic characteristics; and

- minimize the hazardous impact that development may have on the stability of ravine slopes.

It is recommended that the Zoning By-law be amended to indicate those areas of land within and abutting the Nordheimer Ravine where residential development is not permitted. Specifically, it is recommended that the former City of Toronto's General Zoning By-law (Section 12 (2)) be amended to identify a "Ravine Impact Area" for the Nordheimer Ravine and to require that all new development be set back not less than 10 metres from the currently designated Ravine. This 10 metre setback should help to ensure that there is an appropriate physical relationship between new residential development and the designated ravine. The line defining the "Ravine Impact Area" would be consistent with the current line defining the boundary of the Nordheimer Ravine.

So as not to unreasonably impact existing development, which in many cases was constructed prior to the evolution of environmental policy through the 1960's, it is recommended that an exception be provided in the Zoning By-law amendment for existing buildings which are currently closer to the top-of-bank than the minimum 10 metre setback recommended. For example, if a building currently is only 5 metres from the defined Ravine, it is recommended that additions be permitted to that building so long as the addition is no closer to the Ravine than the original building. The addition would have to comply with all other applicable laws.

It should also be noted that the original Ravine boundary was defined based on the best information available about the actual top-of-bank, having appropriate regard for the presence of existing buildings and other changes made to the Ravine over time. The line was plotted and dimensioned to be placed in the Zoning By-law. However, it is clear that the line is an approximate representation of the actual top-of-bank. Accordingly, there may be circumstances where it is appropriate to vary the line based on the findings of environmental analysis and survey. For example, if a property owner can demonstrate by way of a physical survey, vegetation analysis and restoration plan, as well as an accompanying soils analysis that the outside boundary of the Ravine Impact Area is actually farther away from the top-of-bank than defined in the Zoning By-law, then it would be appropriate to grant a variance from the line to allow development to proceed. Such variances should only be granted after careful study and assessment, including corroborating documentation.

Because the exceptions provided for in the proposed By-law amendment relate to existing development and additions, this amendment should not have a significant negative impact on maintaining or adding to existing residential buildings. Non-exempt structures proposed inside the ravine would require consent, site plan approval and variances/rezoning. Non-exempt development within 10 metres would require variances/rezoning. Again, such approvals should only be granted after careful study and assessment. Over time, as buildings are redeveloped, the required 10 metre setback will ensure that all new development is appropriately set back and will create a more sustainable form of development adjacent to the ravine edge.

Contact Name:

Angus Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-4025

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: acransto@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Nordheimer Ravine

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Nordheimer Ravine

6

Boulevard Cafe - Fronting 1862 Queen Street East

and on the Rainsford Road Flankage (East Toronto)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the results of the poll be confirmed and the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 1862 Queen Street East and on the Rainsford Road flankage be denied; and

(2) the Ward Councillors meet with local residents to discuss the use and future of the City boulevard along Queen Street East, and report back to the Toronto Community Council, if necessary.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 8, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe fronting 1862 Queen Street East and on the Rainsford Road flankage, because written objections were received in response to the public notification and because of a negative public poll. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 1862 Queen Street East and on the Rainsford Road flankage;

OR

(2) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 1862 Queen Street East and on the Rainsford Road flankage, notwithstanding the negative result of the public posting and poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Lisa Baumal, solicitor for the owners, Stephane Poquet and Gregoire Godin, Sauvignon Bistro and Bakery Inc., 1862 Queen Street East, in her letter dated May 31, 1999, has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a boulevard cafe fronting 1862 Queen Street East and on the Rainsford Road flankage.

Comments:

Stephane Poquet, co-owner of Sauvignon Bistro and Bakery Inc., 1862 Queen Street East, Toronto, Ontario M4L 1H1, submitted an application on February 12, 1999, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 1862 Queen Street East and on the Rainsford Road flankage for a total area of approximately of 69.39 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 16 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 62 people.

This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes as set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Fronting 1862 Queen Street East - Cafe on Commercial Frontage

Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code requires that where a cafe proposal is to be located on a commercial frontage, a notice must be posted at the property for not less than 14 days to determine neighbourhood support. If a written objection is received, the application must be refused by staff, but such refusal may be subject to an appeal by the applicant.

A notice was posted on April 6, 1999, with an expiry date of April 29, 1999, to determine neighbourhood support. Prior to the expiry date of the notice, 3 letters of objection were received in opposition to the proposed cafe (Appendices 'B', 'C' and 'D'.).

Rainsford Road Flankage of 1862 Queen Street East - Cafe on Residential Flankage

As the proposed cafe flanks a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 m from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated March 31, 1999 to April 30, 1999 was conducted on Rainsford Road between Nos. 5 to 39 and 6 to 40, including 1862 and 1864 Queen Street East and 77 and 93 Dixon Road to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. S. Poquet was advised in writing on May 6, 1999, that because of the negative response to the public posting and polling, a licence could not be issued fronting 1862 Queen Street East and on the Rainsford Road flankage.

In addition, Mr. Poquet was advised that a further application for a boulevard cafe on the Rainsford Road flankage of 1862 Queen Street East could not be considered for 24 months from the closing date of the public poll which was April 30, 1999.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. S. Poquet a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 1862 Queen Street East and on the Rainsford Road flankage because of the negative response to the public posting and poll.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1862 Queen Street East

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (June 16, 1999) from Councillor Jakobek:

As you know, the City has always had a democratic process with regards to boulevard cafe. Whether we individually agree or not is not as important as the process and the right of people to decide.

Although the owner of the Sauvignon Restaurant may run a good business, his desire for a boulevard cafe is not supported by those residents directly affected by the operation.

I urge you to accept the poll results and refuse the appplication.

(A copy of the letters in opposition, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 22, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

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

- (May 31, 1999) from Ms. Lisa Baumal, Barrister and Solicitor, on behalf of the applicant;

- (Undated) from Mr. & Mrs. W. De Brouwen;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Wendy L. LaValle forwarding petition in opposition;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Linda Dumbell;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Pamela Joan Agnew;

- (June 20, 1999) from Ms. Nancy Lough;

- (June 19, 1999) from Ms. Rosana Basheir;

- (June 21, 1999) from Mr. Nicholas Prychodko;

- (June 17, 1999) from Mr. Ken Ludlow;

- (June 17, 1999) from Mr. Dave Hammer;

- (June 18, 1999) from Mr. F. Martin Aller-Stead;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Trish Duncan and Mr. Ian Cole;

- (Undated) from Ms. Susan Ludlow;

- (June 22, 1999) from Ms. Patricia Silver;

- (June 22, 1999) from Mr. Bill Kreutzweiseer;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Aradne Da-Ré;

- (June 21, 1999) from Mr. John Nicholson;

- (June 22, 1999) from Mr. Michael Raffa; and

- (June 21, 1999) from Leigh Smout and Erin Ferris.

--------

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

- Mr. Wendy LaValle, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Dominic Jones, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Pam Agnew, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. John Crichton, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Valerie Cassells, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Mary Ann Heywood, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Al Sinclair, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Winona Gallop, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Rick Gabriele, Toronto, Ontario.

7

Ontario Municipal BoardAppeal -

207-217 Roslin Avenue (North Toronto)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the City Solicitor be directed to contact the Ontario Municipal Board and advise that an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application has been made to the City for 207-217 Roslin Avenue and is being processed in respect of this property, and that the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision dated May 4, 1999 should not be scheduled for hearing until after the final report for the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application has been considered by City Council;

(2) if the appeal from the Committee of Adjustment decision dated May 4, 1999 is scheduled for hearing prior to City Council considering the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application for 207-217 Roslin Avenue, the City Solicitor be directed to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the position that the variances sought are not minor and should be the subject matter of an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application;

(3) the City Solicitor be authorized to retain independent planning advice, if necessary, funds for such advice to be allocated from the Legal Services Operating Budget; and

(4) the applicant be requested to seek a hearing date at the Ontario Municipal Board, which would permit the usual public process for the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application to take place.

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

(1) adopted the preliminary report (June 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on Application No. 299005 for Official Plan, Rezoning and Site Plan Approval, and Ravine Consent Application No. 099013 for 207-217 Roslin Avenue;

(2) requested the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to report to the Toronto Community Council on the impact of the proposal on the Riverview Drive ravine and ravine system; and

(3) requested the City Surveyor to report to the Toronto Community Council on the accuracy of the edge of the ravine as shown in the preliminary report (June 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 2, 1999) from Councillor Walker:

Recommendation:

That the City Solicitor be directed to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment decision of May 4, 1999, regarding 207 - 217 Roslin Avenue.

Background:

At its meeting of May 4, 1999 the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment refused an application to sever the property into sixteen parcel of land and construct sixteen three-storey row houses. This refusal has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board with a hearing date pending.

The proposed development will have setbacks that are well below the minimum required under the Zoning By-law. This means that the streetscape will be negatively altered by having the row townhouses "stick out" in the front. Privacy to the west and to the south primarily, will be encroached upon. The net effect from this proposal will be for 8 towering townhouses with windows facing west looking into the backyards of the houses on the south side of Roslin Avenue to the west. One of the townhouses will also have windows that look into the backyards of the properties to the immediate south on Braeside Road. A direct spin-off of these significantly reduced setbacks is the fact that shadowing on the adjacent properties to the west and south-east will occur each day.

In addition to all the variances due to height, depth, setbacks, etc. the residents have raised some very important issues. These include the fact that approximately 30 coniferous trees will be destroyed located on the north side of the property fronting onto Roslin Avenue as well as several trees in the ravine; concerns that the underground garage could negatively impact on the stability of the ravine as well as creating potential drainage problems have arisen; and other concerns such as traffic, garbage pick-up and snow removal issues have arisen that are of paramount importance to many of the residents on Roslin Avenue.

The Committee of Adjustment in its refusal decision noted "the proposal represents overdevelopment and should be the subject of a comprehensive review and evaluation afforded by the Official Plan Amendment, Re-zoning and Plan of Subdivision processes." The Minor Variance application failed for each of the four tests of the Planning Act and as a result, the Consent application also failed.

Furthermore, the Committee requested the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer to advise the Ontario Municipal Board "that the Committee of Adjustment, South District for the City of Toronto considers these applications to comprise an attempt to misuse the Committee of Adjustment and circumvent the appropriate planning approvals."

This proposal is, in my opinion, precedent setting for low density residentially zoned areas if approved by the OMB. Thus it is of primary importance to take a stand early and scotch such schemes in the bud.

--------

Communication dated May 4, 1999

from Councillor Walker, addressed to the Manager

- South District, Committee of Adjustment

It has come to my attention through numerous telephone calls, letters and a street meeting with residents that there is an application before your Committee to seek variances from the Zoning By-law for the above mentioned property. I am opposed to this application for the following reasons:

This application of sixteen row houses represents an unreasonable over-development of this site. The unreasonableness of this application is represented by the multiplicity of variances that are before the Committee tonight.

The proposed development will have setbacks that are well below the minimum required under the Zoning By-law. This means that the streetscape will be negatively altered by having the row townhouses "stick out" in the front. Privacy to the west and to the south primarily, will be encroached upon. The net effect from this proposal will be for 8 towering townhouses with windows facing west looking into the backyards of the houses on the south side of Roslin Avenue to the west. One of the townhouses will also have windows that look into the backyards of the properties to the immediate south on Braeside Road. A direct spin-off of these significantly reduced setbacks is the fact that shadowing on the adjacent properties to the west and south-east will occur each day.

In addition to all the variances due to height, depth, setbacks, etc. the residents have raised some very important issues which I feel your committee must consider. These include the fact that approximately 30 coniferous trees will be destroyed located on the north side of the property fronting onto Roslin Avenue as well as several trees in the ravine; concerns that the underground garage could negatively impact on the stability of the ravine as well as creating potential drainage problems have arisen; and other concerns such as traffic, garbage pick-up and snow removal issues have arisen that are of paramount importance to many of the residents on Roslin Avenue. Clearly reports are necessary from the City arborist to be evaluated and endorsed by City Council as well as studies must take place to evaluate the environmental impacts of this development; to evaluate the impact of this development on existing abutting residential properties looking at, in particular, the servicing and maintenance requirements; and finally reports are necessary to determine the impacts on the existing sewer easement which runs north-south through the site.

This development is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, nor the scale of development on this street. I strongly urge your Committee to refuse this application as it sets a dangerous precedent for development of this nature throughout the City of Toronto.

Furthermore, I feel strongly that the applicant has attempted to circumvent the process by applying to the Ontario Municipal Board. This application represents a re-zoning application. By applying to the Ontario Municipal Board, the owners are attempting to short-cut the due process whereby residents would have an opportunity to express their views before City Council and for the City to levy any development charges. I therefore also urge your Committee to voice these concerns to the Ontario Municipal Board.

(A copy of the Notice of Decision of the Committee of Adjustment, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 22, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following preliminary report (June 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To introduce a proposal for a 15 unit row house development and seek direction to hold a public meeting.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

I be requested to hold a public meeting in the area to discuss the application and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site, area residents associations and the Ward Councillors.

Comments:

1.0 Background:

1.1 Committee of Adjustment Application:

On March 16, 1999 applications were filed with the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever the site into sixteen parcels of land, including the granting of easements and/or rights of way and for variances respecting sixteen row houses.

In its decision of May 4, 1999 the Committee refused the consent to sever and the requested variances. The Committee noted the concerns expressed by neighbouring property owners, the Ward Councillors, representatives of the Bedford Park Residents Association and this Department. The Committee felt the proposal for intensification represented overdevelopment and required careful evaluation of the sort afforded by an application to amend the Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law.

1.2 Official Plan and Rezoning Application No. 299005 and Ravine Consent Application No. 099013:

These applications were submitted on May 4, 1999, however Application No. 299005 was held at the request of the applicant pending revisions to address some of the issues raised at the Committee of Adjustment hearing. Revised plans were received on May 27, 1999 and the now complete application was circulated on May 28, 1999. The revised plans differed from the original plans in the following ways:

- the number of row houses proposed was reduced by 1 from 16 to 15.

- three row houses were reoriented so as to front Roslin Avenue instead of the interior driveway/courtyard.

- the central, north-south driveway was extended further south to, among other things, accommodate visitor parking spaces.

- the height of the proposed row houses was reduced somewhat to, according to the project architect, comply with the Zoning By-law.

1.3 Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board:

On May 13, 1999 the applicant provided a notice of appeal with respect to the refused applications for consent and minor variances. The applicant intends to appeal all other appealable applications when he is in a position to do so, and to have these matters consolidated into a single hearing. A date for a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board has not yet been set.

2.0 Site:

The site is located on the south side of the cul de sac at the end of Roslin Avenue. The site has an area of 5,759.8 m2 (0.576 ha) and is partially within the Riverview Drive Ravine.

The site currently accommodates 6 house form buildings. To the east is the Riverview Drive Ravine, to the south the rear yards of single family dwellings fronting onto Braeside Road, and to the west and north single family dwellings fronting onto Roslin Avenue.

3.0 Proposal:

This application is for the construction of 15 row houses in four clusters with one partial level of underground parking. The development would be accessed from Roslin Avenue via a private driveway leading to two ramps to the underground garage. Three of the four clusters of row houses front onto the private driveway while the northwest cluster, comprising three row house units, fronts onto Roslin Avenue.

Thirty parking spaces for residents are proposed to be accommodated in the underground garage along with four surface parking spaces for visitors for a total of 34 parking spaces.

4.0 Applicable Planning Controls:

4.1 Official Plan

The majority of the site is designated as a 'Low Density Residence Area' by the Part I Official Plan which permits residential buildings having a gross floor area up to 1.0 times the area of the lot provided, among other things, that appropriate regard is had for the effect of such buildings on the stability and general residential amenity of the Residence Area. Approximately one sixth of the site is designated as 'Natural Area' in recognition of the topography and vegetation of the Riverview Drive Ravine. It is the policy of Council to protect, preserve and maintain Natural Areas.

4.2 Zoning By-law:

The site is zoned R2 Z0.6 which permits most types of residential buildings to a maximum density of 0.6 times the area of the lot. The maximum height permitted is 10.0 metres.

4.3 Ravine Control:

The easternmost portion of the site is within the Riverview Drive Ravine. Development within ravines is strictly regulated by Chapter 276, Ravines of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

4.4 Site Plan Control:

The site and the proposed development are subject to site plan control. Application No. 299005 includes a request for site plan approval.

4.5 Permission to Injure or Destroy Trees:

Portions of the site are moderately treed and the proposed development will require the removal of an estimated twelve trees having a diameter of thirty (30) centimeters or more. An Arborist Report, including a tree survey, has been submitted for review by the City Arborist. An application to injure or destroy trees has also been required to be submitted in accordance with Chapter 331 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

5.0 Reasons for the Application:

An Official Plan amendment is needed because the density proposed for the individual lots will, in five cases, exceed the maximum permitted density of 1.0 times the area of the lot. However, the total density of the 15 row houses in relation to the unsubdivided site would only be 0.66 times coverage.

The rezoning is necessary, in general terms, because the overall density proposed of 0.66 times the area of the lot slightly exceeds the maximum permission of 0.6 times coverage. Further, the densities proposed for individual lots range between 0.2 and 1.2 times coverage and exceed the maximum permitted density in eleven instances.

Other areas of non-compliance, which are typical for developments where all units do not front onto the street, arise because:

- 12 of the 15 row houses will be located to the rear of another building;

- some of the proposed row houses will be constructed deeper in the lot than permitted;

- the frontages of 13 of the 15 proposed lots will be narrower than required; and

- minimum building setbacks will not be provided in many instances.

A complete listing of specific compliance issues for the original (16 unit) application is attached as Appendix A. A listing for the revised (15 unit) development scheme is not yet available, however, the nature of the new variances will be similar.

The proposed development will necessitate excavating into the Riverview Drive Ravine to accommodate the northeast corner of the below grade garage. Therefore, ravine consent is required.

Development of this scale is subject to Site Plan Approval which is concerned with detailed site planning matters such as landscaping, waste storage and handling, parking and access.

6.0 Issues to be Resolved:

This proposal deals with a large site partially within a protected ravine.

The concept advanced by the application has a number of positive features. The scale of the proposed development and the building densities are well within the maximum permitted by the Official Plan and only marginally beyond the limits of the Zoning By-law. Building heights are within the permitted 10.0 metres. The housing form proposed is compatible with development in the area and, excepting the northeast corner of the garage, the proposed development is at least 10 metres removed from the protected ravine.

The proposal departs from the existing development pattern in the district. The proposal also departs from several provisions of the site planning formulae of the Zoning By-law, by locating new row houses parallel and perpendicular to Roslin Avenue with 12 row houses fronting onto a private driveway/courtyard rather than a public street.

This design uses the additional density available while minimizing change to, or impacts upon, the Roslin Avenue streetscape. It represents an interesting approach to the redevelopment of the site which is large enough to accommodate a number of triplex buildings within the general intent of the By-law. However, the impacts of locating new buildings fronting onto a private driveway/courtyard on the surrounding area needs to be assessed in detail. Issues to be considered and to be resolved include, but are not limited to, the following:

6.1 Demolition of Rental Housing

The applicant will be required to submit detailed information respecting the number of rental units on site and the applicable rental rates. This will enable staff to assess the applicability, if any, of City Council's policies respecting the replacement of affordable rental units.

6.2 Ravine Protection:

To assist in determining the impact of the proposed development on the ravine, the applicant will be required to submit an environmental impact study. To begin, the study should include a plan showing the extent of excavation, an overlay of building outlines on the previously submitted Tree Plan, and a drainage plan. This will help staff to assess the proposal's impact on slope stability and the extent of damage to vegetation.

It may be necessary to reduce the extent of the below grade garage.

6.3 Tree Protection:

The applicant has submitted an application to remove and/or damage trees for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture, and Tourism, Parks. Plans prepared for the original 16 unit scheme proposed the removal of approximately 12 trees having a diameter of thirty (30) centimeters or more. A revised Arborist Report will have to be submitted for the current 15 unit development scheme.

6.4 Landscaping:

The applicant will be required to submit a revised landscaping plan for the current 15 unit proposal. The applicant should reduce the length of the private driveway in order to improve the courtyard landscaping south of the garage ramps, unless the driveway extension is required for fire trucks or other similar reasons.

6.5 Servicing:

Plans submitted to date will be reviewed with respect to fire truck access and the implications, if any, of building adjacent to the sewer easement which bisects the site. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed explanation of how garbage is to be stored and picked up.

6.6 Parking:

As a portion of the proposed driveway will be required to be eliminated the number and location of proposed visitor parking spaces will have to be reconsidered. As well, the acceptability of providing two parking spaces per unit will be assessed.

6.7 Building Height and Massing:

While, according to the project architect, the proposed buildings do not exceed the permitted height limit, it may be desirable to reduce the height and/or mass of those units immediately adjacent to lower building forms or the ravine. Specifically, I am concerned respecting the height of Unit 1, Units 4 and 5 and Units 8 to 15.

The applicant will be required to submit photographs and plans to clearly illustrate the visual impact of Units 8 to 15 and their associated ground floor projections from the ravine.

The applicant will also be required to submit a sun/shade analysis to illustrate the impact of the proposed development on the rear yards of Nos. 219 and 205 Roslin Avenue.

6.8 Elevation Drawings:

The applicant will be required to submit revised elevation drawings showing:

- the exact height of residences immediately adjacent to the site (Nos. 215, 221, 223 and 225 Roslin Avenue);

- the height above ground level of the rear yard terraces for Units 8 to 15. It would, if possible, be highly desirable to reduce the height of these terraces;

- an improved articulation of the 3rd floor of the west elevation of Unit 1;

- elimination of rear balconies from Units 4 and 5 to protect the privacy of the occupants of No. 205 Roslin Avenue;

- the use of translucent glass in the rear wall of Units 4 and 5 at the second and third floor levels to protect the privacy of the occupants of No. 205 Roslin Avenue;

- the addition of two gate posts or similar entry feature upon which the addresses of the internal row houses and possibly the location of visitor parking can be noted; and

- the elevations of the interior ends of Units 4, 11 and 12.

7.0 Next Steps:

As a next step a public meeting should be held in the neighbourhood to provide a forum for public discussion and feedback on the development proposal. Subsequently, I will meet with the applicant to review required changes to the proposal in response to public concerns and those raised by civic officials. I will report back to Toronto Community Council with my final recommendations and to seek instructions respecting the position to be taken before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Contact Name:

Raymond David

Telephone: 416-392-7188

E-mail: rdavid@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix A

Comments from Urban Planning and Development Services (Buildings), dated March 16, 1999 (Revised March 26, 1999).

Zoning Review (Respecting Applicant's Original 16 Unit Proposal)

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced. For the proposal to proceed, the plans may be revised to comply, an application for variance(s) be granted by the Committee of Adjustment, or City Council adopts a site specific By-law. Revised plans should be sent to the Examiner, Tony Facciolo. For information on Committee of Adjustment approvals and application forms, please visit the Committee of Adjustment Office, Main Floor West, Toronto City Hall or telephone (416) 392-7565. For an application for a site specific By-law, telephone (416) 392-7132.

1. The by-law requires each principal building to be assigned a defined part of the parcel of land. The proposed buildings will have a partial common basement and are to be considered separate buildings. (Section 2, definition of "lot".)

2. The by-law permits a maximum height of 10.0 metres. The proposed buildings will have various heights from 10.22 metres to 10.705 metres. (Section 2(1) Definitions "Height")

3. The by-law requires a residential building to be located on a lot having a minimum front lot line of 3.5 metres where fronting or abutting a highway assumed for public highway purposes. The proposed residential buildings will be located on lots having a front lot line of 0.713 metres for units #10 to #16 inclusive. (Section 4(11)(a))

The by-law also requires the lots to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontages are 0.713 metres at the distance of 6 metres from the front lot lines for lots 2 to 15. (Section 6(3)PART VII(ii)

4. The by-law requires a building not be located behind any other building and not to be located to the front of a residential building creating a condition of having a residential building to the rear of another building. The proposed buildings will be located in front of a residential building and to the rear of another building. (Section 4(11)(b))And (Section 4(11)(c))

5. The by-law requires a building to have a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The proposed rear yard setback is approximately 5.0 metres at the stairs to the basement garages. (Section 6(3) PART II 4)

6. The by-law limits the total residential gross floor area in an area zoned R2 Z0.6 to 0.6 times the area of the site: 3,455.8 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of all the buildings on the site(4,044.0 square metres) exceeds the maximum permitted by approximately 588.2 square metres. The specific building on each lot will exceed the maximum permitted as follows: (Section 6(3) PART I 1

Unit #	Lot Area	Permitted Rgfa	Prop.Rgfa	Over
1	190.6	114.36	240.5	126.14
2	160.7	96.42	250.3	153.88
3	167.4	100.44	250.3	149.86
4	255.4	153.24	257.3	104.04
5	266.3	159.78	257.3	97.52
6	191.7	115.02	250.3	135.28
7	198.4	119.04	250.3	131.26
8	478.2	286.92	257.3	OK
9	1,032.8	619.68	257.3	OK
10	366.3	219.78	250.3	30.52
11	358.5	215.10	250.3	35.2
12	522.8	313.68	257.3	OK
13	511.0	306.60	257.3	OK
14	332.3	199.38	250.3	50.92
15	323.1	193.86	250.3	56.44
16	404.3	242.58	257.3	14.72
Totals	5,759.8	3,455.88	4,044.0

The above figures are as supplied by applicant Architect, to be confirmed by O.L.S. prior to application for building permit.

7. The by-law requires a building on an inside lot to have a minimum front lot line setback of 6.2 metres. The proposed front lot line setback is zero metres at the stairs to basement garage and 3.16 metres to the front wall at unit #1. (Section 6(3) PART II 2(ii))

8. The by-law limits a building in a 0.6 zone to a maximum depth of 14.0 metres. The proposed row houses on units #3 to #14 inclusive will exceed the permitted depth. (Section 6(3) PART II 5(i))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1. A Variance is required from the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 276, Ravines.

2. The by-law requires the proposed lots to be capable of being conveyed in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. The proposed lots require severance consent from the Committee of Adjustment prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Section 6(3) PART IX 1(a))

3. The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Sections 41 of the Planning Act . The property is also located within an area of Ravine Control. Please call (416) 392-7352 for an application or further information

4. The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act. Please see the attached sheet for Parks Levy information and processing requirements.

5. The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

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

7. The proposal requires the approval of City Works Services regarding ramp approval, curb cuts and survey approval. For an application and further information call (416) 392-7708.

8. All work within the City's road allowance will require a separate approval by City Works Services. For an application and further information call (416) 392-7877.

9. Rights of Way are to be provided for access to parking areas and other common access areas.

--------

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

- Mr. S. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell;

- Ms. Christina Szweda, Bedford Park Ratepayers' Association;

- Mr. Chris Haussmann, Bedford Park Ratepayers' Association; and

- Mr. Yu Tian Wang, Toronto, Ontario.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

207-217 Roslin Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

207-217 Roslin Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

207-217 Roslin Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

207-217 Roslin Avenue

8

Draft By-law - Installation of Speed Humps -

Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East

to Eastwood Road (East Toronto)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that;

(1) the speed hump proposed in front of Premises No. 164 Gainsborough Road be deleted from the plan;

(2) the draft by-law be amended to give effect to Recommendation No. (1); and

(3) the draft by-law, as amended, be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 50 of Report No. 14 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Traffic Control Devices - Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road (East Toronto)", which was adopted by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on June 2, June 7, June 14 and June 21, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 14 , Clause No.50, as adopted by Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To

authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Gainsborough Road by the installation of speed humps from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1999 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

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

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

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

(Column 1 Street)	(Column 2 Side/Corner)	(Column 3 Alteration/ Repair)	(Column 4 From)	(Column 5 To)	(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Gains- borough Road		Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps	Gerrard Street East	Eastwood Road	421F-5283 dated October 1998

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 50 of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 14, titled "Installation of Traffic Control Devices - Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road (East Toronto)", which was adopted by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998:

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the operating speed of motorists using this section of Gainsborough Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $6,000.00 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

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

"The construction of speed humps on GAINSBOROUGH ROAD from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5283 dated October 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road, coincident with the implementation of traffic calming; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Sandra Bussin and in consultation with Councillor Tom Jakobek, a staff investigation has been conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road to reduce the number of speeding motorists on this street.

Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.53 metres and has a posted speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. A recent twenty-four hour speed and volume survey conducted on Gainsborough Road between Gerrard Street East and Eastwood Road indicates typical daily traffic volume of approximately 2,300 vehicles, of which about 35% exceed the speed limit.

Councillors Jakobek and Bussin had conducted, in September of this year, an informal poll of area residents to determine their desire to have speed humps installed on Gainsborough Road. The result of this poll was favourable. At the time, residents were advised that the speed humps would be installed in front of Premises Nos. 185 and 105 Gainsborough Road. Subsequent evaluation by staff determined that speed humps cannot be installed at these locations due to the existing road configuration (driveways, maintenance hole covers, catch basins, etc.).

Staff have developed an alternative plan which is illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5283 dated October 1998 and consists of four speed humps located approximately 54 to 84 metres apart.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that a speed hump installation meets technical criteria, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of the street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. At least 60% of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at a deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the Gainsborough Road roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. Consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard

Traffic Investigator

392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Gainsborough Road

9

Draft By-law - Narrowing of the Pavement -

Pinewood Avenue, Kenwood Avenue, Raglan Avenue

and Wychwood Avenue, at their respective

Intersections at St. Clair Avenue West (Midtown)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, received this Clause, and Council directed that no further action be taken in this regard.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to the notice of Motion from Councillor Mihevc, seconded by Councillor Bossons, adopted by City Council at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on June 2, June 7, June 14 and June 21, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Notice of Motion Item J(18) as adopted

by Council on May 11, 12 and 13, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Pinewood Avenue, Kenwood Avenue, Raglan Avenue and Wychwood Avenue at their respective intersections with St. Clair Avenue West, by the narrowing of the pavement.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on______________________________________, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on______________,1999 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration;

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

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

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

(Column 1 Side or Street)	(Column 2 Location)	(Column 3 Width)	(Column 4 From)	(Column 5 To)	(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Pinewood Avenue	east side	from: 7.3m to: 5.5m -7.3m	St. Clair Avenue West	13 m further north	SK-2219 dated May 1999
Kenwood Avenue	east side	from: 8.5m to: 6.0m - 8.5m	St. Clair Avenue West	13 m further north	SK-2220 dated May 1999
Raglan Avenue	east side	from: 8.5m to: 6.0m - 8.5 m	St. Clair Avenue West	13 m further north	SK-2221 dated May 1999
Wychwood Avenue	west side	from: 7.3m to: 6.0m - 7.3m	St. Clair Avenue West	11 m further north	SK-2222 dated May 1999

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following motion (May 19, 1999) from Councillor Mihevc:

City Council, at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted, without amendment, the following motion:

Moved by: Councillor Mihevc

Seconded by: Councillor Bossons

"WHEREAS the Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Sidewalk Reconstruction Programme includes the reconstruction of sidewalks and curbs on St. Clair Avenue West, from Christie Street to Bathurst Street; and

WHEREAS this work provides an opportunity to enhance the pedestrian environment by providing 'buildouts' of the St. Clair Avenue sidewalks on the north side at its intersections with Pinewood Avenue, Kenwood Avenue, Raglan Avenue and Wychwood Avenue; and

WHEREAS staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department advise this work can be done cost-effectively in conjunction with the planned reconstruction, with minimal impact on traffic operations or legal parking; and

WHEREAS the resultant pavement narrowings constitute a highway alteration pursuant to the Municipal Act requiring that Council's intent to pass a by-law to give effect thereto must be advertised for four consecutive weeks and be subject to the hearing of deputations; and

WHEREAS the construction will be commencing at these locations very shortly and time is of the essence to initiate this formal public advisory and consultation process;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following recommendations be adopted:

(1) approval be given to realign the intersections of St. Clair Avenue West with Pinewood Avenue, Kenwood Avenue, Raglan Avenue and Wychwood Avenue, in conjunction with the scheduled reconstruction described as follows:

(a) the narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 5.5 metres to 7.3 metres on the east side of Pinewood Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West, to a point 13.0 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2219, dated May, 1999;

(b) the narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 8.5 metres to a width varying from 6.0 metres to 8.5 metres on the east side of Kenwood Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West, to a point 13.0 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2220, dated May, 1999;

(c) the narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 8.5 metres to a width of varying from 6.0 metres to 8.5 metres on the east side of Raglan Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West, to a point 13.0 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2221, dated May, 1999; and

(d) the narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 6.0 metres to 7.3 metres on the west side of Wychwood Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to a point 11.0 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2222, dated May, 1999;

(2) the City Clerk and the City Solicitor be requested to carry out the necessary statutory advertising such that the required public hearing of the draft by-law to give effect to the proposed highway alterations referred to in Recommendation No. (1) be considered at the June 23, 1999, meeting of the Toronto Community Council; and

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Pinewood Ave, Kenwood Ave, Raglan Ave & Wychwood Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Pinewood Ave, Kenwood Ave, Raglan Ave & Wychwood Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Pinewood Ave, Kenwood Ave, Raglan Ave & Wychwood Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Pinewood Ave, Kenwood Ave, Raglan Ave & Wychwood Ave

10

Cash Payment in Lieu of Parking

under Section 40 of the Planning Act

- 70 Bond Street (Downtown)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (June 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of a public hearing was mailed to owners of properties within a 120 metre radius of the site. The public hearing was held by the Toronto Community Council on June 22, 1999 and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To consider a cash payment in lieu of parking for one motor car as it relates to a redevelopment at 70 Bond Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the application for permission to make a cash payment in lieu of the provision of parking facilities for one motor vehicle at 70 Bond Street be approved; and

(2) the City enter into an agreement with Yorkland Group Holding Inc., in respect of the payment by Yorkland Group Holding Inc., of $8,848.06 in lieu of the provision of parking.

Background:

The applicant proposes to construct a third floor addition on the north side of an existing building.

The Committee of Adjustment granted a minor variance on December 9, 1998 to permit this development on the condition that the applicant make a cash payment into the Municipal Parking Fund in lieu of providing one parking space.

Comments:

1. Project: To permit the construction of a third floor addition on the north side of an existing building.

2. Location: The property is located on the west side of Bond Street, north of Shuter Street.

3. Site: The site is comprised of a regularly shaped lot with an existing building on it and no on-site parking.

Conclusions:

The Committee of Adjustment approved a request for variances to the By-law subject to the applicant filing an application for a cash payment in lieu of parking. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has indicated his acceptance of a cash payment into the Municipal Parking Fund in lieu of providing and maintaining one parking space. The President of the Toronto Parking Authority has indicated that the required payment for the provision of one parking space would be $8,848.06. Therefore, in order to meet the conditions for approval of the variances as set out by the Committee of Adjustment and the requirements of Works and Emergency Services, I recommend that the cash in lieu application be approved.

Staff Contact:

Lori Martin

Telephone: 416-392-7196

E-mail: lmartin2@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

1. Toronto Parking Authority (May 19, 1999)

1. Background

In response to the February 18, 1999 request from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, the Toronto Parking Authority is reporting on the application of Baldwin & Franklin Architects to make a payment into the Municipal Off-Street Parking fund in lieu of providing space for a development at 70 Bond Street.

2. Estimate of Land Value

The Manager, Appraisals/Negotiations of the Property Services Division of the Corporate Services Department, in their correspondence of May 18,1999, estimates the average square foot land value in this area to be $150.00.

3. Estimate of Construction Cost

The Toronto Parking Authority estimates the cost of constructing one above-grade parking space to be $9,571.12 (as fixed by February 1999 CANDATA Construction Cost Index).

4.1 Calculation of Payment

Using the revised formulas adopted by Council at its meeting of May 21 and 24, 1985, the Toronto Parking Authority calculates the payment to be $8,848.06 for each parking space.

4.2 The payment so calculated represents 50 percent of the theoretical cost of providing parking using the factors given in paragraphs 2 and 3 above.

5. Limitation

The Toronto Parking Authority considers the estimates of land value and construction cost are valid for a period of six calendar months from the date of this report.

6. Municipal Off-Street Parking Facilities in the Area

The Toronto Parking Authority operates 750 municipal off-street parking spaces within 300 meters of the proposed development.

7. Additional Information

7.1 Monies paid into the Municipal Off-Street Parking Fund are not refundable and are paid by the developer in lieu of providing parking spaces within his/her development. The money is not held in trust nor designated for any one project, but is used to fund municipal off-street carparks as directed by the Parking Authority.

7.2 Neither the agreement nor the enabling legislation imposes any obligation on the City or the Toronto Parking Authority to construct parking facilities to meet the applicant's specific parking requirements.

Annex A

To TPA Report

May 18, 1999

Re: Payment in Lieu of Providing Parking - 70 Bond Street

Yorkland Group Holding Inc.

Detailed Calculation

Formula: [S + (L x 325)] x 0.5 x R = applicant's contribution

6

Where:

S = the current estimated cost of constructing a parking space of 325 square feet in a hypothetical 6-level above ground parking garage:

$9,571.12

L = the current estimated square foot land value in an area within 300 meters of the proposed development:

$150.00

R = the number of parking spaces for which the applicant is seeking to make a payment-in-lieu:

1 Space

Therefore: [$9,571.12 + ($150.00 x 325)] x 0.5 x 1 = $8,848.06

6

$8,848.06 per parking space

Payment In Lieu Calculations

Land Value $150.00

Number Of Spaces 1

Current Construction Costs (February 1999 - CANDATA)

S1 -Surface $2,951.71

S2 -Above Ground 9,571.12

S3 -Below Ground 15,151.00

Payment Calculation:

	Per Space	Total Spaces
1. Surface Space	$22,475.87	$22,475.87
2. Above ground space	8,848.06	8,848.06
3. Under ground space	10,622.37	10,622.37

2. Works and Emergency Services (April 22, 1999)

This is in reference to the application by Baldwin and Franklin, Architects, on behalf of Yorkland Group Holding Inc., for the project on the above-noted site, located on the west side of Bond Street, south of Dundas Street East. The proposal is to construct a third floor addition to an existing office building for a communications and broadcasting establishment. The Zoning By-law requires the provision and maintenance of 2 parking spaces for the addition, in addition to any existing parking spaces provided on the lot.

The Committee of Adjustment, in its decision dated December 9, 1998, granted a variance to exempt the owner from providing one of the two required parking spaces and to permit the owner to make an application for a cash payment-in lieu of providing 1 parking space. Furthermore, the applicant has modified the original proposal by downscaling the size of the proposed addition by one half, resulting in a corresponding decrease in the gross floor area. Given the retention of the existing building, the reduction of the proposed addition and that the applicant has been unsuccessful in securing a leased parking arrangement off-site, the proposal to make a cash payment into the Municipal Parking Fund in lieu of providing and maintaining 1 space is acceptable.

Recommendation:

That the application to make a cash payment into the Municipal Parking Fund in lieu of providing and maintaining 1 parking space be approved.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

70 Bond Street

11

Interim Control By-law 241-1998 -

16 Avondale Road - Application for Consent

under Chapter 276, and Article I, Ravines of the

Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (Midtown)

(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 Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property known as 16 Avondale Road be fully subject to the constraints of Chapter 276 - Ravines, of the former City of Toronto's Municipal Code and that the exemption allowed by Chapter 276-5.B., which permitted the construction of a single family residence be removed. However, it is also recommended that the replacement of the existing house on the associated property at 10 Avondale Road with a new house to be constructed on the joint property of 10 and 16 Avondale Road be allowed subject to the consent of Council in response to Application No. 099007.

Financial Implications:

There are no requirements for any municipal expenditure associated with this approval.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council amend Chapter 276-5. Exemptions. of the former City of Toronto's municipal code to delete Chapter 276-5. Exemptions. B., which allows the erection of one (1) single-family residence on the land known municipally in the year 1993 as No. 16 Avondale Road, as delineated by a heavy line on Map 2 in Schedule B at the end of this chapter;

(2) City Council consent to Application No. 099007 respecting 10 and 16 Avondale Road to permit the construction of one house which would be partially located within the Avondale Ravine, on the condition that the owner enter into a Ravine Control Agreement requiring:

(a) that the owner shall provide and maintain the landscaping and ravine improvements substantially in accordance with Plan Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, date stamped as received on May 3, 1999, prepared by Mark Hartley Landscape Architects, Plan No. A1, date stamped as received on April 15, 1999 and Plan No. A2, date stamped as received on May 3, 1999, prepared by DesignArc Architect Inc., as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(b) the owner shall:

(i) ensure that the construction is undertaken in accordance with the following conditions and shall add notes to the construction plans, such that they may be noted during excavation and construction, as well as undertaken during the landscaping activities, as follows:

"Tree Protection Zone Note: No construction activity including grade change, surface treatment or excavation is permitted within the distances of tree bases specified on this plan (all measurements are from the closest outside edge of tree base). This includes excavation of trenches for services (water, sewer, electrical, etc.) or irrigation systems. No root cutting is permitted. In addition, storage of materials, equipment or fill and/or movement of construction equipment is not permitted within this protection zone. This area must remain undisturbed at all times."

"Aboricultural Work Note: Any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone(s) indicated on this plan which require pruning, must be pruned by a Certified/Registered Consulting Arborist or other tree professional with equivalent experience and knowledge. All pruning of tree roots and crowns must be in accordance with good arboricultural standards.";

(ii) ensure that the work is undertaken in accordance with the following conditions and add the location of proposed hoarding to construction plans, such that they are noted during excavation and construction, as well as landscaping activities. Hoarding must be constructed to the following standard:

Plywood hoarding shall consist of 4' x 8' sheets of plywood installed 8' high with the exception where lower branches of an existing tree are growing lower than 8', the hoarding shall be installed just below the lower branches in the vicinity of the tree(s). Plywood hoarding shall be installed as specified on this plan and installed prior to commencement of any site activity. Hoarding shall remain in an effective condition until all site activities are complete. Signs shall be attached to hoarding which read as follows:

"Tree Protection Zone

Plywood hoarding must not be removed at any time. The protection zone defined by this hoarding must remain undisturbed at all times.";

(iii) ensure that the proposed bridge forming the new driveway shall be in place at the start of construction, to provide space for storage of building equipment and materials. Alternatively, this area shall be hoarded off to avoid damage to roots during construction;

(iv) ensure that a positive drainage flow is created from the areas of driveway and pathway which are shown to be built of reinforced concrete, such that water falling on these areas will be redirected to the root system of the adjacent sugar maple which underlies the bridging structures (tree number 2 shown on Drawing No. 4, titled "Arborists Report", dated April 28, 1999, prepared by Mark Hartley Landscape Architects, date stamped as received by Urban Planning and Development Services on May 3, 1999);

(v) ensure that the centre walkway to the house (as shown on Plan No. 3, referred to above) shall be built as flagstone paving on concrete, similar to that shown for the walkway east of the house, or shall be built of other materials which do not require excavation of existing soils to install. The two trees shown to be planted on either side of the centre walkway entrance to the new house, shown in area A south of the driveway, shall be smaller than a 15 gallon potted, or of similar sized balled and burlapped stock, such that planting does not cause unnecessary root injury to the sugar maple described in condition 2(b)(iv) above; and

(vi) minimize disruption to the valley slope, direct rain leaders away from the ravine slope and to provide sedimentation control fencing for downstream areas.

(3) the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement; and

(4) the owner be advised to contact the Forestry Section, Parks and Recreation Division, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Services, at 392-1900, upon the completion of all work as indicated on the approved plans;

(5) the owner is advised that the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff;

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

(7) the owner is advised of the need to apply for revised municipal numbering prior to obtaining a building permit.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On June 2, 1997, the Council for the former City of Toronto adopted By-law No. 1997-0270 which had the effect of prohibiting for a period of one year, the erection of any building or structure within the lands know municipally as 16 Avondale Road. Subsequently, at its meeting on May 13 and 14, 1998, Council of the City of Toronto adopted By-law No. 241-1998 which served to extend the Interim Control By-law applying to 16 Avondale for a further period of one year.

In 1981, Council of the former City of Toronto adopted amendments to the Official Plan designating the Avondale Ravine. Notwithstanding that the purpose of the ravine designation was to control development within the ravine areas of the City, Council allowed for the erection of one single-family residence on the lands located between No. 10 and No. 20 Avondale Road (ie. 16 Avondale Road). At that time, planning staff recommended against such exemption from the requirement for the consent of Council to allow the construction of a house on this property.

The property at 16 Avondale Road is subject to considerable slope and is also heavily treed with a wide range of native and non-indigenous vegetation, giving the impression of a beautifully forested garden. The property had been dutifully cared for by the previous owners for an extended period of time and the community considers the carefully created "natural" landscaping of the site to add significantly to the character of the area.

The current owner, who bought the property in 1997, has continued to respect the character of the property and intends to construct a new home on the property in a style which would be consistent with that of other houses on the street. To undertake this development the owner would demolish the existing house and has proposed that the new house would be carefully sited to minimize its impact on the existing trees and the slope of the hill to the west of the proposed house, while also attempting to minimize its impact on the adjacent properties.

Comments:

1. Project: To construct a replacement house which would be partially located within the Avondale Ravine portion of the property.

2. Location: On the north side of Avondale Road to the west of Park Road (see Key Map).

3. Site: The property is a deep and generally rectangular lot. The western third to one half of the lands have a significant slope up to the adjacent house at 20 Avondale Road. The sloped portion of the lot has significant tree cover with a wide variety of native and non-indigenous trees and shrubs. The balance of the site is considerably more open and flatter and currently accommodates a relatively small two and a half storey house.

4. Comments From Civic Officials (see Appendix A):

(a) The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has indicated that the proposed house does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning By-law in various respects, including the location of the proposed garage, the amount of front yard landscaped open space and the minimum side lot setback.

(b) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services indicated his satisfaction with the proposal subject to conditions related to minimizing erosion and controlling sedimentation downstream from the construction area. It was also noted that the current grades on site may provide some problems related to the driveway access.

(c) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Services stated the current proposal satisfactorily addresses his concerns regarding the preservation of the natural vegetation within the ravine and does not create undue negative impact on the existing slope of the ravine.

(d) The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) have indicated that, although the site is within the Ravine, it is not currently, or proposed to be regulated by the TRCA and they say that they have no objections to the approval of this application.

5. Planning Considerations And Conclusions

The applicant has undertaken considerable effort to maintain the existing natural character of the ravine slope while still allowing for the development of a house which fits architecturally with the traditional character of the area. In recommending the deletion of the exemption within Chapter 276 of the Municipal Code, which allowed the development of a single detached house on the lands known as 16 Avondale Road, any future development proposal would be required to be reviewed by Council before such development could be undertaken.

Therefore, I recommend that City Council remove the exemption allowing the development of a single family house solely on the lands known as 16 Avondale Road and give consent to the proposed development, subject to the owner entering into a Ravine Control Agreement. I believe that the development of the proposed house is both reasonable and within the intent of Chapter 276, Ravines, of the former City of Toronto's Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Angus Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-4025

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: acransto@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix A

Reports of Civic Officials

1. Urban Planning and Development Services (May 7, 1999)

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:	Demolish existing detached house and build new detached house with private garage at front
Zoning Designation:	R1 Z0.6
Applicable By-law(s):	438-86, as amended
Plans prepared by:	Design Arc	Plans dated:	May 3, 1999

Zoning Review

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

1.	The by-law requires a building to have a minimum front lot line set back equal to the shortest distance by which the front wall of the only adjacent building is set back from its front lot line: 9.13 metres. The proposed front lot line is set back 8.47 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 2(iii))
2.	The by-law requires a detached house in an R1 zone to have a minimum side lot line setback of 7.5 metres for that portion of the building not exceeding 17.0 metres in depth. The proposed side lot line setback is 3.048 metres to the east side lot line. (Section 6(3) PART II 3 B.(II))
3.	The by-law requires an accessory building to be located no closer to the front lot line than the distance at which the main building is located. The proposed accessory building is located closer to the front lot line than the main building. (Section 6(3) PART II 7(ii) B.)
4.	The by-law requires a minimum landscaped open space of 50% of the area of the lot between the front lot line and the main front wall of the building as projected to the side lot line: 153.75 square metres. The proposed landscaped open space is 74.41 square metres, which is deficient by approximately 82.34 square metres. (Section 6(3) PART III 3(a))
5.	The by-law limits the width of a walkway located between the front lot line and any wall of the building facing the front lot line to 1.06 metres. The proposed walkway is 2.1 metres wide. (Section 6(3) PART III 4)
6.	The by-law prohibits the parking of motor vehicles on the portion of the lot between the front lot line and the front wall of the building. The proposed parking does not comply. (Section 6(3) PART IV 1(e)) Note: this requirement is not applicable if approval is granted by City Works Services - Municipal Code Chapter 400.
7.	Interim Control By-law 1997-0270 does not permit the construction of a building on this lot.
8.	The by-law requires a driveway located between the front lot line, as projected to the side lot lines, and any wall facing the front lot line, not to exceed a width of 3.05 metres at the front lot line and 4.9 metres at the wall. The proposed driveway is located outside a line drawn between the permitted limits. (Section 6(3) PART IV 4(ii))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.	The proposal Does Not require conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.
2.	The proposal Does Not require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.
3.	The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

2. Works and Emergency Services (May 3, 1999)

This is in reference to the application by Christopher Dunkley of DesignArc Architect Inc, on behalf of David Macdonald, for the project on the above-noted site located on the north side of Avondale Road west of Park Road. The proposal is to construct a single family dwelling unit and a detached brick garage at the front of the property. I have reviewed the material submitted and provide the following comments and recommendations.

Survey and Mapping Comments

The site is comprised of two properties which should be amalgamated for assessment and Official Record municipal numbering purposes. The applicant is required to apply for revised municipal numbering prior to obtaining a building permit.

The existing Premises 10 Avondale Road is excluded from ravine control but the proposed siting of the Premises extends into areas Interim Control By-law 1997-0270.

Grading and Ravine Control

The proposed house is set at a higher finished grade than the previous siting and extends into the valley slope in the former 16 Avondale premises; however, the house has been sited with the attempt to consider the existing grades of the ravine slope and to minimize cuts into the ravine bank or fill at the base of slope area. The applicant has also utilized natural or semi-porous surface materials in the driveway and pathways around the house.

With the location of the proposed residence at the base of the ravine slope there is less concern for the overall slope stability since there are no loads imposed from the house. The applicant is to direct rain leaders away from the ravine slope to grassed areas at the base of the valley.

The applicant is to minimize disturbed areas on the ravine slope during construction through the use of protective snow fencing and is also to provide sedimentation control fencing at the valley floor outside of disturbed areas during construction to protect lower areas from sedimentation.

The owner is to be advised that the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff.

It appears that there will be a swale required at the west side of the house at the base of the slope directing any overland flows from the valley slope to the front. Note that these swales and the drainage for the driveway area should be directed as much as possible to landscaped frontages and contained on site minimizing flows out to Avondale Road.

There is some question with regard to the grades around the garage which show considerable cut. In addition some attention should be given to the proposed north westerly access and entry into the garage which appears to be steep. These issues should be looked at in greater detail at the building permit stage or consideration should be given to relocating the garage.

I note that the water garden feature and pump house extends into the valley slope which could introduce some instabilities at the base of the slope. There is insufficient grade detail provided for this feature on the submitted plans to assess its impact. It may be appropriate to relocate this feature if possible outside the slope area.

Parking and Access

The provision of one parking space to serve the residential dwelling, with a detached garage at the south-west limit of the property satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this project and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for like number. The proposed parking supply is acceptable.

Access to and from the proposed garage is provided via a private semi-circular driveway, varying in width from 3.2 m to 3.66 m at the streetline of Avondale Road. The configuration and dimensions of the access driveways are adequate for vehicular ingress and egress.

Recommendations

1. The applicant is to minimize disruption to the valley slope, direct rain leaders away from the ravine slope and to provide sedimentation control fencing for downstream areas;

2. The owner is be advised that the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff; and

3. the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance.

The owner is advised of the need to apply for revised municipal numbering prior to obtaining a building permit.

3. Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (May 6, 1999)

This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on May 3, 1999. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise they are acceptable with the following conditions:

1. Notes must be added to construction plans, such that they may be noted during excavation and construction, as well as landscaping activities, as follows:

Tree Protection Zone Note: No construction activity including grade change, surface treatment or excavation is permitted within the distances of tree bases specified on this plan (all measurements are from the closest outside edge of tree base). This includes excavation of trenches for services (water, sewer, electrical, etc.) or irrigation systems. No root cutting is permitted. In addition, storage of materials, equipment or fill and/or movement of construction equipment is not permitted within this protection zone. This area must remain undisturbed at all times.

Aboricultural Work Note: Any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone(s) indicated on this plan which require pruning, must be pruned by a Certified/Registered Consulting Arborist or other tree professional with equivalent experience and knowledge. All pruning of tree roots and crowns must be in accordance with good arboricultural standards.

2. The location of proposed hoarding must be added to construction plans, such that they are noted during excavation and construction, as well as landscaping activities. Hoarding must be constructed to the following standard:

Plywood hoarding will consist of 4' x 8' sheets of plywood installed 8' high with the exception where lower branches of an existing tree are growing lower than 8', the hoarding shall be installed just below the lower branches in the vicinity of the tree(s). Plywood hoarding must be installed as specified on this plan and installed prior to commencement of any site activity. Hoarding must remain in an effective condition until all site activities are complete. We recommend signs be attached to hoarding which read as follow:

"Tree Protection Zone

Plywood hoarding must not be removed at any time. The protection zone defined by this hoarding must remain undisturbed at all times. "

3. The proposed bridge forming the new driveway must be in place at the start of construction, to provide space for storage of building equipment and materials. Alternatively, this area must be hoarded off to avoid damage to roots during construction.

4. A positive drainage flow shall be created from the areas of driveway and pathway which are shown to be built of reinforced concrete, such that water falling on these areas will be redirected to the root system of the adjacent sugar maple which underlies the bridging structures (tree number 2 shown on Drawing Titled "Arborists Report", dated April 28, 1999, prepared by Mark Hartley Landscape Architects, date stamped as received by Urban Planning and Development Services on May 3, 1999).

5. Landscaping shown on plans titled "Planting Schedule and Details", dated April 28, 1999, prepared by Mark Hartley Landscape Architects, date stamped as received by Urban Planning and Development Services on May 3, 1999 are acceptable, with the following condition. The centre walkway to the house must be built as flagstone paving on concrete, similar to that shown for the walkway east of the house, or must be built of other materials which do not require excavation of existing soils to install. The two trees shown to be planted on either side of the centre walkway entrance to the new house, shown in area A south of the driveway, must be smaller than a 15 gallon potted or similar size b&b stock, such that planting does not cause unnecessary root injury to the sugar maple described in comment 4 above.

4. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (April 27, 1999)

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff has reviewed the above noted applications and we offer the following comments.

The subject property is located within the Avondale Ravine. Although this corridor is affected by the City's Ravine By-law, it is not currently, or proposed to be regulated by the TRCA. Therefore, we have no objections to the approval of these applications.

We trust this is satisfactory. However, should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Gaspare Ritacca at extension 324.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

16 Avondale Road

Insert Table/Map No. 2

16 Avondale Road

Insert Table/Map No. 3

16 Avondale Road

Insert Table/Map No. 4

16 Avondale Road

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

- (May 20, 1999) from Ms. Kelly Cavanaugh and Mr. Peter Jeffery

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Janice Merson, President, Summerhill Residents' Association

12

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

280 Coxwell Avenue (East Toronto)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council approve, on an annualized basis, Application No. 999020 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes at 280 Coxwell Avenue; and

(2) the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999020, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes at 280 Coxwell Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999020 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes at 280 Coxwell Avenue.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999020, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the west side of Coxwell Avenue between Gerrard Street and Fairford Avenue in a mixed-use zoning district. The property accommodates a two storey commercial building with a Bingo Hall on the main floor and a restaurant, "Adam's Sports Cafe", in the basement of the building. The applicant is seeking permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes for the basement tenant, "Adam's Sports Cafe", on the front wall at the first floor level of the building. The sign is 6.00 metres long and 0.30 metre high , with an area of 1.80 m² (see Figure 1).

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that fascia sign is not located on the wall of the commercial unit of the tenant. Approval of a sign variance application is required because the sign is not located on the wall of the commercial unit of the tenant.

In this case, no opportunity exists for the basement tenant to display a fascia sign for identification on the wall of his unit. I consider the variance to be technical in nature and therefore acceptable.

I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

280 Coxwell Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

280 Coxwell Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

280 Coxwell Avenue

13

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(Downtown, Davenport and North Toronto)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following reports from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(June 2, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated awning sign for identification purposes at 595 Bay Street (20 Dundas Street West).

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999039 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated awning sign at 595 Bay Street (20 Dundas Street West).

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999039, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property known as "Atrium on Bay" is located on a city block bounded by Bay Street, Edward Street, Yonge Street and Dundas Street West, in a mixed-use zoning district. The property accommodates a multi-storey office building with retail uses at grade and concourse levels. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated awning sign for identification purposes, at the first floor level on the south elevation of the building, for a LCBO Store which is located on the concourse level. The sign is 8.26 metres long and 1.15 metres high, with an area of 9.50 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the sign is not located on a wall that is part of the commercial unit of the tenant.

In this case no opportunity exists for the concourse level tenant to display a sign for identification on the wall of his unit. I consider the variance to be technical in nature and therefore acceptable.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

20 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

20 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 3

20 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 4

20 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 5

20 Dundas Street West

(May 28, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one illuminated ground sign for identification purposes at 590 Keele Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999037 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated ground sign for identification purposes at 590 Keele Street.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999037, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located south of St. Clair Avenue West, on the west side of Keele Street in an Industrial-Commercial (IC) zoning district. The property accommodates a newly constructed Commercial / Retail Plaza. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one illuminated ground sign for identification purpose. The lower portion of the sign is 3.40 metres long and 2.70 metres high and the upper portion of the sign is 2.44 metres long and 6.21 metres high, with a total area of 24.33 m² (see Figure 2). The total height of the sign from grade is 11.00 metres.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. ground signs are required to be set back 2.0 metres from the property line; and

2. the height of the proposed ground sign (11.00 metres) exceeds by 1.0 metre the permitted height of 10.00 metres.

The setback requirement for ground signs is aimed at ensuring that, where possible, an open, uncluttered view corridor is maintained along commercial streets and that sight lines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are improved.

As the adjacent building "B" on the north end of the property is built to the lot line, this sign is also proposed to be placed 0.5 metre from to the lot line to ensure visibility to motorists. An increased setback would only marginally improve the view corridors and sight lines along Keele Street. In this instance, I am willing to accept the location of the sign because the sign is set back 6.5 metres from the curb line and 4.4 metres from the new sidewalk.

The second variance requesting a higher sign than permitted is acceptable. By permitting the sign to be at 11.0 metres above grade, the applicant intends to ensure that the sign can be seen to the north and south bound motorists travelling along Keele Street.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

590 Keele Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

590 Keele Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

590 Keele Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

590 Keele Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

590 Keele Street

(June 7, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for minor variances to permit a total of five signs for identification purposes. Two illuminated fascia signs in the form of logo and corporate name are proposed to be erected on the uppermost storey of the building and two illuminated fascia signs and one awning sign will be erected on the first floor of the building at 477 Mount Pleasant Road.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999035 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated fascia signs in the form of a logo and corporate name on the uppermost storey of the building, two illuminated fascia signs and one illuminated awning sign on the first floor level of the building for identification on condition that the two illuminated fascia (logo and corporate name) signs on the uppermost storey be illuminated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and that this be achieved by means of an automated device.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999035, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-east corner of Mount Pleasant Road and Davisville Avenue in a mixed-use zoning district. The property accommodates a five storey office building. The applicant is seeking permission to erect two illuminated fascia signs in the form of a logo and corporate name on the uppermost storey of the building. Each of the signs is 4.88 metres long and 0.91 metre high with an area of 4.44 m². The applicant also proposes to erect two illuminated fascia signs and one illuminated awning sign on the first floor level of the south and west frontage. Each of these proposed fascia signs on the first floor is 9.75 metres long and 0.46 metre high with an area of 4.46 m². The awning sign is 2.34 metres long and 1.07 metres high with an area of 2.50 m² (see Figure 2 and 3).

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1) the awning sign will not be attached to a wall of a building;

(2) the clearance of the awning sign from the sidewalk to the lowest point of the sign (2.4 metres) will be 0.1 m less than the 2.5 metres minimum required by the Municipal Code;

(3) the illuminated fascia signs in the form of a logo and corporate name will not be erected above the required height of 34 metres; and

(4) the fascia signs located within the first storey of the building will not be mounted wholly against a wall of a building.

The first variance occurs because the awning sign will not be attached to a wall of a building. In this case, no opportunity exists to mount the awning sign against the wall of the building. The sign will be mounted against a 0.20 metre thick overhang concrete slab. I consider the variance to be technical in nature and therefore acceptable.

The second variance relates to the clearance from the sidewalk to the lowest point of the awning sign (2.4 metres) which is 0.1 metre less than the permitted clearance of 2.5 metres. I do not feel that a slightly less clearance would cause an adverse impact on pedestrian safety or the visibility of the uses of the building.

Regarding the third variance, although the proposed signs do not meet the 34 metres height requirement, they would be erected on the uppermost storey of the building. In this instance, the modest size signs are positioned to complement the rectangular facade of the building. The closest residential unit would be more than 30 metres away across on the south side of Davisville Avenue. Due to this separating distance, there should not be any adverse impact on the surrounding residential uses. To ensure this, however, I have required that the hours of illumination be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The owner is in agreement with this recommendation.

The fourth variance is also technical in nature and therefore acceptable, The signs will be mounted against a 0.20 metre thick overhang concrete slab, because no opportunity exists to mount the fascia signs against the wall on the first floor level of the building.

A further variance was originally requested for the fascia signs. The applicant has now submitted a drawing to confirm that the fascia signs in the form of a logo and corporate name will be wholly mounted against the top portion of the south and west wall of the building, which is acceptable and the variance is not required.

I am recommending approval of this application, with a condition respecting the restriction of hours of illumination, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209; Fax: (416) 392-0580; E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

477 Mount Pleasant Road

Insert Table/Map No. 2

477 Mount Pleasant Road

Insert Table/Map No. 3

477 Mount Pleasant Road

Insert Table/Map No. 4

477 Mount Pleasant Road

(June 8, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for minor variances to permit one illuminated canopy sign which identifies the "Metro Toronto Convention Centre-South Building" and one illuminated ground sign to identify the parking garage through the "P" symbol at 222 Bremner Blvd.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999036 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one backlit illuminated canopy sign which identifies the "Metro Toronto Convention Centre-South Building" and one illuminated ground sign to identify the parking garage through the "P" symbol at 222 Bremner Blvd.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999036, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property, known as "Metro Toronto Convention Centre-South Building ", is located south of the railway tracks at the north-west corner of Bremner Blvd. and Simcoe Street, in a (G) park zoning district. On March 1, 1994, City Council adopted By-law No. 1994-0181 respecting the Metro Toronto Convention Centre expansion, giving approval to the construction of the south building with an additional floor space of 95,000 m². The expansion included a three level convention facility, located primarily beneath Central Park, that is linked by a tunnel under the main rail corridor to the main Metro Toronto Convention Centre-North Building which fronts on to Front Street West.

The applicant is requesting permission to erect one illuminated canopy sign on the south elevation which identifies the "Metro Toronto Convention Centre-South Building " and one illuminated ground sign to identify the parking garage through the "P" symbol (see Figure 1). The proposed canopy sign is 8.38 metres long and 1.60 metres high, with an area of 13.41 m² and the proposed ground sign, "P" for the parking symbol, is 0.91 metre long and 0.95 metre high with an area of 0.86 m².

The original application also involved a proposed third party advertising fascia sign but this additional request was later withdrawn following discussion with my staff.

The proposed canopy and ground signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the proposed canopy sign is not permitted in a (G) park zoning district;

2. the height of the proposed ground sign (3.69 metres) exceeds by 1.69 metres the permitted height of 2.0 metres.

The first variance occurs because an illuminated canopy sign for identification is not permitted in a (G) park zoning district. In this instance, it is recognized that the Metro Toronto Convention Centre is a major public building which hosts a variety of important public and business events and caters to thousands of visitors for those events every year. A recent survey concluded that the majority of the visitors were not aware of the location and direction to the South Building. In my opinion, the proposed canopy sign will help with identification for the South Building of the convention centre and it will not adversely impact the street views of the building or surrounding uses.

The second variance relates to the height of the proposed ground sign "P", the parking symbol (3.69 metres) which exceeds by 1.69 metres the permitted height of 2.0 metres. In this case, the height of the proposed ground sign is appropriate given its location in front of the central column between the entrance and exit doors of the parking garage. I do not feel that will have an adverse impact on the streetscape or the surrounding uses.

I am recommending approval of this application as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

222 Bremner Blvd

Insert Table/Map No. 2

222 Bremner Blvd

Insert Table/Map No. 3

222 Bremner Blvd

Insert Table/Map No. 4

222 Bremner Blvd

Insert Table/Map No. 5

222 Bremner Blvd

Insert Table/Map No. 6

222 Bremner Blvd

Insert Table/Map No. 7

222 Bremner Blvd

14

Prohibition of Stopping and Prohibition of

Parking - Gloucester Street, both sides,

from Yonge Street to Church Street (Downtown)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 21, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to discourage illegal drug solicitation while maintaining loading/unloading privileges for area businesses.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to Church Street, be rescinded;

(2) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the south side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to a point 91.5 metres further east, be rescinded;

(3) That stopping be prohibited from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily, on the north side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to Church Street;

(4) That stopping be prohibited from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily, on the south side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to a point 91.5 metres further east;

(5) That parking be prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily, on the north side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to Church Street;

(6) That parking be prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily, on the south side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to a point 91.5 metres further east; and

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

Comments:

At the request of representatives of the Metro Toronto Police Service, on behalf of area residents and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Kyle Rae, Transportation Services staff have investigated measures to discourage street solicitation, specifically illegal drug related activities, on both sides of Gloucester Street, east of Yonge Street, in vicinity to numerous restaurants/clubs.

Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to Church Street operates one-way westbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres with a maximum speed limit of fifty kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side of the street, from Yonge Street to Church Street and is also prohibited at anytime on the south side of the street, from Yonge Street to a point 91.5 metres further east (the first parking meter stall). Parking (controlled by meters) is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on the south side of Gloucester Street, from a point 91.5 metres east of Yonge Street to Church Street. Otherwise, parking, where allowed, is permitted to a maximum period of three hours. The permit parking system is in operation from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily.

Traffic control signals are in operation at the intersection of Gloucester Street and Yonge Street. Under the provisions of Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code no person shall park a vehicle within 30.5 metres of a signalized intersection. This is a uniform parking prohibition City-wide at all signalized intersections to ensure that traffic is unimpeded by parked vehicles when approaching and departing the intersection. In accordance with the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, a vehicle while actually engaged in loading/unloading merchandise or passengers may legally do so in an area where parking is prohibited.

Recent site inspections during daytime hours by Transportation Services staff revealed that illegally parked delivery vehicles (trucks, vans, etc.) and vehicles displaying a valid disabled persons parking permit (which are not exempt if parked within 30.5 metres of the signals), park for extended periods of time on the north side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to Church Street and on the south side of the street, from Yonge Street to a point 91.5 metres further east (the first parking meter stall). Our records indicate that the current parking prohibition was implemented many years ago to enhance loading/unloading operations for businesses on Gloucester Street and on Yonge Street. Currently, this situation does not create difficulties for motorists negotiating this portion of the street given the street has a one-way operation and a width of 7.3 metres.

Members of the Toronto Police Service have informed us that several new bars/clubs have recently opened in the subject area and given the nature of these establishments, illegal on-street drug solicitation on Gloucester Street, east of Yonge Street has increased substantially, specifically during the evening and early morning hours.

Accordingly, based on our staff assessment, a more stringent stopping prohibition should be implemented to operate from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily on the north side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to Church Street and on the south side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to a point 91.5 metres further east (the first parking meter stall), to enhance traffic operation and discourage those motorists who are actively soliciting illegal drugs from their vehicles at the curb.

In conjunction with the above, parking should be prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily on the north side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to Church Street and on the south side of Gloucester Street, from Yonge Street to a point 91.5 metres further east (the first parking meter stall). These regulations will allow businesses on Gloucester Street to receive deliveries as vehicles will be able to legally stop while actually engaged in loading/unloading activities. To enhance motorists awareness of this, the "No Parking" signage will be enhanced by affixing "loading only" tabs.

Implementation of this proposal will not adversely affect the operational safety of Gloucester Street nor will there be any impact upon existing permit parking opportunities.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771,

15

Temporary Road Closures - "Taste of the Danforth"

Event (Don River and East Toronto)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 9, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To seek City Council's approval for the planned 2 day closure of Danforth Avenue and Gough Avenue, from August 6, 1999 to August 8, 1999, and for the planned 4 day closure of Logan Avenue, from August 5, 1999 to August 9, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) The following streets be closed to vehicular traffic, for the Taste of the Danforth event:

(a) Danforth Avenue, from Broadview Avenue to Jones Avenue, be closed to all vehicular traffic from 4:00 p.m. on Friday, August 6, 1999, up to and including 11:30 p.m. on Sunday, August 8, 1999;

(b) Gough Avenue, from Danforth Avenue to the first public lane north of Danforth Avenue, be closed to all vehicular traffic from 9:00 a.m. on Friday, August 6, 1999, up to and including 11:30 p.m. on Sunday, August 8, 1999;

(c) Gough Avenue, south of Danforth Avenue to the rear of the property at 583 Danforth Avenue, be closed to all vehicular traffic from 9:00 a.m. on Friday, August 6, 1999, up to and including 11:30 p.m. on Sunday, August 8, 1999;

(d) Logan Avenue, from Danforth Avenue to the first public lane north of Danforth Avenue, be closed to all vehicular traffic from 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 5, 1999, up to and including 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 9, 1999, for the Taste of the Danforth; and

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

Background:

Under Section 19 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the Commissioner may issue a permit for a street closure for "social, recreational, community and athletic purpose or a combination of these purposes" for less than 24 hours, if local access for residents and emergency vehicles is maintained. A permit for the same purpose may only be issued with Council's approval if the closure is to be greater than 24 hours with respect to a particular application. The Taste of the Danforth closure will extend over 2 days on Danforth Avenue and Gough Avenue, and Logan Avenue closure will extend approximately 4 days.

Comments:

Ms. Sue Graham-Nutter, Co-ordinator for the GreekTown on the Danforth and Danforth By The Valley Business Improvement Areas, applied for a temporary street closure permit for various streets for their annual "Taste of Danforth" event from August 6-8, 1999. This application requests permission to close the following streets to vehicular traffic to facilitate the installation of stages, beer gardens and children's events on Danforth Avenue, tents on Gough Avenue, a stage on Logan Avenue and to provide adequate street cleaning after the event:

(a) Danforth Avenue, from Broadview Avenue to Pape Avenue, and from Pape Avenue to Jones Avenue (Friday, August 6, 1999 at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday, August 8, 1999 at 11:30 p.m.);

(b) Gough Avenue, from Danforth Avenue to the first public lane north of Danforth Avenue

(Friday, August 6, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. to Sunday, August 8, 1999 at 11:30 p.m.);

(c) Gough Avenue, south of Danforth Avenue to the rear of the property at 583 Danforth Avenue (Friday, August 6, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. to Sunday, August 8, 1999 at 11:30 p.m.); and

(d) Logan Avenue, from Danforth Avenue to the first public lane north of Danforth Avenue

(Thursday, August 5, 1999 at 4:00 p.m. to Monday, August 9, 1999 at 9:00 a.m.).

The applicant is in the process of notifying the residents and businesses directly affected by the proposed closures. I have consulted with the Fire Department, Ambulance Services, Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Police Service who have no objections to the above-noted closures. In addition, the Ward Councillors were notified of the event.

Conclusions:

In consideration that all of the requirements for a temporary street closure have been met by the applicant, I recommend that permission be granted for the closure of the streets and times previously indicated, and that the appropriate amendment be made to Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to allow me to issue a permit, assuming Council has approved the closures.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Barrie Chavel, 392-0839

16

Provision of a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area"

with Short Term Parking - Carlaw Avenue from

Danforth Avenue to McConnell Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause, by deleting from the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council the words "the following report (April 1, 1999)", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "the report (June 15, 1999)", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (June 15, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 1, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To enhance equitable use of a pick-up/drop-off area and provide short term parking to enable parents or guardians to accompany an infant/toddler directly to/from the school and daycare centre located at Premises No. 690 Carlaw Avenue (Holy Name Catholic School).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $800.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the west side of Carlaw Avenue between Danforth Avenue and McConnell Avenue, be rescinded;

(2) That parking be allowed for a maximum period of ten minutes from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the west side of Carlaw Avenue from a point 86.3 metres south of Danforth Avenue to a point 40.7 metres further south;

(3) That parking be prohibited from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m., Monday to Friday and at anytime Saturday and Sunday, on the west side of Carlaw Avenue from a point 86.3 metres south of Danforth Avenue to a point 40.7 metres further south;

(4) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Carlaw Avenue, from Danforth Avenue to a point 86.3 metres south;

(5) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Carlaw Avenue, from a point 127.0 metres south of Danforth Avenue to McConnell Avenue; and

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

Comments

At the request of Councillors Jack Layton and Pam McConnell on behalf of representatives of Holy Name Catholic School (Premises No. 690 Carlaw Avenue), staff have investigated the feasibility of delineating a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area" and allowing short term parking on the west side of Carlaw Avenue between Danforth Avenue and McConnell Avenue to enable parents/guardians to park while accompanying children to/from the school or daycare centre at Holy Name Catholic School.

Carlaw Avenue from Danforth Avenue to McConnell Avenue operates one way southbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is regulated as follows:

West Side

- Parking is prohibited at anytime.

East Side

Parking is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily; and

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

A "Student Pick- up/Drop-off Area" identifies by means of information signs a specific area on a street in front of a school where parents should stop to pick-up or drop-off students. No amendment to Chapter 400 of the (former) City of Toronto Municipal Code is required to enable the installation of these signs. Several years ago, the Catholic School Board paid for the construction of a lay-by on the west side of Carlaw Avenue in front of the school to provide an area where parents/guardians may stop momentarily to drop-off or pick-up children. However, the present parking prohibition prevents vehicles from legally being left unattended in the lay-by while the driver accompanies a child into the school. Implementation of a 10 minute maximum parking regulation in the lay-by would resolve this problem.

In this instance, a ten minute maximum parking regulation could be implemented from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday (those times when there is the greatest demand for this provision), to enhance equitable use of the pick-up/drop-off area and provide parents/guardians with sufficient time to accompany a child directly to/from the daycare centre or school. The parking prohibition within the defined area of the "Student Pick-up and Drop-off Area" would be maintained at other times.

Since the pick-up/drop-off area would be limited to the lay-by, implementation of this suggestion would not adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of traffic on the travelled portion of Carlaw Avenue but would provide about 5 short term parking/loading spaces.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (June 15, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide amended recommendations enabling school buses to load/unload passengers and provide a separate pick-up/drop-off area with short term parking so that parents or guardians can accompany an infant/toddler directly to/from the school and daycare centre located at Holy Name Catholic School.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $1,000.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the report (April 1, 1999) to Toronto Community Council entitled, "Carlaw Avenue from Danforth Avenue to McConnell Avenue - Provision of a Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area with short term parking (Don River), be received;

(2) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the west side of Carlaw Avenue between Danforth Avenue and McConnell Avenue, be rescinded;

(3) That parking be allowed for a maximum period of ten minutes from 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the west side of Carlaw Avenue from a point 83.0 metres south of Danforth Avenue to a point 27.0 metres further south;

(4) That parking be prohibited from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and at anytime Saturday and Sunday, on the west side of Carlaw Avenue from a point 83.0 metres south of Danforth Avenue to a point 27.0 metres further south;

(5) That a "School Bus Loading Zone" be implemented on the west side of Carlaw Avenue from a point 110.0 metres south of Danforth Avenue to a point 44.0 metres further south;

(6) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Carlaw Avenue:

(a) from Danforth Avenue to a point 83.0 metres south;

(b) from a point 154.0 metres south of Danforth Avenue to McConnell Avenue; and

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

Background:

Toronto Community Council at its meeting of May 26, 1999, had before it a report (April 1, 1999) respecting the provision of a "Student Pick-up and Drop-off Area" with short term parking in front of Holy Name Catholic School (Premises No. 690 Carlaw Avenue) and a related communication from Ms. A. Duncan, representing the school. Consideration of the April 1 report was deferred to the Community Council meeting of June 22, 1999.

In the interim, staff have further consulted with Ms. Duncan and the Ward Councillors' offices to refine the original recommendations.

Comments

Staff of Transportation Services met with Ms. Ann Duncan, Principal of Holy Name Catholic School, who advised us that she represented the school, the daycare centre and the Transportation Committee of the Catholic School Board. The primary issues are school bus loading, student pick-up/drop-off by parents/guardians and traffic flow on Carlaw Avenue.

Carlaw Avenue from Danforth Avenue to McConnell Avenue operates one way southbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres. A lay-by ranging in width from about 1.5 - 2.5 metres is located on the west side of the street in front of the school. Parking is regulated as follows:

West Side

- Parking is prohibited at anytime.

East Side

- Parking is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily; and

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

Ms. Duncan indicated that the school and the daycare centre have jointly agreed that all of the wider section of the lay-by and a portion of the narrower section should be used to accommodate school buses which currently service the school and that the remainder of the lay-by should be used for short term parking by persons arriving in private vehicles to pick-up or drop-off children at the school/daycare centre.

Based on our assessment, traffic flow on Carlaw Avenue and pedestrian safety in the vicinity of Holy Name Catholic School could be improved by implementing the following:

- A "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area" on the west side of Carlaw Avenue from a point 83.0 metres south of Danforth Avenue to a point 27.0 metres further south; and

- A "School Bus Loading Zone" on the west side of Carlaw Avenue from a point 110.0 metres south of Danforth Avenue to a point 44.0 metres further south.

The provision of an exclusive "School Bus Loading Zone", where stopping would be prohibited at anytime except by school buses and a separate "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area" where parking would be permitted for a maximum period of 10 minutes from 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and prohibited at other times, would:

- address the loading and short term parking requirements at Holy Name School by segregating loading operations by school buses and private vehicles;

- reduce delays incurred by school bus drivers as they wait for private vehicles to pull away from the curb; and

- reduce traffic congestion on Carlaw Avenue caused by school buses double-parking on the traveled portion of the roadway with flashing lights activated during loading/unloading operations.

We note that the proximity of the Danforth Avenue retail district and the high demand for parking that occurs in the immediate area might combine to generate parking in the lay-by by shoppers. This would be most noticeable from 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. This is an unusually long time period during which parking would be legalized in a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area". Therefore, if parents/guardians are to be assured equitable use of the 5 parking spaces provided in the lay-by, the 10-minute maximum parking regulation must be strictly enforced.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip

Traffic Investigator

392-7771

17

Parking Regulations - Argyle Street, north side, between

Ossington Avenue and Givins Street (Trinity-Niagara)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 2, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to increase parking availability for local residents.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Argyle Street between Ossington Avenue and a point 48.8 metres east, be rescinded; and

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

Comments:

At the request of a local resident, Transportation Services staff have investigated the feasibility of rescinding the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Argyle Street between Ossington Avenue and Argyle Place (a point 48.8 metres east), to increase parking availability for local residents.

Argyle Street between Ossington Avenue and Givins Street is a residential street and operates one-way eastbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres. The following parking regulations are in effect:

North Side:

(a) Parking is prohibited at anytime from Ossington Avenue to a point 48.8 metres east;

(b) Parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily;

(c) Permit parking operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily; and

(d) Parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

South Side:

(e) Parking is prohibited at anytime.

The parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Argyle Street from Ossington Avenue to Argyle Place (a point 48.8 metres east of Ossington Avenue), was implemented prior to 1970 to provide adequate turning radius for large trucks gaining access to Argyle Place (a lane running south off of Argyle Street accessing the rears of businesses located at Premises Nos. 63 - 109 Ossington Avenue and residences located at Premises Nos. 42 - 80 Givins Street).

Investigation by Transportation Services Staff revealed the turning radius at the bottom of Argyle Place (at Bruce Street), could not accommodate large trucks entering or exiting Argyle Place. Therefore, the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Argyle Street between Ossington Avenue and Argyle Place (a point 48.8 metres east of Ossington Avenue), has become obsolete and could be rescinded without adversely affecting local businesses or residents and would still allow access to Argyle Place by small and medium sized trucks.

Argyle Street between Ossington Avenue and Argyle Place is located in permit parking Area 4H where as of May 26, 1999, 879 permits had been issued against 891 permits available. Specifically, on the section of Argyle Street, 8 permits have been issued to residents against 6 parking spaces available. Rescinding the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Argyle Street between Ossington Avenue and Argyle Place (a point 48.8 metres east of Ossington Avenue), would increase the number of parking spaces by six. The total number of permit parking spaces in "Area 4H" would also increase by six.

Implementation of this proposal will not adversely affect traffic operational safety on Argyle Street between Ossington Avenue and Givins Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings

Traffic Investigator

392-7771

18

Parking Regulations - Davenport Road, south

side, west of Bartlett Avenue North (Davenport)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 8, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To enhance visibility of eastbound traffic on Davenport Road for motorists turning onto Davenport Road from Bartlett Avenue North.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $150.00 can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Davenport Road from Bartlett Avenue North to a point 26 metres west; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero on behalf of area residents, Works staff investigated the feasibility of increasing the existing 15 metres to corner parking prohibition to 26 metres on the south side of Davenport Road, west of Bartlett Avenue North. Area residents have expressed concern over parked vehicles on the south side of Davenport Road, west of Bartlett Avenue North, obstructing the view of eastbound traffic on Davenport Road for northbound motorists on Bartlett Avenue North.

Increasing the existing 15 metres to corner parking prohibition to 26 metres would enhance the visibility of eastbound traffic (including cyclists) on Davenport Road for northbound motorists on Bartlett Avenue North, however due to the configuration of the subject intersection it will eliminate two on-street parking spaces and reduce the inventory of available on-street parking spaces in permit parking Area 3F. For your information, as of May 25, 1999, 757 parking permits had been issued against 982 available spaces in permit parking Area 3F.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

19

Parking Regulations - Rosedale Valley Road

between Park Road and Bayview Avenue

(Midtown and Don River)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To amend the parking regulations on Rosedale Valley Road, between Park Road and Bayview Avenue, in order to improve traffic operations.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed parking regulation amendments are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Current Budget. The estimated cost of installing appropriate signs is $3000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Parking be prohibited at all times on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, from a point 76 metres east of Park Road to Bayview Avenue; and

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

Comments:

At the request of the Toronto Police Service, arising from a concern that vehicles parked on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, between Park Road and Bayview Avenue, create an unsafe driving environment. Transportation Services staff investigated the feasibility of prohibiting parking on this section of Rosedale Valley Road.

Rosedale Valley Road, between Park Road and Bayview Avenue, is a two-lane roadway with a speed limit of 50 km/h. On the north side of Rosedale Valley Road, parking is generally prohibited at all times. The following table outlines the parking regulations on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, between Park Road and Bayview Avenue:

Location	Regulation
From Park Road to 76 metres east of Park Road; and from 152.5 metres east of Park Road to 235 metres east of Park Road	No Parking Anytime
From 76 metres east of Park Road to Bayview Avenue	No Parking 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday
From 76 metres east of Park Road to 152.5 metres east of Park Road	9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday to Friday 1 hour
From 76 metres east of Park Road to 152.5 metres east of Park Road; and from 235 metres east of Park Road to Bayview Avenue	6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 3 hour 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 3 hour

Rosedale Valley Road is approximately two kilometres in length, is generally 8.4 metres wide and consists of one lane in each direction. Each of the lanes is approximately 4.2 metres wide. As a result, with parked vehicles on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, eastbound through motorists are forced to cross the centre line and encroach into the westbound lane. There are approximately 18,000 vehicles daily which travel on Rosedale Valley Road, between Park Road and Bayview Avenue, of which 7,500 are eastbound.

A review of Metropolitan Toronto Police Service collision records for the five-year period ending December 31, 1997 disclosed that four collisions involving vehicles parked on the south side occurred on Rosedale Valley Road. Our field observations revealed a number of conflicts involving eastbound through and eastbound parked vehicles due to the narrow lane. Also, there are conflicts between eastbound and westbound through vehicles when eastbound through vehicles are forced to cross the centre line.

There is minimal demand for parking on Rosedale Valley Road. The proposed parking restrictions would result in a loss of approximately 10 on-street parking spaces, where 1 hour parking is currently permitted during daytime off-peak periods, and where the majority of the parking occurs. Those few who currently park there during daytime off-peak periods are destined for the Manulife Centre (whose access to the parking area is from Rosedale Valley Road) or are probably parking for recreational purposes. Our observations indicate that there is an insignificant parking demand which occurs beyond 235 metres east of Park Road. There are alternatives for motorists who wish to park and visit this area to park on other streets in proximity to the Rosedale Valley Road and Park Road intersection, such as on Rosedale Valley Road, west of Park Road and on Park Road, north of Rosedale Valley Road.

Councillors John Adams, Ila Bossons, Jack Layton and Pam McConnell have been advised of the proposed change. The Asquith Collier Association has indicated that it does not support the proposed parking amendments due to a concern that the changes could impact on the availability of on-street parking on Collier Street. Given the low volume of parked vehicles on Rosedale Valley Road, the displaced vehicles will have a minimal impact on adjacent streets.

Contact Name:

Vince Suppa, Coordinator

District 1 - East Area

416-397-5436

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Rosedale Valley Road, Park Road & Bayview Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Rosedale Valley Road, Park Road & Bayview Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Rosedale Valley Road, Park Road & Bayview Ave

20

Designation of Exclusive Westbound right

and left-turn lanes - Charles Street East

at Yonge Street (Downtown)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To designate the southerly westbound curb lane for left turns only and the northerly westbound curb lane for right turns only on Charles Street East at Yonge Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $1,000.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the southerly westbound lane on Charles Street East at Yonge Street be designated exclusively for left-turning vehicles, from Yonge Street to a point 30.5 metres east;

(2) That the northerly westbound lane on Charles Street East at Yonge Street be designated exclusively for right-turning vehicles, from Yonge Street and a point 30.5 metres east; and

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

Comments:

In response to a request from the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area Traffic and Safety Committee, Transportation Services reviewed the feasibility of designating certain westbound traffic lanes for exclusive movements on Charles Street East at Yonge Street to provide better guidance for westbound motorists using this intersection.

The intersection of Charles Street and Yonge Street is controlled by traffic signals. Charles Street East operates one-way westbound and its approach to Yonge Street consists of a left-turn lane, a through lane and a through/right-turn lane. Three discharge lanes are provided on the far side of the intersection. However, the west leg of Charles Street is offset by approximately 10 metres to the north from the east leg of Charles Street.

The left-turn lane is currently marked with pavement markings only. Due to the offset of Charles Street West, when westbound through motorists proceed through the intersection from the northerly most lanes of Charles Street East, they have difficulty in judging as to which lane to enter on the far side of the intersection (Charles Street West). As a result, there is the potential for side-swipe collisions to occur involving westbound through motorists.

To eliminate this conflict, the northerly westbound curb lane should be designated for right-turning vehicles only. The designation of the southerly westbound curb lane for left-turning vehicles only will reinforce the existing pavement markings. These modifications will result in one westbound through lane, which should not have any undue negative impact on the westbound intersection capacity. Along with the lane designation signs, Transportation Services will also install corresponding pavement marking arrows for all three westbound lanes. Finally, to provide better guidance for westbound through motorists, a hazard marker will be installed on the south-west corner of the intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Danny Budimirovic, P.Eng.

Traffic Engineer, District 1 - Central Area

416-392-5209

21

Proposed Designation of an Exclusive

Southbound Right Turn Lane -

Shaw Street at Bloor Street West (Davenport)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 28, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To designate the westerly southbound curb lane on Shaw Street, immediately north of Bloor Street West as an exclusive right turn lane.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That the westerly southbound lane on Shaw Street at Bloor Street West be designated for right-turning vehicles only, between Bloor Street West and a point 30.5 meters north thereof; and

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

Comments:

Shaw Street north of Bloor Street West operates one-way southbound on a pavement width of 7.4 metres. The intersection of Shaw Street and Bloor Street West is controlled by traffic signals. The southbound approach to this intersection consists of a right-turn lane and a through/left-turn lane.

The westerly southbound right-turn lane is currently marked with pavement markings only. Designation of the westerly southbound curb lane for right turns only and the associated installation of the lane designation sign will provide better guidance for southbound motorists approaching this intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771,

22

Parking Regulations - Atlantic Avenue,

between Liberty Street and the C.N.R.

Right-of-way (Trinity-Niagara)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends:

(1) the "No Parking Anytime" regulation on the east side of Atlantic Avenue between Liberty Street and the C.N.R. right-of-way, be rescinded;

(2) parking be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Atlantic Avenue between Liberty Street and the C.N.R. right-of-way;

(3) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be instructed to install parking meters on the east side of Atlantic Avenue, between Liberty Street and the C.N.R. right-of-way, and

(4) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required or report back to the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 28, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to increase parking availability for the customers of businesses in the area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $600.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

1. That the "No Parking Anytime" regulation on the east side of Atlantic Avenue between Liberty Street and the C.N.R. right-of-way, be rescinded;

2. That parking be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Atlantic Avenue between Liberty Street and the C.N.R. right-of-way; and

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

Comments:

At the request of the owner of the Liberty Street Cafe, Premises No. 25 Liberty Street and in consultation with Trinity-Niagara Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva, Transportation Services staff have investigated the feasibility of relocating parking from the west side of Atlantic Avenue between Liberty Street and the C.N.R. right-of-way to the east side in order to increase on-street parking availability for the patrons of local businesses.

Parking demand in the immediate area has increased due to new and expanding businesses. There are currently eighteen parking spaces on the west side of Atlantic Avenue between Liberty Street and the C.N.R. right-of-way and a potential of thirty-four parking spaces on the east side. Parking is currently permitted to a maximum period of three hours on the west side and prohibited anytime on the east side.

Relocating parking from the west side to the east side will increase available on-street parking spaces by sixteen, enhancing parking opportunity on this street.

Implementation of this proposal will not adversely affect operational safety on the subject section of Atlantic Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771,

23

Lane System bounded by Jones Avenue,

Endean Avenue, Sproat Avenue and

Leslie Street (Don River)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 2, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the installation of speed bumps at the laneway noted above.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The implementation cost of this proposal is approximately $600.00, funds for which are contained in the 1999 Capital Programme for Public Laneway Improvements.

Recommendations:

(1) That the installation of speed bumps in the public lane system bounded by Jones Avenue, Endean Avenue, Sproat Avenue and Leslie Street of the type and design noted and at locations shown on Drawing No. 421F-5280 be approved; and

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

Comments:

Works and Emergency Services staff have received a request regarding the feasibility of installing speed bumps in the laneway system noted above. This location meets the criteria for the installation of speed bumps.

The type and design of the speed bumps to be installed are shown on attached Drawing No. 421F-5280.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, 392-7878

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Jones Ave, Endean Ave, Sproat Ave & Leslie St

24

Reduction of Speed Limit - Coe Hill Drive between the

Queensway and Windermere Avenue (High Park)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 8, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed limit on Coe Hill Drive from fifty kilometres per hour to forty kilometres per hour.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage installations in the amount of $800 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the speed limit on Coe Hill Drive from the Queensway to Windermere Avenue be reduced from fifty kilometres per hour to forty kilometres per hour; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Works staff investigated the feasibility of lowering the speed limit on Coe Hill Drive between the Queensway and Windermere Avenue. Coe Hill Drive operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and currently has a maximum speed limit of fifty kilometres per hour.

In view of the fact that a majority of the surrounding streets currently operate with a speed limit of forty kilometres per hour and in keeping with the policy adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of February 25 and 26, 1991 to designate streets in residential areas as forty kilometre per hour speed zones (Clause 28 of City Services Committee Report No. 3, contained in Executive Committee Report No. 5), it is recommended that the speed limit on Coe Hill Drive be reduced to forty kilometres per hour.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Erin Holl, Co-ordinator, Traffic Operations

392-7892

25

Prohibition of Parking anytime - Glebeholme Boulevard

north side, from a point 41.5 metres east of

Monarch Park Avenue to a point

12.5 metres, further east (East Toronto)

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

"It is further recommended that parking be prohibited at any time on the north side of Glebeholme Boulevard, between a point 41.5 metres east of Monarch Park Avenue and a point 12.5 metres further east.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To improve sight lines and prevent vehicles from parking either too close to a fire hydrant or impeding access to nearby driveways.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $400.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition from the 16^th day to the last day of the month, April 1 to November 30, inclusive, on the north side of Glebeholme Boulevard between Donlands Avenue and Coxwell Avenue, be rescinded;

(2) That parking be prohibited from the 16^th day to the last day of the month, April 1 to November 30, inclusive, on the north side of Glebeholme Boulevard between Donlands Avenue and a point 41.5 metres east of Monarch Park Avenue;

(3) That parking be prohibited from the 16^th day to the last day of the month, April 1 to November 30, inclusive, on the north side of Glebeholme Boulevard between a point 54.0 metres east of Monarch Park Avenue and Coxwell Avenue;

(4) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Glebeholme Boulevard between a point 41.5 metres east of Monarch Park Avenue and a point 12.5 metres further east; and

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

Comments

At the request of an area resident and in consultation with East Toronto Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin, staff of Transportation Services have investigated prohibiting parking on the north side of Glebeholme Boulevard between a point 41.5 metres east of Monarch Park Avenue and a point 12.5 metres further east in order to improve sight lines and prevent vehicles from parking either too close to a fire hydrant or impeding access to nearby driveways.

Glebeholme Boulevard between Monarch Park Avenue and Coxwell Avenue is a residential street which operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Alternate side parking regulations apply on this section of the street. Permit parking operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily and parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours under the provisions of the alternate side parking system.

Two driveways and a fire hydrant are located within the subject section of Glebeholme Boulevard. The distance between the driveways is 8.9 metres. The fire hydrant is located 1.3 metres east of the westerly driveway. Once the statutory parking prohibitions within 3.0 metres of a fire hydrant and 0.6 metres of a driveway are applied, the remaining legal distance in which to park a vehicle is 4.0 metres. Although this is sufficient space in which to park a sub-compact vehicle, larger vehicles either encroach into the parking prohibition at the fire hydrant or partially obstruct the most easterly driveway (at Premises No. 240 Glebeholme Boulevard).

Prohibiting parking at anytime as recommended above will keep this area clear of parked vehicles and improve sight lines at the driveways. A length of 5.5 metres is used for the purpose of determining permit parking spaces on residential streets. Therefore, prohibiting parking in the 4.0 metre area where small vehicles currently park will not eliminate an authorized space from the area permit parking allotment.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

26

Provision of On-Street Loading Zone for the Disabled

at the Rear of 100 St. George Street, University of

Toronto, Sydney Smith Hall - Huron Street, east side,

Harbord Street to Willcocks Street (Downtown)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 1, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to enhance Wheeltrans loading operations and to ensure that the area at the rear of Premises No. 100 St. George Street, is kept clear of parked vehicles.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The implementation cost of this proposal will be approximately $500.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That a disabled persons loading zone be established on the east side of Huron Street, from a point 83.0 metres south of Harbord Street to a point 10.0 metres further south; and

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

Comments:

At the request of a representative of The University of Toronto and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Olivia Chow, Transportation Services staff investigated the feasibility of providing an on-street disabled persons loading zone on the east side of Huron Street at the rear of Premises No. 100 St. George Street (Sydney Smith Hall).

Huron Street, from Harbord Street to Willcocks Street operates two-way on a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is prohibited from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Monday to Friday and is permitted for a maximum period of three hours at other times on the east side of the street. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of the street.

A recent site investigation by Transportation Services staff has revealed that a curb cut providing wheelchairs with access to the sidewalk is located on the east side of Huron Street adjacent to the rear entrance of Premises No. 100 St. George Street. Motorists generally accept the need for this wheelchair curb cut and respect its use by not parking in front of it. However, parking is not prohibited under the authority of a by-law at this location on the street. Wheeltrans buses stop on Huron Street in the vicinity of the curb cut to pick-up/drop-off disabled passengers, but often must do so in the middle of the road as the gap between parked cars at the curb cut is only about 4.0 metres in length. This impedes traffic operation and creates a potentially hazardous situation for other motorists and the disabled person(s) being picked up or dropped off.

To resolve this situation, an on-street loading zone for the disabled should be designated on the east side of Huron Street, from a point 83.0 metres south of Harbord Street to a point 10.0 metres further south. This will enhance Wheeltrans loading operations at the rear of Premises No. 100 St. George Street and resolve the operational safety concerns noted above. However, this will result in the loss of 2 parking spaces on the east side of Huron Street in an area where there is a significantly high demand for parking. Nevertheless, the benefits of providing improved service for Wheeltrans users and enhancing operational safety on this section of Huron Street out weighs the minor inconvenience that the loss of the 2 parking spaces on this street will create.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771.

27

Prohibition of Standing at anytime -

Wellesley Street West, north side, from Bay Street to

Queen's Park Crescent (Downtown)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 1, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to discourage motorists from parking in the curb areas east and west of the driveways to Premises No. 62 Wellesley Street West, thereby enhancing sightlines for motorists entering/exiting the driveways servicing this address.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The implementation cost of this proposal will be approximately $500.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the north side of Wellesley Street West, from Bay Street to a point 91.2 metres west, be rescinded;

(2) That standing be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Wellesley Street West, from a point 59.2 metres west of Bay Street to a point 31.9 metres further west;

(3) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Wellesley Street West, from Bay Street to a point 59.2 metres west; and

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

Comments:

At the request of a representative of Premises No. 62 Wellesley Street West and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Olivia Chow, staff of Transportation Services have investigated implementing changes to the existing parking regulations on the north side of Wellesley Street West, from Bay Street to a point 91.2 metres further west (the first parking meter stall), to discourage motorists from encroaching upon the driveways to Premises No. 62 and enhance sightlines of motorists on Wellesley Street West and those entering/exiting the driveways.

Wellesley Street West, from Bay Street to Queen's Park Crescent is a 4-lane arterial roadway operating two-way on a variable pavement width ranging from 10.0 metres to 12.0 metres. Parking (controlled by parking meters), is permitted on both sides of the street for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Otherwise, parking is permitted to a maximum period of three hours. A recent site inspection by Transportation Services' staff confirms that signs giving effect to the above-noted regulations are posted in sufficient number and are in good repair on Wellesley Street West in proximity to Premises No. 62.

Observations also revealed the presence of illegally parked vehicles on the north side of the street in the areas east and west of the driveways to Premises No. 62 Wellesley Street West, which encroached upon the driveways, reducing sightlines of motorists on Wellesley Street West and those entering/exiting the driveways.

Under the provisions of Sub-Section 400-33 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, no vehicle shall park within 60.0 centimetres of a driveway. In this instance, Transportation Services' staff noted that motorists seemed to have total disregard for this regulation and parked illegally wherever/whenever on-street curb space was available in the area surrounding the driveways to Premises No. 62 Wellesley Street West. I note that this situation is not unique and is a common occurrence on other streets in the Toronto area, especially the downtown core.

To improve sightlines for motorists entering/exiting the driveways at Premises No. 62 Wellesley Street West and to enhance operational safety on the street, standing should be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Wellesley Street West, from a point approximately 59.2 metres west of Bay Street to a point 31.9 metres further west (to the first parking meter stall west of Bay Street). This would encompass the two driveways and an area 3.0 metres on both sides thereof.

This will not result in the loss of any parking spaces on the north side of Wellesley Street West, from Bay Street to Queen's Park Crescent.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771.

28

Installation/Removal of On-street

Disabled Persons Parking Spaces

(High Park, Trinity-Niagara and Midtown)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 2, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $600.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, 392-7878

Table "A"

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces

Ward Location

19 Cowan Avenue, west side, a point 47 metres north of Springhurst Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further.

(Source: Ms. Cindy Buda of Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski's office has advised that space is no longer required).

23 Palmerston Gardens, north side, a point 76 metres east of Manning Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Mr. Brady of Premises No. 35 Palmerston Gardens has advised that the space is no longer required).

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

Ward Location

20 Sheridan Avenue, east side, a point 49 metres north of Florence Street and a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. A. Carreiro, a resident of Premises No. 19 Sheridan Avenue).

23 Russell Hill Road, east side, a point 29 metres north of Clarendon Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. B. Cunningham, a resident of Premises No. 221 Russell Hill Road, Apt. 102).

29

Tree Removals - Extension of the Light Rapid Transit (LRT)

on Queen's Quay West (Downtown)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, received this Clause, together with the communication dated July 5, 1999, from the Interim General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report directly to Council, after consultation with the Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto District School Board, on installing landscaping with trees on the south side of Queen's Quay West between Bathurst Street and Portland Street, such landscaping to be done at the expense of the Toronto Transit Commission.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has begun preparations to extend the Queen's Quay Light Rapid Transit (LRT) from Lower Portland Street west to Bathurst Street. As a result of the TTC's extension of the LRT on Queen's Quay there will be general widening and realignment of the pavement between Queen's Quay West and approximately 120 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard. As a result, thirty-seven City-owned trees must be permanently removed.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, Council adopted a report produced by the Urban Environment and Development Committee, Report No. 5, Clause No. 3, which was a By-law to further amend the former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law to authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Queen's Quay West by the widening and realignment of the pavement between Queen's Quay West and approximately 120 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard as part of the Waterfront West LRT extension.

Comments:

By widening the road and realigning the pavement along Queen's Quay West from Lower Portland Street to Bathurst Street, thirty-seven City-owned trees will be permanently removed. As these planting locations will be eliminated, it will not be possible to replant trees in this area. As required by Urban Forestry Services, the Toronto Transit Commission must provide payment to the City in the amount of $17,579.44 to cover the value of the trees in question and the associated removal and replacement costs. A landscape plan from the TTC indicating how the area will be replanted has also been requested.

Conclusion:

The thirty-seven trees along Queen's Quay West and Bathurst Street will be permanently removed and it will not be possible to replant in this area. These trees contributed to the enhancement of the streetscape and the TTC should provide payment of $17,579.44 to the City to compensate for the lost value of the trees and costs associated with their removal and replacement. The recovered funds should be applied towards the cost of new tree plantings and other forestry improvements in the South Toronto and Central/Waterfront community.

Contact Name:

Vicky Jeffery

392-7390

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 5, 1999) from the Interim Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, confirming that any trees removed to accommodate the LRT through road widenings on Queens Quay at Bathurst will be replaced in kind or in fee as part of the project; and further advising that the TTC is currently developing landscaping plans for the medians in the LRT right-of-way and the areas in front of the Waterfront School and Harbourfront Community Centre.)

30

East Bayfront - Home Depot OMB Hearing -

Retention of Outside Market Expert (Don River)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 3, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To provide for the retention of The Climans Group Inc. to furnish expert market assistance in connection with the East Bayfront-Home Depot Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the amount of $50,000.00 is available in the Legal Services Operating Budget for the payment of professional market consultant services to be provided in connection with the East Bayfront - Home Depot hearing.

Recommendation:

That a maximum of $50,000.00 be allocated from the Legal Services Operating Budget to retain an expert market analyst in connection with the East Bayfront-Home Depot Ontario Municipal Board hearing to commence September 7, 1999.

Council Reference/Background/History:

As noted in a recent report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (January 19, 1999), the Ontario Municipal Board at a Pre-Hearing Conference held on December 21-23, 1998, set a date of September 7, 1999 to commence a full hearing on the combined East Bayfront - Home Depot appeals. Approximately 8 weeks have been set aside for the hearing.

The aforesaid Commissioner has retained Jeffrey Climans, a real estate expert with expertise in large-scale marketing format stores, to produce a study for the ongoing Port Industrial Area Part II study assessing the potential market impact of big box retail development in the Part II area. Specifically, Mr. Climans has been retained to comment on the market analysis and studies that have been completed to date, analyse the shopping patterns of people living in a 3-4 km radius of the Port as well as to evaluate the type and strength of commercial functions currently served by planned commercial areas around the Port. He is also specifically reviewing the Stockyards Area where big box retail is currently permitted in the South District.

Through the course of two further pre-hearings, it has become apparent that a more focussed analysis of the potential market impact of the proposed Home Depot store in the East Bayfront will be required. This concern is heightened by the recognized potential for the Home Depot proposal to attract other large-scale retail operators within the East Bayfront area.

Mr. Climans' work will build upon the ongoing analysis of market opportunities and impacts associated with large format retail development and will focus on the following:

- the propensity of large format retailers to serve as a catalyst for attracting other box stores. (the location and sequence of Home Depot and surrounding retail development in a range of markets will be studied).

- qualitative and quantitive assessment of the cumulative economic impacts on shopping districts and retail shops in the South District that will be affected by such development.

- the development of alternative "containment" policies to mitigate adverse economic impacts on designated retail areas.

Mr. Climans is an experienced expert witness capable of giving testimony in relation to market issues presented by Home Depot as outlined above at the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Both the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and I recommend his retention by the City to further analyse the market issues with a view to presenting these findings as appropriate at the September hearing.

In the event that a full hearing of the larger market case proceeds, it is estimated that an amount of $50,000 will be required to fully prepare and present the case.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7225

Fax: (416) 397-4420

E-mail: rbalfour@toronto.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (June 4, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

In considering the current operating budget of the Legal Division, Council directed the City Solicitor to advise of expenditures to date respecting outside planning consultants and further, that the report be available each time Council considers retaining outside planning consultants. As the report of the City Solicitor dated June 3, 1999, currently under consideration requests the retention of outside planning consultants, this companion report provides information on the expenditure status as directed.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None

Recommendations:

For information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In considering the current operating budget of the Legal Division, Council directed that each time the retention of outside planning consultants is considered, a status report be provided on the expenditures to date.

Appendix "A" provides a summary of the costs of outside planning evidence for Ontario Municipal Board Hearings approved by Council since August 1, 1998 and the amount actually spent by year and by hearing.

The information in Appendix "A" is updated as information becomes available and is the most current information available at the time this report is written.

Contact Name:

Anna Kinastowski

Director, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Tel: 416-392-0080

Fax: 416-397-4420

--------

(Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 22, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

31

Park Naming - Rosedale Valley Area (Midtown)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To name the land adjacent to the Rosedale Subway Station in honour of Mr. Budd Sugarman.

Source of Funds:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) that the City-owned park lands identified on Attachment "A" be officially named Budd Sugarman Park; and

(2) that the appropriate Civic officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing.

Background:

A written request (Attachment "B") from The South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association requesting that the park area at the corner of Yonge and Aylmer Streets be named in honour of Mr. Budd Sugarman. Mr. Sugarman has over forty-eight years of business experience in the Toronto area. Mr. Sugarman has worked closely with the community and City officials towards the development of the Village of Yorkville area, prior to and after the establishment of the local Business Improvement Association. In recognition of his dedication and efforts to City of Toronto residents, the Department supports the request to name a park in Mr. Sugarman's honour.

Justification:

Support for this request includes The South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association, the ABC Residents' Association, the Community History Project and Heritage Toronto (Attachment "C"). Reference is also made to the Proposed Policy for Renaming of Parks, Report No. 6, approved by City Council on July 8, 1998.

Conclusions:

That effective immediately, the park located adjacent to the Rosedale Subway Station, at the corner of Aylmer and Yonge Streets by named "Budd Sugarman" Park.

Contact Names:

Mario Zanetti

392-1905

Anne Valliere

392-1909

(Appendix B & C, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 22, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(Clause No. 1 of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee Report No. 6, titled "Proposed Policy for Renaming of Parks, which was adopted by City Council on July 8, 1998, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 22, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (June 16, 1999) from (Miss) Jane Beecroft, Chair, CHP Heritage Centre, The Society of Heritage Associates, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Rosedale Valley Area

32

Heritage Toronto: Appointment of

Interim Board Members

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) Ms. Janis Barlow, Mr. George W. Beal and Ms. Catherine Nasmith be appointed interim members of the Board of Heritage Toronto (the Toronto Historical Board), at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed, to replace three members who have resigned; and

(2) the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is required to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 4, 1999) from the Chair, Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board):

Purpose:

Requesting that Toronto Community Council approve the following three nominations as interim members of the Board of Heritage Toronto: Ms Janis Barlow; Mr. George W. Beal; Ms Catherine Nasmith.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That Toronto Community Council approve the following three nominations as interim members of the Board of Heritage Toronto (the Toronto Historical Board): Ms Janis Barlow; Mr. George W. Beal; Ms Catherine Nasmith; to replace three members who have resigned, until their successors are appointed; and that the appropriate officials be authorised to take whatever action is required to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Until amalgamation in 1998, the (former Toronto) City Council appointed members to the Board of Heritage Toronto through its regular nominations process for Agencies, Boards and Commissions. In 1998 the terms of Heritage Toronto Board members were extended pending amalgamation of Heritage Services across the new City. Although Council has approved a new amalgamated structure for Heritage Services, the Board will continue to serve until this can be implemented which may not be until the end of this year. Several other Boards including the East York LACAC have recently had interim appointments approved for similar reasons.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Board of Heritage Toronto at its meeting June 2^nd adopted a motion that Community Council be requested to approve the recommendation above (Heritage Toronto Minute BD99-141). Because Board members' terms have already been extended for one and a half years pending the new structure, members have served far longer than anticipated, some since 1989. One has resigned and left the City and two have had to resign owing to conflicting commitments. This makes it increasingly difficult for the Board carry out its fiduciary responsibilities. We are therefore requesting the appointment of three interim members, who understand that this will be until the new Heritage Services structure is in place and new Boards established through the City Nominations process.

Ms Barlow is a Planning and Project Management Consultant in the Arts, Culture and Heritage field whose projects include managing the Elgin/Winter Garden Theatre restoration project for the Ontario Heritage Foundation; an author of numerous publications and presentations; and member of several boards and organisations in the international theatre community. Mr. Beal is a Director and Former Vice-president of Kraft Foods; a Director of the Friends of Fort York; Member of the Senate of the 48^th Highlanders and Chairman of the 48^th Highlanders Museum. Ms Nasmith is an Architect with a long term involvement in the community and interest in heritage preservation issues; a Director of the Friends of Fort York; and an early supporter of the "Open Doors" programme through connections with the large "Doors Open" programme in Britain.

Conclusions:

The three nominees will be excellent citizen representatives. These interim appointments are necessary for the Board to obtain quorum for meetings, fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities, and smooth the transition into the new Heritage Services structure.

Contact Name:

Helen Smith

Board Services Co-ordinator

Heritage Toronto

392-6827 x 258

33

Building Permit - Construction of a Third Floor Patio -

2446-2448 Bloor Street West - "The Fan", "Billy Bob's" and

"The Wedgewood Restaurant" (York Humber, High Park)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council recommend to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that:

(1) a liquor licence only be granted for the subject patio if it contains restricted hours of operation, closing on Sundays and weekdays at 10:00 p.m. and on Fridays and Saturdays at 11:00 p.m.; and

(2) the capacity of the restaurant for liquor licensing purposes not be increased if a licence is issued.

The Toronto Community Council submits the commuication (May 28, 1999) from the City Clerk:

I am attaching for your attention, copy of Clause No. 9 of Report No. 5 of the York Community Council, which was adopted without amendment by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999.

--------

Clause No. 9 of the York Community Council Report No. 5, titled

"2446-2448 Bloor Street West, "The Fan", "Billy Bob's" and the "Wedgewood Restaurant",

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 19, High Park, which was adopted without amendment,

by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motions:

Motion by Councillor Saundercook:

WHEREAS the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has granted a cafe liquor licence to "The Fan" and "Billy Bob's" at 2446-2448 Bloor Street West, to serve 26 additional customers; and

WHEREAS this establishment currently has a capacity of approximately 750 customers, well above the approximate maximum of 100 customers for other licensed establishments in the neighbourhood; and

WHEREAS the local residents do not support any further expansions to this establishment; and

WHEREAS a licensed rooftop patio would cause significant further disturbances to the neighbourhood and would not be in the public interest; and

WHEREAS subsection 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act ("the Act") provides that an applicant is entitled to be issued a licence to sell liquor, except if the licence is not in the public interest, having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located; and

WHEREAS section 7.1 of Regulation 719 under the Act states that, in the absence of receiving submissions to the contrary, the Board shall consider a resolution of the Council of the municipality, in which are located the premises for which a person makes an application to sell liquor or holds a licence to sell liquor, as proof of the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality for the purposes of clause 6(2)(h) of the Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council request the Alcohol and Gaming Commission not to grant any additional liquor licences, or expansion of existing liquor licences, for the establishment of 2446-2448 Bloor Street West; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Toronto Community Council for their records.

Motion by Councillor Nunziata:

WHEREAS notwithstanding the objections of local residents, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission has ruled in favour of the Wedgewood Restaurant receiving a liquor licence for their sidewalk patio; and

WHEREAS the local residents, as a result of this decision, expect to experience an increase in the disruptive patrons to the Wedgewood Restaurant; and

WHEREAS the Wedgewood Restaurant has now also applied for a building permit to construct a third floor patio, which will further increase the number of patrons to the restaurant;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council express its opposition to the construction of the third floor patio at 2446-2448 Bloor Street West, and to the issuance of any liquor licence for this patio; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be also forwarded to the Toronto Community Council with a request that the Community Council express its objection to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the third floor patio.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having received a communication (April 24, 1999) from Mr. Ian Anderson, Toronto, to Councillor Bill Saundercook, forwarding a copy of the decision of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, approving an application by the Wedgewood Restaurant for an additional licensed area for a sidewalk patio; and advising that the Commission felt that without evidence of disciplinary action by the police or the Commission, that the Wedgewood Restaurant was operating satisfactorily; that any problems regarding noise, disturbances, etc. were to be dealt with by by-law inspectors or the police; that the restaurant has a building permit for a third floor rooftop patio and construction has started; and requesting that the York Community Council pass a motion objecting to the additional number of patrons who will be virtually in the backyards of many local residents.

34

Requests for Endorsement of Events for

Liquor Licensing Purposes

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause, by deleting from Recommendation No. (3) of the Toronto Community Council, the words "(Roof Top Lounge)", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "(Mezzanine Lounge)", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(3) declare the Toronto International Film Festival taking place from September 9 to 18, 1999, to be an event of municipal and international significance, and indicate that it supports an extension of serving hours to 4:00 a.m. for the Rosewater Supper Club, 19 Toronto Street, Bistro 990, 990 Bay Street and Park Hyatt Toronto (Mezzanine Lounge), 4 Avenue Road, for the duration of this event;".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes:

(1) declare the following to be events of municipal and/or community significance and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to their taking place:

(a) Toronto's Festival of Beer, taking place on August 7, 8 and 9, 1998, at Historic Fort York;

(b) the Ukranian Festival Parade to be held on August 21, 1999; and

(c) Cirque du Soleil's "Dralion" Show to be held at Ontario Place from July 28 - September 5, 1999;

(2) advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the following events and has no objection to their taking place:

(a) Beer tent on the sidewalk surrounding the at the Future Bakery & Cafe restaurant at Kennedy Avenue, south of Bloor Street on August 21, 1999 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight in conjuction with the Bloor West Village Ukrainian Community Festival; and

(b) Royal York Hotel Staff Event at Olympic Island to be held on August 22, 1999 from 11:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.;

(3) declare the Toronto International Film Festival taking place from September 9 to 18, 1999, to be an event of municipal and international significance, and indicate that it supports an extension of serving hours to 4:00 a.m. for the Rosewater Supper Club, 19 Toronto Street, Bistro 990, 990 Bay Street and Park Hyatt Toronto (Roof Top Lounge), 4 Avenue Road for the duration of this event;

(4) advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the Summerworks Theatre Festival from August 5 - 15, 1999 and has no objection it taking place; nor to an extension of the licensed area to encompass the outdoor courtyard of the Factory Theatre for the purpose of the event;

(5) advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the "Open Ice" Ball Hockey Tournament to be held on August 26, 1999 from 7:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. on Mercer Street, east of the intersection with Blue Jays Way, adjacent to 99 Blue Jays Way, and has no objection it taking place; nor to an extension of the liquor licence held by Wayne Gretzky's restaurant for the purpose of serving alcoholic beverages within the City street allowance on Mercer Street;

(6) endorse the actions of the Toronto Community Council, since the event takes place prior to Council's meeting, in advising the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of theTranzac "Showcase '99" taking place at the TRANZAC Club, 292 Brunswick Avenue, on June 25, 1999 (5:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.), June 26, 1999 (2:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and June 27, 1999 (1:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and has no objection to it taking place; nor to an extension of liquor licence #40010 to cover an outdoor marquee at the back of the TRANZAC Club and the front lobby;

(7) endorse the action of the Toronto Community Council, since the event takes place prior to Council's meeting, in advising the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has declared the CHIN International Picnic to be held at Exhibition Place from July 1 - 4, 1999 from 4:00 p.m. - 12:00 midnight, to be an event of municipal and/or community significance and has no objection to its taking place.

(8) endorse the actions of the Toronto Community Council, since the following events take place prior to Council's meeting, in advising the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the following events and has no objection to their taking place:

(a) Argos Pre-Game Parties at McDonald's at the Skydome - June 25, July 23, Aug. 6, Aug. 20, Oct. 9 and Nov. 6, 1999 (4:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.); July 10, 1999 (1:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.); Sept. 11 and Oct. 2, 1999 (12:00 noon to 4:30 p.m.);

(b) Pan-Afrika Center Soccer Tournament in Earlscourt Park - 1200 Landsdowne Avenue - July 1, 1999;

(c) Holiday Inn Corporate Event Beer Tent to be held on July 8, 1999 (6:00 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.) at Ontario Place;

(d) Pride Beer Garden Charity Event at 512-514 Church Street to be held on June 25, 1999 (3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m.) and June 26 and 27, 1999 (11:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.)

(e) Metronome Canada Foundation Event to be held at 1 Bathurst Street on July 1, 1999 (6:00 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.);

(f) Outdoor events in conjunction with the 1999 Lesbian and Gay Pride Festival at the following locations:

- Church Street between Gloucester and Dundonald Streets;

- Church Street between Alexander and Wood Streets;

- Wellesley Street, immediately east of Church Street; and

- Alexander Street parkette.

(g) Mariott Hotels of Canada picnic at Olympic Island, Sites 21 and 22, on Monday, July 5, 1999;

(h) Don Valley West Provincial P.C Riding Association picnic at 1929 Bayview Avenue on June 24, 1999 from 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and

(i) Blues Jam to be held at the Courthouse Chamber Lounge at 57 Adelaide Street East from June 25 - July 4, 1999 from 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 a.m., in conjunction with the du Maurier Downtown Jazz 1999 Festival, which Council has previously declared to be an event of national and municipal significance.

35

Living Stones Project (Trinity-Niagara)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that six "Living Stones" be placed within the six traffic calming islands on Wellington Street between Bathurst Street and Tecumseth Street, subject to the application of the physical specifications and conditions set out in the following report (June 18, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To establish criteria that should be adopted in the event that the "Living Stones" public art proposal is approved for implementation within existing traffic calming islands on Wellington Street West between Bathurst Street and Niagara Street, as recommended by Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva in their May 3, 1999 letter.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

Should Council approve the installation "Living Stones" structure within the traffic calming islands on the subject portion of Wellington Street West as recommended by Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva in their letter of May 3, 1999, the physical specifications and conditions noted below be adopted:

(a) that all portions of the structure be placed entirely within the traffic calming island, no closer than 0.5 metre from the face of curb on the side of the island facing the travelled portion of the roadway;

(b) that the height of the structure (i.e. individual boulder or stack of boulders) not exceed 0.75 metres;

(c) that provision be made to ensure that the structure (i.e. individual boulder or stack of boulders) can be properly secured;

(d) that the visibility of the existing bollard(s) on the island (typically back of curb) which are in place to increase the visibility of the islands to passing motorists and denote the outer limits of the island to City street operations crews, not be compromised;

(e) that consideration be given to minimize the potential for the structure being climbed, played on, or vandalized;

(f) that the structure be placed in the field, under the supervision of City Works and Emergency Services staff;

(g) that the proponent be expected to maintain the structures in good and proper repair and that such maintenance is to be undertaken under the authority and supervision of the Commissioner Works and Emergency Services;

(h) that the City maintain the right to remove any or all of the structures for the express purpose of maintaining the roadway or in the interest of public safety; and

(i) that the placement of a 'Living Stones' structure on the traffic calming island containing a tree, west of Tecumseth Street, meet not only the above noted conditions but further be subject to conditions as set out by the City Forester.

Comments:

The "Living Stones" public art proposal by local artist Carl Skelton entails the placement of groups of granite boulders inset with reflectors, comprised of glass eyes, on the leading end of the traffic calming islands on Wellington Street West, between Bathurst Street and Niagara Street. Based on staff discussion with the proponent prior to the time the traffic calming plan for this street was adopted by the former City of Toronto Council in September 1997, this initiative is intended to changing the 'feel' of the street by drawing attention to these structures resulting in motorists slowing down thus complimenting the traffic calming.

This proposal can be incorporated into the modular pre-cast concrete curb traffic calming elements forming part of the traffic calming and bicycle lane plan on Wellington Street between Bathurst Street and Niagara Street (Drawing No. 421F-5398, dated June 1999) attached).

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Paul Sabo, P.Eng.

Senior Engineer

392-7775

Insert Table/Map No. 1

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following joint communication (May 3, 1999) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva:

Recommendation:

That six "Living Stones" be placed within the six traffic calming islands on Wellington Street between Bathurst and Tecumseth.

Background:

The former City of Toronto at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997 authorized traffic calming islands of varying size and shape to be placed in the public right-of-way on Wellington Street West between Bathurst and Niagara.

In 1996, during discussion of this proposal, Carl Skelton, a local artist, suggested that "Living Stones" be placed within the traffic calming islands. As conceived and constructed by Mr. Skelton, "Living Stones" are granite boulders of varying dimensions inset with reflectors comprised of glass eyes with retro-reflective pupils. Six of them are to be placed within the six traffic-calming structures. They will have a height of 30" above the roadbed and be placed 18" back from the leading edges and 12' back from the sides of the islands.

Mr. Skelton has designed and built the "Living Stones" and wishes to donate them to the City of Toronto. There are no costs to the City with respect to maintenance and placement.

The Public Art Commission has approved the installation of the "Living Stones" as a temporary work. The Niagara Neighbourhood Residents Association also supports the installation.

36

Liquor Licence Renewal - Cheater's Tavern

(2087 Yonge Street) (North Toronto)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that the issuance of a liquor licence with respect to Cheater's Tavern, 2087 Yonge Street, is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following motion (June 10, 1999) from Councillor Walker:

"WHEREAS the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario will be considering an application for renewal of the liquor licence for Cheater's Tavern, 2087 Yonge Street, at an upcoming hearing; and

WHEREAS there have been ongoing problems with Cheaters over the years including complaints due to noise, drunkenness and drugs; and

WHEREAS businesses and residents in the area suffer as a result of the on-going problems; and

WHEREAS it is the desire of the community to see the North Toronto area remain family oriented; and

WHEREAS the environment created by such places as Cheaters is in direct conflict with this goal; and

WHEREAS in 1996 the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a 1994 ruling by Mr. Justice Gordon Hachborn who described the actions of lap dancing as "innocuous" and in keeping with community standards for what is permissible; and

WHEREAS this Ontario Appeal Court found the owners of Cheaters Tavern guilty of allowing an indecent theatrical performance (Lap Dancing); and

WHEREAS there is no justification nor redeeming arguments to issue a new liquor licence for this address; and

WHEREAS subsection 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act provides that an applicant is entitled to be issued a licence to sell liquor except if the licence is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located; and

WHEREAS there have been objections to the issuance of a new liquor licence; and

WHEREAS section 7.1 of Regulation 719 under the Liquor Licence Act states that, in the absence of receiving submissions to the contrary, the Board shall consider a resolution of he council of the municipality, in which are located the premises for which a person makes an application to sell liquor or holds a licence to sell liquor, as proof of the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality for the purposes of clause 6(2)(h) of the Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

City Council advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that the issuance of a liquor licence with respect to Cheater's Tavern, 2087 Yonge Street, is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality.

37

Parking Regulations and Installations of Parking

Meters/Machines - Bloor Street West, north side,

between Christie Street and Crawford Street (Davenport)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 2, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the installation of parking meters/machines on the north side of Bloor Street West, between Christie Street and Crawford Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed parking regulations are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget. All expenses pertaining to the installation of the parking meters/machines are within the purview of the Toronto Parking Authority.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking Anytime" regulation on the north side of Bloor Street West, between Christie Street and Crawford Street, be rescinded;

(2) That parking be permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, on the north side of Bloor Street West, from a point 30.5 metres west of Christie Street to a point 29.5 metres east of Crawford Street;

(3) That the Toronto Parking Authority be requested to install parking meters/machines on the north side of Bloor Street West, from a point 30.5 metres west of Christie Street to a point 29.5 metres east of Crawford Street, to operate for a maximum period of one hour from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and for a maximum period of three hours from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and for a maximum period of three hours from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, at a rate of $0.50 per hour;

(4) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Bloor Street West from a point 29.5 metres east of Crawford Street to Crawford Street; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone, Transportation Services staff have reviewed the feasibility of installing parking meters/machines on the north side of Bloor Street West, between Christie Street and Crawford Street, along the frontage of Christie Pits Park, to increase parking availability in the area.

Bloor Street West between Christie Street and Crawford Street is a four-lane arterial roadway with a daily two-way traffic volume of approximately 20,000 vehicles. The westbound traffic volume during the weekday morning peak, off-peak and afternoon peak periods is approximately 500, 600 and 1070 vehicles per hour respectively. Parking on the north side of the street is prohibited at all times, while stopping is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

Parking on the north side of this section of Bloor Street West can be accommodated in the same manner as other parking on adjacent sections of Bloor Street West (at all times, except for the weekday afternoon peak period). Approximately twenty-five parking metered spaces would be provided to operate for a maximum period of one hour from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and for a maximum period of three hours from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and for a maximum period of three hours from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, at a rate of $0.50 per hour.

Councillors Joe Pantalone, Mario Silva, Betty Disero, Dennis Fotinos, John Adams and Ila Bossons have all been consulted in the preparation of this report.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

38

Installation of Road Narrowing at

Pedestrian Crossover - Merton Street in

the vicinity of Premises No. 71 (North Toronto)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 9, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To channelize through traffic movements and provide a measure of protection for elderly pedestrians crossing at the pedestrian crossover opposite Premises No. 71 Merton Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost of this work is in the order of $6,000.00, which can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow the pavement width on Merton Street, from approximately 140 m east of Yonge Street to a point 20 m further east thereof, in the vicinity of Premises No. 71 Merton Street on either side of the existing pedestrian crossover, for the purpose of channelizing through traffic movements and providing a measure of pedestrian protection, described as follows:

"The narrowing of the pavement from a width of 11.3 metres to a width varying from 9.5 metres to 11.3 metres on both sides of the pedestrian crossover in the vicinity of Premises No. 71 MERTON STREET, from a point approximately 140 m east of Yonge Street to a point 20 m further east thereof, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5375 dated May 1999, Revised June 1999";

(2) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Merton Street from a point 160 metres east of Yonge Street to a point 40 metres further east and that the three parking meter spaces within this area be removed; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Michael Walker, Transportation Services' staff investigated the feasibility of narrowing the pavement in front of Premises No. 71 Merton Street (the Janet Magee Manor senior citizens' facility) at the existing pedestrian crossover in order to enhance pedestrian safety, especially for seniors residing at this address. Following a public meeting held on Friday, May 28, 1999, at Premises No. 71 Merton Street, the residents in attendance indicated their support with the proposed roadway narrowing.

Merton Street is a collector/residential roadway with two-way traffic operation, a pavement width of 11.3 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Metered parking is available on the north side of the street for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours. Parking on the south side of the street is prohibited at anytime.

A review of available speed and volume data has revealed that the average daily speed on the section of Merton Street between Mount Pleasant Road and Yonge Street was approximately 43 kilometres per hour and the operating speed or 85^th percentile speed (the speed at which 85 percent of the traffic volume operates at or below) was 52 kilometres per hour. Incidents of excessive speeding (vehicles traveling in excess of 55 kilometres per hour) represented roughly 11 percent of the combined average daily traffic volume (6,388 vehicles).

A check of Departmental collision data from January 1996 to December 1998, revealed that there were 2 collisions in the vicinity of the pedestrian crossover (PXO) near Premises No. 71 Merton Street. Both collisions were rear-end collisions involving vehicles that were stopped or in the process of stopping at the crossover. Neither of these collisions involved pedestrians.

A site inspection recently conducted by Transportation Services staff confirmed that the overhead illuminated sign is clearly visible by motorists approaching the crosswalk from either Yonge Street or Mt. Pleasant Road. If motorists do not stop, it is not due to lack of visibility, but because they choose not to stop, or alternatively, the pedestrians may not have actuated the overhead flashing beacon. It was also noted that the pavement markings at the crosswalk are visible, however, they are somewhat faded. Staff will arrange to have these pavement markings repainted as soon as practicable. Also, to further enhance the visibility of the PXO, staff will consider installing an additional overhead electrical fixture to augment the existing fixture currently in place. This will result in increased lighting levels at the PXO and increased visibility of the PXO to approaching motorists.

Prior to assessing the feasibility of narrowing the pavement at the subject PXO on Merton Street, Transportation Services staff observed the operating conditions at the PXO on Davisville Avenue between Yonge Street and Mt. Pleasant Road, where the pavement was narrowed by the placement of precast concrete islands in 1997. During the course of this assessment, it was noted that a number of motorists failed to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross the street, however, with less distance to cross the roadway, pedestrians, and in particular seniors, are exposed to traffic for a shorter period of time.

While narrowing the roadway at the subject PXO on Merton Street is technically feasible, it would require the removal of three parking meter stalls to accommodate the requisite pavement marking taper on the north side of Merton Street, immediately east of the crossover. The proximity of the crossover to existing driveway ramps precludes the possibility of narrowing the roadway at the west side of the crossover on the north side of Merton Street and at the east side of the crossover on the south side of Merton Street.

The narrowing of Merton Street as described above would constitute an alteration to the public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised in a local newspaper and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. The project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael

Senior Traffic Investigator

392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Merton Street

39

Councillor Appointments to

Local Special Purpose Bodies

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) Members of Council be appointed to those special purpose bodies outlined in Schedule 1, appended to the following communication (June 1, 1999) from the City Clerk, for a term of office expiring November 30, 2000, and until their successors are appointed;

(2) the Councillors previously appointed by City Council to the Business Improvement Areas outlined in Schedule 2, appended to the following communication (June 1, 1999) from the City Clerk, remain in office until November 30, 2000, and until their successors are appointed, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act;

(3) Toronto Artscape be requested to increase the membership of its Board of Directors to permit two Members of Council;

(4) should Toronto Artscape agree to the request set out in Recommendation No. (3), Councillor Pantalone be appointed to the Board of Directors of Toronto Artscape for a term of office expiring November 30, 2000, and until his successor is appointed; and

(5) leave be granted for the introduction of any necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto 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 Toronto 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)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appointments

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appointments

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appointments

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Appointments

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Appointments

40

Committee of Adjustment Appeal -

735 Avenue Road (Midtown)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause, by striking out the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that this Clause be received.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board to uphold the Committee of Adjustment Decision refusing a zoning variance application to maintain a rear two-storey deck structure at 735 Avenue Road and to retain independent planning advice, if necessary, with funds to be allocated from the Legal Services Operating Budget.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 10, 1999) from Councillor Adams:

Recommendation:

That the City Solicitor be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board to uphold the Committee of Adjustment Decision refusing a zoning variance application to maintain a rear two-storey deck structure at 735 Avenue Road and to retain independent planning advice, if necessary.

Background:

The owner of 735 Avenue Road erected an illegal 2-storey deck structure that overlooks the rear yard properties of the residents on the west side of Highbourne Road. The applicant sought to legalize this illegal structure at the Committee of Adjustment and was opposed by a resident of Highbourne Road, who saw this deck as a potentially bad precedent for the neighbourhood, and an invasion of privacy of the residents of this neighbourhood. The Committee of Adjustment refused because the proposed second floor addition reduces amenities (loss of privacy) for the adjacent properties, and is not minor.

(A copy of the Notice of Decision and Public Hearing Notice of the Committee of Adjustment dated April 22, 1999, was forward to Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 22, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

41

Use of Nathan Phillips Square -

June 25, 1999 to July 1, 1999 -

Du Maurier Downtown Jazz Festival

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council endorse the action of the Toronto Community Council, in having adopted the following report (June 17, 1999) from the Executive Director, Facilities and Real Estate, as the event took place prior to the meeting of City Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 17, 1999) from the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate, Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To seek approval for hosting the Du Maurier Downtown Jazz Festival at Nathan Phillips Square with special occasion permit.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Permission for the operation of a beer garden is granted contingent upon approval from the L.L.B.O., the Medical Officer of Health and in compliance with the Municipal Alcohol Policy.

Comments:

We have received an application for the use of Nathan Phillips Square on June 25^th to July 1, 1999 from Du Maurier Downtown Jazz Festival.

The organizers have requested permission to operate a beer garden and entertainment celebrating Du Maurier Downtown Jazz Festival Week.

The beer garden will be inside an enclosed area and all proceeds from the sale of food, beer and wine will go to Du Maurier Downtown Jazz Festival.

Contact Name:

Nelson Elliott, Supervisor Customer Support Services

Tel: (416) 397-5147 Fax: (416) 397-0805

42

Use of Nathan Phillips Square -

July 24, July 31, August 7 and August 14, 1999

- Famous Players Movies and Music in the Night

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 17, 1999) from the Executive Director, Facilities and Real Estate:

Purpose:

To seek approval for hosting Famous Players Movies and Music in the Night at Nathan Phillips Square with special occasion permit.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Permission for the operation of a beer garden is granted contingent upon approval from the L.L.B.O., the Medical Officer of Health and in compliance with the Municipal Alcohol Policy.

Comments:

We have received an application for the use of Nathan Phillips Square on July 24^th, July 31^st, August 7^th and August 14^th, 1999 from Famous Players Movies and Music in the Night.

The organizers have requested permission to operate a beer garden and entertainment celebrating Famous Players Movies and Music in the Night.

The beer garden will be inside an enclosed area and all proceeds from the sale of food, beer and wine will go to the Famous Players Movies and Music in the night.

Contact Name:

Nelson Elliott

Supervisor Customer Support Services

Tel: (416) 397-5147

Fax: (416) 397-0805

43

Gore Vale Avenue between Queen Street

West and Dundas Street West -

Operational Safety (Trinity-Niagara)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the following communication (May 28, 1999) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva:

Purpose:

To reduce the incidents of speeding vehicles on Gore Vale Avenue between Queen Street West and Dundas Street West.

Recommendations:

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

"The construction of speed humps on Gore Vale Avenue from Queen Street West to Dundas Street West, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F - 5344 March 1999."

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometers per hour to thirty kilometers per hour on Gore Vale Avenue between Queen Street West and Dundas Street West, coincident with implementation of the traffic calming measures.

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

Background:

At our request on behalf of the area residents, Transportation Services Staff investigated concerns regarding excessive speeding and the feasibility of installing speed humps on Gore Vale Avenue between Queen Street West and Dundas Street West (see attached May 12^th , 1999 letter).

We have consulted with area residents and have been advised to proceed with the polling process on Gore Vale Avenue for the speed humps.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

--------

Communication dated May 12, 1999 from the

Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services

addressed to Councillor Pantalone

I refer to your letter dated December 2, 1998, regarding the above. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by the delay in this response.

Gore Vale Avenue between Queen Street West and Dundas Street West operates one-way southbound on a pavement width of 6.4 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side. Parking is permitted on the east side to a maximum of three hours. The permit parking system is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily. The maximum speed limit is 40 kilometres per hour and heavy vehicles are prohibited.

Transportation Services staff conducted a twenty-four hour automatic speed and volume survey on Gore Vale Avenue and it was found that this street carries approximately 1,600 vehicles per day. The speed data obtained reflected the following:

Average Speed 44 km/h

Pace Speed 40-50 km/h

(10 km/h range with the highest (783 vehicles)

number of vehicles)

Operating Speed 52 km/h

(Maximum speed of 85% of the traffic)

A review of the Toronto Police Service's collision data records for Gore Vale Avenue for the three year period beginning November 30, 1995 and ending November 30, 1998 revealed five collisions were reported in which speeding may have been a factor and no collisions involved pedestrians.

Under the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, the lowest enforceable speed limit allowed on a public highway in the Province of Ontario is 40 kilometres per hour. However, under special provision granted by the Province to the former City of Toronto, the maximum enforceable speed limit may be lowered to 30 kilometres per hour in conjunction with the implementation of significant traffic calming measures. In light of this speed survey, this street is an appropriate candidate for the installation of speed humps and Transportation Services staff have developed a traffic calming plan with the view of reducing operating speeds to a range of 30 kilometres per hour.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5344 dated March 1999 consists of six speed humps with spacings between the speed humps of approximately 72 to 85 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometers per hour would also be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Speed Hump Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation meets the initial criteria, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years of age and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this policy, at least 60% of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation.

The changes proposed to Gore Vale Avenue, as described above, constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies have been undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

I would be pleased to hear your thoughts on this matter before taking any action.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Gore Vale

44

Traffic Island Green Space -

Bloor Street West and Christie Street -

Public Art Potential

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 21, 1999) from Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the Toronto Community Council on the process required to accommodate a written request from the Korea Town Development Association.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That the green space on the traffic island located at Bloor Street West and Christie Street, north side, be reserved for public art purposes for the Korea Town Development Association for a period of five years; and, that the appropriate City officials be asked to take whatever action necessary to accommodate this request.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of October 1 and 2, 1999, adopted Clause 10 in Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Alteration of Christie Street", and enacted By-law 702-1998 authorizing the alteration of Christie Street by narrowing the pavement between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street. The contract to undertake this reconstruction work was tendered and subsequently awarded to Ferma Construction Ltd., by City Council at its meeting of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998. The work on this project commenced in April, 1999, and will be completed by the end of June 1999.

The capital budget of Urban Planning and Development Services included funds to enhance the pedestrian environment of Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street. This roadway reconstruction project includes the enlargement and landscaping of the traffic islands located at the northeast corner of Bloor and Christie Street, opposite the Christie subway station. In the early spring, representatives of the Korean Town Development Association approached the local Councillors and City staff inquiring about the possibility of utilizing the improved traffic islands as a location to commemorate the Korean Community in Toronto.

Discussion:

Bloor Street between Bathurst and Christie Streets has attracted a large number of Korean based businesses which have organized into the Korea Town Development Association. With the assistance of the local councillors, staff have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Korea Town Development Association to advise on the City's public art process and appropriate competition methods for commissioning art at this prominent site. I have discussed the concept of including the public art to commemorate the Korean community in the Christie and Bloor Traffic Islands with staff of Works and Emergency Services, Economic Development Culture and Tourism and Heritage Toronto. City staff are supportive of this concept subject to their appropriate involvement in the detailed design and implementation of the art work to ensure that there is no adverse impacts on traffic operations and maintenance.

Attached to this report is a letter from the Korea Town Development Association to Councillor Adams requesting that the Bloor Christie traffic island be reserved for a period of five years. Currently the Korea Town Development Association is at the preliminary stages of determining a realistic fundraising target and potential funding sources for such a commemoration. Therefore, it is for this reason that the association is requesting that the site be "held" as an opportunity for a public art project in the future. City staff will continue to meet with and advise the association on this initiative.

Conclusions:

The Korea Town Development Association approached the local councillors with this idea, and although it is very much in the preliminary stages, everyone recognizes a public art commemoration has strong potential to promote the existence of the Korean community within the City of Toronto. The local councillors and my staff would like to accommodate this Association's wishes to run a public art competition, in accordance with the City's guidelines, when sufficient funds have been raised by the Korean community for such an initiative.

Contact Name:

Jane Perdue, Public Art Co-ordinator, Urban Design

Tel: 416-392-1304

Fax: 416-392-1744

Email: jperdu@toronto.ca

(A copy of the letter, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on June 22, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

45

Installation of Traffic Control Signals and

Realignment of Intersection - Intersection of

Victoria Park Avenue at Musgrave Street

(East Toronto)

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 18, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain approval to construct development-related road modifications and install traffic control signals at the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Musgrave Street.

Funding Sources:

Funds to undertake the necessary road modifications and installation of the proposed traffic control signals are the responsibility of the developer (IPCF properties) of the adjacent site.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to the receipt of funds from the developer:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Musgrave Street as described below:

"the widening of Musgrave Street from Victoria Park Avenue to a point approximately 100 metres westerly thereof from the existing width which varies from 8.5 metres to 10.5 metres, to a new width varying between 8.5 metres and 12.5 metres as shown schematically on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5386, dated June, 1999";

(2) That coincident with the completion of the work identified in Recommendation No. 1 above;

(i) an eastbound left turn lane be designated on Musgrave Street, from Victoria Park Avenue to a point approximately 100 metres westerly;

(ii) a northbound left turn lane be designated on Victoria Park Avenue, from Musgrave Street to a point approximately 30.5 metres southerly;

(iii) a southbound left turn lane be designated on Victoria Park Avenue from Musgrave Street to a point approximately 30.5 metres northerly;

(3) That traffic control signals be installed at the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Musgrave Street;

(4) That the City Solicitor and City Clerk be requested to carry out the necessary statutory advertising commencing the week of June 22, 1999, such that the required public hearing of the draft by-law to give effect to the highway alteration referred to in Recommendation No.(1) above be considered at the July 15, 1999 meeting of Toronto Community Council; and,

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

Comments:

A rezoning and site plan application has been approved for a proposed Loblaws store at Premises No. 612 Victoria Park Avenue, located at the northwest quadrant of Victoria Park Avenue and Musgrave Street (Undertaking No. U397046 and Zoning By-Law No. 1997-0420). The installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Gerrard Street East and Dengate Road has been approved as a condition of approval of this development in order to accommodate the traffic generated by this project.

The applicant has requested a second traffic control signal installation at the Victoria Park Avenue and Musgrave Street intersection in order to improve access to and egress from the site via Musgrave Street. The proposed installation is acceptable subject to the widening of Musgrave Street to provide an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane at the intersection. The pavement markings at the intersection must also be modified to provide exclusive northbound and southbound left-turn lanes on Victoria Park Avenue. In addition, the private road on the east side of Victoria Park Avenue, opposite Musgrave Street, must be realigned with Musgrave Street and the parking lay-by, currently on the north side must be relocated to the south side of the road. The applicant is required to obtain the consent of the owner of the private road for these modifications.

Funds for the design, construction, supervision and administration of this work will be received from the proponent (IPCF Properties) in the form of a letter of credit or certified cheques. Details of the work required to construct these road modifications are summarized below. Drawing No. 42IF - 5386, dated June, 1999. showing these modifications is appended to this report.

(a) removal and reconstruction of concrete curbs, gutter and sidewalks;

(b) construction of concrete road base and asphalt pavement;

(c) removal and reconstruction of catch basins and connections;

(d) installation of underground traffic signal ducts, hand wells and pole bases;

(e) alteration of traffic control devices; and,

(f) utility relocations.

These modifications have been developed using current department standards. The Victoria Park Avenue and Musgrave Street widening/alterations constitute alterations to the public highways pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects. The total cost of the work is to be borne by the developer. In order to receive approval of these works in a manner which coincides with the developers construction schedules, it is recommended that the requisite statutory advertising commence upon recommendation for approval by Toronto Community Council.

Conclusion:

As a result of a Loblaws development abutting Musgrave Street, a widening is proposed on Musgrave Street, west of Victoria Park Avenue to facilitate the provision of an eastbound left turn lane at Victoria Park Avenue. Furthermore, the private road on the east side of Victoria Park Avenue will be realigned with Musgrave Street and traffic control signals will be installed at this intersection. All costs will be borne by the developer.

Contact Name:

Peter Bartos

Manager, Traffic Operations

District 1 - East

397-4486

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Victoria Park at Musgrave St

46

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal of

Demolition Permit Extension - 29 Clark Street

(Don River)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the confidential report dated June 22, 1999, from the City Solicitor, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to settle an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board respecting Council's refusal to extend the conditions of the demolition permit on 29 Clark Street, on the basis of $10,000.00 being payable to the City, plus interest from August 7, 1996.' ")

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council, in camera if necessary, on a possible settlement of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing respecting Council's refusal to extend the conditions of the demolition permit at 29 Clark Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 21, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report requests the City Solicitor to report to the Council meeting beginning July 6, 1999 on a possible settlement of the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of Council's refusal to extend the conditions of the demolition permit on 29 Clark Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

That the City Solicitor report to the Council meeting beginning on July 6, 1999 (in camera, if necessary) on a possible settlement of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing respecting Council's refusal to extend the conditions of the demolition permit on 29 Clark Street.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on April 29 and 30, 1996, Council of the former City of Toronto refused a further request by the owner of 29 Clark Street for an extension of time to construct a replacement building in accordance with conditions of the demolition permit. That refusal was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and the hearing is scheduled to begin tomorrow, June 22, 1999.

In order to deal with a potential settlement that has just surfaced, I will be requesting that the Board grant an adjournment to bring the settlement offer to Council. If the adjournment is granted, I will provide a report setting out the settlement for Council's determination.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

N/A

Conclusions:

That I be requested to report to Council on a potential settlement if an adjournment is granted by the Board.

Contact Name:

Raymond M. Feig, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7224

Fax: (416) 397-4420

E-mail: rfeig@toronto.ca

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential report (June 22, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report recommends a settlement of the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of Council's refusal to extend the conditions of the demolition permit on 29 Clark Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

That the City Solicitor be authorized to settle an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board respecting Council's refusal to extend the conditions of the demolition permit on 29 Clark Street on the basis of $10,000.00 being payable to the City, plus interest from August 7, 1996.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On April 23, 1987 a demolition permit was issued for the demolition of a structure at 29 Clark Street. Council of the former City of Toronto imposed the City's standard condition authorized by the Planning Act, that the new building to be erected on the site be substantially complete not later than 2 years from the day demolition commenced, failing which $20,000.00 would be added to the tax collector's roll. A building permit had already issued for a private detached dwelling house on the site.

Demolition commenced on June 11, 1987; therefore, the new building was to have been substantially complete by June 11, 1989.

The owner applied for a number of extensions to construct the replacement building, citing economic conditions and difficulties. Council of the former City agreed to extensions to June 11, 1996, but refused a further extension request. That refusal was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and the hearing was to occur on June 22, 1999. On June 21, 1999 the City was served with an offer to settle the matter.

On June 22, 1999, the Board agreed to adjourn the matter to August 5, 1999 to allow for the settlement offer to be considered by Council at its meeting of July 6-8, 1999.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The settlement offer was on the basis of a payment to the City of $10,000.00 plus interest from August 7, 1996. The original condition was for a charge of $20,000.00 and that amount was added to the tax roll on August 7, 1996 since the owner failed to construct the new structure.

The owner claims economic hardship for not commencing construction and the fact that a single detached structure is not economically feasible for the site. He has attempted to pursue other development opportunities including a land assembly in the area to no avail. He indicated that the property has been sold to a developer (closing in September, 1999) who is pursuing, currently at the preliminary stages, a development consisting of 3 Victorian town homes and a coach house.

Although there are few reported cases before the Ontario Municipal Board on the issue of demolition permit extensions, when faced with claims of economic hardship the Board has consistently reduced the amount of the charge, on equitable grounds, to 50% of the amount imposed by the City.

Conclusions:

The settlement offer of $10,000.00 is very reasonable, in light of the Board's consistent policy of reducing the City's charge by 50% in cases where the appellant claims economic hardship and the City has imposed the maximum charge of $20,000.00. It would be my recommendation that I be given authority to settle the matter at the Board on the basis of $10,000 being payable to the City with interest from the date the original charge was placed on the collector's roll, being August 7, 1996. Interest should be calculated using the standard statutory rate of one and one-quarter percent per month, not compounded.

Contact Name:

Raymond M. Feig, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7224

Fax: (416) 397-4420

E-mail: rfeig@toronto.ca)

47

Proposal by Tribute Homes to affix

Advertising Signage on a Construction

Trailer in the Gunns Road Allowance (Davenport)

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

"It is further recommended that the report dated July 2, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that, should City Council approve the installation of advertising signage, as recommended by the Toronto Community Council, on the construction trailer within the public right-of-way on the Gunns Road flank of 2078 St. Clair Avenue West, approval should be subject to the applicant:

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

(b) providing a certificate of comprehensive general liability insurance in the amount of two million dollars, with the City of Toronto named as additional insured and containing a cross liability clause, in a form satisfactory to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer;

(c) ensuring that any lighting or illumination of the advertising signage does not negatively impact residents, businesses or vehicular traffic;

(d) maintaining the construction trailer and advertising signage in good and proper repair and a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e) removing the construction trailer and advertising signage upon receiving notice from the City so to do;

(f) paying a monthly fee in the amount of $2,500.00 for the placement of the signage within the public right of way; and

(g) accepting such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interest of the City.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a proposal by Tribute Homes to affix advertising signage on a construction trailer located in the Gunns Road allowance be approved, subject to the owner indemnifying the City, providing insurance and other terms that may be deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on the above recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 21, 1999) from Councillor Disero:

Recommendation: That a proposal by Tribute Homes to affix advertising signage on a construction trailer located in the Gunns Road allowance be approved subject to the owner indemnifying the City, providing insurance and other terms that may be deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor.

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report directly to City Council as directed by the Toronto Community Council on a request to install advertising signage on a construction trailer within the public right of way on the Gunns Road flank of 2078 St. Clair Avenue West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

Should City Council approve the installation of advertising signage, as recommended by the Toronto Community Council, on the construction trailer within the public right of way on the Gunns Road flank of 2078 St. Clair Avenue West, approval should be subject to the applicant:

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

(b) providing a certificate of comprehensive general liability insurance in the amount of two million dollars, with the City of Toronto named as additional insured and containing a cross liability clause, in a form satisfactory to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer;

(c) ensuring that any lighting or illumination of the advertising signage does not negatively impact residents, businesses or vehicular traffic;

(d) maintaining the construction trailer and advertising signage in good and proper repair and a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e) removing the construction trailer and advertising signage upon receiving notice from the City so to do;

(f) paying a monthly fee in the amount of $2,500 for the placement of the signage within the public right of way; and

(g) accepting such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interest of the City.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of June 22, 1999, considered a motion by Councillor Betty Disero, "That a proposal by Tribute Homes to affix advertising signage on a construction trailer located in the Gunns Road road allowance be approved subject to the owner indemnifying the City, providing insurance and other terms that may be deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor". The Toronto Community Council recommended approval of the signage and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on this matter directly to City Council at its meeting of July 6, 1999 (Clause 47 in Report No. 9 of Toronto Community Council).

Comments:

Tribute Homes previously received permission to place a construction trailer within the public right of way at the south dead end of Gunns Road, flanking 2078 St. Clair Avenue West, pursuant to Chapter 313 of the (former) Toronto Municipal Code.

The applicant is now requesting permission to affix large scale advertising signage on the trailer to promote the subdivision. The signage will be placed on two sides of the trailer and will display a conceptual image of a pair of semi-detached homes with landscaping and will advertise the opening and selling price of the homes and the name of the builder, Tribute Homes. The signage will have overall dimensions of 21.4 m x 9.1 m, essentially comprising a large, double-sided billboard.

While the proposed advertising can physically be accommodated within the public right of way, the policy of Council in the former City of Toronto is that commercial advertising programs involving the use of public right of way beyond the current transit shelter advertising program not be considered. Accordingly, every effort is made to have such signage located on private property, however, the developer has cited remediation of the property as precluding this.

The existing transit shelter program and more recently, the pilot for advertising on garbage receptacles, provide a valuable public service as well as additional significant revenue to the City, whereas this proposal is entirely related to the promotion and sale of new homes by the Builder/Developer. If this proposal is approved, it is conceivable that the City would receive similar applications for other development sites.

Another issue that Council may wish to consider is charging an appropriate fee for the use of the street allowance in this manner in the event it decides to allow this encroachment. As noted, since the Municipal Code does not contemplate this use, there is no set fee specified. However, based on a cursory canvass of outdoor advertising rates, an amount of $2,500 is recommended.

Conclusion:

While this proposal is feasible from a physical criteria standpoint, there are no provisions in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit this type of installation within the public right of way without specific Council approval. It was also the policy of the former City of Toronto to not permit advertising signage within the public right of way. Should Council grant approval for this proposal, it should be subject to the recommendations noted above and subject to this proposal being considered a stand alone initiative.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Andrew Koropeski, 392-7711 Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Director, Transportation Services, Supervisor, Encroachments and Construction,

District 1 District 1)

48

Parking in the Area of Ashbridges Bay (East Toronto)

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

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the report dated July 2, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that, in order to provide additional parking to serve the Ashbridges Bay Park, the parking prohibition at anytime on both sides of Coxwell Avenue, between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East, be adjusted to apply at anytime, except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays (Option 2 described in this report).'; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to meet with the Ward Councillors, staff of the Parks Division and the Toronto Parking Authority, in order to achieve a long-term solution to the ongoing parking problem in the Ashbridges Bay Park area.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Toronto Parking Authority be requested to operate, as a pilot project, a temporary parking lot on Coxwell Avenue, between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard, for weekends and holidays only; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services review the illegal parking on the public park along Lake Shore Boulevard between Woodbine Avenue and Coxwell Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested appropriate officials to report directly to Council on any necessary by-laws or actions required for the emergency closure on Coxwell Avenue between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following joint communication (June 22, 1999) from Councillors Bussin and Jakobek:

As you may be aware, parking in the area of Ashbridge's Bay is a major problem. Visitors have resorted to parking in the park causing great damage to City property.

We urge Members to support the following:

(1) That the Toronto Parking Authority be requested to operate as a pilot project a temporary parking lot on Coxwell Avenue, between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard, for weekends and holidays only.

(2) That staff be requested to report directly to the next City Council Meeting on any necessary By-law or approvals needed for the emergency closure.

(3) That Transportation staff review the illegal parking onto our public park along Lake Shore Boulevard between Woodbine Avenue and Coxwell Avenue.

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report directly to City Council as directed by the Toronto Community Council on any necessary by-laws or approvals needed for a proposal to close Coxwell Avenue, between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East in order for the Toronto Parking Authority to operate a parking lot on weekends and public holidays during the summer months to enhance parking opportunity by visitors to Ashbridge's Bay park.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Option 1 (full closure of Coxwell Avenue) as described in this report, generating about 150 parking spaces would result in revenues of about $1,000 per day but costs for manufacture/installation of signs and barriers, parking lot personnel, revised transit operations and police officers in the order of $3,500 per day.

Option 2 (curbside parking), generating about 80 parking spaces, could be implemented for a one-time cost estimated to be $500, for signage adjustments.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that in order to provide additional parking to serve the Ashbridges Bay Park, the parking prohibition at anytime on both sides of Coxwell Avenue between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East, be adjusted to apply at anytime except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays (Option 2 described in this report).

Background:

Toronto Community Council at its meeting of June 22, 1999, in considering a communication of the same date from East Toronto Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin recommended that the Toronto Parking Authority operate as a pilot project a temporary parking lot on Coxwell Avenue, between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East on weekends and holidays, and requested staff to report directly to Council on any necessary by-laws or approvals needed for the closure. Toronto Community Council also directed that Transportation staff review measures to deter unlawful parking on the grass boulevard of Lake Shore Boulevard East between Coxwell Avenue and Woodbine Avenue (Clause 48 of Report No. 9 of the Toronto Community Council).

Comments:

Existing Considerations:

Staff of Transportation Services and the Toronto Parking Authority have worked to assess the operational requirements and develop options to provide parking on Coxwell Avenue between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East as recommended by the Toronto Community Council.

There are a number of significant logistic and operational issues that would have to be recognized and addressed to the extent possible to provide parking on Coxwell Avenue. We have looked at two options; a full closure (where only emergency through access would be possible) or a partial parking solution where vehicular travel on the street could be maintained.

Coxwell Avenue from Eastern Avenue to Lake Shore Boulevard East, a distance of about 370 metres, is a four-lane arterial road, operating northbound and southbound on a pavement width of 15.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on both sides of the street. The Coxwell/Eastern and Coxwell/Lake Shore intersections are signalized.

Emergency Services:

All access to the lakefront by the Fire and Emergency Medical Services is from the north. The Fire Service has advised that the closure of Coxwell Avenue would hamper their ability to deliver service to the public in a timely manner. Emergency Medical Services express the same concern but also note that the nearest emergency medical facility is East General Hospital located at Coxwell Avenue and Mortimer Avenue. In the event of a medical emergency occurring in Ashbridge's Bay Park or points west, the most direct route to the hospital is straight north along Coxwell Avenue.

Public Transit Operations:

The Toronto Transit Commission operates southbound bus service on a 15-minute headway (Coxwell South - 22) along Coxwell Avenue to Lake Shore Boulevard East then eastbound to Lake Shore Boulevard East, providing lakefront access by public transit riders to Ashbridge's Bay Park and Donald D. Summerville Swimming Pool. Transit stops are located on the west side of Coxwell Avenue about 45 metres south of Eastern Avenue and on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard East about 40 metres east of Coxwell Avenue. This bus route is heavily used on weekends and provides the only means of public transit access to the Ashbridge's Bay area for Beaches residents and visitors.

Access to Adjacent Property:

Lands adjacent to the west side of Coxwell Avenue are comprised of several softball diamonds and the City Works Pumping Station. The only vehicular access to the pumping station is from Coxwell Avenue. Lands along the east side of Coxwell Avenue are currently under redevelopment as part of the Greenwood Racetrack park site.

The Works Pumping Station is the only property requiring direct vehicular access from Coxwell Avenue between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East. The pumping station operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and would require the maintenance of access.

Traffic Operation:

Coxwell Avenue between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East carries a weekday traffic volume of about 12,000 vehicles. Weekend data is not currently available for Coxwell Avenue but we anticipate that higher traffic volume is present during weekends in the summer months. Recent survey data indicates that about 44,000 vehicles daily travel on Lake Shore Boulevard East on weekends with over 20% turning onto Coxwell Avenue. This section of Coxwell Avenue in combination with Eastern Avenue and Kingston Road is the designated "Truck Route" through East Toronto.

Option One - Full Closure:

Road closures of a temporary nature for less than 24 hours a day can be facilitated administratively. Road closures of longer duration require Council approval and under the provisions of the Municipal Act must be advertised for four consecutive weeks and be subject to a public hearing. Accordingly, for a full closure of Coxwell Avenue to be in effect this summer, the road would have to be opened for some period each day.

Staff of the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA) have advised that the TPA could operate a parking lot on the subject section of Coxwell Avenue between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, provided a full curb-to-curb road closure is maintained. About 150 parking spaces could be provided over the length of the block. Spaces would be aligned at a 90 angle to the west curb and parallel to the east curb, leaving about a 7 metre wide driving/manoeuvring lane down the middle. Individual parking stalls cannot be identified on the road surface, so it is expected that a staff of about 4-5 employees would be required to collect parking fees and align parkers along the curbs. The Toronto Parking Authority suggests that a flat rate of $5.00 per vehicle be charged. An anticipated daily revenue of about $1,000.00 might be expected. Paid Duty Police Officers would be required to assist in traffic operations at the Coxwell/Eastern and Coxwell/Lake Shore intersections. In addition, staff of Works and Emergency Services would have to install the necessary barriers and temporary signage to safely cordon the area and advise motorists of the closure.

There are significant impacts to emergency services, public transit service, access to adjacent property, and traffic operations near Ashbridge's Bay Park which raise concerns with the full closure of Coxwell Avenue.

The closure of Coxwell Avenue will have a significant impact on traffic operation on Lake Shore Boulevard East and Eastern Avenue, specifically:

- Lengthy delays, queuing and traffic congestion can be expected resulting from the displaced volume of traffic from Coxwell Avenue that Lake Shore Boulevard East, Eastern Avenue and Woodbine Avenue will be required to absorb;

- Complicating the situation at the Coxwell/Eastern and Coxwell/Lake Shore intersections will be delays encountered by motorists queuing to enter the temporary parking lot. Albeit, this situation could be resolved to some degree by initiating the road closure at a point about 40 metres south of Eastern Avenue and about 40 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard to provide vehicle storage capacity on Coxwell Avenue itself for motorists queuing to enter the parking lot, the capacity of the parking lot would be reduced to about 100 vehicles;

- All vehicles leaving Ashbridge's Bay Park, where about 650 parking spaces are provided on site, will be directed either eastbound or westbound on Lake Shore Boulevard to either Woodbine Avenue or Leslie Street adding to congestion on Lake Shore Boulevard East and at the intersections of Leslie/Lake Shore and Woodbine/Queen;

- Given the anticipated volume of traffic that could be rerouted from Coxwell Avenue, we have concerns about intersection capacity and the level of service that can be maintained at the nearby signalized intersections;

- Traffic infiltration into residential neighbourhoods north of Queen Street East can be expected as motorists look for routes to circumvent delays on the arterial road system;

- Queen Street East between Orchard Park Boulevard and Lark Street will be under construction beginning July 26, 1999 until about September. Only one traffic lane will be provided during the construction. Coxwell Avenue will be an important link to Lake Shore Boulevard East for displaced motorists; and

- Representatives of the TTC strongly oppose the closure of Coxwell Avenue. In their opinion, not only does it clearly eliminate direct access to the lakefront by public transit but by doing so, encourages the use of private automobiles, which may exacerbate parking demand.

Option Two - Curbside Parking:

Alternatively, staff recommend that modifications be made to the existing parking regulations on Coxwell Avenue between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East. Specifically, the parking prohibition at anytime on both sides of Coxwell Avenue between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East could be adjusted to apply at anytime except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays.

This proposal would provide about 80 parking spaces and can be accomplished relatively quickly with minimal cost. The street would remain open for two-way traffic operation, access to the pumping station would be maintained and there would be no disruption of public transit service or elimination of access routes to/from the lakefront for emergency service vehicles.

The Toronto Parking Authority advises that it would not be cost efficient to implement either parking metres or pay-and-display parking machines to control what is essentially a weekend, seasonal parking demand. Utilization of the curb lands of Coxwell Avenue for parking will reduce the roadway capacity by about half and some delay and traffic congestion could be expected. Nevertheless, the impacts of this proposal on traffic operation in the area are significantly less than those which would be experienced under the full closure scenario.

Advisory signage indicating the availability of on-street weekend parking would also be installed.

Parking on the Boulevards:

With regard to vehicles parking on the grass boulevard along Lake Shore Boulevard East between Coxwell Avenue and Woodbine Avenue, staff have spoken with representatives of the Toronto Police Service - Parking Enforcement Unit and have advised them that based on interpretation by staff of the former Metropolitan Toronto Legal Department, vehicles parked in such a manner may be tagged under Section 18(1)(a) of the Uniform Traffic By-law No. 32-92 (UTB), which stipulates that:

"No person shall park or stop any vehicle on any highway or portion thereof except where there is a raised curb, on the right side of the roadway, having regard to the direction such vehicle was proceeding, with its right front and rear wheels parallel to and not more that 30 centimetres from such curb".

Staff are currently consulting with Parks staff and will implement some form of physical deterence (such as concrete curbstones, post and chains, etc.) as soon as possible upon identification of the best solution.

Conclusions:

A full closure of Coxwell Avenue, from Eastern Avenue to Lake Shore Boulevard East on weekends and public holidays in order for the Toronto Parking Authority to operate a parking lot would introduce a number of problems related to traffic operations, transit service and emergency access.

An alternative which would provide a significant number of new parking spaces (albeit not as many as the full closure) with substantially less disruption and cost would be to allow curbside parking on both sides of Coxwell Avenue during these periods. About 80 additional spaces could be made available under this approach while still maintaining public use of the street. The Recommendation above will facilitate this option.

In the event Council opts to implement a full closure of Coxwell Avenue, from Eastern Avenue to Lake Shore Boulevard East, the following should be approved:

"Should Council decide that a full temporary closure of Coxwell Avenue, from Eastern Avenue to Lake Shore Boulevard East is to be undertaken on weekends and public holidays in the summer, staff of the Works and Emergency Services, Toronto Parking Authority, Toronto Transit Commission and Police Service be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto and that any related costs be covered from the parking revenues".

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton

Supervisor of Traffic Engineering, District 1 (East)

392-1806.)

49

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

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

(a) Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 172 Walmer Road (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred consideration of the following report;

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a re-polling of the area using the most up-to-date data available from the Finance Department and the City Clerk;

(3) requested the City Clerk, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report to the Administration Committee on the various types of polls currently in use within the City of Toronto, such report to include recommendations on how such methods of polling may be improved:

(i) (April 13, 1999) Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 172 Walmer Road (Midtown), and recommending:

(1) That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 172 Walmer Road, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; OR

(2) That, should the Toronto Community Council consider this proposal, this report be deferred to the June 23, 1999 meeting of the Toronto Community Council, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report at that time on the results of a poll for the hearing of deputations.

(ii) (May 10, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding the actions of the Toronto Community Council of April 28, 1999

(iii) (Undated) from Max Dublin

(iv) (June 22, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1

(b) Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 84 Hilton Avenue (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred consideration of the following report;

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a re-polling of the area using the most up-to-date data available from the Finance Department and the City Clerk:

(i) (April 13, 1999) Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 84 Hilton Avenue (Midtown), and recommending:

(1) That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 84 Hilton Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; OR

(2) That, should the Toronto Community Council consider this proposal, this report be deferred to the June 23, 1999 meeting of the Toronto Community Council, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report at that time on the results of a poll for the hearing of deputations.

(ii) (Undated) from Ms. Deborah Buchler

(iii) (June 8, 1999) from Mr. David Gurin

(iv) (June 7, 1999) from Ms. Janet Wright

(v) (June 17, 1999) from Ms. Ruth Fein

(vi) (June 15, 1999) from Mr. Joel Wiesenfeld

(vii) (June 22, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1

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

- Mr. Mark Wright, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Ms. Deborah Buchler, Toronto, Ontario.

(c) 10 Shorncliffe Avenue, Removal of Three Private Trees (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on July 15, 1999, and having requested the City Arborist to meet with the applicant and interested parties to propose a mutually agreeable solution:

(i) (June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting 10 Shorncliffe Avenue, Removal of Three Private Trees (Midtown), and recommending that City Council:

(1) issue a permit for tree removal conditional on:

(i) the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(ii) the applicant agreeing to plant replacement trees to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; OR

(2) refuse to issue a permit for tree removal, requiring the applicant to incorporate the trees into the plans for the new house and landscape.

(ii) (June 21, 1999) from Mr. David Mongeau

(iii) (Undated) from Ms. Audrey Loeb

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

- Mr. David Mongeau, Richmond Hill, Ontario;

- Mr. David P. Ross, Deloitte & Touche; and

- Mr. Lorne Vineberg, Toronto, Ontario.

(d) 48 Glen Road - Removal of One City Owned Tree, and One Private Tree, and Injury to One Private Tree (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred the following report and having requested the Ward Councillors, in consultation with the City Arborist, to engage in a consultation process in the community, and report back to the Toronto Community Council, if necessary:

(June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting 48 Glen Road - Removal of One City Owned Tree, and One Private Tree, and Injury to One Private Tree (Midtown), and recommending that City Council approve the request for the removal of one City owned tree, and one private tree, and injury to one private tree and such approval be conditional on:

(a) the trees in question not being removed or injured until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(b) the implementation of the recommendations in the tree preservation report, for the privately owned sugar maple, prepared by Arborvalley Urban Forestry Co. Inc., dated March 15, 1999; and

(c) the applicant submitting a certified cheque in the amount of $1245.43 to cover the value of the City owned tree, it's removal and replacement costs, and the applicant agreeing to the planting of a replacement tree to be planted on City property upon completion of construction; and

(d) the applicant agreeing to plant a large growing shade tree, to replace the privately owned black locust, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

(e) Preliminary Report on Rezoning Application No. 199014: 305 Bremner Boulevard - Reduction of Required Bus Parking for the Skydome (Downtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services on Rezoning Application No. 199014: 305 Bremner Boulevard - Reduction of Required Bus Parking for the Skydome (Downtown), and recommending that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application, and to notify owners and residents within 120 metres of the site, the local residents' associations and the Ward Councillors.

(f) Preliminary Report on Application No. 199013 for A Rezoning, to Permit An Entertainment Facility At No. 659 Queen Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(May 31, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services on Application No. 199013 for A Rezoning, to Permit An Entertainment Facility At No. 659 Queen Street West (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that:

(1) I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application and to notify owners and residents within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors;

(2) that the applicant be advised of the need to apply for an Official Plan Amendment for the proposal; and

(3) I be requested to consider the impact of food and entertainment uses on the Queen Street West "MCR" zone, west of Bathurst Street to Shaw Street.

(g) Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision No. A-199900122 - 1383 Landsdowne Avenue - Minor Variance - Withdrawal of Appeal by Applicant (Davenport)

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 25, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision No. A-199900122 - 1383 Landsdowne Avenue - Minor Variance - Withdrawal of Appeal by Applicant, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(h) Community Safety Project - Maurice Cody Public School/Maurice Cody Community Centre (North Toronto)

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with appropriate officials to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on July 15, 1999 on providing a one time grant of $11,300 to the Maurice Cody Public School matching the contribution of the Toronto District School Board for the purpose of improving personal safety in the school parking lot by purchasing and installing two light standards and providing an additional pedestrian exit on to Cheston Road:

(June 4, 1999) from Councillor Walker

(i) Danforth Avenue, from Broadview Avenue to Dewhurst Boulevard - Installation of Parking Meters on the Flankage of Various Intersecting Streets. (Don River)

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on July 15, 1999; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Ward Councillors, to conduct a neighbourhood consultation process.

(May 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1 respecting Danforth Avenue, From Broadview Avenue to Dewhurst Boulevard - Installation of Parking Meters on the Flankage of Various Intersecting Streets (Don River), and recommending:

(1) That the parking regulations outlined in Appendix A of this report be adjusted/amended as indicated; and

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

(j) Lane, First North of College Street Between Dufferin Street and Sheridan Avenue - Proposed One-Way Operation (Trinity-Niagara)

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on September 14, 1999; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a poll of all abutting property owners to determine support for this proposal:

(June 10, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Lane, First North of College Street Between Dufferin Street and Sheridan Avenue - Proposed One-way Operation (Trinity-Niagara) and recommending:

(1) That the lane first north of College Street between Dufferin Street and Sheridan Avenue be designated to operate one-way westbound; and

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

(k) Official Plan Amendment No. 143 and Zoning By-law 138-1999 in connection with the Yorkville Triangle Area (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor, in consultation with Heritage Toronto, to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on July 15, 1999 on the recommendation contained in the communication (June 10, 1999) from Councillor Adams:

(June 10, 1999) from Councillor Adams

(l) City Boulevard - 53 Nanton Avenue, flanking Castle Frank Road (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on:

(1) the circumstances surrounding the rock and concrete treatment authorized by staff on the City boulevard at 53 Nanton Avenue flanking Castle Frank Road, and advise on how this treatment conforms with the City's policy on landscaping, open and green space, and why notice was not given to the Ward Councillors as is the practice when a request is made by a property owner to change or use the City boulevard, or portion thereof, for their own purposes, and/or benefit; and

(2) the advisability of installing a City sidewalk in the area:

(June 22, 1999) from Councillor Adams

(m) Maintenance of A Decorative Steel Trellis and Planter Walls - 920 King Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

The Toronto Community Council reports having been advised that this matter has been withdrawn.

(n) Motion of Condolence - Councillor Frank Faubert

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following resolution by Councillor Johnston, seconded by Councillor Jakobek:

"WHEREAS Councillor Frank Faubert served the people of Scarborough with distinction and selfless dedication in varied and challenging capacities; and

WHEREAS Councillor Faubert served the people of Scarborough as a member of the Board of Control from December 1978 to November, 1980, and from 1982 to 1987; and

WHEREAS Councillor Faubert also served the people of Scarborough as an Alderman from 1967 to 1969, from 1973 to 1978, and from 1981 to 1982 and as Member of the Provincial Parliament for the riding of Scarborough Ellesmere from 1987 to 1990, and as a Councillor in the City of Scarborough from 1991 to 1994; and

WHEREAS Councillor Faubert served as the last Mayor of Scarborough from 1994 to 1997; and

WHEREAS Councillor Faubert was elected to Toronto City Council in 1997; and

WHEREAS he took to heart the interests and well being of the residents of Scarborough and Toronto, and added to and improved immeasurably the quality of life for tens of thousands of people, and to whom the people of Toronto own an eternal debt;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Toronto Community Council extend its deepest condolences to the family and friends of Councillor Frank Faubert and to the Scarborough Community Council, and record in its minutes its expression of such condolences."

(o) Motion of Condolence - Ms. Ina Robinson

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following resolution by Councillor Rae, seconded by Councillor McConnell:

"WHEREAS the City of Toronto lost an active and valued employee with the death of Ina Robinson from Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease on June 20, 1999; and

WHEREAS Ina was hired by the City in April, 1974 as a General Clerk within the City Clerk's office; and

WHEREAS Ina worked within the Clerk's office until 1999, holding increasingly responsible positions such as Committee Secretary, Administration Section Manager, Assistant Secretary of the Executive Committee, and finally, in the new City, Manager of Council Secretariat Support; and

WHEREAS Ina Robinson was the consummate civil servant in her efficiency, judgement, unflappability and poise. Her humour and yeoman support will be missed by all at the City of Toronto who value a well-run meeting, accurate and complete documentation, and a good laugh. Ina was an important player in the professional evolution of the Clerk's office and she will be greatly missed;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk be directed to convey, on behalf of members of the Toronto Community Council, our sincere sympathy to Ina's family, friends and colleagues."

(p) A Harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for the City of Toronto: Community Input Process (from the Toronto Community Council's special meeting of June 8, 1999)

The Toronto Community Council reports having recommended to the Board of Health that:

(1) restaurants, bars, bowling centres, casinos and bingo and billiard halls have 75% non-smoking and 25% smoking;

(2) the report (April 6, 1999) from the Medical Officer of Health, titled, "A Harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for the City of Toronto - Policy Options and Recommendations be amended by:

(a) adding a new Recommendation No. (7) to read:

"That the City make requests for proposals for a multi-year publicity and education campaign that:

(a) reflects Council's decisions on smoking in restaurants, bars and similar places, and

(b) is aimed at reducing smoking;

and that such a campaign involve funding partnerships with the private sector.

(b) adding a new Recommendation No. (8) to read:

"That the City, in co-operation with appropriate business associations, monitor carefully the economic impact of any smoking regulations on the restaurant sector;

(3) the Medical Officer of Health, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on the appropriate technology which will help to minimize second-hand smoke.

The Toronto Community Council also reports having requested:

(1) the Medical Officer of Health, in consultation with appropriate officials to report to the Board of Health, at its special meeting to be held on June 28 and 29, 1999, on the following motion by Councillor Bossons:

"That the report (April 6, 1999) from the Medical Officer of Health, titled, "A Harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for the City of Toronto - Policy Options and Recommendations be amended by:

Adding a new Recommendation 3(iv) to read:

'That restaurants with 40 or fewer seats be exempted from any smoking regulation on condition that they decide themselves whether to be a 'wholly smoking' or 'smoke-free' and post the chosen arrangement at their door.'"

(2) the Medical Officer of Health, in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the City Solicitor, and in consultation with stakeholders, to report to the Board of Health, at its special meeting to be held on June 28 and 29, 1999, on the possibility of creating separate rules for restaurants and bars; and

(3) the Medical Officer of Health to report to the Board of Health, at its special meeting to be held on June 28 and 29, 1999, on the New York by-law, and in her opinion, how it can be altered to make it applicable to the City of Toronto.

Recommendation Nos. 1 and 3 were adopted on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Bossons, Fotinos, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynski and Silva - 6

Nays: Councillors Miller and Walker - 2

The following motion, placed by Councillor Johnston, lost on the following division of votes:

"As a 100% ban on smoking in Toronto's restaurants has an obvious economic impact; and

Because suburban councillors have not heard the concerns of downtown restaurants and the hospitality industry;

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) a joint or concurrent meeting be held on June 28 and 29, 1999 between the Board of Health and the Economic Development Committee to hear deputations before a final recommendation is made to City Council; and

(2) the City Clerk be requested to submit proposed rules of order for the joint meeting."

Yeas: Councillors Bossons, Johnston and Miller - 3

Nays: Councillors Rae, Disero, Fotinos, Korwin-Kuczynski, Silva and Walker - 6

(i) (April 6, 1999) from the Secretary, Board of Health, advising that the Board of Health at its meeting on April 6, 1999:

(1) adopted the report dated March 26, 1999, from the Medical Officer of Health with respect to the community input process for a harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for the City of Toronto; and

(2) forwards such report to the Community Councils for staff presentation and deputations on the policy options and recommendations paper attached thereto, at the Community Council meetings scheduled to be held on May 26 and 27, 1999, with recommendations from the Community Councils to be referred to the Medical Officer of Health and the City Solicitor for consideration and recommendations back to the Board of Health at its meeting on June 28 and 29, 1999.

(ii) (May 6, 1999) from the Secretary, Board of Health respecting Ventilation Option for the Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law.

(iii) (May 17, 1999) from Ms. Elizabeth and Mr. Ian White

(iv) (May 19, 1999) from Mr. Allan S. McPherson

(v) (May 18, 1999) from Mr. Alan Warren

(vi) (May 25, 1999) from Mr. Jack Micay

(vii) (May 25, 1999) from President, Council for a Tobacco-free Ontario

(viii) (May 19, 1999) from Mr. James Panousopoulos, Victoria Restaurant

(ix) (May 25, 1999) from Vice-President Food and Beverage, Bowlerama Limited

(x) Petition with 107 signatures in opposition to total ban on smoking in coffee shops

(xi) Presentation - May 26, 1999 - Greater Toronto Hotel Association - Ontario Restaurant Association

(xii) (May 26, 1999) from Mr. Fred Luk, Filet of Sole

(xiii) (May 26, 1999) from Mr. Michael Perley, Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco

(xiv) (May 26, 1999) from Lobsang Samchok, Everest Cafe

(xv) (May 26, 1999) from Ms. Judith Myrvold, Council for a Tobacco-Free Toronto (CTFT)

(xvi) (Undated) from Ms. Debbie Thuston

(xvii) (Undated) from Ms. Winnie Leung

(xviii) (Undated) from Ms. Diane Finkle

(xix) (May 26, 1999) from Terry Mundell, President, Ontario Restaurant Association

(xx) (May 24, 1999) from Ms. Barbara West

(xxi) (May 26, 1999) from R. Alter

(xxii) (May 31, 1999) from Jean Walker

(xxiii) (undated) from Beth Theis

(xxiv) (undated) from F. Barry

Respectfully submitted,

PAM McCONNELL AND KYLE RAE

Chairs

Toronto, June 8 and 22, 1999

(Report No. 9 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999.)