1 Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Decision - 7 Gange Avenue (Midtown)

2 Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - (Downtown, High Park, North Toronto)

3 Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 306 Yonge Street (595 Bay Street) (Downtown)

4 Amendment to Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement and Development Agreement - 7 Station Street (Downtown)

5 Tree Removal - 1560 Yonge Street (Midtown)

6 Speed Hump Poll Results - Castlewood Road from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road (North Toronto)

7 Castle Knock Road, From Eglinton Avenue West to Roselawn Avenue - Proposed Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto)

8 Installation of Speed Humps - St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Caldow Road (North Toronto)

9 Installation of Speed Humps - Campbell Avenue, from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street (Davenport)

10 Installation of Speed Humps - Macdonell Avenue, Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue (High Park)

11 Speed Humps - Gladstone Avenue, Between College Street and Sylvan Avenue, and Lindsey Avenue, Between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street (Trinity-Niagara)

12 Adjustment of "No Stopping" Regulation - Armadale Avenue, Both Sides, North of Bloor Street West (High Park)

13 Designation of Exclusive Northbound Right-Turn Lane - Spadina Avenue and Queen Street West (Downtown)

14 Removal of Disabled Persons On-Street Parking Space - Margueretta Street, fronting Premises No. 238 (Trinity-Niagara)

15 Introduction of Overnight Permit Parking - North Side of Queen Street East, Between Rainsford Road and

Kingston Road (East Toronto)

Confirmed Municipal Address: 7 Station Street.

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

1. Works and Emergency Services (August 6, 1999)

Location

South side of former Station Street, west of York Street (the CN Express Building) forming a portion of the pedestrian walkway system (SkyWalk) between Union Station and SkyDome.

Proposal

To amend the Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement and the Development Agreement for the site to allow the portion of the SkyWalk located within the CN Express Building to be used for programmed activities. The applicant's proposal involves occupying portions of the SkyWalk through the building with displays, furnishings, etc. to accommodate temporary programming activities except on days when a "major" event is occurring at SkyDome.

Agreements

The Development Agreement for the site was registered on October 18, 1988 as Instrument Nos. C512661 and CT984969, and the Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement was registered on October 28, 1988 as Instrument No. C515235.

SkyWalk Requirements

The subject portion of the SkyWalk has a minimum width of about 9 m. The York Street Bridge, which connects the SkyWalk to Union Station is required to be maintained with a minimum width of 8.2 m, and the Simcoe Street portion of the walkway, which connects to the west end of the subject portion of the walkway, has a minimum width of 9 m. Notwithstanding the above-noted widths, it is acknowledged that there are certain constraints to pedestrian flow along the SkyWalk, in particular, the doorways between the various SkyWalk sections. These constraints reduce the width of the pedestrian walkway to about 5.5 m at these locations. As a result, the temporary closing of portions of the SkyWalk through the subject building, to a limited extent, does not appear to be problematic from a pedestrian capacity perspective. Accordingly, I have no objections to amendments to the applicable agreements to permit the temporary narrowing of the SkyWalk through the subject building provided that a minimum 6 metre clear unobstructed width is maintained at all times, that all displays, furnishings, and any other obstructions are temporary in nature (i.e. not permanently fixed to the structure) and that the temporary closings satisfy all referent "Code" requirements, all as more particularly set out in the recommendations below. I note that the 6 metre clear width required should not include any areas likely to be used by people viewing displays or engaged in any activity associated with the temporary closing.

Finally, any proposal to close off, entirely, the SkyWalk within this building, or to reduce the clear width of the SkyWalk to less than 6 metres, will require a separate application to this Department for review and approval.

Recommendations:

1. That the Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement and the Development Agreement be amended, as they apply to the pedestrian walkway through the site, to permit temporary reductions to the SkyWalk width, subject to the following conditions:

(a) A minimum 6 metre clear width be maintained at all times;

(b) All displays, furnishings, exhibits or any other obstructions be temporary in nature and not permanently affixed to the structure;

(c) Any areas likely to be used by people viewing the displays, exhibits, etc. or engaged in any activity associated with the temporary closing, shall not be included as part of the 6 metre clear width requirement;

(d) The temporary closing shall be permitted only within the area between a point 6 metres west of the stairs identified as "Stair #8" to a point 6 metres east of the doors identified as "West Doors to Platform" and in any case, shall not obstruct "Stair #2" and "Stair #3" within the building on the north side of the SkyWalk;

(e) The owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that the revisions will satisfy all relevant "Code" requirements, including Building Code and Fire Code, with particular reference to exit capacity and occupant load requirements; and

2. That the owner be advised that any proposal to reduce the clear width of the SkyWalk to less than 6 metres, or to close off the SkyWalk entirely, will require a separate application to Works and Emergency Services for review and approval.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Forestry has received a request from the owners of 1560 Yonge Street, to remove five City-owned trees at this location to facilitate the development and expansion of Delisle Court. The trees must be removed in order to allow for construction of an underground garage and vehicular access ramp.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Toronto Community Council approve the request for removal of five city-owned trees at 1560 Yonge Street conditional upon the applicant paying for all costs associated with the value of the trees and proposed removals, for a total of $4146.56.

Background:

This request for tree removals has been received in connection with an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application which proposes to construct a residential condominium on the property. The proposed development precludes the retention of the trees in question given the size and scale of the development.

Comments:

Forestry is in receipt of a request from NAK Design Group, acting on behalf of the owner of 1560 Yonge Street that the City consider the removal of five city-owned trees situated on Delisle Avenue. The trees in question are elm and mulberry, in fair condition with diameters ranging from 20 to 24 centimetres. The trees are currently growing in a poor location on the city road allowance within a retaining wall constructed between the Delisle Court parking area and the proposed location of the condominiums.

As required by Forestry Services, the applicant must provide payment to the City in the amount of $4146.56 to cover the value of the trees in question and the associated removal and replacement costs.

Conclusion:

The applicant has agreed to pay for all costs associated with the value of the trees, the removal costs and replacement costs for a total of $4146.56. In addition, a landscape plan has been submitted that demonstrates that the applicant will plant six new trees on the City road allowance at this location once construction is complete.

Contact Name:

Vicky Jeffery, 392-7390

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that, in view of the negative poll results, Council receive this matter.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the results of a speed hump poll of residents and to advise that conditions for the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Castlewood Road have not been satisfied.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the draft by-law to alter the section of Castlewood Road from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road by means of the installation of speed humps not be enacted in light of the negative poll results.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of April 13, 14, and 15, 1999, in adopting Clause No.73 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, approved the alterations of the pavement on the above-noted section of Castlewood Road, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the policy governing speed hump installation.

Comments:

The speed hump policy (as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997) requires that a poll of adult residents (18 years of age or older) be conducted on streets being considered for speed hump installations and that at least 60 percent of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.

A total of 95 ballots were mailed out to eligible voters on Castlewood Road, from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road. The results of this poll, undertaken in June, 1999 are as follows: a total of 56 (59 percent) of the eligible voters responded to the poll, and of these, 35 (62.5 percent) opposed the plan and 21 (37.5 percent) supported the installation of speed humps.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps requires that 60 percent of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal. As only 37.5 percent of the poll respondents were in favour of the speed hump proposal, in accordance with Council policy, no further action should be taken in this regard.

I note for Council's information that the policy further stipulates that a two year moratorium on further polling be imposed following an unsuccessful poll.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Senior Traffic Investigator, (416) 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, Clause 50 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Castlewood Road from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road - Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To respond to a request from North Toronto Councillors Michael Walker and Anne Johnston to report on a plan to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on Castle Knock Road, from Eglinton Avenue West to Roselawn Avenue, by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost to implement this plan is $3,000.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

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

"The construction of speed humps on CASTLE KNOCK ROAD, from Eglinton Avenue West to Roselawn Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5446, dated August 1999";

(2) That a speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour be introduced on Castle Knock Road, from Eglinton Avenue East to Roselawn Avenue, coinciding with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

(3) 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:

Transportation Services' staff, at the request of the Ward Councillors Michael Walker and Anne Johnston, on behalf of residents of Castle Knock Road, have investigated the feasibility of installing speed humps on Castle Knock Road, from Eglinton Avenue West and Roselawn Avenue, to reduce the speed of motor vehicles.

Castle Knock Road, between Eglinton Avenue West and Roselawn Avenue, operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 m with a speed limit of 40 km/h. Parking is prohibited at any time on both sides of the roadway from Eglinton Avenue West to Burnaby Boulevard and on the west side, between Burnaby Boulevard and Crestview Road. Parking is prohibited between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, but permitted to a maximum period of one hour at other times, on the east side, between Burnaby Boulevard and Willowbank Avenue. Parking is permitted but restricted to a maximum period of one hour anytime on the east side of Castle Knock Road, between Burnaby Boulevard and Crestview Road. Parking is prohibited between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., from Crestview Road to a point 36.5 m south of Roselawn Avenue, on the west side and from Elwood Boulevard to a point 41 m south of Roselawn Avenue, on the east side. Otherwise, parking is permitted to a maximum period of three hours.

A speed and volume survey conducted on weekdays by Transportation Services' staff in June 1998, recorded an average two-way traffic volume of about 1,800 vehicles daily with an average operating speed (speed at which 85% or less of the traffic travels) of 58 km/h in the southbound direction and 52 km/h in the northbound direction. The average speed of vehicles on the street is 43 km/h and about 16% of the vehicles travel in excess of 55 km/h.

The grade of the roadway on Castle Knock Road, between Burnaby Boulevard and Crestview Road, is in excess of the maximum allowable grade (for speed humps) of 5% and the short block between Eglinton Avenue West and Burnaby Boulevard does not have a speeding problem. As a result of meetings and correspondence with representatives of the residents of Castle Knock Road, they were not satisfied with the original speed hump plan proposed by staff earlier this year and accordingly, at a meeting of July 22, 1999, it was agreed to provide two speed humps as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5446, dated August 1999. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would be appropriate. If this proposal were to be implemented, no impacts on parking would be anticipated, no changes to parking regulations would be required, and the effect on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection would be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of the street, and also of households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installation. Under this policy, at least 60 percent of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, subject to approval by your Council of the above recommendations, Transportation Services' staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to Castle Knock Road as set out above constitute alterations to public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to public hearing. It is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure the proposal does not unduly hamper their operations. However, the introduction of speed humps would result in slower operating speeds for all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, resulting in increased response times.

This project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for the Municipal Roads Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Michael J. Harris,

Supervisor of Traffic Engineering,

District 1, Central Area.

(416) 392-7711

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 19, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from the Toronto Community Council for a report on the feasibility of installing speed humps on the subject section of St. Clements Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $18,000.00, funds for which are available in the Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Caldow 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 St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Castlewood Road and St. Clements Avenue, from Castlewood Road to Caldow Road generally as shown on the attached prints of Drawings Nos. 42IF-5414 and 42IF- 5428 dated June 1999 and July 1999, respectively.";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Caldow Road coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures and as legislation permits; and

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

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of December 9, 1998, in considering a communication (November 24, 1998) from Councillor Anne Johnston, requested that Transportation Services report on the feasibility of installing speed humps on St. Clements Avenue, from Castlewood Road to Caldow Road.

Comments:

As a result of the above - noted request from the Toronto Community Council, as well as a request from North Toronto Councillor Michael Walker to investigate the feasibility of installing speed humps on St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Castlewood Road, Transportation Services has reviewed the entire section of St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Caldow Road.

St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Caldow Road, operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 metres with a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour.

Transportation Services' staff recently conducted a 24-hour speed and volume surveys on St. Clements Avenue over a four-day period. The results of the survey on the section of St. Clements Avenue, between Avenue Road and Castlewood Road, revealed a daily combined total of 1,762 vehicles in both directions during this period, of which 1,260 (72 percent) travelled at a rate of speed of 55 kilometres per hour or less and 502 (28 percent) travelled at a rate of speed in excess of 55 kilometres per hour. The combined average operating speed (the speed at or below which 85 percent of the vehicles travelled) over the four- day period was 59 kilometres per hour with an average speed of 48 kilometres per hour.

The results of the survey on the section of St. Clements Avenue, between Castlewood Road and Caldow Road revealed a daily combined total of 1,132 vehicles in both directions during this period, of which 1036 (92 percent) travelled at a rate of speed of 55 kilometres per hour or less and 96 (8 percent) travelled at a rate of speed in excess of 55 kilometres per hour. The speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travelled for the period was 52 kilometres per hour with an average speed of 42 kilometres per hour.

The traffic calming proposal for the section of St. Clements Avenue, between Avenue Road and Castlewood Road, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5414 dated June 1999, consists of six speed humps, while the traffic calming proposal for the section of St. Clements Avenue, between Castlewood Road and Caldow Road, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5428 dated July 1999, consists of four speed humps. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, 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 sidestreets whose only access is

from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this policy, at least 60 percent of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, subject to the recommendations noted above being approved, staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the subject section of St. Clements 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 will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations. However, the introduction of speed humps would result in slower operating speeds for all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, resulting in increased response times.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Randy Hillis, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (September 13, 1999) from Mr. Mark K. Evans, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Campbell Avenue, between Wallace Avenue and Dupont Street, by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work and associated signage in the estimated amount of $7,500.00 are available under the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Campbell Avenue, between Wallace Avenue and Dupont Street, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of 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 CAMPBELL AVENUE, from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5427, dated July 1999.";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Campbell Avenue, from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero and residents of Campbell Avenue, Transportation Services' staff investigated the feasibility of installing speed humps on Campbell Avenue, from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street.

Campbell Avenue, from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street, operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour.

A speed and volume survey was conducted on the subject section of Campbell Avenue over a four-day period in December 1998. The survey found that on average, 1,130 vehicles per day travelled northbound and southbound on Campbell Avenue, between Wallace Avenue and Dupont Street, with an operating speed (the speed at which 85 percent of the vehicular traffic travels at or below) that ranged from 50 to 58 kilometres per hour over the period of the survey with an average speed limit of 43 kilometres per hour. On a daily basis, approximately 14 percent of vehicular traffic travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

Campbell Avenue was further reviewed in accordance to the secondary criteria set out in the policy established by the former City of Toronto Council in August 1997, i.e., using a technical screening mechanism to evaluate the need for speed humps based on prevailing traffic conditions, vehicle speed percentages and pertinent collision data (according to Police Service collision records, there were no reported collisions on the subject section of Campbell Avenue for the three-year period ending September 30, 1998, which could be attributed to speeding). During the course of this evaluation the subject section of Campbell Avenue received 51 points out of a possible 100.

In light of the above, it has been determined that the installation of speed humps is technically warranted on the subject section of Campbell Avenue.

In accordance with the above noted Speed Hump Policy, once it has been determined that the criteria for speed hump installation has been satisfied, a formal poll must be conducted of adults, 18 years of age and older, whose residence directly abuts Campbell Avenue or whose sole access to their residence is from Campbell Avenue. Further, at least 60 percent of returned ballots must be in favour of the installation of speed humps in order to proceed with the proposal. Accordingly, staff will conduct this poll and report on the results at a deputation meeting for the project.

The speed hump proposal, as illustrated on the attached copy of Drawing No. 421F-5427, dated July 1999, consists of five speed humps. A speed limit reduction from the present 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Campbell Avenue, concurrent with the installation of the speed humps, would be appropriate. No alterations to the parking regulations are required nor will the number of on-street parking spaces be affected.

The installation of speed humps on Campbell Avenue constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Consequently, the proposed changes to the roadway must be advertised and be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with emergency service agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the design and layout of speed humps does not adversely affect their operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue 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 MACDONELL AVENUE, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5356, dated March 1999";

(2) the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures and as legislation permits; and

(3) 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.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 20, 1999) from Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To respond to a request of Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski for a report on the feasibility of installing speed humps on Macdonell Avenue between Wabash Avenue and Seaforth Avenue.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

At the request of Ward Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and area residents, we assessed the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue, in response to concerns about the volume and excessive speed of traffic on this street.

Macdonell Avenue operates two-way from Wabash Avenue to Rideau Avenue, operates one-way southbound from Rideau Avenue to Seaforth Avenue and operates two-way from Seaforth Avenue to Queen Street West, with a 40 kilometres per hour speed limit and a pavement width which varies from 6 metres to 9.8 metres. The Toronto Transit Commission provides regularly scheduled bus service (Lansdowne No. 47 bus route) on Macdonell Avenue, between Seaforth Avenue and Queen Street West.

A twenty-four hour speed and volume survey was conducted on Macdonell Avenue over five consecutive days and it was found that the street carries an average daily combined total of 1,165 vehicles per day (507 northbound and 658 southbound) between Wabash Avenue and Wright Avenue, of which 26 (2.2 percent) travelled at an excessive rate of speed (over 55 kilometres per hour). The combined average operating speed (the speed that 85 percent of the motorists travelled at or below) recorded was 48 kilometres per hour with an average speed of 36 kilometres per hour.

On the section of Macdonell Avenue, between Galley Avenue and Garden Avenue, of the average daily combined total of 1,153 vehicles per day, (4.9 percent) travelled at an excessive rate of speed (over 55 kilometres per hour). I advise that the combined average operating speed (the speed that 85 percent of the motorists travelled at or below) recorded was also 48 kilometres per hour with an average speed of 38 kilometres per hour.

Macdonell Avenue was further reviewed in accordance to the secondary criteria set out in the policy established by the former City of Toronto Council in August 1997, i.e., using a technical screening mechanism to evaluate the need for speed humps based on prevailing traffic conditions, vehicle speed percentages and pertinent collision data (according to Police Service collision records, there were no reported collisions on the subject section of Macdonell Avenue for the three-year period ending March 31, 1997, which could be attributed to speeding). During the course of this evaluation, the subject section of Macdonell Avenue received only 27 points out of possible 100. Based upon the relatively low score and taking into consideration the speed profile noted above, no further action is recommended at this time.

Notwithstanding the above and bearing in mind that the primary criteria for the installation of speed humps have been technically satisfied, should Toronto Community Council wish to proceed with the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Macdonell Avenue, then the following recommendations would be adopted:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue 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 Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5356, dated March 1999";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures and as legislation permits; and

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

The traffic calming plan, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5356, dated March 1999, consists of eight speed humps at spacings of 45 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

In the event that Council deems it appropriate to consider a speed hump plan, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years 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 percent of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, subject to approval by Council, Transportation Services' staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the Macdonell Avenue 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. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations. However, the introduction of speed humps would result in slower operating speeds for all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, resulting in increased response times.

This project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Project.

It is estimated that the cost to implement this proposal is $17,600.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) that approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Gladstone Avenue, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, 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 GLADSTONE AVENUE, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5440, dated August 1999.";

(2) that approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Lindsey Avenue, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on LINDSEY AVENUE, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5404, dated June 1999.";

(3) that a speed limit of thirty kilometres per hour be introduced on Gladstone Avenue, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

(4) that a speed limit of thirty kilometres per hour be introduced on Lindsey Avenue, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits;

(5) 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.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1:

Purpose:

To respond to a request of the Toronto Community Council for a report on the feasibility and effectiveness of installing speed humps on Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue, and on Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 26 and 27, 1999, in considering a communication (May 10, 1999) from Trinity-Niagara Councillor Joe Pantalone, requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the feasibility of installing speed humps on Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue and on Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street.

Comments:

Transportation Services' staff have reviewed traffic conditions on Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue, and on Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street, in order to report on the feasibility of installing speed humps to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on these streets.

Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue

Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue, operates one-way northbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Twenty-four hour speed and volume surveys conducted by Transportation Services staff over a seven day period indicated the subject section of Gladstone Avenue carries an average daily volume of approximately 1,200 vehicles.

In terms of vehicular speed, the above studies have revealed that the average daily speed on this section of Gladstone Avenue was 31 kilometres per hour. The average operating speed (the speed at which 85% of the traffic volume operates at or below) was 38 kilometres per hour. Incidents of excessive speeding (vehicles travelling in excess of 55 kilometres per hour) represented less than 0.2% of the average daily traffic volume.

A review of the Toronto Police Service's collision data records for Gladstone Avenue between College Street and Sylvan Avenue for the three year period beginning January 1, 1996 and ending December 31, 1998, revealed there were no collisions reported.

Although the primary criteria as set out in the speed hump installation policy established by the former City of Toronto Council in August 1997, has been technically satisfied, based upon the secondary criteria i.e., using a technical screening mechanism to evaluate the need for speed humps based on prevailing traffic conditions, vehicle speed percentages and pertinent collision data, our assessment indicates that the speed profile for Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue, is typical of many local/residential streets across the City and that the majority of motorists travel at safe operating speeds. Although the installation of speed humps would certainly eliminate any excessive speeding on these streets, the incidence of excessive speeding represents less than 0.2 percent of the daily traffic volume and is relatively minor when compared to a number of other locations where excessive speeding constitutes a much greater percentage of the total daily traffic volume. Accordingly, no further action is recommended on Gladstone Avenue between College Street and Sylvan Avenue at this time.

Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street

Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street operates two-way eastbound/westbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres with a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Twenty-four hour speed and volume surveys conducted by Transportation Services' staff over a four day period indicated the subject section of Lindsey Avenue carries an average daily volume of approximately 600 vehicles. These volumes are significantly below the minimum requirement of 1,000 vehicles per day necessary for further consideration of the installation of speed humps.

In terms of vehicular speed, the above studies have revealed that the average daily speed on this section of Lindsey Avenue was 30 kilometres per hour for both directions. The average operating speed (the speed at which 85% of the traffic volume operates at or below) was 38 kilometres per hour for both directions. Incidents of excessive speeding (vehicles travelling in excess of 55 kilometres per hour) represented 1% of the average daily traffic volume.

A review of the Toronto Police Service's collision data records for Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street, for the three year period beginning January 1, 1996 and ending December 31, 1998, revealed there were two midblock collisions reported and speeding was not a factor in either situation.

Based upon the criteria set out in the policy established by the former City of Toronto Council in August, 1997, i.e., using a technical screening mechanism to evaluate the need for speed humps based on prevailing traffic conditions, vehicle speed percentages and pertinent collision data, the speed profile for Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street, is typical of many local/residential streets across the City and that the majority of motorists travel at safe operating speeds. Although the installation of speed humps would certainly eliminate any excessive speeding on these streets, the incidence of excessive speeding represents less than 1 percent of the daily traffic volume (6 vehicles) and is relatively minor when compared to a number of other locations where excessive speeding constitutes a much greater percentage of the total daily traffic volume. Accordingly, no further action is recommended on this section of Lindsey Avenue at this time.

Notwithstanding the above, the installation of speed humps on adjacent residential streets in the immediate vicinity (Havelock Street, between College Street and Bloor Street West, and Sylvan Street, between Havelock Street and Dufferin Street) have been supported by Toronto City Council and the affected residents, and the installation on same is currently underway.

Should Toronto Community Council wish to proceed with the installation of speed humps on the subject sections of Gladstone Avenue and Lindsey Avenue, the following recommendations should be adopted:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Gladstone Avenue, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, 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 Gladstone Avenue, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5440, dated August 1999.";

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

"The construction of speed humps on Lindsey Avenue, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5404, dated June 1999.";

(3) That a speed limit of thirty kilometres per hour be introduced on Gladstone Avenue, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

(4) That a speed limit of thirty kilometres per hour be introduced on Lindsey Avenue, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits;

(5) 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.

The traffic calming proposals for the subject sections of Gladstone Avenue and Lindsey Avenue are illustrated on the attached prints of Drawing Nos. 42IF-5440 and 42IF-5404, respectively. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected sections of the streets, and also of households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this policy, at least 60 percent of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, subject to approval by your Council of the above recommendations, Transportation Services' staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the sections of Gladstone Avenue and Lindsey Avenue, as described above, constitute alterations 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. Again, subject to your Council's approval of the above recommendations, consultations with the emergency services will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations. However, the introduction of speed humps would result in slower operating speeds for all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, resulting in increased response times.

These projects would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for the Municipal Roads Project.

It is estimated that the cost to implement this proposal is $10,500.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Capitol Budget.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To relieve traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity of the Jane Subway Station.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $1,000.00 funds for which are available in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No parking anytime" on both sides of Armadale Avenue from Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north be rescinded;

(2) That the "No stopping 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" on both sides of Armadale Avenue from Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north be rescinded;

(3) That stopping be prohibited at anytime, on both sides of Armadale Avenue from Bloor Street West to points 15 metres north;

(4) That stopping be prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on both sides of Armadale Avenue from points 15 metres north of Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north;

(5) That parking be prohibited at anytime on both sides of Armadale Avenue from points 15 metres north of Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Ward Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and area residents, Works staff assessed the feasibility of introducing more stringent parking regulations on both sides of Armadale Avenue, between Bloor Street West and the Jane Subway Station, to relieve traffic congestion.

Armadale Avenue operates two-way with a 50 kilometres per hour speed limit and a pavement width which varies from 11 metres, from Bloor Street West to a point 59 metres north, to 8.5 metres north of that point. Daily traffic volumes average 2,000 vehicles per day.

Parking is prohibited at anytime on both sides of the street, from Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north, and stopping is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north. Alternate side parking operates on this street and parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily, outside of the 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily permit parking hours of operation. Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

In consideration of the present traffic congestion on the subject portion of Armadale Avenue, to facilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic, to improve the turning radius for transit vehicles and reduce congestion, the regulation changes noted in Recommendation Nos.1 to 5, above, should be implemented to prohibit stopping at anytime on both sides of Armadale Avenue from Bloor Street West to points 15 metres north.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To designate the easterly northbound curb lane for right turns only on Spadina Avenue at Queen Street West.

Funding Sources:

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 easterly northbound lane on Spadina Avenue at Queen Street West be designated exclusively for right-turning vehicles, from Queen Street West to a point 30.5 metres south 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:

At the request from a member of the public, Transportation Services' staff have reviewed the operations of the northbound approach on Spadina Avenue to Queen Street West with the view of creating an exclusive northbound right-turn lane to improve safety for motorists and cyclists.

The intersection of Spadina Avenue and Queen Street West is controlled by traffic control signals. The northbound approach to this intersection consists of a left-turn lane, two through lanes and a right-turn lane. Two northbound discharge lanes are provided on the far side of this intersection.

The northbound left-turn lane is currently adequately marked with pavement markings and is provided with an exclusive signal phase. The right-turn lane, whose taper starts approximately 50 metres south of Queen Street West, is marked with pavement markings only. Designation of the northbound curb lane for right turns only and the associated installation of the lane designation sign will provide better guidance for northbound motorists and cyclists approaching this intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Danny Budimirovic, P.Eng.

Traffic Engineer, District 1 - Central Area

(416) 392-5209

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 27, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a request for the removal of a disabled persons on-street parking space.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $150.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking Anytime" regulation on the west side of Margueretta Street, from a point 304 metres south of Bloor Street West, to a point 9 metres further south (implemented by By-law No. 1994-0282), be rescinded;

(2) That the appropriate permit parking schedule be amended by increasing the number of parking spaces by one; 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 Councillor Joe Pantalone, Transportation Service's staff have investigated the feasibility of removing the on-street disabled persons parking space fronting Premises No. 238 Margueretta Street as this privilege is no longer required.

The rescindment of the "No Parking Anytime" regulation on the west side of Margueretta Street between a point 304 metres south of Bloor Street West and a point 9 metres further south will increase the available number of permit parking spaces by one.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the introduction of overnight permit parking on the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road, on an area basis, within permit area 9C, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) permit parking be introduced on the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road, on an area basis within permit area 9C, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday;

(2) the newly created Schedule AD, of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be introduced to incorporate the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road; and

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

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, gave consideration to Clause 45 contained in Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Introduction of Pay-and-Display Parking Machines where Parking is Currently Allowed - Queen Street East, both sides, from Coxwell Avenue to Woodbine Avenue". Council adopted the Clause without amendment, and by so doing, recommended, among other things, a poll be conducted of the residents of Queen Street East with respect to the introduction of permit parking on the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road.

Comments:

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

Ballots were mailed out on June 3, 1999, with the last date for filling a response being July 5, 1999. The results of the poll are as follows:

A field survey has determined that there are thirty seven (37) potential on-street permit parking spaces available on the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road

Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of permit parking on Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road. It is therefore, recommended that permit parking be introduced on the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road, on an area basis within permit area 9C, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) permit parking be introduced on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, within permit parking area 3D, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week;

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

(3) the existing no parking 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday prohibitions on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, be rescinded; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the introduction of overnight permit parking on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, within permit parking area 3D, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the introduction of permit parking on Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, being a former Metro Roads (main arterial roads), where authority currently does not exist for the implementation of permit parking privileges.

OR

(2) (a) permit parking be introduced on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, within permit parking area 3D, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week;

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

(c) the existing no parking 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday prohibitions on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, be rescinded; and

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

Background:

City Council at its meeting of December 16 & 17, 1998, amended Clause No. 3 of Report No. 16, entitled "Extension of Permit Parking Hours - Westport Avenue, between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road (Davenport)". Council requested the foregoing Clause be amended to provide that the extended permit parking hours also apply to Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, and that the authority be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto.

Comments:

Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, is not licenced for permit parking. Under the provision of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, we are required to conduct a poll of the residents to determine if there is support to introduce permit parking.

Ballots were mailed out on May 12, 1999, with the last date for filling a response being June 11, 1999. The results of the poll are as follows:

A field survey has determined that there are seven (7) potential on-street permit parking spaces available on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue.

The provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, provides the authority to license permit parking on City streets and does not provide the authority to license former Metro Roads (main arterial roads).

Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of implementing permit parking on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, within permit area 3D, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

The Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend permit parking be introduced on a former Metro Road (main arterial road) where authority currently does not exist.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week to 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) the permit parking hours of operation on Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2) Schedule E of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Sandra Bussin to have the permit parking hours reduced on Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 8B, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Permit area 8B has a total of 2,377 on-street parking spaces with 1,959 permits issued to date. On Valifor Place itself, there are 8 on-street permit parking spaces with a total of 4 permits issued to residents on the street.

The reduction of permit parking hours on Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Sun on May 18, 1999 and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking hours on Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, be amended to indicate 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on the south side of Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) the permit parking hours of operation on the south side of Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2) Schedule P of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street: and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, on behalf of an area resident to, have the permit parking hours extended on Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit area 1E, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

Given that the extension of permit parking hours on Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, is an administrative procedure, it is recommended that the hours be amended to indicate 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and Sunday, and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., on Saturday.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) the permit parking hours of operation on Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, be reduced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and Sunday, and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., on Saturday;

(2) the newly created Schedule AB, of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be introduced to incorporate Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor John Adams and Councillor Ila Bossons to have the permit parking hours reduced on Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, from the current hours of 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and Sunday, and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., on Saturday.

Comments:

Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 5D, and the hours of operation are 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Permit area 5D has a total of 1,001 on-street parking spaces with 969 permits issued to date. On Brunswick Avenue itself, there are 10 on-street permit parking spaces with a total of 8 permits issued to residents on the street.

The reduction of permit parking hours on Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Star and The Gleener on April 1, 1999 and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking hours on Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, be amended to indicate 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and Sunday, and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., on Saturday.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To enhance the flow of traffic on Roxborough Street West in the vicinity of Avenue Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200.00 are available under the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road to a point 30.5 metre further east; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Midtown Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons, staff reviewed the existing parking regulations on Roxborough Street West, in the vicinity of Avenue Road, with the intention of improving traffic flow and enhancing the sightlines for pedestrians.

Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road to Molson Street, operates two-way on a pavement width of 10.1 metres with a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side of Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road to a point 30.5 metres further east, to ensure that westbound traffic is unimpeded by parked vehicles in the designated right turn lane when departing the intersection of Avenue Road and Roxborough Street West. Left turns onto Avenue Road from Roxborough Street West are prohibited at all times. Parking is permitted for a maximum of one hour, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, on both sides of Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road to Molson Street.

During the course of investigations, Transportation Services' staff observed that vehicles park for extended periods of time within the 30.5 metre prohibited parking area located on the north side of Roxborough Street West, east of Avenue Road , impeding the traffic flow, reducing sightlines for pedestrians and creating delays to westbound traffic. To address this situation, and enhance traffic flow at this intersection, the more stringent "No Stopping Anytime" regulation should be implemented on the north side of Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road to a point 30.5 metres further east.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, Traffic Investigator, 392-7711

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To discourage long-term, non-residential parking on this portion of Inglewood Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That parking be permitted for a maximum period of one hour, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, on both sides of Inglewood Drive, from Rose Park Drive to Heath Street East; 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 John Adams, on behalf of area residents, staff have investigated the feasibility of implementing a one hour daytime maximum parking limit to discourage long-term, non-resident parking on both sides of Inglewood Drive, from Rose Park Drive to Heath Street East.

Inglewood Drive from Rose Park Drive to Heath Street East, operates two-way on an 8.5 metre pavement width. Permit parking operates on both sides of the street between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. daily. Parking is otherwise permitted to a maximum period of three hours.

In a letter and accompanying petition to Councillor Adams, area residents have expressed concerns regarding non-residents, who work or shop in the Yonge Street/St. Clair Avenue area, who regularly park their vehicles on Inglewood Drive for extended periods of time throughout the day. The introduction of a one hour maximum parking limit should address this concern. Residents in possession of a valid parking permit would be exempt from this temporal restriction. In this regard, I would recommend that parking be permitted for a maximum periodof one hour as described in Recommendation No. 1, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, Traffic Investigator, 392-7711

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To provide additional parking spaces and to implement a one-way northbound traffic operation on Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue and Davenport Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $1,500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the existing "No Standing at Anytime" regulation on the east side of Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to a point 85.0 metres north, be rescinded;

(2) That the existing one hour maximum parking regulation, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the east side of Madison Avenue, from a point 45 metres south of Davenport Road to a point 85.0 metres north of MacPherson Avenue be changed to operate from a point 45 metres south of Davenport Road to MacPherson Avenue;

(3) That a one-way northbound traffic operation be designated on Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to Davenport Road; and

(4) 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:

At the request of Midtown Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons, on behalf of representatives of the Alan Howard Waldorf School, Premises No. 250 Madison Avenue, staff have investigated the feasibility of rescinding the current "No Standing at Anytime" regulation on the east side of Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to a point 85.0 metres north and introducing a "One Hour Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation in its place and further, to consider the feasibility of implementing a one-way northbound traffic operation on Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to Davenport Road.

Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to Davenport Road, operates two-way on a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of the subject section of Madison Avenue. On the east side of Madison Avenue, standing is prohibited at anytime from MacPherson Avenue to a point 85.0 metres north (fronting Premises No. 374 Madison Avenue), parking is prohibited from Davenport Road to a point 45.0 metres south and in between, parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

Premises No. 375 Madison Avenue, formerly used by Toronto Hydro, is presently vacant. Previously, Toronto Hydro utility vehicles would halt momentarily to load/unload on Madison Avenue and the area in front of this property was generally kept clear of parked vehicles to enhance the turning radius for Hydro trucks entering/exiting the premises; hence the reason for standing prohibition on the east side of Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to a point 85.0 metres north. In light of the current status of Premises No. 375 Madison Avenue, this standing prohibition is no longer required and parking could be allowed to maximize the parking opportunities on this section of Madison Avenue.

Accordingly, for conformity with existing parking regulations on the remainder of the street, parking should be permitted on the east side of Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to a point 45 metres south of Davenport Road, to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Implementation of this proposal will create approximately nine additional parking spaces on Madison Avenue, between MacPherson Avenue and Davenport Road.

In addition to the above, representatives of the Allen Howard Waldorf School have expressed concerns regarding the impact of vehicles turning south on Madison Avenue from Davenport Road on the safety of children in the vicinity of the school. Motorists have been observed using this portion of Madison Avenue as a "short-cut" to the Davenport Road/Dupont Street intersection. There are no residential properties on Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to Davenport Road and the implementation of a one-way northbound operation should not negatively impact on residential streets in the immediate area. Implementation of this proposal should also enhance safety for school children destined to/from the school.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, Traffic Investigator, 392-7711

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 13, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To enhance tour bus loading/unloading operations at the flankage of Premises No. 370 King Street West (Holiday Inn Hotel) and to resolve operational safety concerns on the street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking at Anytime" regulation on the west side of Widmer Street, from King Street West to a point 68.6 metres further north, be changed to "No Standing at Anytime"; 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 Holiday Inn Hotel (Premises No. 370 King Street West) and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Olivia Chow, staff of Transportation Services have reviewed the parking regulations on Widmer Street, flanking the hotel, with the view of allowing tour buses improved access to the curb to load/unload patrons to the hotel and enhance traffic operation and safety on the street.

Widmer Street, from King Street West to Adelaide Street West operates two-way on a variable pavement width ranging between 7.3 metres and 10 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of the street from King Street West to a point 68.6 metres north and from that point to Adelaide Street West, 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. Otherwise parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side of Widmer Street, from Adelaide Street West to a point 90 metres south, and from that point to King Street West, 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. Otherwise parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Under the authority of the Highway Traffic Act, a vehicle, while actually engaged in loading/unloading passengers, may legally do so in an area where standing or parking is prohibited. Accordingly, vehicles (buses, delivery trucks, taxis and passenger vehicles) may legally stop on the west side of Widmer Street, between King Street West and a point 68.6 metres north (flankage of the Holiday Inn Hotel) to load/unload passengers or merchandise. However, if a vehicle is left unattended, it is unlawfully parked and subject to appropriate enforcement.

A site inspection by Transportation Services' staff has revealed that tour buses often cannot gain access to the curb and are forced to double park to load/unload patrons destined to the Holiday Inn Hotel due, in part, to the presence of parked vehicles displaying a valid disabled persons parking permit which may legally park for extended periods of time on the west side of Widmer Street, from King Street West to a point 68.6 metres further north (flankage of the Holiday Inn Hotel). This, in combination with parking on the east side of the street, narrows the pavement width of Widmer Street making passage along the street very difficult and adversely impacts on traffic operation and pedestrian safety.

To resolve this situation, a "No Standing at Anytime" prohibition should be designated on the west side of Widmer Street, from King Street West to a point 68.6 metres further north (the first parking meter stall) and in conjunction therewith, to enhance motorists' awareness of the pick-up/drop-off potential at the subject section of the street, staff of Transportation Services will post advisory signs indicating "Tour Bus Loading Area". This will enhance tour bus loading/unloading operations at the flankage of Premises No. 370 King Street West (Holiday Inn Hotel) and resolve the operational safety concerns noted above. Although this will result in the loss of an area that is currently used for on-street parking by disabled persons permit holders, as well as for delivery vehicles to halt momentarily to load/unload merchandise to the Holiday Inn Hotel, the benefits of providing enhanced operational safety on this section of Widmer Street outweighs the minor inconvenience that the loss of the "No Parking Anytime" area will create.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771,

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To keep the curb/sidewalk area clear of parked vehicles to ensure the safe and efficient flow of both pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

(1) That the stopping prohibition from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to Simcoe Street, be rescinded;

(2) That the parking prohibition at anytime on both sides of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to Clarence Square, be rescinded;

(3) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Wellington Street West, from York Street to University Avenue;

(4) That stopping be prohibited from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday on the north side of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to Simcoe Street;

(5) That stopping be prohibited from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday on the south side of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to York Street, and from University Avenue to Simcoe Street;

(6) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to Clarence Square;

(7) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to York Street, and from University Avenue to Clarence Square; and

(8) 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 Empire Plaza, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 932 located at Premises No. 33 University Avenue and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Olivia Chow, staff of Transportation Services have reviewed the parking regulations on the subject section of Wellington Street West, flanking the Empire Plaza, with the view of enhancing traffic operation and safety on the street.

Wellington Street West, between York Street and University Avenue, is a four lane arterial roadway operating one-way westbound on a pavement width of 12.8 metres. Stopping is prohibited from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of this portion of Wellington Street West. Otherwise, parking is prohibited at all other times.

The subject section of Wellington Street West is approximately 77.4 metres in length. Traffic control signals are in operation at both of the intersections of Wellington Street West with York Street and with University Avenue. Under the provisions of the Metropolitan Toronto Uniform Traffic By-law and of Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto 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. A recent site inspection by Transportation Services' staff revealed that signs are posted and clearly visible identifying this regulation.

It is illegal for vehicles to mount the curb/sidewalk to load/unload merchandise, pick-up/drop-off pedestrians or as in this case, to park in order to purchase goods at the Coffee Time Cafe located on the south side of Wellington Street West, midblock, between York Street and University Avenue. Notwithstanding, this does happen from time to time throughout the City when motorists have nowhere else to conveniently temporarily stop their vehicles to load/unload merchandise, pick-up/drop-off pedestrians or as in this case, to park in order to purchase goods at an adjacent business, and are trying to maintain sufficient roadway space so other vehicles can safely pass by.

A site inspection by Transportation Services' staff confirmed the presence of parked vehicles, not only at the curb but also across the curb/sidewalk, which were parked illegally for short periods of time on the south side of Wellington Street West, between York Street and University Avenue. The illegal parking eliminated the use of the curb lane to moving traffic, made passage along the street difficult and adversely impacted on traffic operation and pedestrian safety on the sidewalk.

To resolve this situation, a more stringent "No Stopping at Anytime" regulation should be designated on the south side of Wellington Street West, between York Street and University Avenue, and in conjunction therewith, staff of Transportation Operations will install bollards immediately in back of the curb to curtail vehicles from mounting the curb/sidewalk in the future. This will result in the loss of an area that is currently used by delivery vehicles (outside the prohibited stopping times as indicated above) to halt momentarily to load/unload merchandise to businesses in the vicinity. However, the benefits of providing enhanced operational safety on this section of Wellington Street West outweighs the minor inconvenience that the loss of the "No Parking Anytime" area will create.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771,

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 27, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a proposal intended to reduce speeding on this street and bring the speed limit on this section of Bingham Avenue into conformity with the other local streets in the neighbourhood.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the maximum speed limit on Bingham Avenue from Kingston Road to Bracken Avenue be reduced from 50 kilometres per hour to 40 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 residents of Bingham Avenue and in consultation with East Toronto Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin, staff have investigated reducing the speed limit from a maximum of 50 kilometres per hour to a maximum of 40 kilometres per hour on Bingham Avenue from Kingston Road to Bracken Avenue.

A recent 24-hour speed survey on Bingham Avenue recorded 397 vehicles travelling on the street of which 4.0% were recorded travelling at a rate of speed in excess of 50 kilometers per hour.

Although the traffic volume and incidence of speeding are low compared to most residential streets in the City, Bingham Avenue satisfies the former City of Toronto criteria for the introduction of a 40 kilometre per hour maximum speed limit. Implementing same would bring this street in line with the majority of surrounding streets in the neighborhood and could reduce the incidence of "top end" speeding over 50 kilometres per hour.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard

Traffic Investigator

(416)392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 20, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To increase the number of parking spaces on this section of Queen Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the south side of Queen Street East from a point 34 metres west of Rhodes Avenue to a point 62 metres further west be rescinded;

(2) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Queen Street East from a point 72 metres east of Woodward Avenue to a point 21 metres further east and from a point 119.3 metres east of Woodward Avenue to a point 14.7 metres further east;

(3) That parking be allowed for a maximum period of 2 hours 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 from a point 93 metres east of Woodward Avenue to a point 26.3 metres further east; 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 local business proprietors and in consultation with Councillor Tom Jakobek, staff of Transportation Services have investigated rescinding a portion of the parking prohibition on the south side of Queen Street East opposite Premises No.1574 Queen Street East.

Based on our assessment, parking could be allowed for a maximum period of two hours from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and for a maximum period of three hours at other times (except for 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday when stopping is prohibited on all of Queen Street East). This would provide about four additional parking spaces within the immediate area and benefit patrons of the nearby businesses and visitors to the neighbourhood without adversely affecting operational safety.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To designate the two westerly- most southbound lanes as right-turn lanes and to prohibit right-turns on red for the southbound approach on Bay Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West in order to reduce delays.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage, pavement marking and traffic signal indication adjustments in the estimated amount of $7,000.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the existing regulation designating the westerly, most southbound, lane on Bay Street for right-turning vehicles only (except buses), from Lake Shore Boulevard West to a point 30.5 metres north thereof, be rescinded;

(2) That the two westerly-most southbound lanes on Bay Street be designated for right-turning vehicles only, from Lake Shore Boulevard West to a point 60 metres north thereof;

(3) That southbound right-turns-on-red be prohibited at all times at the intersection of Bay Street and Lake Shore Boulevard 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 may be required.

Comments:

In response to public requests, Transportation Services reviewed the operation of the southbound right-turn movement at the above-noted intersection. The inquirers' main concerns were dual southbound right turns and the delay that southbound right turns encounter at this intersection.

The intersection of Bay Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West is controlled by traffic signals. During the busiest eight-hour period of a typical weekday approximately 25,000 motorists, 5000 pedestrians and 150 cyclists use this intersection. The southbound approach on Bay Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West is comprised of a right-turn lane (buses excepted) and a through lane. Traffic control signals at this intersection operate under the SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique) system, whereby signal timings are automatically adjusted in response to changing traffic patterns by analyzing traffic flow data obtained from sensors embedded in the roadways.

Due to significant conflicts between southbound right-turning motorists and pedestrians crossing the west leg of this intersection, in 1994 we subdivided the southbound green time into two phases. During the first phase southbound through vehicles and pedestrians crossing the west leg of the intersection are permitted to move. During the second phase, only southbound through and right-turning vehicles are permitted to move and no pedestrian crossings on the west leg are permitted. This modification reduced the pedestrian/vehicular conflict in this area and it also increased the capacity of the southbound right-turn movement.

During the busiest eight-hour period of a typical weekday, approximately 3,500 pedestrians cross the west leg of this intersection and approximately 3,000 southbound right turns are made at this intersection. This movement experiences minimal delays during the weekday morning peak period and the off-peak period. However, during the weekday afternoon peak period significant delays occur and the queues in the southbound curb lane often extend to Front Street West. As a result, some frustrated southbound motorists perform illegal, dual right turns from the through lane and thus compromise the safety of pedestrians and motorists at this intersection. Similar situations occur after events at the Air Canada Centre. The following table summarizes the southbound right-turn movement (vehicles per hour) during each time period of a typical weekday:

Unfortunately, congestion at this intersection is typical of many downtown locations during the weekday afternoon period. Because of the high concentration of office/business/retail activities in the downtown core and the limited amount of available road space, there is a high demand for the existing road capacity during the weekday afternoon peak period. This creates congestion at many downtown intersections, particularly on southbound routes such as Bay Street, York Street and Spadina Avenue that lead to Lake Shore Boulevard West and/or the Gardiner Expressway.

Existing regulatory and guidance signs, pavement markings and traffic signal indications conform to the provincial standards and provide clear direction and guidance to southbound motorists. Recently, a major construction project and lane closures on York Street, between Front Street West and Lake Shore Boulevard West, had a significant impact in this area by displacing north-south traffic to adjacent routes such as Bay Street. After this project was completed on July 9, 1999, we reviewed signal timings at the intersection of Bay Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West in hopes of decreasing delays for southbound right-turning motorists during the weekday afternoon peak period. In a field test, we modified some of the parameters in the SCOOT system and delays to southbound right-turning motorists were reduced. However, since the green time was reallocated from the westbound direction, increased delays were experienced by westbound motorists approaching this intersection. Therefore, we did not retain this signal timing modification because westbound volume is significantly higher than the southbound right-turn volume (approximately 1900 vehicles per hour vs. 520 vehicles per hour) during this time period.

As an alternate, we reviewed the existing pavement markings and the pavement width of Bay Street near Lake Shore Boulevard West. By adjusting pavement markings, a second southbound right-turn lane can be accommodated, while maintaining other north-south traffic lanes, within the existing pavement width of Bay Street. This modification will increase the capacity and decrease delays for the southbound right-turn movement at this intersection. A TTC southbound bus stop on Bay Street is located approximately 90 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard West. As a result, buses are currently exempted from the right-turn lane designation for the curb lane. We have consulted with TTC staff and they indicated that they already have operational concerns with this stop. As a result, they will either relocate this stop to the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West or they will remove the stop. In either case their southbound buses will proceed from the through lane and they no longer have to be exempted from the right-turn lane designation.

Currently, a minimal number of southbound right-turns on red are completed. This movement should be prohibited based on safety concerns for pedestrians and motorists. Firstly, some southbound right-turning motorists still proceed during the exclusive pedestrian crossing phase share on the west leg of the intersection creating safety concerns for pedestrians. Secondly, sightlines between southbound right-turning motorists and westbound through motorists are limited due to one of the Gardiner Expressway pillars on the north-east corner of the intersection. These concerns would only be exacerbated with dual southbound right-turns. Taking into account the addition of a second southbound right-turn lane, this prohibition will have negligible impacts on capacity. To reflect the above-noted modifications we will also modify the location of the southbound right-turn and through signal indications in order to provide motorists better direction and guidance.

A review of the Toronto Police Services collision records over a five-year period ending December 31, 1998 did not disclose any collisions that involved dual southbound right-turning vehicles or pedestrian crossing the west leg of the intersection. However, the above-noted modifications would be a preventative safety measure which would also increase capacity at this intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Danny Budimirovic, P.Eng.

Traffic Engineer, District 1 - Central Area

416-392-5209

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on clearly establishing right-of-way and improve the overall operating safety at this location.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary poles and signs installation in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That "stop" signs be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Coatsworth Street at Poulett Street; and

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

Comments:

At the request of the Toronto Police Service, staff have investigated installing "Stop" signs for eastbound and westbound traffic on Coatsworth Street at Poulett Street to improve operational safety.

Coatsworth Street is a public lane, varying in width from 4.3 metres to 5.6 metres, operating two-way from Parliament Street to Berkeley Street . Poulett Street operates one-way northbound from Shuter Street to Dundas Street East on a pavement width varying from 5.5 metres to 6.3 metres. There is currently no "Stop" sign control at this intersection.

Due to the proximity of adjacent buildings, westbound motorists on Coatsworth Street at Poulett Street have very poor sight lines across the corners of the intersection. Although this is not unusual

at intersections involving public lanes and minor roadways, traffic volume generated by residential developments on Poulett Street has increased traffic volume on both streets and justifies the installation of "Stop" sign control to clearly establish right-of-way. In this regard, "Stop" signs should be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Coatsworth Street at Poulett Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Gary O'Neil, Traffic Investigator

392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 20, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To establish right-of-way for vehicles on Orchard Park Boulevard.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary sign installation in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Divisions 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That a "Stop" sign be installed for northbound traffic on Penny Lane at Orchard Park Boulevard; and

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

Comments

At the request of Councillor Tom Jakobek and in consultation with East Toronto Councillor Sandra Bussin staff have investigated installing a northbound "Stop" sign at the subject intersection to improve operational safety and clearly establish right-of-way.

Penny Lane and Orchard Park Boulevard form a T-type intersection with Orchard Park Boulevard being the through road. Penny Lane operates two-way and Orchard Park Boulevard operates one-way southbound. No "Stop" signs are posted at this intersection at the present time.

Based on our assessment, the intersection of Orchard Park Boulevard and Penny Lane satisfies the requirement for a northbound "Stop" control, to clearly establish right-of-way.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To install a "Stop" sign for westbound traffic on Jerome Street at its intersection with Indian Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary pole and sign installation in the estimated amount of $200.00 are available in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That a "Stop" sign be installed for westbound traffic on Jerome Street at Indian Road; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Davenport Councillor Betty Disero, Works and Emergency Services staff have investigated installing a "Stop" sign for westbound traffic on Jerome Street at its intersection with Indian Road.

Jerome Street meets Indian Road to form a "T"- type intersection with Indian Road being the through street. There is currently no "Stop" sign control at this intersection.

As a means of establishing right-of-way at this intersection, it is recommended that a "Stop" sign be posted for westbound traffic on Jerome Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that signs advertising Downtown Chinatown be installed in the Front Street and Spadina Avenue area, at a location to be determined by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chinatown Development Committee.

Purpose:

To respond to a request from Toronto Community Council to report on the feasibility of installing signs at appropriate locations directing traffic to Downtown Chinatown as a tourist destination.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 26, 1999, in considering a communication (May 25, 1999) from Councillor Olivia Chow, requested staff to report on the feasibility of installing signs at appropriate locations, directing traffic to Downtown Chinatown as a tourist destination and to consult with the Chinatown Development Association on possible locations for such signs (Clause 58(w) in Report No. 8).

Comments:

Councillor Chow, in her correspondence to the Community Council, suggested that signs similar to those installed for the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Ontario Museum be considered on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway directing traffic to Downtown Chinatown. The municipality has over the years received many requests from communities, business improvement associations, interest groups and attractions for the installation of "Special Attraction" signs to direct tourists to their attraction. As many of the preferred sign locations requested were on the expressways and major arterial roads, it was deemed necessary to develop a policy in order to prevent the proliferation of signs as well as to retain locations for future regulatory traffic signs on the road network. Therefore, a policy was developed for determining which special attractions are eligible to have signs installed. The policy states that a major activity centre must meet all of the following criteria to be considered:

(1) It is unique to the City of Toronto;

(2) It is government sponsored or owned;

(3) It forms a major attraction and destination for persons living outside of the limits of the City of Toronto; and

(4) Has a minimum annual attendance of 40,000 persons.

Transportation Services staff have reviewed Councillor Chow's request against the criteria for "Special Attraction" signs and found that not all the criteria are met. Specifically, there are many similar areas in the City of special identity and it is not a government sponsored facility. In the past, similar requests for communities such as Greektown and Little Italy have been reviewed but have also not met the criteria and therefore not been signed. We have consulted with Councillor Chow with regard to the foregoing.

Conclusion:

Since Downtown Chinatown does not meet all the criteria for "Special Attraction" signs, we do not recommend the installation of directional signs on the freeways. However, we suggest that when the Chinatown Development Association advertises for Downtown Chinatown they advise tourists to exit the F.G. Gardiner at Spadina Avenue and proceed north to Dundas Street West. Transportation Services has recently upgraded the overhead guide signs on the F.G. Gardiner Expressway including the Spadina Avenue exits. It should also be noted that traffic can only proceed northbound when exiting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway at Spadina Avenue.

Contact Name:

Myles A. Currie, Manager

Signs & Pavement Markings, District 1

Telephone: 397-5179

Fax: 392-8504

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority to construct a safety and operational road improvement on Avenue Road at Oxton Avenue and to advertise the required construction by-law.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for this road modification is contained within Capital Account C-TR-380, Safety and Operational Improvements. The Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the Updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit approved by City Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Approval be given to proceed with the construction of this safety and operational road improvement described in this report, at an estimated cost of $140,000.00 and that the following traffic control measures be approved:

(a) a "Stop" sign be installed for northbound traffic on Avenue Road at its intersection with Oxton Avenue;

(b) the existing parking prohibition on the north side of Oxton Avenue, between Avenue Road and Oriole Parkway, in effect from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, be rescinded;

(c) the existing parking prohibition on the south side of Oxton Avenue, between Avenue Road and Oriole Parkway, in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, be rescinded;

(d) stopping be prohibited at all times on the north side of Oxton Avenue, between Avenue Road and a point 46 metres further east thereof;

(e) stopping be prohibited at all times on the south side of Oxton Avenue, between Avenue Road and a point 36 metres east thereof;

(f) parking be prohibited at all times on the west side of Avenue Road, between Chaplin Crescent and Hillholm Road;

(g) parking be prohibited at all times on the east side of Avenue Road, between Chaplin Crescent and a point 20 metres south of Hillholm Road;

(h) the westerly southbound lane on Avenue Road at Oxton Avenue be designated exclusively for through vehicles, from Oxton Avenue to a point 30.5 metres north thereof; and

(i) the easterly southbound lane on Avenue Road at Oxton Avenue be designated exclusively for left-turning vehicles, from Oxton Avenue to a point 30.5 metres north thereof.

(2) the appropriate City By-Law(s) be amended accordingly; and

(3) the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized.

Background:

In response to a number of requests from Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons and the local residents, Works & Emergency Services Department staff reviewed the feasibility of improving traffic operations at the intersection of Avenue Road and Oxton Avenue. The objectives of improvements were to increase the westbound-to-northbound and southbound-to-eastbound capacities in order to reduce traffic on local roads in this area and to reduce westbound rear-end collisions at this intersection.

The reconfiguration of this intersection has been under discussion for over five years. At its meeting on March 28 and 29, 1994, the former City of Toronto Council amended and adopted Clause No. 48 of Report No. 4 of the City Services Committee entitled "Revised Traffic Plan - North Hill District Home Owners' Association (Ward 14). This report endorsed in principle the reconfiguration of the Avenue Road and Oxton Avenue intersection. It also deferred the implementation of the proposed southbound right-turn prohibitions from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Avenue Road at Hillholm Avenue, at Killarney Road and at Kilbarry Road, as well as at Oriole Parkway and Kilbarry Road, until the effects of the Avenue Road and Oxton Avenue intersection reconfiguration could be evaluated.

Discussion:

The proposed reconfiguration of this intersection will increase through capacity to achieve the local traffic benefits requested by the Councillors and the Community and is expected to reduce westbound rear-end collisions. This is achieved by increasing the capacity for westbound and southbound motorists by providing them with free-flow conditions. The northbound traffic, which accounts for approximately 20 percent of the total traffic at this intersection, and currently has the right-of -way at this intersection, will be controlled by a "Stop" sign.

The reconfiguration of the intersection also features the narrowing of the road south of Oxton Avenue to widen the sidewalk on both sides of the road. The curb radii at Hillholm Road have been reduced to increase sidewalk space and to slow drivers making their right turns. All day parking on Oxton Avenue will provide a "buffer" between the through traffic and this sidewalk. The 24 hour a day parking can be permitted because Oxton Avenue, between Avenue Road and Oriole parkway is wide enough to operate as a four-lane roadway. However, traffic effectively operates in one lane in each direction even during peak periods. Therefore, in conjunction with the intersection realignment the existing peak period parking prohibitions should be rescinded to provide parking on both sides of Oxton Avenue on a 24-hour basis. Also, stopping should be prohibited on Oxton Avenue, in the vicinity of Avenue Road in order to provide safe and efficient traffic movements as well as to provide better sightlines for motorists using the driveways on the north side. This will result in a loss of approximately five parking spaces which could be accommodated further east along Oxton Avenue.

To accommodate the proposed intersection and curb reconfiguration on Avenue Road it is necessary to prohibit parking at all times on both sides of Avenue Road, between Chaplin Crescent and the general vicinity of Hillholm Road. This will result in the loss of approximately eight parking spaces on the west side and seven parking spaces on the east side of Avenue Road. The parking demand in this area is relatively light and can be accommodated at other locations in this area.

In order to provide better guidance and reduce potential conflicts for southbound motorists, the southbound median lane on Avenue Road near Oxton Avenue should be designated as a left-turn lane and the curb lane should be designated as a through lane.

Once the intersection reconfiguration is complete, we will conduct follow-up studies to determine the traffic impacts on this intersection as well as the surrounding area. Based on the results of those studies we will take appropriate action as necessary.

Pedestrian and Cycling Issues:

This road modification provides a positive change for pedestrians and cyclists and has been developed to conform with the departments guidelines for the accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists. It provides for bicycle friendly curb lanes, reduced corner radii where feasible and wider sidewalks and no compromises have been made with respect to the space allocated to these users.

Scope of Construction:

To construct this road modification, the following work will be undertaken:

(a) The removal and reconstruction of concrete curbs, gutter and sidewalks;

(b) construction of concrete road base and asphalt pavement;

(c) construction of concrete medians; and

(d) removal and reconstruction of catch basins and connections.

Conclusions:

The road modification outlined in this report is proposed to address the safety and operational problem at this location on the City of Toronto road system. The estimated construction cost is $140,000.00, which has been included in the 1999 Capital Budget estimates.

Contact Name:

David Crichton, Manager

Design and Construction

District 1, Area 1

Telephone: 392-7674

Fax: 392-7874

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorise the disposal of the property municipally known as 14 Norwood Terrace.

Financial Implications:

Revenue of $135,500.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments is anticipated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorised to accept the highest offer in the amount of $135,500.00 as detailed herein;

(2) Council, pursuant to Clause No.14, Report No. 36 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28,1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CA700CA2547

(4) the City Solicitor be authorised and directed to take the appropriate action to complete the transaction on behalf of the City of Toronto and be further authorised to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as considered reasonable; and

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

Background:

The City of Toronto is the owner of 14 Norwood Terrace, Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of the Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorised its disposal. The processes with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

Comments:

Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, the property was listed with Realty World-Homeward on July 8,1999 at an asking price of $129,900.00. As a result the following offers were received:

Purchaser Purchase Price Deposit Terms

Rachel Louise Gaskins $135,500.00 $6,775.00 (certified cheque) no conditions

Margaret Mary Saxon $131,001.00 $6,500.00 (certified cheque) no conditions

Elena Dubinski

Michael Dubinski $130,000.00 $6,500.00 (certified cheque) no conditions

The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:

Property Address: 14 Norwood Terrace

Legal Description: Part of Lots 20, 22 and 24 Block 5, Plan 635, City of Toronto

Approximate Lot Size: 4.95 metres (16 feet) fronting onto Norwood Terrace

33.09 metres (111 feet) depth

Location; North side of Norwood Terrace, east of Woodbine Avenue,

north of Gerrard Street

Improvements: Semi-detached, 2-bedroom brick veneer and aluminium

dwelling

Occupancy Status: Vacant

Recommended Sale Price: $135,500.00

Deposit: $6,775.00 (certified cheque)

Purchaser: Rachel Louise Gaskins

Closing Date: October 28, 1999

Terms: cash on closing, less the usual adjustments

Listing Broker: Realty World-Homeward

Selling Broker: Coldwell Banker Case Realty

Commission: Four (4) per cent, plus GST, payable on closing of the

transaction.

Accounts (Costing Units) have been put in place to charge costs directly related to the

maintenance and sale of City owned properties, and include such items as sales commissions,

surveying and registration of the sale. A recommendation is included in this report to direct a

portion of the sale proceeds to close out the account for this property.

Conclusion:

Completion of the transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Melanie Hale Carter

Valuator/Negotiator

Real Estate Services

Telephone: (416) 397-0585

Fax: (416) 392-1880

E-mail.: melanie_halecarter@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(tcc99115.doc)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 84 Beach View Crescent

Financial Implications:

Revenue of $150,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments is anticipated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to accept the offer in the amount of $150,000.00 as detailed herein;

(2) Council, pursuant to Clause No.14, Report No. 36 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28,1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CA700CA2474

(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to complete the transaction on behalf of the City of Toronto and be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as considered reasonable; and

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

Background:

The City of Toronto is the owner of 84 Beach View Crescent, Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of the Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The processes with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

Comments:

Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, negotiations were conducted with the tenants, Lindsay and Beth McQuade, and the following offer was received:

Property Address: 84 Beach View Crescent

Legal Description: Part of Lots 58 and 59 on the west side of Beach View Crescent, Plan 444E together with and subject to a right of way as set out in Instrument No. 85565EX, City of Toronto

Approximate Lot Size; 7.62 metres (25 feet) fronting onto Beach View Crescent 30.48 mettres (100 feet) depth

Location: West side of Beach View Crescent, east of Woodbine Avenue, north of Gerrard Street

Improvements: Detached, 3-bedroom brick dwelling

Occupancy Status: Tenanted

Recommended Sale Price: $150,000.00

Deposit: $1,000.00 (money order)

Purchaser: Lindsay McQuade

Beth McQuade

Michael McQuade

Closing Date: November 15, 1999

Terms: Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments

Accounts (Costing Units) have been put in place to charge costs directly related to the maintenance and sale of City owned properties, and include such items as sales commissions, surveying and registration of the sale. A recommendation is included in this report to direct a portion of the sale proceeds to close out the account for this property.

Conclusion:

Completion of the transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Melanie Hale Carter

Valuator/Negotiator

Real Estate Services

Telephone: (416) 397-0585

Fax No. (416) 392-1880

E-mail: melanie_halecarter@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To grant authority to the community group known as the Tommy Flynn Playground Committee, on behalf of the City of Toronto, to seek private donations for improvements to the playground in Eglinton Park.

Source of Funds:

There is no impact to the budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be given to the community group known as the "Tommy Flynn Playground Committee", on behalf of the City of Toronto, to seek private donations for improvements to the playground in Eglinton Park; and

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

Background:

The Tommy Flynn Playground Committee have been working with staff from the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, the Advisory Council of the North Toronto Memorial Community Recreation Centre, and Councillors Michael Walker and Anne Johnston, to develop a plan for the redevelopment of the playground in Eglinton Park. The Tommy Flynn Playground Committee is proposing that the playground be designed and built by community volunteer resources.

A similar venture in High Park was implemented and welcomed in the community with the second phase of the playground redevelopment taking place in the Spring/Summer of 1999.

All donations received for the Eglinton Park playground redevelopment, by the City of Toronto, will be held separately in an account designated for this purpose, and receipts for income tax purposes will be issued to donors in accordance with Section 110 and Section 118 of the Income Tax Act A...donations to Canadian Municipalities are tax deductible.

Conclusions:

That the Tommy Flynn Playground Committee be given authorization to fundraise for the playground redevelopment project.

Contact Name:

Mario Zanetti, 392-1905

Anne Valliere, 392-1909

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To grant authority to the community group known as the Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee, on behalf of the City of Toronto, to seek private donations for improvements to the playground at the Hillcrest Community Recreation Centre.

Source of Funds:

There is no impact to the budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

• authority be given to the community group known as the "Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee", on behalf of the City of Toronto, to seek private donations for improvements to the playground at the Hillcrest Community Recreation Centre.
• the appropriate Civic officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee, have been working with staff from the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, and Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons, to develop a plan for the redevelopment of the playground at the shared use site between the Toronto District School Board and the City of Toronto, of the Hillcrest Community Recreation Centre. The Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee is proposing that the playground be designed and built by community volunteer resources.

A similar venture in High Park was implemented and welcomed in the community with the second phase of the playground redevelopment taking place in the Spring/Summer of 1999.

All donations received for the Hillcrest Community Recreation Centre playground redevelopment, by the City of Toronto, will be held separately in an account designated for this purpose, and receipts for income tax purposes will be issued to donors in accordance with Section 110 and Section 118 of the Income Tax Act ".....donations to Canadian Municipalities are tax deductible."

Maintenance responsibilities for the playground is currently with the Toronto District School Board. It is understood by the Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee that all future maintenance to the new equipment and the playground will be the responsibility of the Advisory Committee.

Conclusion:

That the Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee be given authorization to fundraise for this project at the Hillcrest Community Recreation Centre.

Contact Name:

Mario Zanetti, 392-1905

Anne Valliere, 392-1909

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 27, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a request to construct an underground parking garage and enclosed stairway and to maintain a ventilation exhaust grill which will encroach within the public right-of-way, on the Dundas Square flank of 285 Yonge Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve the construction of the underground parking garage and enclosed stairway, and the maintenance of a ventilation exhaust grill which will encroach within the public right-of-way on the Dundas Square flank of 285 Yonge Street, subject to the Toronto Parking Authority, 33 Queen Street East, Toronto, Ontario M5C 1R5, and such other licensees as may be required by the City Solicitor, entering into an encroachment 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 underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and ventilation exhaust grill, in good and proper repair and a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c) Permit additions to the underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and exhaust grill, to allow additional connections to same and to permit and pay for such alterations and modifications to the underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and ventilation exhaust grill, as may be required at any time by the City to serve the public interest;

(d) Relocate any underground pipes or other connections, that may be required to facilitate the construction of the new underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and ventilation exhaust grill, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e) Pay an annual rental fee for the underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and ventilation exhaust grill, as determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

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

Background:

This site encompasses the block bounded by Yonge, Dundas and Victoria Streets and Dundas Square and is part of an overall development which has been the subject of Site Plan Approval for, among other things, the construction of an underground parking garage and stairway and maintenance of a ventilation exhaust grill by the Toronto Parking Authority, in connection with the development of a public square by the City of Toronto.

Comments:

Mr. Darren Wint, of Read Jones, Christoffersen Limited, 144 Front Street West, Suite 510, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2L7, acting on behalf of Toronto Parking Authority, requested permission to construct an underground parking garage and enclosed stairway and to maintain the ventilation exhaust grill, which will encroach within the public right-of-way, on the Dundas Square flank of 285 Yonge Street.

The underground parking garage will encroach a maximum of 4.7 m x 29.3 m within the public right-of-way, and the enclosed stairway, which will provide access to the garage, will encroach 2.4 m x 6.6 m. The ventilation exhaust grill measures 1.5 m x 4.7 m and is situated adjacent the proposed underground parking garage.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this location and have determined that the underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and ventilation exhaust grill will not impact negatively on the area.

Conclusion:

As the proposed underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and existing ventilation exhaust grill will not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, these encroachments should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, at 392-7894

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1999) from the City Surveyor, Technical Services Division:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the private lane at the rowhouse development at 1 Rankin Crescent be named Pear Tree Mews.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated costs of $600.00 for the street name signs are to be paid by the developer.

Recommendations:

(1) That the private lane at the rowhouse development at 1 Rankin Crescent, illustrated on the enclosed Map A, be named "Pear Tree Mews."

(2) That NEXXT Development Incorporation be required to pay the costs, estimated to be in the amount of $600.00, for the fabrication and installation of the appropriate signage; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

I have a request from Jerald Silverberg of NEXXT Development Corporation (1 Atlantic Avenue, Toronto, On M6K 3E7) to name the proposed private lane at the rowhouse development at 1 Rankin Crescent, "Pear Tree Mews." Mr. Silvergerg's reasons for his selection are set out in Appendix "A".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The proposed name has been circulated to Councillors Betty Disero and Dennis Fotinos, Toronto Planning, Heritage Toronto, the West Toronto Junction Historical Society and Fire Services for comment. The name has the support of Councillors Betty Disero and Dennis Fotinos and Toronto Planning. Fire Services and the West Toronto Junction Historical Society do not support the proposed name. Heritage Toronto has no comment on the proposal. The correspondence respecting this matter is set out in Appendix "A".

Conclusions:

The proposed name is not duplicated in the City of Toronto and is arguably consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by the former Toronto City Council on July 11, 1988

(Clause 4, Executive Committee Report No. 22).

Contact Name:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416)392-1831

Fax: (416)392-0081

E-mail: dchristo@toronto.ca

Appendix "A"

Letter from Jerald Silverberg of NEXXT Development Incorporation

Please accept this letter as an application to name the private drive at the above location Pear Tree Mews. The location of this drive is as shown on the enclosed site plan. Units 8-24 front on Rankin Crescent. Units 25-41 front on the proposed "Pear Tree Mews".

The pear tree originally came from Europe, East Asia and North Africa and likely made its way to the Toronto area around the late 1700's. The tree was originally cultivated for its fruit and then developed into an ornamental tree as new varieties were introduced.

The above noted project will have an extensive number of ornamental pear trees as part of the landscaping proposal for this site.

Memorandum from Richard Stromberg, Heritage Toronto

We are in receipt of your memorandum dated March 23, 1999 requesting Heritage Toronto to comment on a proposal to name a new private lane at 1 Rankin Crescent "Pear Tree Mews."

The proposed name does not appear to comply with the City's policy on street and lane naming to commemorate persons, places, and events with a demonstrated relevance to the City and the neighbourhood. However, we appreciate the fact that the name relates to the proposed landscaping features of the proposed townhouse development serviced by the lane. Heritage Toronto has no comment on the proposal.

Memorandum from Sandra Hoeflich, Fire Services

Further to you memorandum of March 8, 1999 requesting comments on the proposed naming of the lane at the rear of 1 Rankin Crescent.

Fire Services opposes the proposed name Pear Tree Mews, as it matches too closely with Pear Tree Road, Mississauga.

Letter from Diana Fancher, West Toronto Junction Historical Society

Re: Naming of the private lane at 1 Rankin Crescent - Pear Tree Mews (Ward 21)

I sent the developer a list of numerous historically appropriate street names at his request. And, while we wouldn't want to force him to choose an historical name, he could a least choose something in keeping with the area.

Pear Tree Mews is not only inappropriate it is a sort of tacky parody on suburban street names. A mews is originally a falcon stable which would have been part of a wealthy house hold in England and presumably these sites in urban settings were eventually developed as housing.

There are no mews in North America. A mews would most certainly not have contained pear trees either. Additionally, there are no streets in the western part of the City of Toronto named after trees alone (although tree names are combined with other landscape terms hillier areas, (eg. Oakmount, Birchview, Pinecrest). Tree names are characteristic of the east side of the city and probably in suburban subdivisions somewhere.

The appropriate ending for the street name would be "Place", "Terrace", "Court" or "Lane". Streets in the immediate area of his development, as I explained to Mr. Silverberg, are named mainly after people, including famous authors. There are a variety of appropriate names to choose from. Rankin Crescent is an historical name.

I would also like to point out to Mr. Silverberg that there is a local compaign to plant trees which are native to the Carolinian forest and would therefore contribute to the local ecosystem and compliment nearby High Park. The parks department could supply him with a list as no doubt could any reputable nursery. Having personal experience with pear trees myself, I would urge him to try something else. If the pears survive the bugs (or the residents survive the bug sprays) they make an awful mess on the lawn and/or sidewalk, since the pears tend to drop all together. Fruit trees require a lot of care and pruning to flourish, something that urban residents are not always willing to do. All it takes is for one person to neglect his/her fruit tree to aggravate the whole block. Native forest trees on the other have are much more likely to thrive without effort.

So, finally, I would like to urge the city and Mr. Silverberg to choose a name more in keeping with the area and also to plant native trees.

Attached is the material I sent to Mr. Silverberg on appropriate names. It was originally compiles for naming a park in the area.

Yours sincerely,

Diana Fancher

Background

Most of the Junction Triangle was subdivided in 1887 by plans M-13 and M-22, filed by Simeon Heaman Janes who was, according to the Toronto World, "the richest man in Toronto" by 1897. An earlier plan, M-1, filed by real estate a agent J.P. Clark, had established Royce and Cooper avenues and dedicated Carlton Park.

Toronto subdividers generally named their streets for family, friends, ancestral homes and creditors. Janes named his streets for English, French and American authors with one for British statesman Randolph Churchill put in for good measure. However Janes did make an exception, Campbell Ave. was named for mortgage holder and previous landowner Mrs. Elizabeth Prudence Campbell. Janes' other creditors Mary Cooper, Sarah and Allan Royce, were already commemorated.

Many of Janes' original street names have disappeared. Some like Longfellow and Tennyson were closed. Others were changed when the area became part of Toronto or when other streets were extended. These included Shakespeare, Milton, Irving and Churchill.

Street names that survive today are Addison, Hugo, Macaulay, Ruskin and possibly Wallace. I would like to think that Wallace was named for my own favourite Victorian author, Alfred Russell Wallace, the best and most readable of the British explorer-biologists, but it could also be named for American novelist Lewis Wallace, another contemporary. Wallace may also have been a street extension from the east.

By way of background, members of the Janes family had been in the wholesale millinery and fancy goods business in 1875, although by the time Janes began subdividing this area he had his own real estate company. An 1888 advertisement for the company reads, "Business Properties and city or adjoining vacant land in large blocks are Specialities".

Around 1892 Janes built a magnificent chateau on the crest of Avenue Road overlooking the city. By 1895 he had commissioned the Janes Building at 75 Yonge Street where he located his real estate business, S.H. Janes & co.

Janes was known to be an advocate of the commission form of municipal government in the 1890's. On May 23, 1897, he was among the first to ride the Toronto's newly inaugurated Sunday streetcars, reported by the World to do so in order to save the Sunday labour of his coachman, footman and two horses.

Possible Park Names

Why not give the literate real estate speculator and streetcar rider his due by naming one of the parks "Janes Park"?

Or give Mrs. Elizabeth Prudence Campbell who lived on the family farm in the area another claim to fame by naming the eastern part Elizabeth or Prudence. There's something about "Prudence Park" that seems to go with the location.

The immediate area of the western park was subdivided by plan M-23, also in 1887, by the ill-fated Toronto Land & Investment Corporation west broke soon after. The streets were named Harold, Maude, Ernest and Elsie. Of these only Ernest survives. Harold and Elsie were closed and Maude renamed Randolph. It would be nice to see a woman's name on a park and "Maude Park" would be appropriate. "Harold & Maude Park" would add a cozy touch of humour.

Another possibility would be to name the western park "Belles Lettres" which is French for "literature regarded as fine art", according to my unabridged dictionary. There may also be an equivalent expression in Italian or Portuguese.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1999) from the City Surveyor, Technical Services Division:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the name "William Hancox Avenue" be authorized for use on the Draft Plan of Subdivision for the redevelopment of the lands east of Main Street and north of Gerrard Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

(1) That the name "William Hancox Avenue" be approved for Street D on the Draft Plan of Subdivision for the East of Main area, illustrated on Map A attached.

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Councillor Tom Jakobek received a request from Police Constable Steve Kelly and his fellow officers of the Toronto Police Services 55 Division Community Response Unit, to name a street in the proposed East of Main Subdivision in memory of Police Constable William Hancox. Constable Hancox was slain in August 1998 while on duty.

Constable Steve Kelly in his request to Councillor Tom Jakobek, an excerpt of which is outlined in Appendix "A", indicated that Constable Hancox's widow has been advised of and concurs with the proposal. Julius De Ruyter of PMG Planning Consultants, agent for the owners of the proposed subdivision, also supports the name.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The proposed name has been circulated to Councillor Sandra Bussin, Heritage Toronto, and Fire Services for comment. The name has the support of Councillor Bussin and Heritage Toronto. Fire Services does not support the name because it is a combination of streets named "William" and "Hancock" in Toronto.

Conclusions:

The proposed name "William Hancox Avenue" is consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by the former Toronto City Council on July 11, 1988 (Clause 4, Executive Committee Report No. 22).

Contact Name:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416)392-1831

Fax: (416)392-0081

E-mail: dchristo@toronto.ca

Appendix "A"

Letter from Police Constable Steve Kelly to Councillor Tom Jakobek

Tom:

Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, this letter is to follow up on the naming of a street in the Main/Gerrard area.

As you know, last August Police Constable William Hancox was slain while on duty. The tragedy galvanized the citizens of Toronto to a never before seen outpouring of emotion and support for Bill's family.

Bill was an exemplary police officer, who served the majority of his career here in 55 Division. As a matter of fact, prior to his last assignment, Bill was a member of the 55 Division Community Response Unit. In that capacity, Bill had outstanding rapport with the citizen's in the Main and Gerrard area and was a fixture at all community events. Many citizens of the 55 Division community continue to comment on the positive impact this officer had on them, and often inquire about some lasting testament to his ultimate sacrifice.

We felt it would be fitting to name one of the streets in the new development, after Bill, as a lasting memorial to a fine Police Officer, husband and loving father, and it would be especially apropos to have it in his old "Beat."

I have spoken to Kim, Bill's widow, and she is 100% behind the idea. To that end, I will obtain her written permission to pursue the street naming, and any and all assistance you can offer will be greatly appreciated.

Memorandum from Richard Stromberg, Heritage Toronto

Re: Naming of new street for William Hancox

This request complies with the City's policy on street naming; thus, Heritage Toronto has no objection.

Memorandum from Sandra Hoeflich, Fire Services

The proposed street name of William Hancox is not acceptable to Fire Services as it conflicts with other street names in Toronto. Also there has been a park in former Scarborough dedicated in his honour. All these may hamper the dispatch of vehicles to an incident.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $2,100.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

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:

S. Burk, Co-ordinator, Transportation Services, 392-8750

(Revised)

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces:

Ward Location

19 Quebec Avenue, east side, from a point 163 metres north of Annette Street to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. Mary Abbott, a resident of Premises No. 418 Quebec Avenue, requested that the existing space be relocated 3.4 metres south of its present location).

25 Seaton Street, west side, from a point 158 metres south of Gerrard Street East to a point 6 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. Kate Koffmann of Councillor P. McConnell's office has advised that this space should be removed.

26 Bowmore Road, east side, from a point 51 metres south of Eastwood Road to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. L. Miller, a resident of Premises No. 7 Bowmore Road, has advised that she no longer requires a disabled space at this location.)

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces:

Ward Location

19 Quebec Avenue, east side, from a point 159.6 metres north of Annette Street to a point 5.5 metres further north thereof.

(Source: Ms. Mary Abbott, a resident of Premises No. 418 Quebec Avenue, has requested that the existing space be relocated 3.4 metres south)

21 Gladstone Avenue, east side, from a point 117.0 metres south of Dupont Street to a point 5.5 metres further south thereof.

(Source: Mr. Clayton Waito, a resident of Premises No. 819 Gladstone Avenue).

22 Cheritan Avenue, north side, from a point 25 metres west of Yonge Street to a point 5.5 metres further west thereof.

(Source: Ms. Jacqueline Kennedy, a resident of Premises No. 1 Cheritan Avenue).

23 Palmerston Avenue, east side, from a point 10 metres north of Barton Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north thereof.

(Source: Mr. Patrick Wan, a resident of Premises No. 723 Palmerston Avenue).

25 Carlaw Avenue, east side, from a point 55.0 metres south of Queen Street East to a point 5.5 metres further south thereof.

(Source: Mr. Lien Thanh Van, a resident of Premises No. 177 Carlaw Avenue).

25 Pape Avenue, west side, from a point 93.0 metres north of Eastern Avenue to a point 6.0 metres further north thereof.

(Source: Mr. Charles Edward, a resident of Premises No. 26 Pape Avenue).

26 Larchmount Avenue, west side, from a point 87.5 metres north of Eastern Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north thereof.

(Source: Mr. Joseph Graziano, a resident of Premises No. 36 Larchmount Avenue).

26 Oakcrest Avenue, north side, from a point 56.5 metres east of Morton Road to a point 5.5 metres further east thereof.

(Source: Mr. Tom McLuckie, a resident of Premises No. 184 Oakcrest Avenue).

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To report on the proposed installation and cancellation of speed bumps in various public lanes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The implementation cost of the proposed installation and cancellation of speed bumps is approximately $600.00, funds for which are contained in the 1999 Capital Programme for Public Laneway Improvements.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) The installation of a speed bump in the public lane first west of Uxbridge Avenue, extending north from Pelham Avenue, of the type and design noted and at the location shown on Drawing No. 421F-5409 be approved;

(2) The installation of speed bumps in the public lane system bounded by Davenport Road, Laughton Avenue, Uxbridge Avenue and Pelham Avenue, of the type and design noted and at the locations shown on Drawing Nos. 421F-5251 and 421F-5252 dated September, 1998, be cancelled; and

(3) 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 a speed bump in the public lane first west of Uxbridge Avenue, north from Pelham Avenue. This location meets the criteria for the installation of speed bumps. The type and design of the speed bump to be installed is shown on attached Drawing No. 421F-5409.

Also, Councillor Betty Disero has requested that the installation of speed bumps in the public lane system bounded by Davenport Road, Laughton Avenue, Uxbridge Avenue and Pelham Avenue, approved as per Clause No. 42 of Report No. 14 of the Toronto Community Council and adopted by City of Toronto Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, be cancelled. Although signage has been erected, the speed bumps have not as yet been installed. Accordingly, Drawing Nos. 421F-5251 and 421F-5252 should be deleted from the Municipal Code.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Sandra Burk, Co-ordinator, Transportation Services, 392-8750.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 10, 1999) from Mayor Lastman:

Upon the request of the Board of Management of the Balmy Beach Park, and in accordance with past practices and pursuant to Section 5 of an Act respecting the Town of East Toronto and Balmy Beach Park, 3 Edward VII, Chapter 50 assented to in 1903, I am making the following recommendations:

(1) That the following persons be appointed to the Board until June 30, 2000, or until their successors are appointed:

Jack Baird, Dorothy DeClute, Ziba Reiner

(2) That the following persons be appointed to the Board until June 30, 2001, or until their successors are appointed:

Bruce Cavanagh, Chris Commins, Bob Fullerton

On this basis, the Board would be comprised of the following members:

Member Since

Jack Baird (Chair) June 30, 1994

Bruce Cavanagh June 30, 1992

Chris Commins June 30, 1990

Dorothy DeClute June 30, 1991

Robert Fullerton June 30, 1990

Ziba Reiner Sept. 25, 1995

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor and appropriate staff be directed to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in opposition to the proposed development at 207-217 Roslin Avenue and oppose the severance, minor variance, Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications, as well as any other consolidated appeals for the subject property; and that the City Solicitor be authorized to retain outside consultants should the need arise, funds having been previously allocated from the Legal Services Operating Budget for this purpose.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (August 27, 1999) from Councillor Walker:

Recommendation:

That the City Solicitor and appropriate staff be directed to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in opposition to the proposed development at 207 û 217 Roslin Avenue and oppose the severance, minor variance, Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications, as well as any other consolidated appeals for the subject property; and that the City Solicitor be authorized to retain outside consultants should the need arise.

Background:

As predicted in the Committee of AdjustmentÆs May 4th, 1999 decision, L & A Management has made an appeal to the OMB from a decision which dismissed their application for minor variances and severance of these lands. At its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, Toronto City Council passed a motion that the City Solicitor to appear before the OMB to defend the May 4th 1999 Committee of Adjustment decision to refuse an application for a proposed development at the above address.

At the first OMB hearing held on July 26 1999, L & A Management requested that their appeal of the Committee of Adjustment applications be consolidated with an appeal arising from their Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications. The developer has appealed because of the failure of the City to process their application within the time limits set out in the Planning Act. However, the developer has failed to provide to the City, adequate information for city staff to fully evaluate the proposal.

This proposal has been a moving target, with revisions being made to the proposal ôon the flyö. While revisions have been demanded by the Urban Planning Department, revised landscape plans; arboristsÆ reports; etc, have either not been submitted or have not been submitted in a timely fashion. Consequently, it has been difficult for the Urban Planning and Development Services Department to circulate these reports and plans to appropriate departments for comment.

Specifically, this application did not have an arboristsÆ report, which was subsequently submitted on August 16th 1999. Also it did not include the required geotechnical study, an important study since the proposed development abuts the edge of the Riverview Ravine. There is no answer as to how storm water and snow are to be handled û especially important because of this sitesÆ location in and on top of the ravine. Other studies and plans which were not submitted at the time of the initial application include a traffic study, a rental housing replacement plan, a garbage removal plan and a sun-shade analysis. Further to this, as of August 27, 1999 Urban Planning and Development Services was still not in receipt of a landscape plan.

The developer has not acted in good faith in this process. The developer attempted to circumvent the proper processes required for a development of this scale. In their May 4, 1999 decision the Committee of Adjustment wrote ôthat 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.ö The developer has attempted to abuse the Official Plan Amendment and Re-zoning process by appealing to the OMB before the designated time has elapsed and before the Urban Planning and Development Services Department has had a chance to circulate reports and receive comments from the appropriate departments on which to prepare its final report.

At the OMB pre-hearing on July 26 1999, the Chair, P.L. Wyger ordered that the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision from May 4, 1999 be adjourned to be consolidated with their appeals arising from the Official Plan Amendment, Re-zoning and Tree By-law relief applications. In light of the above information, and since Toronto Community Council and Toronto City Council have not had a chance to rule on any of these applications it is of utmost importance to the integrity of the planning process that the City Solicitor be directed to appear at the OMB on all the matters pertaining to 207-217 Roslin Avenue.

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

- (July 12, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause 7 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 9, titled, Ontario Municipal Appeal - 207-217 Roslin Avenue (North Toronto)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999; and

- (September 13, 1999) from City Surveyor, Technical Services Division.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, declare the Screemers Haunted House to be held at Exhibition Place on October 15, 16 and 21 to 31, 1999, and the Harris Institute for the Arts 10th Birthday Party to be held at the Institute (118 Sherbourne Street, Toronto, Ontario) on October 2, 1999, to be events of municipal significance, and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario be advised that City Council has no objection to these events taking place.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, endorse the action of the Toronto Community Council, since the events take place prior to Council's meeting:

(1) in declaring the following to be events of municipal and/or community significance and in advising the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to their taking place:

(a) Danforth Celebrity Street Festival, to be held on Saturday, September 25, 1999, on Danforth Avenue, between Broadview and Chester Avenues, from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

(b) Global Roots Festival to be held on September 23, 24 and 25, 1999

(c) Annual Fall Fair, to be held on Sunday, September 26, 1999, in Margaret Fairley Park, at the corner of Brunswick Avenue and Ulster Street, from 12:00 noon to 7:00 p.m.

(2) 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) Fund Raising Event, to be held on Thursday, September 23, 1999, in a marquee tent alongside H.M.C.S. Haida, from 6:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.

(b) Event in conjunction with the Toronto International Film Festival Event, hosted by the Toronto Film Festival Group, Saturday, September 18, 1999, the ROM Main building and the Bloor Street Terrace Garden Area.

(c) Anniversary Party, at the David B. Archer Co-operative Inc., Saturday, September 18, 1999.

(d) Gala for Bring Back the Don Day - September 18, 1999 at Don Valley Brick Works, from 6:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

(e) MuchMusic Video Awards event at 299 Queen Street West on September 23, 1999

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated September 27, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the work contemplated in the report, along with the financial cost to the City, be considered in the 2000 Capital Budget process; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back on this project, including the costs, for consideration as part of the year 2000 Capital Budget process.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City commit to financing one-third of the cost of installing fencing along the south side of the CN rail tracks between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to Council on the cost of the fencing.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 28, 1999) from Councillor Jakobek:

Over 10 years ago Metro Housing (at that time) built housing on Coatsworth Crescent. Part of their agreement with the residents was that Housing would install a sound/security barrier along the CN rail tracks. The project was completed and the barrier was installed on the north side of the tracks.

Since that time, the residents along Gainsborough Road have encountered many difficulties due to the lack of a barrier on the south side of the tracks. This barrier is necessary not just for privacy, but for safety as well. There is a high school in close proximity, as well as the housing development and trespassing has become an issue. We are all aware of the dangers involved in pedestrians crossing railway tracks.

I am writing to inquire as to whether the City would be prepared to commit to financing one-third of the cost of installing a cement barrier along the south side of the CN rail tracks between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road.

Thank you for your consideration.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To report on the preliminary cost estimate of installing a cement barrier along the CN rail tracks between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road.

Financial Implications:

The financial implications of this report are to be determined as part of the year 2000 Capital Budget process.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

1. The work contemplated in the report, along with the financial cost to the City be considered in the 2000 Capital Budget process; and

2. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back on this project, including the costs for consideration as part of the year 2000 Capital Budget process.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 14, 1999 recommended that the City commit to financing one-third of the cost of installing fencing along the south side of the CN rail tracks between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer was requested to report directly to Council on the cost of the fencing.

Discussion:

The cost of installing a cement barrier for sound/security purposes is contingent on a number of factors including the required height of noise wall and specific site conditions that may impact on design to be utilized. Initial discussions with the Executive Director of Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services, indicate that based on a standard three (3) metre high wall that mirrors the length of barrier that exists on the north side of the tracks from Coxwell Avenue to a point approximately 430 metres east, a preliminary cost of $722,400, at a minimum, would be involved. If a four (4) metre high wall were to be installed the preliminary cost would be $774,000. Based on these preliminary estimates, the City's one third commitment would be $240,800 or $258,000, respectively for a three metre or four metre high barrier.

Conclusion:

Based on a standard noise wall installation, a preliminary cost of between $722,400 and $774,000 would be involved in installing a barrier along the south side of the CN rail tracks between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road. If the City was to fund one-third of the overall cost, then it would require a commitment of $240,800 or $258,000 depending on whether a three metre high or four metre high barrier were installed.

Contact Name:

Carmine Bruno, Senior Budget Analyst, 397-4218

Glenn Vollebregt, Director, Budget Services, 392-8095)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To improve turning radius for large delivery vehicles entering/leaving the loading bay at Premises No. 360 Front Street East.

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 standing be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily on the south side of Front Street East from a point 60 metres east of Trinity Street to a point 26 metres further east; 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

In consultation with Councillor Pam McConnell and at the request of the business proprietor at Premises No. 360 Front Street East, we are recommending that standing be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily on the south side of Front Street East from a point 60 metres east of Trinity Street to a point 26 metres further east.

Front Street East between Cherry Street and Trinity Street operates two-way and has a pavement width of 9.45 metres. Parking is allowed (for a maximum period of three hours) on both sides except within 30.5 metres of Cherry Street and Trinity Street. Permit parking is not in effect on the subject section of this street.

The owner of Premises No.360 Front Street East had advised us that large delivery vehicles (semi-trailers and large single unit trucks) have extreme difficulty turning into the loading bay at Premises No.360 Front Street East.

A recent site inspection by our staff has confirmed that vehicles parked/stopped on the south side of Front Street East across from Premises No.360, make manoeuverability difficult for large delivery vehicles. Trucks occasionally obstruct traffic flow for several minutes as they try to negotiate their turn. Vehicles parked on the south side of the street also are in danger of being damaged by turning trucks.

We feel that the only way to improve the turning radius for trucks entering/exiting the loading bay at Premises No. 360 Front Street East is to implement a standing prohibition as recommended above. This would eliminate 3 parking spaces during the hours of operation but is a fair compromise to address the business requirements of all proprietors on the street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 3, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the construction of a layby on the north side of Harbour Street, in front of Premises No. 60 (Toronto Harbour Commission Building) in connection with a proposed renovation project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

All costs associated with this proposal are to be borne by the applicant (1306470 Ontario Limited - Harbour 60 Restaurant).

Recommendations:

(1) That subject to the applicant paying all costs associated with the proposal, approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on the north side of Harbour Street, from a point approximately 50 m west of Bay Street to a point approximately 36 m further west, for the construction of a layby as described below:

"The construction of a layby on the north side of Harbour Street from a point approximately 50 m west of Bay Street to a point approximately 36 m further west, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5447, dated August, 1999.";

(2) That subject to City Council approval of the proposed layby, the existing stopping at anytime prohibition on the north side of Harbour Street be amended to permit standing in the layby on the north side of Harbour Street, from a point 50 m west of Bay Street to a point 36 m further west;

(3) That as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to convey to the City a 2 m by 36 m right-of-way to be added to the remaining sidewalk on the north side of Harbour Street to compensate for the sidewalk space to be lost by the construction of the layby, to ensure that the sidewalk runs continuous around the layby and further, that the sidewalk have a minimum width of 2 m; and

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

Comments:

The Toronto Port Authority (formerly the Toronto Harbour Commissioners) has entered into a commercial lease agreement with 1306470 Ontario Limited (Harbour 60 - Restaurant) to renovate the ground floor of the Toronto Harbour Commission Building, Premises No. 60 Harbour Street, for the purpose of operating a restaurant. As it is anticipated that much of the clientele of the restaurant will arrive during times that events are ongoing at the nearby Air Canada Centre, and in consideration of the fact that parking in the immediate vicinity is at a premium, the restaurant has requested that consideration be given to providing a layby on the north side of Harbour Street, from a point 50 m west of Bay Street to a point 36 m further west to accommodate a valet parking operation. The Toronto Port Authority, by letter dated July 13, 1999, has advised that it has no objection to the proposal, subject to the lessor obtaining all required approvals connected therewith and to bear any and all costs associated with the proposal.

Harbour Street, in the vicinity of Premises No. 60, is a 3 lane arterial roadway which operates one-way eastbound. On the north side, in front of the subject Premises, stopping is prohibited at anytime.

The proposed layby is shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5447 and commences at a point approximately 50 m west of Bay Street to a point approximately 36 m further west. This layby will accommodate 3 to 4 passenger vehicles. In light of the proposed valet parking operation, the existing stopping at anytime prohibition on the north side of Harbour Street should be adjusted to prohibit standing at anytime within the limits of the proposed layby. Alternative loading/parking facilities are incorporated into the site, with parking available at the rear of the Toronto Harbour Commission Building via two driveways immediately to the west and east of the proposed layby.

The applicant should also be required to convey to the City a 2 m by 36 m right-of-way to be added to the remaining sidewalk on the north side of Harbour Street to compensate for the sidewalk space to be lost by the construction of the layby, to ensure that the sidewalk runs continuous around the layby and that the sidewalk has a minimum width of 2 m. It is noted that all costs associated with the construction of the layby and the sidewalk reconstruction/widening are to be borne by the lessor of the ground floor of Premises No. 60 Harbour Street.

The construction of the proposed layby as described above would constitute as an alteration to the public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and be subject to a public hearing.

This project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stephen Benjamin

Manager of Traffic Operations

District 1 (Central Area)

(416) 392-7771.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 10, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To provide short term parking for parents picking-up and dropping-off students at Brock Avenue Public School (Premises No. 388 Brock Avenue).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $450.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the existing parking prohibition from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the west side of Brock Avenue, from a point 138.7 metres north of College Street to a point 99.2 metres further north thereof, be adjusted to operate on the west side of Brock Avenue, from a point 171.2 metres north of College Street to a point 66.7 metres further north;

(2) That parking be permitted for a maximum of 10 minutes, from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Brock Avenue from a point 138.7 metres north of College Street to a point 32.5 metres further north;

(3) That parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Brock Avenue, from a point 138.7 metres north of College Street to a point 32.5 metres further north; 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 may be required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone and in consultation with School Trustee Christine Ferreira and Brock Avenue Public School Principal, Ms. Sandy Spyropoulous, Transportation Services' staff have investigated rescinding, in part, the parking prohibition on the west side of Brock Avenue, adjacent to the School, to provide short term parking for parents picking-up and dropping-off students at Brock Avenue Public School (Premises No. 388 Brock Avenue).

Brock Avenue from Lindsey Avenue to Chesley Avenue (in front of Brock Avenue Public School) operates two-way and has a pavement width of 8.5 metres. The following parking regulations are in effect:

West side

a) Parking is prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from a point 138.7 metres north of College Street to a point 99.2 metres further north;

b) Parking is otherwise permitted to a maximum of three hours: and

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

East side

d) Parking is prohibited at anytime.

The existing parking regulations on the west side of Brock Avenue, adjacent to Brock Avenue Public School could be adjusted to allow short-term parking for parents picking up and dropping off children attending the School.

Specifically, establishing a "Student Pick-up and Drop-off Area" on the west side of Brock Avenue, from a point 138.7 metres north of College Street to a point 32.5 metres further north, and in conjunction therewith, allowing parking for a maximum period of 10 minutes, from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, would in my opinion, facilitate parents picking up/dropping off children, ensure equitable use of the pick-up/drop-off area and encourage parking turnover while providing sufficient time for parents and/or guardians to accompany their children directly to and from the school.

Inasmuch as parking is currently prohibited on the west side of Brock Avenue, adjacent to Brock Avenue Public School, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and parking is currently prohibited on the east side of Brock Avenue opposite the above noted School, the implementation of the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area" would not adversely affect operational safety on the street for the short periods of operation or affect permit parking on Brock Avenue, between Lindsey Avenue and Chesley Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 13, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a request from the Portuguese Consulate to install a flagpole on the sidewalk, within the public right of way fronting 438 University Avenue. As there is no specific provision for this type of installation in Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, I am required to report to your Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the installation of a flagpole on the sidewalk, within the public right of way fronting 438 University Avenue, subject to the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

On September 8, 1999, Mr. Bernard Soares of BGS Designs Inc. submitted an application on behalf of Mr. C. Ferreira, Vice-Consul de Portugal of the Portuguese Consulate, for permission to install a 10.6 metre (35 feet) high flagpole, on the sidewalk at curbside, in line with the existing street furnishing.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that the flagpole will not negatively impact the public right of way. Approval will be subject to the applicant obtaining clearances from the various utility companies and a letter of consent from the abutting owner of 438 University Avenue. The applicant has requested to install the flagpole prior to the Consul General's visit to Toronto on September 21, 1999.

Details of the flagpole are on file with my Department.

Conclusions:

As the flagpole will not negatively impact the public right of way, it should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7894

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1999) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the properties at 395 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House), 397 Brunswick Avenue (William Smith House) and 399 Brunswick Avenue (Robert Smith House) be designated for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and that permission be granted to enter into Heritage Easement Agreements with the property owners.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 395 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House) for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

(2) That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 397 Brunswick Avenue (William Smith House) for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

(3) That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 399 Brunswick Avenue (Robert Smith House) for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

(4) That authority be granted for the execution of Heritage Easement Agreements under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owners of 395, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue using substantially the form of easement agreement prepared by the City Solicitor, subject to such amendments as may be deemed necessary by the City Solicitor in consultation with Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board).

(5) That the owners be requested to provide Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board) with two (2) copies of the required photographs of 395, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue for inclusion in the easement agreements.

(6) That a detailed restoration plan be prepared for each building by a restoration architect to the satisfaction of the Managing Director of Heritage Toronto prior to making application for any building permit.

(7) That the owner agree to post a letter of credit in an amount and form satisfactory to the Managing Director, in consultation with the City Solicitor, prior to making application for any building permit.

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

Background:

At its meeting of June 28, 1999, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it the attached report recommending the designation of the properties at 395 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House), 397 Brunswick Avenue (William Smith House) and 399 Brunswick Avenue (Robert Smith House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The owners have agreed to the designation of the properties and have agreed to enter into Heritage Easement Agreements.

Comments:

The property at 395 Brunswick Avenue is designated for architectural reasons. The house was constructed in 1900 according to the designs of the Toronto architectural firm of Bond and Smith for William R. Thompson, manager of the Toronto Brewing and Malting Company.

The William Thompson House is designed in the Period Revival style based on English medieval architecture. Constructed of brick with brick, stone and wood detailing, the house rises 2―-stories beneath a jerkin-head roof with a firebreak wall, chimney, dormers and Classically trimmed window openings. On the narrow rectangular plan, the principal (west) façade has a first-floor bay window and second-storey tripartite window opening, a recessed entrance porch with Tudor-arch openings, corner buttress and wood door, and a single-storey open porch with a hip roof and wood detailing. The south wall displays a three-part lancet window containing stained glass, a single-storey bay window, and flat-headed window openings. The north wall is blank. The 2-storey rear addition is not included in the Reasons for Designation.

On the interior, the ceiling mouldings and fireplace in the first-floor parlour (west), and the fireplace in the second-floor bedroom (southwest) are important features. No other interior elements are included in the Reasons for Designation.

The William Thompson House is located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue. The house is a good example of Period Revival design executed by an important Toronto architectural firm. With its setback on a landscaped lot, the property is an important feature of Brunswick Avenue in the West Annex neighbourhood.

The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue are designated for architectural reasons. The identical houses were constructed in 1902 according to the designs of the Toronto architectural firm of G. M. Miller and Company for brothers and lumber merchants William and Robert Smith.

Designed in the Queen Anne style, William and Robert Smith Houses are identical buildings. Constructed of red brick and trimmed with brick, stone and wood, each structure features an irregularly-shaped plan covered by a cross-gable roof with a brick chimney and, in each gable, shingled cladding. A wall dormer with a gable roof, shingle cladding and brackets extends from the south slope. On the principal (west) facade, the two-storey bay window with a gable roof and brackets, the wood door with a glass insert and stained glass transom, the oval window and flat-headed window openings are important features. The Robert Smith House retains its Classically-designed verandah. On both houses, the long south wall has a two-storey bay window incorporating a stained glass window, projecting centre wall and flat-headed window openings. On the north wall, there are flat-headed window openings, one of which contains stained glass, as well as a monumental segmental-headed stained glass window with a transom. The 2-storey south and 3-storey rear (east) additions on #397, the bridge connecting #397 with a neighbouring building, and the 2-storey rear (east) addition on #399 are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

The Robert Smith House retains important interior features. On the first floor, the entrance hall has an elaborate wood staircase, and the front (west) and rear (east) parlours display a plaster ceiling with mouldings (west room), panelled wood wainscotting, wood door and window surrounds, and a double fireplace with wood detailing. On the second floor, the fireplace in the front (west) bedroom is identified. No other interior elements are included in the Reasons for Designation.

The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue. With their setback and landscaped setting, the William and Robert Smith Houses are important features on Brunswick Avenue in the West Annex neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the properties at 395 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House), 397 Brunswick Avenue (William Smith House), and 399 Brunswick Avenue (Robert Smith House) for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer

Historical Preservation Division

Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

(June 20, 1999) from Managing Director, Heritage Toronto

395-403 Brunswick Avenue - Site Plan Approval

Application # 398109 and Rezoning Application 199007)

Recommendations:

That the Board approve this Site Plan application and Rezoning subject to the following conditions:

1. That the owner agree to the designation of the properties at 395, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical value.

2. That the owner agree to enter into Heritage Easement Agreements with the City of Toronto to preserve these historic buildings in perpetuity.

3. That a detailed restoration plan be prepared for each building by a restoration architect to the satisfaction of the Managing Director of Heritage Toronto prior to making application for any building permit.

4. That the owner agree to post a letter of credit in an amount and form satisfactory to the Managing Director, in consultation with the City Solicitor, prior to making application for any building permit.

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

Comments

1. Background:

A report describing the history of each property, their status as listed properties, and recommended designation (consistent with Recommendation 1) will be included separately on a future Board meeting's agenda.

The owner of the properties as it appears on Deed is Brunswick Court Inc., c/o Gabor + Popper Architects Inc. George Popper of the firm is the architect for this project.

2. Discussion:

The proposal site of approximately one acre contains four house-form buildings. Two of the buildings, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue, are listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties, (July 2, 1974). The building located at 395 Brunswick Avenue will be recommended for inclusion. The building at 401 Brunswick Avenue is not recommended for inclusion. The property had been owned for approximately 60 years by the Church Army of Canada. The Church made several alterations and additions to the buildings.

The proposed development calls for the retention and restoration of the 395, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue. An appropriate townhouse residential infill project is proposed at the rear of the property, separate from the retained buildings. A two storey aluminium clad addition attached to 397 Brunswick Avenue is to be demolished. A road from Brunswick Avenue into the rear of the property will provide access to the new townhouses.

Many of the large and mature trees will be preserved on the site with additional trees planted as part of the landscaping design. An elm tree located at 399 Brunswick Avenue will be removed. The applicant's arborist has identified this tree to be in poor condition. Furthermore, the tree's root system is embedded into the foundation of porch and would make restoration of the porch impossible without its removal.

Staff has met with the applicant and is satisfied that the development will benefit the historic buildings on the site. Once restored, these buildings may contain either single family or multi-family residential. The building at 403 Brunswick Avenue will be demolished and replaced with a house-form, 6 unit townhouse building with massing that complements the existing streetscape.

Staff support this proposal subject to the conditions contained in the recommendations.

HERITAGE TORONTO

Heritage Property Report

William Thompson House

395 Brunswick Avenue

August 1999

Attachments:

I Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

II Location Map

III Photographs

Heritage Property Report

Basic Building Data:

Address: 395 Brunswick Avenue (east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue)

Ward: 23 (Midtown)

Current Name: not applicable

Historical Name: William Thompson House

Construction Date: 1900

Architect: Bond and Smith

Contractor/Builder: John E. Webb

Additions/Alterations: dates unknown, 2-storey rear (east) addition; enclosed bridge between #395 and 397 Brunswick

Original Owner: William Thompson, brewery manager

Original Use: residential (single family dwelling)

Current Use*: not applicable

Heritage Category: Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date: August 1999

Recorder: HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

Historical Background:

1. Neighbourhood:

When the Town of York was established in 1793, the land north of present-day Bloor Street and west of the Don River was divided into a series of Park Lots that Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe awarded to government officials. Lot 25, located east of Bathurst Street, was granted to John McGill who established a country estate named "Davenport" on the acreage. In 1821, the property was acquired by Joseph Wells (1773-1853), a retired British officer who divided the site into three allotments that were distributed among his heirs. Beginning in 1862, the Wells lands were further subdivided. Building lots were laid out around three north-south streets originally named for members of the Wells family but later renamed Albany, Howland and Brunswick. The annexation of the area by the City of Toronto in 1888 coincided with the extension of streetcar service along Bloor Street West. The neighbourhood is now identified as the West Annex.

2. 395 Brunswick Avenue:

With its proximity to the central core of the city, the West Annex neighbourhood attracted prominent residents, including Robert Y. Eaton, president of the T. Eaton Company, who lived at 383 Brunswick Avenue. Landowners commissioned the pre-eminent Toronto architects of the period to design their residences.

William R. Thompson, the owner of the property at 395 Brunswick Avenue, engaged the Toronto architectural firm of Bond and Smith to prepare plans for the site. This commission was among the earliest accepted by Sanford Fleming Smith (1873-1943) and Charles Herbert Acton Bond (1869-1924) following the formation of their partnership in 1899. Smith apprenticed with Toronto architects Strickland and Symon before receiving additional training in New York City. English architect Acton Bond immigrated to Canada in 1888 where he was associated with the Toronto firms of Langley and Burke and Darling and Pearson. Relocating to New York City, Bond spent six years working and studying at Columbia University. Bond and Smith designed numerous houses and commercial buildings and, as consulting architects for the Niagara Power Company, supervised the construction of a powerhouse and office complex in Niagara Falls. The Consumers' Gas Company's Station A at 296 Front Street East (1898) is among the firm's Toronto projects identified on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The partnership was dissolved in 1919.

In July 1900, the architects received a building permit to construct the house at 395 Brunswick Avenue. Thompson, manager of the Toronto Brewing and Malting Company on Simcoe Street, resided on-site until 1915. In the mid-1940s, the property was acquired by the Church Army in Canada who operated a training centre in the adjoining house at #397 Brunswick. The organization retained the property until 1998.

Architectural Description:

The William Thompson House is designed with features inspired by the Period Revival style that gained popularity in North America at the turn of the 20^th century. Drawing on elements from English medieval architecture, the style is "marked by a striking combination of Medieval forms with Classical elements reflecting the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods when Renaissance features began to "modernize" the Gothic" (Blumenson, 156). While based on historical precedents, the overall composition offered a new simplicity in architecture after the excesses of late-19^th century design.

The William Thompson House is constructed of brick and trimmed with brick voussoirs, stone sills and wood detailing. The long narrow rectangular plan rises 2― stories and is covered by a steeply-pitched jerkin-head roof with extended eaves. On the north side, a firebreak wall is topped by a brick chimney. Segmental-headed dormers with Classical detailing are positioned on the west and rear (east) slopes, and a flat-headed tripartite window opening with an entablature is found on the south side.

The principal (west) façade is organized into two bays in the first floor, with a tripartite window opening in the second storey. A single-storey bay window with brackets is positioned beside a recessed entrance porch with Tudor-arched openings on the south face and a corner buttress. A single-leaf wood door marks the entry. An open single-storey porch with a hip roof, Tudor arches and wood detailing protects the southwest corner of the building. On the south wall of the house, a single-storey bay window is placed next to three narrow lancet windows with stained glass and a continuous sill. Single and double flat-headed window openings mark the second storey. The north wall is blank. The 2-storey rear (east) addition with a pedestrian bridge connecting #395 and 397 Brunswick are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

Significant interior elements are the Classically-inspired ceiling mouldings and fireplace in the front (west) parlour on the main floor, and a similarly-detailed fireplace with a metal grate in the south-west bedroom on the second floor. No other interior elements are identified in the Reasons for Designation.

Context:

The property at 395 Brunswick Avenue is located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue, in a predominantly residential streetscape. The adjoining houses to the north at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue date to 1902 and are included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. On the south, the large property at 385 Brunswick Avenue contains the Loretto Abbey private school. The south portion of the school was completed in 1915, while the north wing replaced a former house at 393 Brunswick Avenue. The William Thompson House shares its setback on a tree-lined street with the neighbouring properties along both sides of Brunswick Avenue.

Summary:

The property at 395 Brunswick Avenue is identified for architectural reasons. The William Thompson House is an early example of the work of the important Toronto architects Bond and Smith. The Period Revival design draws on English medieval precedents and has surviving interior features.

Located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue, the William Thompson House shares its setback and landscaped setting with the adjoining properties. It forms part of the Brunswick Avenue streetscape in the West Annex neighbourhood.

Sources Consulted:

Arthur, Eric. Toronto. No Mean City. 3^rd ed. Rev. by Stephen A. Otto. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986.

Assessment Rolls, City of Toronto, 1900-1910.

Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990.

Building Permit #64, 5 July 1900.

City of Toronto Directories, 1900 ff.

Lundell, Liz. The Estates of Old Toronto. Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1997.

McHugh, Patricia. Toronto Architecture. A City Guide. 2^nd ed. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1989.

Appendix I

395 Brunswick Avenue

The property at 395 Brunswick Avenue is designated for architectural reasons. The house was constructed in 1900 according to the designs of the Toronto architectural firm of Bond and Smith for William R. Thompson, manager of the Toronto Brewing and Malting Company.

The William Thompson House is designed in the Period Revival style based on English medieval architecture. Constructed of brick with brick, stone and wood detailing, the house rises 2―-stories beneath a jerkin-head roof with a firebreak wall, chimney, dormers and Classically trimmed window openings. On the narrow rectangular plan, the principal (west) façade has a first-floor bay window and second-storey tripartite window opening, a recessed entrance porch with Tudor-arch openings, corner buttress and wood door, and a single-storey open porch with a hip roof and wood detailing. The south wall displays a three-part lancet window containing stained glass, a single-storey bay window, and flat-headed window openings. The north wall is blank. The 2-storey rear addition is not included in the Reasons for Designation.

On the interior, the ceiling mouldings and fireplace in the first-floor parlour (west), and the fireplace in the second-floor bedroom (southwest) are important features. No other interior elements are included in the Reasons for Designation.

The William Thompson House is located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue. The house is a good example of Period Revival design executed by an important Toronto architectural firm. With its setback on a landscaped lot, the property is an important feature of Brunswick Avenue in the West Annex neighbourhood.

William and Robert Smith Houses

397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue

Basic Building Data:

Address: 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue (east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue)

Ward: 23 (Midtown)

Current Name: not applicable

Historical Name: #397: William Smith House

#399: Robert Smith House

Construction Date: 1902

Architect: G. M. Miller and Company

Contractor/Builder: Thompson Brothers

Additions/Alterations: #397: dates unknown, window sash replaced in 2-storey bay window; verandah removed and replaced by canopy; window opening altered on south wall; 2-storey enclosed addition on south wall; entry added on north wall; 3-storey rear (east) addition; enclosed bridge between #395 and 397 Brunswick

#399: dates unknown, verandah partially enclosed and balcony replaced; 2-storey rear (east) addition

Original Owner: #397: William Smith, lumber merchant

#399: Robert Smith, lumber merchant

Original Use: residential (single family dwellings)

Current Use*: not applicable

Heritage Category: Notable Heritage Properties (Category B)

Recording Date: August 1999

Recorder: HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

Historical Background:

Neighbourhood:

When the Town of York was established in 1793, the land north of present-day Bloor Street and west of the Don River was divided into a series of Park Lots that Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe awarded to government officials. Lot 25, located east of Bathurst Street, was granted to John McGill who established a country estate named "Davenport" on the acreage. In 1821, the property was acquired by Joseph Wells (1773-1853), a retired British officer who divided the site into three allotments that were distributed among his heirs. Beginning in 1862, the Wells lands were further subdivided. Building lots were laid out around three north-south streets originally named for members of the Wells family but later renamed Albany, Howland and Brunswick. The annexation of the area by the City of Toronto in 1888 coincided with the extension of streetcar service along Bloor Street West. The neighbourhood is now identified as the West Annex.

2. 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue:

With its proximity to the central core of the city, the West Annex neighbourhood attracted prominent residents, including Robert Y. Eaton, president of the T. Eaton Company, who lived at 383 Brunswick Avenue. Landowners commissioned the pre-eminent Toronto architects of the period to design their residences.

William and Robert Smith, the owners of the adjoining properties at #397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue, engaged the Toronto architectural firm of G. M. Miller and Company to prepare plans for the lots.

In solo practice since 1886, George M. Miller (1854-1933) was a noted Toronto architect whose commissions included the Gladstone Hotel (1889-1890) at 1204 Queen Street West, Havergal Ladies College (1898) at 354 Jarvis Street, City Dairy (1900) and Stables (1909) at 563 Spadina Crescent, and Wycliffe College Chapel (1911) at 5 Hoskin Avenue. His work for the prominent Massey family included modifications to the Hart Massey House at 515 Jarvis Street (1900), plans for the Lillian Massey Household Sciences Building at the University of Toronto (1908-1912), and consultant for Massey Hall at 15 Shuter Street (1894). All of the above-noted properties are listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

In 1902, identical houses were completed at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue for William and Robert Smith, brothers and partners in the family's lumber business. William Smith resided at #397 until his death in 1924; his widow, Charlotte, retained the site until 1931. The following year, the property was occupied by the Sun Diet Sanatorium, renamed the Health Service Sanatorium in 1933. The house stood vacant until 1937 when the Church Army in Canada began an occupancy that lasted until 1998. Robert Smith remained at 399 Brunswick Avenue until 1939 when the property was acquired by the Church Army. The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue were included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties in 1974.

Architectural Description:

1. Exteriors: 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue

The William and Robert Smith Houses display features of the Queen Anne style of the late 19^th century. Inspired by 16^th and 17^th century prototypes, the style was created in Britain by architect Richard Norman Shaw (1831-1923) and his associates. Medieval features, especially asymmetrical plans, projecting wings, varied window types and complicated rooflines, were mixed with Classical motifs using a variety of cladding materials.

The William and Robert Smith Houses are identical in plan, construction and design features. Constructed of red brick and trimmed with brick voussoirs, stone sills and wood surrounds, each building is covered by a cross-gable roof with a brick chimney and, in each gable, shingled cladding. A wall dormer with a gable roof, shingle cladding and brackets extends from the south slope.

The principal (west) facade is organized into two bays. On the right, a two-storey bay window has flat-headed window openings with brick voussoirs and stone sills. The bay window is surmounted by a bracketed gable containing a Classically-detailed two-part window opening and shingled cladding. Left of the bay window, the principal entrance is elevated in the first floor. It contains a wood door with a glass insert and a stained glass transom and is placed beside an oval window with brick voussoirs. A single flat-headed window opening is positioned above the entry. The Robert Smith House retains its wood verandah with Classical columns, architrave and wood detailing which extends across the principal (west) facade and along part of the south wall (where it is currently enclosed). On the William Smith House, a canopy with brackets protects the entrance.

The long south wall has a two-storey bay window incorporating a stained glass window, a projecting centre wall and flat-headed window openings. The pattern of fenestration continues on the north wall with the addition of a small stained-glass window lighting the interior hall and a monumental segmental-headed opening with a large stained glass window and transom. The 2-storey south and 3-storey rear (east) additions on #397, an enclosed bridge connecting #397 with a neighbouring building (#395) at the second-storey level, and the 2-storey rear (east) south addition on #399 are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

2. Interiors: 399 Brunswick Avenue

The Robert Smith House retains important interior elements. On the first floor, the long entrance hall features an elaborate staircase with wood panelling, stairs, turned balusters, moulded handrails and carved newel posts. The entrance hall leads into a double parlour divided by a wall with two archways and a double fireplace with carved wood surrounds, dentilled mantles, and mirrors. The fireplace in the front (south) parlour is more intricately detailed and features a marble surround and tiled floor. Its counterpart in the rear (north) parlour has a metal insert and grate. In the south parlour, the plaster ceiling and mouldings are important features. Both rooms have panelled wood wainscotting and wood door and window surrounds. Another fireplace is found in the front (south) bedroom on the second floor. No other interior elements are included in the Reasons for Designation.

Context:

The William and Robert Smith Houses are located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue. The houses share their setback and landscaped setting with the adjoining property at 395 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House). In the predominantly residential streetscape between Bloor Street West and Wells Street, the semi-detached houses at 324-326 and 416-418 Brunswick Avenue are listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Summary:

The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue are identified for architectural reasons. The William and Robert Smith Houses are identical residences designed for two brothers by the important Toronto architectural firm of G. M. Miller and Company. The buildings display features identified with the Queen Anne style popularized at the end of the 19^th century. The Robert Smith House at 399 Brunswick Avenue has significant surviving interior elements. With their setback on landscaped lots, the properties make an important contribution to the Brunswick Avenue streetscape in the West Annex neighbourhood.

Sources Consulted:

Arthur, Eric. Toronto. No Mean City. 3^rd ed. Rev. by Stephen A. Otto. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986.

Assessment Rolls, City of Toronto, 1900-1910.

Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990.

Building Permits #140 and #141, 16 December 1901.

City of Toronto Directories, 1900 ff.

Lundell, Liz. The Estates of Old Toronto. Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1997.

McHugh, Patricia. Toronto Architecture. A City Guide. 2^nd ed. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1989.

Appendix I

The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue are designated for architectural reasons. The identical houses were constructed in 1902 according to the designs of the Toronto architectural firm of G. M. Miller and Company for brothers and lumber merchants William and Robert Smith.

Designed in the Queen Anne style, William and Robert Smith Houses are identical buildings. Constructed of red brick and trimmed with brick, stone and wood, each structure features an irregularly-shaped plan covered by a cross-gable roof with a brick chimney and, in each gable, shingled cladding. A wall dormer with a gable roof, shingle cladding and brackets extends from the south slope. On the principal (west) facade, the two-storey bay window with a gable roof and brackets, the wood door with a glass insert and stained glass transom, the oval window and flat-headed window openings are important features. The Robert Smith House retains its Classically-designed verandah. On both houses, the long south wall has a two-storey bay window incorporating a stained glass window, projecting centre wall and flat-headed window openings. On the north wall, there are flat-headed window openings, one of which contains stained glass, as well as a monumental segmental-headed stained glass window with a transom. The 2-storey south and 3-storey rear (east) additions on #397, the bridge connecting #397 with a neighbouring building, and the 2-storey rear (east) addition on #399 are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

The Robert Smith House retains important interior features. On the first floor, the entrance hall has an elaborate wood staircase, and the front (west) and rear (east) parlours display a plaster ceiling with mouldings (west room), panelled wood wainscotting, wood door and window surrounds, and a double fireplace with wood detailing. On the second floor, the fireplace in the front (west) bedroom is identified. No other interior elements are included in the Reasons for Designation.

The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue. With their setback and landscaped setting, the William and Robert Smith Houses are important features on Brunswick Avenue in the West Annex neighbourhood.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) be designated for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

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

Background:

At its meeting of August 4, 1999, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it the attached report recommending the designation of the property at 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) has agreed to sell the property to Addison Motors, the car dealership that currently occupies the site. A condition of the sale is the designation of the property under the Ontario Heritage Act. The purchaser consents to designation.

Comments:

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom

832 Bay Street

The property at 832 Bay Street is designated for architectural and historical reasons. The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom was completed in 1925 according to the designs of architects Hutton and Souter of Hamilton, Ontario. The building housed the Toronto automobile dealership of R. S. McLaughlin, president of General Motors of Canada. The Addison on Bay dealership has occupied the property since 1955.

The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is a good example of a specialized commercial building highlighted with Neo-Gothic design elements. The significant exterior features are found on the facades along Bay and Grenville Streets flanking the main entrance. Constructed of steel with buff brick cladding and cut limestone trim, the building has a two-storey plan which is angled to follow the jog in Bay Street. The main entrance is set in a stone arch containing double wood glazed doors. The entrance is flanked by bronze light fixtures and surmounted by a commercial sign area and a parapet. The elements of interest on the east and south walls are the large copper-trimmed showroom windows, and segmental-headed window openings with metal glazing. (The north and west walls are not included in the designation). Significant interior details are the plaster columns and ceiling beams and mouldings in the first-floor new car showroom. (No other interior elements are included in the designation.)

The property at 832 Bay Street fills the short block from Grenville to Grosvenor Streets on the west side of Bay Street. A rare surviving example of an early 20^th century automobile showroom in Toronto, it has been occupied continuously by a car dealership since 1925. With its location on Bay Street where it jogs north of College Street, the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is an important neighbourhood feature.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the property at 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239 Fax: 392-6834

(July 29, 1999) from Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board

Recommendations:

1. That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical value.

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

Comments

1. Background:

The property at 832 Bay Street was included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties on June 15 and 16, 1989. In 1997, the Ontario Realty Corporation advised Heritage Toronto of its intention to sell the site. The property was assessed by the Ministry of Government Services (forerunner to ORC) in 1991 and determined to have heritage significance. The ORC has agreed to sell the property to Addison Motors, the car dealership that is currently leasing the site. A condition of the sale is the designation of the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. At this time, the ORC is overseeing the restoration of portions of the building, including masonry repairs and parapet rebuilding.

A Short Statement of Reasons for Designation, intended for publication, follows. A Heritage Property Report (Long Statement of Reasons for Designation), including visuals, is attached. Both documents constitute the Reasons for Designation.

2. Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

The property at 832 Bay Street is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom was completed in 1925 according to the designs of architects Hutton and Souter of Hamilton, Ontario. The building housed the Toronto automobile dealership of R. S. McLaughlin, president of General Motors of Canada. The Addison on Bay dealership has occupied the property since 1955.

The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is a good example of a specialized commercial building highlighted with Neo-Gothic design elements. The significant exterior features are found on the facades along Bay and Grenville Streets flanking the main entrance. Constructed of steel with buff brick cladding and cut limestone trim, the building has a two-storey plan which is angled to follow the jog in Bay Street. The main entrance is set in a stone arch containing double wood glazed doors. The entrance is flanked by bronze light fixtures and surmounted by a commercial sign area and a parapet. The elements of interest on the east and south walls are the large copper-trimmed showroom windows, and segmental-headed window openings with metal glazing. (The north and west walls are not included in the designation.) Significant interior details are the plaster columns and ceiling beams and mouldings in the first-floor new car showroom. (No other interior elements are included in the designation.)

The property at 832 Bay Street fills the short block from Grenville to Grosvenor Streets on the west side of Bay Street. A rare surviving example of an early 20^th century automobile showroom in Toronto, it has been occupied continuously by a car dealership since 1925. With its location on Bay Street where it jogs north of College Street, the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is an important neighbourhood feature.

HERITAGE TORONTO

Heritage Property Report

McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom

832 Bay Street

Attachments:

I Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

II Location Map

III Photographs

Basic Building Data:

Address: 832 Bay Street (northwest corner of Bay and Grenville Streets)

Ward: 24 (Downtown)

Current Name: Addison on Bay

Historical Name: McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom

Construction Date: 1925

Architect: Hutter and Souter

Contractor/Builder: Anglin-Norcross Limited, contractors

Additions/Alterations: dates unknown, exterior and interior alterations; 1999, brick and stone restoration on south and east facades

Original Owner: R. S. McLaughlin, General Motors of Canada

Original Use: commercial (automobile dealership)

Current Use*: commercial (automobile dealership)

Heritage Category: Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date: July 1999

Recorder: HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

Historical Background:

1. Bay and Grenville Neighbourhood:

The area northwest of Yonge and College Streets was opened for residential development after 1860. The first street running north of and parallel to College was named Grenville Street, purportedly in honour of Robert Temple Grenville, the first Duke of Buckingham. In 1922, houses along College and Grenville Streets were demolished to provide a right-of-way connecting two north-south streets, Terauley and St. Vincent. Upon completion, the route was renamed Bay Street, a continuation of the principal corridor that begins in the Financial District to the south.

According to the City of Toronto Directories, the first building constructed on Bay Street north of College Street was the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom, located on the northwest corner of Bay and Grenville Streets.

2. 832 Bay Street:

In 1892, Robert Samuel McLaughlin (1871-1972) opened the McLaughlin Carriage Works in Oshawa, Ontario in partnership with his father and brother. The company began building car bodies for the Buick Motor Company of Flint, Michigan in 1908, adding Chevrolets to the production line in 1915. When General Motors purchased the company in 1918, R. S. McLaughlin was appointed president of General Motors of Canada and vice-president of the American parent. By the 1920s, the company's Oshawa plant had a workforce of 3000 which "produced more cars for the Canadian and Commonwealth market than the rest of Canada combined" (McCallum, 1275). Retiring in 1942, McLaughlin remained chairman of the Board of Directors of the company until 1967. McLaughlin was a noted philanthropist who supported the McLaughlin Planetarium in Toronto and started the country's most famous breeding farm for thoroughbred horses, "Windfield Farms", which he later sold to entrepreneur E. P. Taylor.

In 1909, R. S. McLaughlin opened a Toronto car showroom at 126-128 Church Street. A new location was found on the recently opened extension of Bay Street in 1924. Construction magazine noted that "the importance which it (Bay Street) is assuming as a traffic artery and as an avenue of motor travel between the downtown and north end sections is perhaps in nowise more fully recognized than it is in the facilities which have been provided in catering to the motorist's needs, of which the new building of the McLaughlin Motor Car Company is an outstanding example". Hutton and Souter, an architectural firm based in Hamilton, Ontario, prepared the plans. The building accommodated separate showrooms for new and used cars, as well as service and storage areas.

After 1931, the name "McLaughlin" was no longer associated with the property, although it continued to house consecutive General Motors dealerships. During World War II, when J. Redmond Beattie operated the Beattie Cadillac Chevrolet Oldsmobile dealership, the site also housed the Women's Employment Services of the National Selective Service Commission.

Addison on Bay has occupied the property since 1955. The property at 832 Bay Street was included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties in 1989.

Architectural Description:

The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom displays features of the Neo-Gothic style, which was especially popular for educational and commercial buildings in the early decades of the 20^th century. The style derived its decorative motifs from the medieval period, but differs from the late 19^th century Gothic Revival in its size and the absence of polychromatic detailing.

The significant exterior features are found on the facades along Bay and Grenville Streets flanking the main entrance. The building is constructed of steel with buff brick cladding and cut limestone trim. Rising two stories, the plan has a truncated southeast corner to follow the jog in Bay Street. The principal entrance is placed on this wall where double wood doors with multipaned windows are set in a stone Tudor arch with multiple mouldings. The opening is flanked by bronze light fixtures and name plates, and surmounted by a large sign (the sign is not original) and a brick parapet with stone coping. Two-storey incised stone piers with decorative caps flank the entrance bay and divide the east (Bay Street) elevation into 9 bays and the south (Grenville Street) wall into 3 bays. On both elevations, the first floor has large showroom windows with copper detailing. There are two service entrances and two pedestrian entries along the east wall. Above a stone cornice in the second storey, segmental-headed window openings with brick spandrels are set in stone surrounds and separated by thin buttresses with decorative caplets. In the single bays on either side of the entrance bay, the window openings are flanked by sidelights. The openings contain multi-paned windows with steel sash. There are no significant features on the north and west (rear) walls.

On the interior, significant features in the first-floor new car showroom are the plaster-clad columns and ceiling beams and mouldings. (No other interior features are included in the designation.)

Context:

The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is located on the west side of Bay Street and fills the short block from Grenville to Grosvenor Streets. There is a parking area at the north end of the site and, on the west, a laneway separates it from the neighbouring properties. The adjoining property at 51 Grosvenor Street contains the Kenson Apartments, dating to 1924 and listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Summary:

The property at 832 Bay Street is identified for architectural and historical reasons. The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom has been used continuously as an automobile dealership since 1925. While originally associated with R. S. McLaughlin and General Motors, the property has been occupied by the Addison on Bay dealership for over 40 years. It is one of the few historical properties remaining in the former City of Toronto associated with the early years of the automobile. The former Pierce Arrow Showroom (1930) remains at 1140 Yonge Street, and the last surviving Joy Oil Gas Station (1937) is located at 1978 Lake Shore Boulevard West. The latter properties are also included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Sources Consulted:

Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990.

City of Toronto Directories. 1921 ff.

Filey, Mike, and Victor Russell. From Horse Power to Horsepower. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1993.

"Gordon Johnson Hutton". Entry in Middleton and Landon. The Province of Ontario. Vol. 4. 1929.

Litvak, Marilyn. "A Tour Through "Parkwood", Oshawa". City and Country Home (Fall 1982) 60-76.

McCallum, Margaret. "Robert Samuel McLaughlin". Entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia. 2^nd ed. Vol. II. Edmonton: Hurtig Publishers, 1982.

"McLaughlin Motor Car Company Limited". Construction (June 1925) 184-188.

"William Russell Souter". Entry in Middleton and Landon. The Province of Ontario. Vol. 3. 1929.

Appendix I

The property at 832 Bay Street is designated for architectural and historical reasons. The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom was completed in 1925 according to the designs of architects Hutton and Souter of Hamilton, Ontario. The building housed the Toronto automobile dealership of R. S. McLaughlin, president of General Motors of Canada. The Addison on Bay dealership has occupied the property since 1955.

The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is a good example of a specialized commercial building highlighted with Neo-Gothic design elements. The significant exterior features are found on the facades along Bay and Grenville Streets flanking the main entrance. Constructed of steel with buff brick cladding and cut limestone trim, the building has a two-storey plan which is angled to follow the jog in Bay Street. The main entrance is set in a stone arch containing double wood glazed doors. The entrance is flanked by bronze light fixtures and surmounted by a commercial sign area and a parapet. The elements of interest on the east and south walls are the large copper-trimmed showroom windows, and segmental-headed window openings with metal glazing. (The north and west walls are not included in the designation). Significant interior details are the plaster columns and ceiling beams and mouldings in the first-floor new car showroom. (No other interior elements are included in the designation.)

The property at 832 Bay Street fills the short block from Grenville to Grosvenor Streets on the west side of Bay Street. A rare surviving example of an early 20^th century automobile showroom in Toronto, it has been occupied continuously by a car dealership since 1925. With its location on Bay Street where it jogs north of College Street, the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is an important neighbourhood feature.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend Zoning By-law 1994-0806 to remove the holding symbol from the eastern half of the Front Street General Use Area B (401 Front Street West) and allow the proposed residential development of the site.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends Council approval to remove the "h" holding symbol from the property at 401 Front Street West to permit residential uses. This approval will allow the construction of two residential buildings on the site as envisioned by the Part II Official Plan. The applicant has shown that the prerequisite environmental conditions as outlined in the Railway Lands Part II Official Plan, have been met.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend Zoning By-law 1994-0806 to remove the holding symbol from the eastern half of the Front Street General Use Area B (401 Front Street West) and allow the proposed residential development of the site.

Comments:

Location

The property is located on the south side of Front Street West to the immediate west of Blue Jays Way and east of Spadina Avenue as shown on the attached Key Map.

Proposal

The applicant proposes to construct two, 28 storey, residential towers with an overall height of 77.1 metres.

Background

The Railway Lands Central Part II Official Plan permits residential uses in the Front Street General Use Areas, subject to environmental issues such as noise, air quality and vibration being addressed. These conditions were the result of the settlement of an appeal by GO Transit respecting the proposed residential use. The GO Transit appeal was based on concerns related to the potential environmental effects arising from the proximity of the development of these blocks to the Rail Corridor and GO Transit's Bathurst North Yard.

Section 11.8 of the Part II Official Plan outlines the environmental requirements:

- a detailed prediction of noise, vibration and air quality effects, including odour within the proposed buildings and in surrounding outdoor areas at current levels of rail activity and based on future levels of rail activity;

- a prediction of changes in snow drifting patterns and icing of rails and switches on adjacent sections of the Rail Corridor and the Bathurst North Yard;

- a detailed outline of proposed measures to reduce the environmental effects and to meet satisfactory standards and minimize nuisance impacts;

- analyses of the suitability of exterior open balconies and outdoor amenity space; and

- the phasing of construction and assurance that the interim development as well as final phases achieve acceptable environmental conditions.

The application to remove the "h" holding symbol is required to be circulated for comment and the City is required to consult with and have regard for the comments of GO Transit. The Part II Plan further states that Council shall enact a by-law to remove the "h" holding symbol from all or part of the Front Street General Use Areas A and B provided that:

"i) the supplemental Environmental Report required pursuant to Section 11.8 (a) confirms the feasibility of the proposed residential development on the lands, including methods of mitigation;

ii) appropriate methods of mitigation have been secured; and

iii) site plan approval has been granted."

It should also be noted that Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of this Part II Plan generally state that Council will use its available powers to ensure that the development provides:

- environmental conditions satisfactory to the City of Toronto for people working and living within and adjacent, to the Railway Lands Central;

- an Environmental Report which among other conditions requires the provision of buffers (including acoustical walls, buildings and structures); and

- satisfactory indoor and outdoor air quality and climatic conditions at grade and in other outdoor amenity areas.

In addition, the Part II Plan for the Railway Lands Central requires notice and appropriate warning clauses regarding possible noise, vibration and/or air quality impacts associated with the existing and future freight and passenger rail and regional rail and public transit uses in the Rail Corridor, Future Development Area and the Bathurst North Yard to be provided to any purchasers, landowners or lessees within such developments.

In the comments received on this application City Departments have concurred that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed all conditions related to removal of the "h". However, GO Transit has continued to voice its concerns respecting the air quality, noise and vibration impact of its potentially expanded future operations on the proposed development and in particular has concerns with: projected numbers of trains and passengers and the assumed improvements in emission controls.

The applicant's consultants (IBI and RWDI) in responding to these concerns, have indicated that Go's projected increase of train movements by 250% is not achievable without exceptional capital investment in infrastructure. In addition, the consultants have noted that the expected passenger growth does not require a 250% increase. The consultants have also concluded that the numbers of idling trains affecting this particular site would not change appreciably and that as new locomotives are purchased to meet the increased demand and some existing engines are retired, the overall acceptable standards for air quality and noise would be maintained.

City staff have reviewed this analysis and agree that the applicant has met the conditions outlined in the Part II Plan and that the proposed development will experience satisfactory environmental conditions.

GO Transit has stated in its letter of August 20, 1999, that it is generally opposed to the development of the Front Street General Use Areas A and B for residential use, in spite of its Ontario Municipal Board settlement. GO Transit's primary concern is the potential for objections from future residents of the proposed development. GO Transit thinks that it would be prudent for the City to safeguard itself and its interests in GO Transit by refusing the development of these lands for residential uses. City staff have reviewed the proposal, the associated studies and the correspondence between GO Transit and the applicant's consultants and have concluded that the applicant has addressed all issues to meet City standards.

In reviewing the detailed application for Site Plan Approval, it should be noted that the applicant's proposal will also require several relatively minor Zoning By-law variances. These would include a minor height variance, due to the sloping nature of the site, approval of some undersized parking spaces and detailed exceptions to the "build to" zone and the dimensions of the proposed canopies. In addition, the Undertaking associated with the Site Plan Approval with this application will require a variety of relatively standard conditions which would be imposed as a result of comments from the Medical Officer of Health and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Conclusion:

City staff have reviewed the information by the applicant and support this application subject to conditions which are attached to my report on the Site Plan Approval. I am therefore recommending removal of the holding symbol from the Zoning By-law as it applies to 401 Front Street West (the eastern half of the Front Street General Use Area B).

Contact Name:

Angus Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-0425

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: acransto@toronto.ca

1. GO Transit (August 25, 1999)

This letter is a follow up to our letter of 20 August 1999 regarding the abovementioned application. We have received a response from RWDI regarding a preliminary set of comments/ questions re: the air quality study, attached. It is therefore necessary to update our comments as provided in our 20 August 1999 letter to the City and also to respond to RWDI's letter.

Regarding future rail traffic levels, our comments in the 20 August letter do not change. As noted in our letter, GO is particularly concerned that adequate future service plans are considered, in order to ensure that our stakeholders, which includes the City of Toronto, are not exposed to unanticipated risk limiting service expansions and/or the associated incremental increased costs for mitigation. Also, we were not advised of this change in rail traffic levels. By deviating unilaterally in using the reduced future scenario the Environmental Agreement has not been satisfied.

Regarding the simulation of Bathurst North Yard exhaust emissions, RWDI's letter has clarified how the yard source was simulated. The 21 June report described the yard operation, but did not specifically state what was used in the simulation. We therefore no longer require further clarification on this matter.

RWDI's letter also answers our question regarding 24 hr NO₂ and TSP results.

Regarding the number of trains idling in the rail corridor, our question with respect to sensitivity to the number of trains idling in the corridor remains. The simulation only deals with ― to 1 train idling immediately south of the site. The point that we were trying to make in our 20 August letter is that the effects of idling and moving trains impact areas as far away as Front Street as indicated in Table 8 (unfortunately Table 8 does not have data with no trains idling). We are therefore concerned that the incremental effects of 2 to 6 trains idling in the rail corridor between Spadina and just east of Blue Jays Way (a relatively short distance in the context of the results listed in Table 8), depending on wind conditions, have not been considered.

The question regarding emission control equipment was part of an earlier set of questions. The 20 August letter does not identify any further questions in this area.

However, the following observation in RWDI's letter requires a response, "It is not clear if GO Transit would be required to undertake an environmental impact assessment at the time of any significant growth in the fleet, but such an assessment would clearly show the need for the retrofit of air pollution control equipment". Several related points need to be made. The assumption of 50% of the existing fleet being equipped with emission controls by the year 2020 may be reasonable considering a typical retirement/ replacement rate of existing locomotives over this time frame. However, if there is significant growth in the fleet in advance of this time frame, the retrofitting of existing equipment with emission control equipment is not a practical solution as it is a major undertaking requiring a significant re-design of the engine. In fact, it is our understanding that it is more economical to purchase a new locomotive than to retrofit an existing unit with the emission control equipment. The premature removal of equipment prior to the end its useful life will require significant incremental funding requirements from our municipal stakeholders, including the City of Toronto. Secondly, in the event of complaints from adjacent land owners/ residents, retrofitting locomotives with emission control equipment should not be considered a realistic alternative for the reasons noted above. Further, any growth in the fleet of locomotives/coaches would typically be associated with a service expansion. Therefore, any environmental assessment work, if required, would be in the context of the service expansion which may or may not drive the need for additional rolling stock. The final point that should be made is that this statement reinforces the importance of the need to build compatible land uses adjacent to heavily utilized rail corridors.

If you have any further questions, please call.

2. (August 20, 1999)

This letter is in response to the 4 March 1999 circulation of the above-mentioned application and subsequent circulations dated 29 June 1999 and 20 July 1999.

Prior to outlining our comments regarding this application, it would be useful to review GO Transit's position with respect to residential land uses on Blocks 21 and 28 and the background associated with the settlement of our objection at the OMB hearing.

GO Transit does not endorse residential land use on Blocks 21 and 28. We have been consistent in this position from the beginning of this process. Our concern is not so much about questioning whether a "technical" solution is possible to mitigate air quality and noise considerations to meet a given set of criteria. Fundamentally, we do not believe it is prudent to build what is typically a non-compatible use adjacent to a heavily utilized rail corridor and yard.

Notwithstanding these concerns, GO Transit agreed with the developer to settle our objections to the land use changes that were appealed to the OMB. This settlement was based on i) the approval of particular amendments to the Official Plan, Zoning By-laws and Environmental Agreement, and ii) certain assurances provided by the developer. The Official Plan and Environmental Agreement amendments designate a thorough development application review by the City with input from GO. More specifically, the City is to "consult with and have regard for the comments of GO Transit" when considering an application to remove the holding symbol.

GO's expectation, therefore, is that the City will consider the adequacy and sufficiency of all studies and the mitigation measures proposed to enable residential uses adjacent to existing and future rail uses. GO's review and comments are restricted to dealing with GO related assumptions in the studies, seeking clarification of reported results and similar issues.

We look to the City for considering the comments that are attached in the decision regarding this application. In brief, our comments relate to compliance with the Environmental Agreement in consulting with GO Transit re: future rail traffic and ensuring adequate future scenarios are considered for the air quality study; clarification of assumptions in the air quality study regarding trains idling in Bathurst North Yard; sensitivity considerations of noise and air quality results with respect to the number of trains idling in the rail corridor; exposure to excessive noise levels if windows are open during non-air conditioning seasons; and consideration of incremental noise mitigation to accommodate future night time exposures.

GO is concerned that should the City's review not take such matters into account, then the cost of mitigation in the future may be imposed on GO and, in turn, on the City which shares in the funding of GO. In GO's view, this result could be avoided now by proper review, with the appropriate conditions being imposed on the developer. For example, the studies have focussed on current users of the rail corridor but have not included considerations of the Federal proposal for an airport service whereby incremental costs for mitigation would have to be funded by proponent agencies.

Furthermore, the City is currently negotiating with the railways for the purchase of Union Station and the associated rail infrastructure. It is therefore in the interest of the City to ensure that rail traffic into the station is not restricted as a result of this development. Hence, we have taken the liberty of copying this letter to Mr. M. Garrett.

Our comments regarding the air quality study, noise and vibration impact study and general application comments are attached as attachments 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

In conclusion, we look to the City for considering these comments in their decision regarding this application with respect to the areas noted above and in the attachments. If you have any further questions, please call.

Attachment 1

Comments - Air Quality Study, Block 21 - Towers A and B, Railway Lands Central, dated 21 June 1999, RWDI

• Pg 4 - "The traffic volumes predicted by GO Transit for the year 2020 showed an increase in existing traffic by almost 250%. This increase in traffic seemed significantly higher than previous 20 year projections provided by GO Transit for earlier studies in the rail corridor....As a result of IBI Group's evaluation, a 100% increase in traffic volume was simulated for the future (2020) traffic scenario."

GO Transit did not provide a prediction of traffic for 2020. Based on meetings with Concord Adex and their consultants, it was our understanding that the study would use future traffic levels identified in the previous air quality analysis. RWDI provided traffic data for 2010 from a study for the CN Tower redevelopment in 1997. GO subsequently suggested changes to the hourly distribution of train moves. The overall number of passenger train moves did not increase. The increase in train moves resulted from revisions to equipment (non-revenue) moves. It appears that the train move tabulations in earlier studies were based on an east storage facility which significantly reduces the number of equipment moves through the west ladder. At this time, with the redevelopment of the Danforth Yard, opportunities for an east storage facility are limited, therefore, equipment moves for the future scenario were prorated upwards accordingly to reflect this situation.