1 Request for Installation of Pedestrian Crossover or Traffic Control Signals: Burnhamthorpe Road between Martin Grove Road and Kipling Avenue (Markland-Centennial)

2 Introduction of Parking Prohibition Grenview Boulevard South/Sunnylea Avenue West (Lakeshore-Queensway)

3 Designation of Fire Route - 500 The East Mall (Markland-Centennial)

4 Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

5 Moving Forward in South Etobicoke

6 Final Settlement, Park Lawn Cemetery 2801 Bloor Street West (Lakeshore-Queensway)

7 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 14, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, subject to amending Recommendation No. (4) by adding the words "or, if and when the warrants are met", after the phrase "year 2000", so that Recommendation No. (4) shall now read as follows:

"(4) Burnhamthorpe Road between Martin Grove Road and Kipling Avenue be monitored by staff and that staff report in the fall of the year 2000 or, if and when the warrants are met, on the results of this monitoring program."

Purpose:

To review the feasibility of installing:

(1) a pedestrian crossover or traffic control signals on Burnhamthorpe Road near Echo Valley Road; and

(2) traffic control signals at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Lorraine Gardens, as well as at the Firehall (Station No. 3) driveway.

Funding Sources:

There are no funding implications associated with the recommendations of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) a pedestrian crossover or traffic control signals not be installed at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Echo Valley Road and/or Botfield Avenue as the warrants are not met;

(2) traffic control signals not be installed at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Lorraine Gardens as the warrants are not met;

(3) traffic control signals not be installed at the Firehall driveway immediately west of Lorraine Gardens as the warrants are not met; and

(4) Burnhamthorpe Road between Martin Grove Road and Kipling Avenue be monitored by staff and that staff report in the fall of the year 2000 on the results of this monitoring program.

Background:

Further to a request from [residents of Lorraine Gardens], dated September 5, 1998, staff reviewed the feasibility of installing a pedestrian crossover or traffic control signals on Burnhamthorpe Road in the vicinity of Echo Valley Road. The subject installation was supported, through correspondence, by various stakeholders including Mr. Paul McGregor; Our Lady of Peace Catholic School; the Burnhamthorpe Residents for Traffic Safety (BRTS); Operation Maximum 50 Committee; and, the Olivet Church.

The original request by [residents of Lorraine Gardens] was to install a pedestrian crossover (PXO) on Burnhamthorpe Road between Martin Grove Road and Kipling Avenue (Attachment No. 1). In view of the scale of that request, staff selected a study area where the majority of pedestrians would most likely cross Burnahamthorpe Road.

Specifically, the area near Echo Valley Road was studied because of the proximity to Echo Valley Park, Our Lady of Peace Catholic School, as well as the Toronto Transit Commission bus stops. The traffic studies were conducted in November 1998 during the busiest eight hours of a typical weekday. The results of the above-noted study were presented to Etobicoke Community Council (ECC) in a report dated March 30, 1999. Consideration of this issue was deferred to the April 28, 1999 meeting of the ECC to permit [a resident of Lorraine Gardens] to appear in deputation. The subject ECC report indicated that the technical warrants for the installation of a pedestrian crossover (PXO) or traffic control signals were not met and that the collision records were not indicative of a safety concern. Furthermore, the minimal number of pedestrians crossing Burnhamthorpe Road, combined with the insufficient pavement width, did not justify the installation of a pedestrian refuge island. The subject ECC report recommendations were adopted by ECC. City Council at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, referred the recommendations back to ECC for further consideration.

Since the time of the aforementioned study, the Transportation Services Division has received requests related to the installation of traffic control signals on Burnhamthorpe Road in the vicinity of Lorraine Gardens. The requests are outlined below:

(1) on June 22, 1999, this Department received a request from [a resident of Lorraine Gardens], dated June 18, 1999, to review an alternate location for a traffic control signal (Attachment No. 2); specifically, [a resident of Lorraine Gardens] requested that ". . .consideration be given to a traffic light at Burnhamthorpe Road and Lorraine Gardens instead of Echo Valley. . .";

(2) a copy of a letter, dated June 11, 1999, from Mr. Alan Speed, Fire Chief, Toronto Fire Services, to Councillor Dick O'Brien, indicating support for a ". . .pedestrian controlled traffic signal light on both sides of Station No. 3…", based on reducing the ". . .heightened risks. . ." that their vehicle crews experience when entering or exiting onto Burnhamthorpe Road (Attachment No. 3); and

(3) a copy of a letter from Mr. Don Boyle, Director of Parks and Recreation, West District, dated May 31, 1999, supporting pedestrian-activated traffic control signals in the vicinity of the Hydro Right-of-Way (ROW), between Lorraine Gardens and Echo Valley Road (Attachment No. 4); the subject letter was in response to a request from Mr. Paul McGregor to comment on the need for the subject installation.

Discussion:

(1) Burnhamthorpe Road and Echo Valley Road and Botfield Avenue:

For reference purposes, the key technical study results of our previous report, outlined in the March 30, 1999, Etobicoke Community Council report, are summarized below. Additional studies were conducted during the month of June 1999 and have been summarized for relative comparison.

(Notes: (1) For a pedestrian crossover to be numerically warranted, both the "Pedestrian Volume" and "Pedestrian Delays" must be satisfied 100 percent; (2) See discussion below.)

During the June 24, 1999 study, the number of pedestrians crossing Burnhamthorpe Road in the vicinity of Echo Valley Road and Botfield Avenue during the noon and afternoon periods were dramatically higher than those recorded in previous studies, and the vast majority of pedestrians appeared to be using Echo Valley Road to access Echo Valley Park. In view of these anomalous results, we conducted a pedestrian crossing study on Monday, June 28, 1999, during comparable weather conditions. The study period was between 12:15 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., and 2:45 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. The following table compares the pedestrian volumes recorded during all of the studies since 1996 within the time periods, as well as the volumes noted during the morning period:

As shown in the above table, the results of our June 28, 1999 study indicate that pedestrian crossing volumes are comparable to those recorded during the November 2, 1998 study, as well as the May 22, 1996 studies. Furthermore, the results of the June 24, 1999 morning period study are consistent with previous studies. In view of these results, it is evident that there were unusual circumstances during the noontime and afternoon peak periods of the June 24, 1999 study. Therefore, it would be prudent to undertake additional studies before any recommendations are made regarding the installation of a pedestrian crossover or traffic control signals on Burnhamthorpe Road at Echo Valley Road and Botfield Avenue.

A review of the collision records provided by the Toronto Police Service for the five-year period ending May 31, 1998, revealed that one collision has been reported involving a pedestrian on this section of Burnhamthorpe Road. There were no charges laid in connection with this collision.

For the traffic control signal warrants to be numerically satisfied, one of the "Minimum Vehicular Volume" or "Delay to Cross Traffic" warrants must be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants must be 80 percent satisfied.

The posted speed limit on this section of Burnhamthorpe Road is 50 km/h.

The 85th percentile speed is the speed, at or below which, 85 percent of the vehicles are travelling and typically reflects the speed at which motorists are comfortable driving under prevailing roadway conditions.

We will forward our speed study results to the Toronto Police Service with a request for enforcement.

(2) Burnhamthorpe Road and Lorraine Gardens:

Lorraine Gardens is a two-lane residential street and forms a "T" intersection with Burnhamthorpe Road from the north (Attachment No. 5). There are no Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus stops at this location. The nearest TTC bus stop (eastbound on Burnhamthorpe Road) is located approximately 105 metres west of Lorraine Gardens at Ashbourne Drive. Discussions with TTC staff indicate that the subject bus stop services approximately 70 passengers, who board and alight throughout the day and evening periods. TTC staff have not observed any problems related to pedestrians crossing Burnhamthorpe Road in the area of the bus stop.

Olivet Church is located on the north side of Burnhamthorpe Road, immediately east of Lorraine Gardens. Discussions with church staff revealed that the church operates a school which services 40 students from the junior kindergarten to grade eight level. A Firehall driveway (Station No. 3) is located on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Road approximately 22 metres west of the centreline of Lorraine Gardens.

Staff conducted a traffic control signal warrant analysis at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Lorraine Gardens on June 24, 1999. The results of that study are outlined in the following table:

For the traffic control signal warrants to be numerically satisfied, one of the "Minimum Vehicular Volume" or "Delay to Cross Traffic" warrants must be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants must be 80 percent satisfied.

The collision hazard warrant is based on the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection in a three-year period which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Collision statistics provided by the Toronto Police Service revealed that there have been no potentially preventable collisions at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Lorraine Gardens and no collisions have occurred involving pedestrians during the three-year period ending May 31, 1998.

[A resident of Lorraine Gardens] indicated that a number of pedestrian related collisions that occurred in the vicinity of the Firehall driveway have been reported by residents that live on Burnhamthorpe Road. Our records indicate that there have been no reportable pedestrian collisions which have occurred at this location the five-year period ending December 31, 1998.

During our study, we observed 10 pedestrians crossing Burnhamthorpe Road during an 8-hour period in the vicinity of Lorraine Gardens. We recognize that at the time of our study, the school component of Olivet Church was closed for the summer. However, if we added the existing student population of Olivet Church (40 students), crossing both ways on Burnhamthorpe Road, to the number of pedestrians recorded crossing during our study period, the minimum pedestrian crossing volume would be 50 pedestrians. If we considered installing a PXO, this value would fall significantly short of the values required to satisfy the minimum pedestrian crossing volume. The minimum technical requirement for the installation of a pedestrian crossover is 200 pedestrian crossings during the busiest 8 hours of a typical day. Similarly, if we added the number of passengers boarding and alighting at the eastbound and westbound TTC bus stops near Ashbourne Drive (70 passengers and 64 passengers, respectively), the total number of pedestrian crossings (including Olivet Church) would be in the order of 184 pedestrians, still below the warrant values.

Moreover, even if this requirement were met, a second requirement would be applied which considers how many pedestrians were delayed more than 10 seconds before being able to complete their crossing. The number of delayed pedestrians required varies depending on the total volume of pedestrians counted. Both of these requirements must be met for a pedestrian crossover to be considered technically warranted.

The Department also examined the relative (approximate) walking distances to key intersections, the results of which are outlined below:

(i) Lorraine Gardens to Echo Valley Road - 230 metres;

(ii) Echo Valley Road to Kipling Avenue - 200 metres;

(iii) Our Lady of Peace School to Echo Valley Road - 420 metres; and

(iv) Lorraine Gardens to Martin Grove Road - 280 metres.

Assuming that the vast majority of the pedestrian crossings are destined to/from Echo Valley Park, and that traffic control signals are installed at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Lorraine Gardens, the distance for a pedestrian, to walk one way from Echo Valley Road to Lorraine Gardens would be approximately 230 metres (or an approximate 3-minute walk). This contrasts to a walking distance of approximately 200 metres (30 metres less), which would be required to reach the signalized intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Kipling Avenue. Furthermore, an additional walking distance of approximately 370 metres (5-minute walk) would be required from Lorraine Gardens to Echo Valley Park.

In view of the aforementioned, from a walking distance perspective, it would not be practical to install traffic control signals at Lorraine Gardens to serve pedestrians walking to/from Echo Valley Park.

(3) Installation of Traffic Control Signals at the Firehall Driveway:

[A resident of Lorraine Gardens] indicated that "the greatest benefit of having a traffic light at Lorraine Gardens would be the reduction in response time by the Fire Department. . . ." Station No. 3 is located on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Road, immediately west of Lorraine Gardens.

[A resident of Lorraine Gardens] also indicated that eastbound vehicles ". . .gain speed and at times are unable to stop safely in time. This contributes to an approximately 30-second delay in response times as trucks need to wait for cars to stop (as reported by fire fighters who work at the station)." Discussions with Firehall staff revealed that it typically takes between 30 seconds and one minute between the time when the initial emergency call is received and the time that the fire trucks are ready to depart the Firehall.

The copy of the letter received from Toronto Fire Services indicates support for a ". . .pedestrian controlled traffic signal light on both sides of Station No. 3. . .", based on reducing the ". . .heightened risks. . ." that their vehicle crews experience when entering or exiting onto Burnhamthorpe Road. The Transportation Services Division was not previously notified by Toronto Fire Services of any safety concerns related to traffic operations in this area. Further discussions with Toronto Fire Services staff revealed that although they would have no objection to the installation of traffic control signals, which would benefit their operations, emergency response times are presently not hampered by traffic flow on Burnhamthorpe Road in front of Station No. 3.

The Transportation Services Division reviewed the feasibility of incorporating the Firehall driveway within the traffic control signal at Lorraine Gardens, as well as installing traffic control signals only at the Firehall driveway. The results of our preliminary feasibility review are as follows:

(a) Incorporating the Firehall Driveway within the Traffic Control Signal at Lorraine Gardens.

Based on staff's preliminary review there are a number of design-related issues regarding the installation of a traffic control signal, which is intended to service both vehicle and pedestrian demand at Lorraine Gardens, as well as provide safe egress for fire trucks during an alarm response call. Namely, the most significant issue is the offset between Lorraine Gardens and the Firehall driveway.

The Firehall driveway is approximately 24 metres wide and Lorraine Gardens is located approximately 22 metres east of the Firehall driveway (measured centreline to centreline). This spacing poses a number of functional and operational concerns. Specifically, in order to stop eastbound traffic on Burnhamthorpe Road, prior to the Firehall driveway, a traffic signal pole would have to be located in the area within the existing Firehall driveway. This would require extensive civil modifications to the driveway and would result in a notable reduction in the usable driveway area.

An alternate location for traffic control signals on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Road (facing eastbound traffic) could be on the east side of the Firehall driveway closer to Lorraine Gardens. However, this configuration would not provide the Firehall with the benefit of stopping eastbound traffic and may, in fact, create more difficulty for fire trucks exiting the Firehall since eastbound vehicles may potentially be queued within the driveway area. Discussions with Firehall staff confirmed that this arrangement could be problematic for trucks exiting the Firehall during an emergency call.

(b) Installing Traffic Control Signals only at the Firehall Driveway.

Staff also considered installing traffic control signals in front of the Firehall driveway, including provisions for pedestrian crossings, but without including Lorraine Gardens. The most significant design issue related to this type of installation would be the location of the traffic signal equipment facing westbound traffic. Presently, the offset between the west curb of Lorraine Gardens and the east curb of the Firehall driveway does not provide an area sufficient to install a westbound stop bar without infringing into the Firehall driveway area.

Notwithstanding this preliminary feasibility review, should Council see fit to approve a traffic control signal at this location, additional detailed design would be required to identify specific operational and design impacts, as well as cost implications.

(4) Burnhamthorpe Road within the Hydro Right-of-Way:

Further to a copy of a letter from Mr. Don Boyle, Director of Parks and Recreation, West District, dated May 31, 1999, supporting pedestrian-activated traffic control signals in the vicinity of the Hydro Right-of-Way (ROW), between Lorraine Gardens and Echo Valley Road, Transportation staff requested that the following additional information be provided by the Parks and Recreation Division:

(i) identify more specific locations for traffic control signals;

(ii) identify the origins of residents complaints;

(iii) number of pedestrians and time periods of pedestrian demand through Hydro Right-of-Way; and

(iv) identify other similar locations with traffic control signals.

In dealings with the Parks and Recreation Division, it appears that this data is not available, and the intent of the letter was that it would be nice to have traffic control signals at this location. However, they would not be a "priority" item.

It should be noted that when field staff conduct traffic studies, it is typical to observe various traffic operation characteristics, such as unusually heavy pedestrian crossings, unsafe vehicle manoeuvres, etc. Accordingly, although our Department has not conducted a formal study within the area of the Hydro Right-of-Way proper, our pedestrian observations in the vicinity of Echo Valley Road/Botfield Avenue, as well as Lorraine Gardens, revealed only a nominal pedestrian crossing demand in those areas.

Conclusions:

Based on the June 24, 1999 study results, the technical warrants for the installation of a pedestrian crossover are met at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Echo Valley Road/Botfield Avenue. However, due to the dramatic differences between these study results and our previous studies, our Department is prepared to restudy this section of Burnhamthorpe Road in the year 2000.

Based on our June 24, 1999 study results, traffic control signals are not technically warranted at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Lorraine Gardens.

Notwithstanding the June 24, 1999 pedestrian crossing study results at Echo Valley Road and Botfield Avenue, staff observations and studies indicate that the pedestrian crossing demand on Burnhamthorpe Road within the subject areas is minimal and that the majority of pedestrians that do cross, appear to do so in a safe manner without conflicting with vehicular traffic on Burnhamthorpe Road. This is supported by our review of the Toronto Police Service collision records which indicates that the pedestrian collision record on Burnhamthorpe Road within the subject areas is not indicative of a safety problem.

The subject requests for pedestrian crossing protection have been studied by staff on an individual basis, using established traffic engineering methods and principles, which have been applied without bias and in as consistent a manner as possible. Permitting the installation of a device, which is not warranted, compromises the integrity of the warrants, as well as the device and sets an undesirable precedent for future installations.

Contact Name:

Mr. Dominic Gulli, Manager, Traffic Operations, District 2

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

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

(i) (May 21, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Council of the City of Toronto on May 11 and 12, 1999, struck out and referred Clause No. 1 of Report No. 6 of The Etobicoke Community Council, headed "Request for Installation of Pedestrian Crossover or Traffic Control Signals: Burnhamthorpe Road near Echo Valley Road (Markland-Centennial)", back to the Etobicoke Community Council for further consideration; and

(ii) (September 10, 1999) from [a resident of Lorraine Gardens], requesting that this matter be deferred for one month.

The following residents appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting held on October 13, 1999, in connection with the foregoing matter:

- [A resident of Lorraine Gardens]; and filed a copy of her deputation with respect thereto;

- Mr. Paul McGregor;

- Ms. Patricia Greenside;

- Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee; and filed a copy of her deputation with respect thereto;

- Ms. Ann Vranesic; and

- Ms. Heather Martin.

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1 to 5, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 13, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 12, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a temporary parking prohibition on the west side of Grenview Boulevard South, between Sunnylea Avenue West and Meadowvale Drive, and on the north side of Sunnylea Avenue West, between Prince Edward Drive South and Grenview Boulevard South.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) parking be prohibited at all times on the west side of Grenview Boulevard South, between Sunnylea Avenue West and Meadowvale Drive;

(2) the current "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the west side of Grenview Boulevard South, between Glenroy Avenue and a point 105.0 metres south thereof be deleted from the Municipal Code;

(3) parking be prohibited at all times on the north side of Sunnylea Avenue West, between Prince Edward Drive South and Grenview Boulevard South; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any bills that may be required.

Background:

In July 1999, Council approved the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive, between Bloor Street West and Berry Road. Construction scheduling requires that this work be completed in two phases. Phase I will begin shortly, and includes the area from Bloor Street West to Sunnylea Avenue. It is expected to take six to eight weeks to complete. Phase II will commence in the spring of 2000.

During construction of Phase I of the project, it is necessary to reroute the Toronto Transit Commission Route 66 (Prince Edward Drive) bus along Sunnylea Avenue West, Grenview Boulevard South, and Bermuda Avenue. A map of the area is Attachment No. 1.

Comments:

Grenview Boulevard South is a two-lane local road with a pavement width of 7.5 metres. Land use in the immediate vicinity is residential. The existing parking regulations on Grenview Boulevard South are described as follows:

(a) "No Standing Anytime" on both sides of Grenview Boulevard South, between Bermuda Avenue and Meadowvale Drive;

(b) "No Parking Anytime" on the west side of Grenview Boulevard South, between Meadowvale Drive and Edgemore Drive; and

(c) "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday" on both sides of Grenview Boulevard South, between Glenroy Avenue and a point 105.0 metres south thereof.

Sunnylea Avenue West is a two-lane local road with a pavement width of 6.5 metres. Land use in the immediate vicinity is residential. At present, parking is permitted on both sides of Sunnylea Avenue West for a maximum of three hours.

Bermuda Avenue is a two-lane local road with a pavement width of 7.0 metres. Land use in the immediate vicinity is residential. Parking is prohibited at all times on both sides of Bermuda Avenue between Prince Edward Drive South and Grenview Boulevard South.

Conclusion:

Based on the urgency and temporary nature of this issue, Council's endorsement of these recommendations is appropriate. These restrictions will be removed and the current restrictions reinstated, as soon as Phase I construction is finalized and bus service on Prince Edward Drive has been restored.

We will notify residents to advise them of these temporary parking prohibitions.

Contact Name:

Mr. D. Gulli, Manager, Traffic Operations, Transportation Services Division, District 2

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

(A copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 13, 1999, and a copy is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 16, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To obtain Council approval for the enactment of the appropriate by-law to approve the final designation of a fire route to enable By-law Enforcement Officers to tag illegally parked vehicles within the designated fire route.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The property owner is required to pay the cost for the installation of the fire route signs, by the Works and Emergency Services Department, in addition to any signs that may require replacing, in the future.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the final designation of Fire Routes under Chapter 134 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be approved at 500 The East Mall; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be enacted by City Council.

Background:

On April 8, 1975, an Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke received Royal Assent. A portion of the Act, Section 2, allows the Corporation to pass by-laws regulating and designating fire routes. Each property requires the enactment of two by-laws:

(1) to allow the Works and Emergency Services Department to install and maintain the required number of fire route signs on each property; and

(2) to allow appropriate officials to tag and/or remove vehicles illegally parked within the designated fire route area.

In instances when changes have been made to a property, such as additions to existing buildings, the construction of additional new buildings on the site or revisions to the parking areas, it is necessary to amend the designating fire route by-law.

Comments:

It is appropriate for the Etobicoke Community Council to authorize the enactment of this by-law. Similar by-laws will be presented to Community Council on an ongoing basis. As all former area municipalities have different procedures for processing fire routes, revisions to Etobicoke's existing procedures may be amended in the future.

Conclusion:

In keeping with Toronto Fire Services' regulations, it is appropriate to enact this by-law to allow the By-law Enforcement Officers to tag vehicles that are illegally parked in fire route zones.

Contact Name:

Vicki Tytaneck, Manager, Legislative Services

Tel.: (416) 394-8080; Fax: (416) 394-8080

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council:

(1) recommends the adoption of the report (September 28, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District; and

(2) submits, without recommendation, a request that the City pay the expenses incurred by the applicant for the appeal regarding 75 Birmingham Street, embodied in the communication (October 7, 1999) from Ms. Joan Brennan, Brennan and Brennan.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (September 28, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding 20 and 22 Humbervale Boulevard, 4671 Dundas Street West, and 57 Prennan Avenue; and

(2) legal and staff representation be provided for the appeal regarding 75 Birmingham Street.

Comments:

The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:

(i) Address: 20 and 22 Humbervale Boulevard

Ward: Lakeshore-Queensway

Application No.: B-26/99ET, A-221/99ET, A222/99ET

Applicant: Colagiacomo Holdings Ltd.

Appellant: Colagiacomo Holdings Ltd.

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The property has a lot frontage of 15.24 m, a lot area of 557.42 m² and is occupied by a two-storey single, detached dwelling and a detached single car garage. It is zoned Second Density Residential (R2) by the Etobicoke Zoning Code. The applicant is proposing to sever the property into two lots. The retained lot would maintain the existing two-storey single detached dwelling and detached single car garage and the severed lot would be developed with a new two-storey single, detached dwelling and a detached single car garage. The proposed lots would have frontage of 7.62 m and lot areas of 278.7 m². In addition to the severance, the applicant is seeking variances for reduced lot frontage, reduced lot area, reduced minimum aggregate width of side yards for both lots, and a reduced minimum required side yard setback for an eaves overhang for the new home.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused

Comments: A review of the assessment maps indicates that there are other properties on Humbervale Boulevard and Royal York Road, in the vicinity of the subject property, which have been developed with similar lot frontages and lot areas. In light of the foregoing, staff feel that legal representation is not warranted at the Ontario Municipal Board.

(ii) Address: 4671 Dundas Street West

Ward: Kingsway - Humber

Application No.: A-217/99ET

Applicant: M. R. Jokinen and M. Jokinen

Appellant: M. R. Jokinen and M. Jokinen

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The property is occupied by an existing single detached dwelling with an attached garage. The applicant proposes to build a second storey addition over the existing walls of the attached garage, convert the existing attached garage into living space, and build a new single car garage along the front wall of the dwelling. The Zoning Code requires a front yard setback of 19.9 m (65 ft), a side yard setback of 1.5 m (5 ft) and a side yard eaves setback of 0.4 m (1.3 ft). The applicant proposes a front yard setback of 12.4 m (41 ft), side yard setback of 0.9 m (3 ft) and an eaves setback of 0.3 m (1 ft).

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused

Comments: As the property is well treed with mature vegetation and would still maintain a significant front yard setback of 12.4 m (41 ft), staff feel that legal representation is not warranted at the Ontario Municipal Board.

(iii) Address: 57 Prennan Avenue

Ward: Markland-Centennial

Application No.: A-205/99ET

Applicant: A. Guha and S. Guha

Appellant: A. Guha and S. Guha

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: This key lot abuts a reverse corner lot to the north, which fronts on Mattice Avenue. The property is occupied by a two-storey single detached dwelling with an attached two-car garage along the front wall of the dwelling. The property was developed prior to the incorporation of dwelling depth provisions in the Zoning Code and currently exceeds the maximum dwelling depth of 16.5 m (54 ft). The applicant proposes to build a rear one-storey addition. The proposed dwelling would have a dwelling depth of 25.8 m (85 ft) and a gross floor area of 369.3 m² (3,976 sq ft). The Zoning Code permits a maximum dwelling depth of 16.5 m (54 ft) from the required front yard setback and a maximum gross floor area of 343.7 m² (3, 700 sq ft).

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused

Comments: Given the fact that this is a key lot that was developed prior to the Zoning Code provisions for lot depth, staff are of the opinion that there are no significant planning issues that would warrant legal representation at the Ontario Municipal Board.

(iv) Address: 75 Birmingham Street

Ward: Lakeshore-Queensway

Application No: A-195/99ET

Applicant: Bosnian Islamic Centre

Appellant: Bosnian Islamic Centre

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The property is occupied by a two-storey building known as the Bosnian Islamic Centre. The applicant proposes to legalize and maintain the existing place of worship and construct a 295.25 m² second storey addition over the west rear yard parking area. Variances requested relate to use, location of the handicapped parking space, side yard setback to the parking lot, landscaping, parking, and rear yard setback.

Decision of the Committee of Adjustment: Refused

Comments: Works and Emergency Services staff have advised that they requested the applicants to provide a parking study in order that they could evaluate the parking demands resulting from the proposal. To date, the applicants have not provided a parking study. Therefore, Works and Emergency Services staff feel that representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is warranted.

Contact Name:

Mr. David Oikawa, Manager, Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8219; Fax: (416) 394-6063

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (October 7, 1999) from Ms. Joan Brennan, Brennan and Brennan, respecting Minor Variance Decision Number A-195/99 ET, 75 Birmingham Street:

". . . Please be advised that I would like to speak to the matter on behalf of Mr. Harrison. Further, I would like to at the same time make the request to the Community Council that the City reimburse Mr. Harrison for the expenses he incurred as a result of retaining professionals to represent him at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing held on February 1, 1999, with respect to this property. . . ."

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

- Ms. Joan Brennan, Solicitor for Mr. P. Harrison; and

- Mr. K. Dewaele, DD Consulting, on behalf of the applicant.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, amended this Clause in accordance with the report dated October 27, 1999, from the Director of Community Planning, West District, embodying the following recommendation:

"That City Council endorse the amended Terms of Reference for the New Toronto Secondary Plan and the South Etobicoke Action Plan as contained in Appendices 1 and 2, respectively.")

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (September 28, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, subject to:

(1) adding a second recommendation, as follows:

"(2) that the Action Plan be produced jointly by Planning staff and Economic Development Division staff in full partnership and consultation with the stakeholders and Steering Committee of the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project";

(2) adopting, in principle, the Terms of Reference for the Action Plan and the Secondary Plan, embodied in Appendix 1, and directing that they be reviewed with the stakeholders of the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project prior to finalization; and

(3) extending the boundary of the New Toronto Secondary Plan eastward to Dwight Avenue.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having referred the communications (October 12, 1999) from Ms. Susan Keir, Principal, Keir Corp., on behalf of the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association, and (October 8, 1999) from Mr. Peter Milczyn, Chair, Lakeshore Planning Council, to the Director of Community Planning, West District, with a request that she submit a report thereon directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on October 26, 1999, such report to include any additional recommendations deemed necessary.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (September 28, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

This report presents a work program for two initiatives for South Etobicoke. The first is an Action Plan for implementing the outstanding recommendations and initiatives contained in the numerous reviews and secondary plans that have been done for South Etobicoke over the years.

The second work program item will involve the preparation of a Secondary Plan for the New Toronto reinvestment area that makes specific land use recommendations designed to resolve concerns raised by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) as part of the Canadian General Tower (CGT) hearing and provides clear direction for the future re-use of lands within the context of the entire South Etobicoke area (see Map 1).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds are available as part of the 1999 Urban Planning and Development Services Department (UPDS) approved Operating Budget.

Recommendation:

That City Council endorse the work program set out in Appendices 1 and 2 and direct staff to retain a consultant(s) to undertake the secondary planning study for the New Toronto area of South Etobicoke.

Background:

South Etobicoke has been the subject of numerous reviews, studies and plans from east to west (see Map 2). These efforts have produced great successes such as the Waterfront Amenity Area, the Lakeshore Psychiatric Lands, the Long Branch Mainstreets program and significant residential development.

Since 1990, over 2,300 residential units have been added to South Etobicoke, with more than 8,000 additional units planned for the area. However, there are still many initiatives that have to be implemented in South Etobicoke.

In 1997, as an alternative to a comprehensive Secondary Plan for the New Toronto Employment Area, Etobicoke Council endorsed a Development Concept for the area. The New Toronto Employment Area comprises approximately 78 ha (191 ac) of industrial lands in South Etobicoke, located between Kipling Avenue and Islington Avenue, north of Birmingham Street and south of the Canadian National Railway (see Map 2, Area B).

Also in 1997, Etobicoke Community Council adopted a site specific Official Plan Amendment and rezoning to permit 154-unit residential development on the CGT lands. These amendments were referred to the Ontario Municipal Board by CGT, the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association and Canadian National Railways. A six-week hearing was held in 1998. The OMB released its decision on the CGT application in February 1999. In its decision, the OMB directed that a comprehensive review of the New Toronto Area be undertaken and that a secondary plan be prepared which establishes direction on land use compatibility and environmental issues.

The area is characterized by a mix of land uses with large tracts of empty industrial land interspersed with active industrial and commercial businesses. The area also contains a small residential pocket. The majority of this area is comprised of four large parcels, Arrowhead, Canadian General Tower, the CNR yards and the former Gilbey's distillery site. The Arrowhead and CGT sites comprise 22.0 ha (54.4 ac). The former Gilbey Site (3.9 ha or 9.8 ac) was sold to the Board of Education for the possible future expansion of Lakeshore Collegiate Institute. Since the OMB hearing in 1998, there has been no expression of interest on the CGT or Arrowhead lands and they remain vacant.

Recent Initiatives:

Since the Ontario Municipal Board decision, a number of recent initiatives have begun which will impact on the role of South Etobicoke within the new City.

One of the major efforts underway is the preparation of the City's new Official Plan. This exercise provides the first opportunity to examine the role of South Etobicoke within the wider context of the new City. The new Official Plan will develop a planning/policy framework to deal with the pressures for change being faced by the industrial/employment lands across the City, as well as a means to recognize the opportunities they offer for the City.

A joint initiative by the Urban Planning and Development Services Department and the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department will build on the work being done for the Official Plan by reviewing the City's economic competitiveness within the GTA and globally. A key focus of the study will be to analyze key economic "clusters" in the City in their global context. The study will examine specific clusters within the City, highlighting their linkages to other clusters, reviewing trends within these clusters and identifying key competitive factors influencing their location and expansion decisions. This work may assist in identifying key sectors that could be targeted for the South Etobicoke industrial/employment lands.

Economic Development has also identified South Etobicoke as an "Economic Revitalization Program Area". A South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Committee has been established to develop a South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Plan. This committee is comprised of businesses, community associations, not-for-profit organizations, agencies and government elected representatives and staff and residents. The regeneration project is being supported with Human Resources Development Canada funding. Drawing on the work that has already been done in South Etobicoke, the Action Plan will develop short-term strategies and actions to achieve key priorities for the area's waterfront, mainstreets, employment lands, and residential areas.

Another recent waterfront initiative is being coordinated through the Chief Administrator's Office, in conjunction with the City's departments and the Mayor's Office. An overall vision for the City's entire waterfront, including the South Etobicoke area, is being prepared. This vision will be used to direct public and private investment to create a dynamic waterfront area. The vision will also play a key role in the City's bid for the 2008 Olympics.

Work Program:

The Urban Planning and Development Services Department has developed a work program to address the above-noted efforts underway in South Etobicoke. A detailed work program for the preparation of a Secondary Plan is set out in Appendix No. 1 to this report. The work program sets out how the secondary plan review for this area is to be coordinated with other recent initiatives which are already underway.

Within the context of the overall work program, two specific initiatives have been identified as part of the first steps in preparing a Secondary Plan. The first effort will provide an Action Plan to allow staff to quickly move forward on the many recommendations and initiatives that have been identified for South Etobicoke in various studies over the years. This effort will be coordinated with the South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Committee. The second initiative will look to resolve a number of land use planning issues regarding the area's industrial/employment lands. The details of these proposals are presented below.

Recommendations and Initiatives Summary:

In preparing a work program for the secondary plan, a list was compiled of the numerous studies which have been completed for South Etobicoke over the past 15 years. These studies have produced an extensive list of recommendations to enhance the quality of life in South Etobicoke and make it a more vibrant community. Appendix No. 3 contains a list of the major studies. While the Waterfront Amenity Area, Lakeshore Psychiatric Lands, Long Branch Mainstreets program and significant residential activity are visible signs of the success of these efforts, there are still many recommendations waiting to be implemented. With many of the recommendations spread among various studies, there is no single document that serves as an overall inventory of the proposed improvements to South Etobicoke nor an action plan committing budget and timing.

As a first step to preparing a secondary plan, a summary of the recommendations from these studies will be prepared (Appendix No. 2). The recommendations cover a wide range of topics including main streets, industrial revitalization, parks and open space, residential intensification, culture and ecological restoration. The "Recommendations and Initiatives Summary" will group the various initiatives by themes, set out the status of the project, identify the players involved, priorities and any impediments to its implementation.

This review of past studies will assist other efforts underway in South Etobicoke. The inventory of outstanding initiatives may be incorporated into various work programs and will include the development of an action plan. This inventory will be coordinated with the efforts of the community based South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Committee. This inventory will also inform the City's strategic plan and future capital budgets.

A key product of the study will be to identify those initiatives that are still relevant and can be implemented by various City departments over a relatively short time frame. Longer term initiatives will be itemized and the necessary action steps required to complete them will be identified, including estimates of funding, where possible.

Employment Lands in South Etobicoke:

Over the years, South Etobicoke has undergone significant changes as several of the area's major employers have closed down or relocated. This has left a number of major sites vacant and their potential future re-use an issue of considerable speculation and debate. The recent Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusal of a residential proposal for the Canadian General Tower (CGT) lands in South Etobicoke raised a number of key planning issues around the possible introduction of residential uses into the New Toronto Employment area. In its decision the OMB directed the City to prepare a secondary plan that would provide all parties with a detailed and comprehensive framework for future planning in the area.

As noted earlier, Urban Planning and Economic Development have engaged consultants to undertake an economic competitiveness study as part of the City's new Official Plan review. This study will look at key sectors of the Economy and their growth potential. The proposed study for South Etobicoke will build upon the current Official Plan review of City-wide industrial lands and the review of the City's economic competitiveness. The study should provide key information in determining the direction for future re-use of the New Toronto Lands.

Public Consultation:

The public consultation process will be a key part of the preparation of the Secondary Plan for New Toronto. All interested parties will be provided with opportunities throughout the process to provide their input into deciding the appropriate scenario for the re-use of lands in New Toronto. The South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Committee includes a number of key stakeholders in the area. This Committee will be included in the community consultation for the preparation of the New Toronto Secondary Plan. Efforts will be made to achieve consensus on the future direction of the lands.

Conclusion:

The recently allocated budget for planning studies in South Etobicoke provides the Urban Planning and Development Services Department with an opportunity to implement two key initiatives for South Etobicoke. The work program set out in Appendices summarizes the initiatives. The Action Plan will serve to synthesize the many recommendations and initiatives identified for South Etobicoke and set out a strategy for moving forward with them. The review of land uses within South Etobicoke and the preparation of a New Toronto Secondary Plan will assist in resolving the concerns identified by the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the CGT lands and provide overall direction for the re-use of employment/industrial lands in South Etobicoke.

Contact Name:

Mr. Perry Vagnini, Senior Planner

Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8236; Fax: (416) 394-6063

Terms of Reference:

New Toronto Secondary Plan

Purpose:

To prepare a Secondary Plan that will guide the future re-use of lands in the New Toronto area (Map 2, Area B) by building on past and current City initiatives. The Secondary Plan will examine the New Toronto area within the wider context of South Etobicoke and identify the area's role within the new amalgamated City of Toronto. Initially, alternative land use scenarios will be prepared for the New Toronto area. Through a process of ongoing public consultation, a final land use scenario will be identified and considered for adoption.

The following Terms of Reference identify the specific tasks for the New Toronto Secondary Plan area. The project will be undertaken by outside consultants with staff acting as resource on the synthesis of work previously undertaken. The funds allocated to the Urban Planning and Development Services budget for studies for South Etobicoke would be used to secure an outside consultant(s) with a broad range of expertise to address the many issues in South Etobicoke. The consultant(s) should have, among other qualifications, experience in environmental issues and land use economics.

Public Consultation:

Prior to undertaking the New Toronto Secondary Plan, staff and the consultants should identify a comprehensive public participation process that allows all interested parties to have input into determining the appropriate land uses for the area. Emphasis should be placed on providing a forum that allows all parties to reach a consensus on issues.

The consultation process should allow the public and other interested parties to have several opportunities to comment on the proposed re-use of lands within New Toronto.

Phase 1 - Introduction/Overview:

(1) A general review of the New Toronto area will be undertaken and the area will be placed within the wider context of the South Etobicoke Community and the New City of Toronto.

(2) A review of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision on the Canadian General Tower (CGT) lands and the specific issues/concerns it raised will provide the context for the study.

(3) Etobicoke's Official Plan and past studies (e.g., Lakeshore Industrial Strategy Study/Lakeshore Overview Report) of the area and ongoing initiatives are to be reviewed by staff. The policies and recommendations/initiatives from these efforts will play a key role in revitalizing South Etobicoke and providing future direction for the re-use of lands in New Toronto. The work being done by staff in the "Recommendations and Initiatives Action Plan" will prove a useful resource for this phase of the study. (See Work Program, Appendix 2).

(4) Current initiatives underway in the City must also be reviewed by the consultant, as they may provide direction for revitalizing South Etobicoke and the New Toronto area or the re-use of employment/industrial lands. Key studies to be reviewed include (but are not limited to):

(a) The Industrial/Employment Land Needs Study (Official Plan) - This study will provide a planning/policy framework to determine how industrial lands across the new amalgamated City fit in with the overall vision for the City and should be available in the near future.

(b) The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department and the Urban Planning and Development Services Department "Economic Competitiveness Study" - This study will provide an overview of the Toronto/GTA economy and identify the City's role in the global economy and its economic competitiveness and is anticipated shortly.

(c) Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department "South Etobicoke Regeneration Project" - The goal of this Project is to prepare a results oriented Action Plan that will assist in guiding limited public funds available for infrastructure and revitalization improvements in South Etobicoke.

(d) Olympic Bid - The City is currently preparing its bid for the 2008 Olympics. It is essential that the appropriate waterfront infrastructure be in place to demonstrate the City's commitment to securing the Olympics. This will provide an opportunity for the South Etobicoke waterfront to contribute to the Olympic bid and share in any infrastructure improvements.

(5) Key questions to be answered from this review of material and initiatives include:

(a) What type of investment is occurring in South Etobicoke and in the New Toronto area? Commercial, residential, industrial and retail?

(b) Do the New Toronto Employment Lands "fit in" with the overall vision for the New City of Toronto. What are the areas assets for new employment generating uses? What role do they play in City's industrial/employment structure?

(c) Can New Toronto be an appropriate location for any specific business sectors or clusters? Is new residential development required to sustain new industry?

Phase 2 - Review Existing Services/Facilities and Assets of South Etobicoke:

This section will produce a listing of the areas assets and shortcomings and will assist in determining proposed land uses for the New Toronto area that can be adequately accommodated. It will also assist in identifying where funds/efforts should be focussed within the New Toronto area. Specific areas to be reviewed include:

(1) Public Works and Emergency Services (roads, sewers, fire halls);

(2) Community facilities (schools, libraries, daycares); and

(3) Parks and Recreation facilities.

Phase 3 - Review Issues/Constraints for Land Uses:

This section of the report should identify any opportunities or impediments to land uses in the New Toronto area. The key issues raised by the OMB on the CGT lands should be identified. Some of the environmental issues reviewed should include among others:

(1) mitigation of railway noises at source and reception points;

(2) mitigation of air quality problems;

(3) remediation of contaminated sites;

(4) resolution of land use compatibility issues; and

(5) identify any servicing constraints within the area.

Phase 4 - Establish Objectives for the Areas:

Long-term land use objectives for the New Toronto area will be identified in this section of the study. The objectives will be shaped by the work that is underway by the Official Plan Team and the Economic Competitiveness Study. The information from these studies should identify the viability of the New Toronto lands to continue as employment generating lands or whether alternative land uses are more appropriate.

(1) Review findings of Official Plan team's work on industrial/employment lands to determine viability of lands to remain employment generating land.

(2) Review findings of Economic Development's "Economic Competitiveness" study to determine the possibility of attracting business sectors/clusters to New Toronto. (The consultant could also request the Economic Competitiveness Study's consultant to provide a specific analysis of South Etobicoke.)

(3) Based on these and other information from previous phases, identify the appropriate land uses for the New Toronto area.

Phase 5 - Identify Alternative Land Use Scenarios:

A number of possible development scenarios for the New Toronto area should be identified based on the objectives identified for the area in Phase 4 of the study.

(1) Prepare alternative land use scenarios. Identify the pros and cons of each scenario.

(2) Identify initiatives needed to realize proposed land uses (e.g., improvements in infrastructure, other planning/financial economic development mechanisms and tools).

Phase 6 - Recommend Appropriate Land Use Plan:

Based on the input received from all interested parties and the result of the other ongoing initiatives in South Etobicoke, identify the preferred land uses for the New Toronto area.

Clearly articulate the pros and cons of the choice and demonstrate how it will build on other initiatives by contributing to the revitalization of South Etobicoke.

Demonstrate how the Plan will contribute to City's overall objectives for industrial/employment lands within the entire City.

Phase 7 - Presentation to Council:

Present the recommended land use scenario to Community Council.

Time Frame:

The study should take between eight to ten months to complete once the consultant(s) has been hired.

Product:

The study will produce a secondary plan that will provide clear direction for the re-use of lands in New Toronto and set out policies to resolve the land use planning issues identified by the OMB at the CGT hearing. The Plan will also identify the role of the New Toronto lands within the context of the newly amalgamated City of Toronto.

Work Program, Recommendations

and Initiatives Action Plan

Purpose:

The numerous studies prepared for the South Etobicoke area over the last 15 years have produced an extensive list of recommendations aimed at creating a vibrant and healthy community. (See Map 2, Appendix 3). While the Waterfront Amenity, Lakeshore Psychiatric Lands, Long Branch Mainstreets project and substantial residential development are visible signs of the success of these efforts, there are still many outstanding recommendations waiting to be implemented. With most of the recommendations spread among various studies, there is not one document that serves as an overall inventory of the proposed improvements to South Etobicoke.

The following Terms of Reference will assist in developing an action plan for implementing these recommendations and initiatives for the South Etobicoke area. A key focus of the study will be to identify those initiatives that can be implemented by Urban Planning and Development Services (UPDS) and other City departments over a short time frame. Longer term initiatives will be itemized and the necessary action steps required to complete them will be identified, including estimates of funding, where possible. The recommendation and Initiatives Action Plan is an important piece of background research and synthesis to the Secondary Plan and will complement the efforts of the South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Plan Committee.

Scope of Work:

Phase 1 - Synthesis of Recommendations

(1) Review all relevant documents that have been prepared for the South Etobicoke area over the past ten years. Documents which were prepared prior to 1990 and set the background for later work may also need to be examined as part of this exercise.

(2) Develop a comprehensive list of all recommendations/strategies made within these studies. Recommendations are to be grouped into appropriate categories (i.e., environmental, parks, employment, mainstreets, etc.).

(3) Detailed summaries of the recommendations that have been implemented, or are currently in the process of being implemented, along with the cost of implementing them, are to be provided.

(4) Consult with other City departments and outside agencies/bodies (i.e., Province) on the success of the initiatives and identify any barriers/problems associated with their implementation.

(5) Recommendations/strategies that have not been implemented are to be identified. This section is to include a detailed explanation of why these recommendations have not been implemented (i.e., lack of funding, dependent on external agencies).

(6) Identify which of the recommendations is still achievable. Provide an explanation(s) as to why certain recommendations are no longer considered viable or relevant.

(7) Based on the review of past studies, current issues and Council's directions, identify those recommendations/issues that may need further study or "fine tuning".

(8) Detailed action steps, necessary for the implementation of the outstanding recommendations, are to be identified along with the estimated cost of implementation, where possible. An implementation timetable and responsibilities is to be developed showing the approximate time frames for the delivery of each initiative/recommendation.

(9) This section of the study will culminate with a "Report Card" on the recommendations and initiatives implemented to date. It will also provide a "blue print" for implementing all remaining initiatives /recommendations.

Phase 2 Urban Planning and Development Services Initiatives/Recommendations:

(1) From the work undertaken in Phase 1, a listing of the recommendations that can be undertaken primarily by UPDS is to be compiled.

(2) A work program for implementing these recommendations is to be drawn up showing the required manpower. Focus should be placed on identifying those issues that are "doable" within a six-month period to one year. The staff required to complete these recommendations along with any other costs should be identified.

(3) Phase 2 will produce an "Action Plan" for the implementation of the recommendations/initiatives specific to UPDS.

Method/Approach:

The study will be required to:

(1) review all relevant studies/documents, planning reports, Council directions etc., prepared for the South Etobicoke area over the last 10 years; earlier documents which lay the background work may also have to be reviewed;

(2) liaise with key people from the various City departments who have been involved in the past studies and the implementation of the recommendations; the local Councillors and key members of the community are to be consulted as well and apprised of the study's progress;

(3) liaise with the Official Plan team for the purpose of determining how the remaining initiatives and additional recommended studies "fit in" with the new Official Plan's vision for the City; and

(4) liaise with external agencies that have initiatives underway (or planned initiatives) in South Etobicoke and to assess the opportunities to undertake joint ventures.

Product:

At the end of this initiative UPDS will have a summary of the initiatives/recommendation implemented in South Etobicoke to date. In addition, UPDS will have an action plan to move forward on the outstanding initiatives. As an action document, it will clearly identify a set of specific initiatives that UPDS can implement over the next six months to a year along with the manpower/cost to implement them. The Action Plan will also assist other departments in the planning and implementation of their work programs. The products will be prepared in consultation with the South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Committee. Their input will be sought to assist in prioritizing items and identifying actions.

Timeline:

The study should be completed within the first quarter of 2000.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (October 12, 1999) from Ms. Susan Keir, Principal, Keir Corp., on behalf of the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association:

Further to South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association's (SEIEA) letter of October 7, 1999, in the event that Item No. 14 on the agenda cannot be deferred, we note the following issues:

(1) Secondary Plan area needs to be enlarged;

(2) overlapping studies;

(3) relevance of previous studies;

(4) residential re-examination;

(5) balanced approach; and

(6) refining Terms of Reference to move forward in South Etobicoke.

The boundaries of the proposed Secondary Plan area for the New Toronto Employment lands do not, in SEIEA's opinion, comprise an appropriate planning area. The study area does not include all of the New Toronto employment lands which extend as far east as Royal York Road south of the railway tracks. For purposes of this study, it may also be appropriate to include lands north of the railway to see how the larger contiguous industrial area functions as a whole and within the context of the new City. To examine the area in a piecemeal fashion does not recognize the reality of the interconnectedness of the economics and land use elements that make up the area.

The planning framework must consider a larger area in which to develop comprehensive land use strategies, policies and criteria for evaluating development proposals that may arise outside of the current study boundaries. The existing Official Plan for the former City of Etobicoke, which is legally in effect, provides a planning framework to evaluate planning applications to change employment lands to non-employment uses. Lack of a comprehensive strategy and framework for evaluating land use changes will result in an application-driven planning response.

We find there is considerable overlap between the proposed staff action plan and the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project, funded by HRDC and managed by the City's economic development staff. We agree with the staff report that this effort should be coordinated with the South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Committee. As much of the Committee's work will be completed by the end of the year, the resultant Action Plan will be useful to the City's Secondary Plan process. It is our suggestion that the South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Committee, or some part of the Committee, act as an advisory group to both the City's Action Plan and the Secondary Plan and that this be formalized in the Terms of Reference.

Many communities use this as an effective form of stakeholder input as part of a broader public consultation process.

There appears to be undue and improper reliance on the findings of the many studies in South Etobicoke over the past 15 years, especially the development concept, as a first step to preparing a Secondary Plan. We would caution that the relevance of many of these studies is questionable given the passage of time, changing economic and social circumstances and the results of the OMB decision. The Terms of Reference lack specific reference to the grounds for refusal of residential use on the CGT lands, which should be addressed in the secondary plan's generation and evaluation of land use alternatives.

The Terms of Reference imply a re-examination of Residential use in the New Toronto Industrial Area. We do not agree that this should be a land use option for consideration given the OMB decision and the requirement for an Employment Area Secondary Plan.

There is a heavy reliance on public consultation and consensus in the proposed Secondary Plan process. Given the difficulty in achieving consensus to date, staff should rely on expert planning and environmental advice to determine appropriate and compatible land uses for the area.

The generation and evaluation of land use alternatives does not include the determination of evaluation criteria. Land use compatibility should be a priority among these criteria. The criteria should also include, among other things, the fiscal and economic impacts of the loss of employment lands on such things as the mill rate and employment targets and mix. The consultants should have expertise in fiscal analysis, in addition to land economics as stated in the staff report.

We trust our comments can be incorporated into the Terms of Reference. The considerable public expenditure to undertake this study should be wisely invested in the most qualified consulting team to develop a comprehensive secondary plan for the New Toronto Employment Area, so that the area's existing residents can continue to thrive along with new economic activity.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (October 8, 1999) from Mr. Peter Milczyn, Chair, Lakeshore Planning Council:

The Lakeshore Planning Council was originally established as a community based organization to review the inclusiveness, efficacy, and thoroughness of the planning process in Etobicoke, and South Etobicoke (the Lakeshore) in particular. Over the years we have had the opportunity to work with, and sometimes against, the then City of Etobicoke on major planning and development exercises in our community.

We hope that the planning initiatives currently underway in South Etobicoke will finally lead to the implementation of an overall vision for our community. A vision which will guide the City, and us into the 21st century.

We have reviewed Ms. Bricker's report to Etobicoke Community Council dated September 28, 1999. We are pleased to see that a workplan is being established to move ahead on a number of important issues in South Etobicoke.

We would however like to pass along our concerns and recommendations to Etobicoke Community Council. The Lakeshore Planning Council at its meeting of October 7, 1999, made the following recommendations:

(1) We are totally supportive of the initiatives being undertaken in South Etobicoke by the City and its agencies. We support the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project, the development of an Action Plan, and the preparation of a Secondary Plan for New Toronto Industrial Lands. However, we want to ensure that full public/community consultation be guaranteed within each of these initiatives.

(2) All of these initiatives are interrelated, and as such we want the City to develop a clear, integrated timetable and strategy showing how each of these plans ties into the other. All public/community consultation must be designed in such a way so as to guarantee that there will be no confusion, duplication, or contradiction in the goals and objectives of each consultation.

(3) The Lakeshore Planning Council wishes to be a member of the Steering Committee overseeing the development of the New Toronto Secondary Plan. We also request a voice in the selection of the consultant that will be retained to undertake the New Toronto Secondary Plan.

(4) We believe that it is imperative that the City, or its consultants, prepare an Economic Competitiveness Study for South Etobicoke and New Toronto, in particular, to help determine the direction in which the Secondary Plan exercise should proceed. We wish to be involved in the consultation process for this study.

We applaud the efforts being made to revitalize the Lakeshore community and we look forward to working with you to ensure a fruitful outcome.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it, a communication (October 7, 1999) from Ms. Susan Keir, Principal, Keir Corp., on behalf of the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association, advising, for reasons outlined therein, that Members of the Association have not had sufficient time to review and respond to the proposals in the staff report; and requesting deferral of this item until the next meeting.

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

- Mr. B. S. Onyschuk, Smith Lyons, on behalf of Ivaco Inc.;

- Ms. Susan Keir, Principal, Keir Corp., on behalf of the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association; and

- Mr. Alan Heisey, Solicitor for CN Rail.

(A copy of Appendix 3, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 13, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 27, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

At its meeting of October 13, 1999, Etobicoke Community Council adopted, in principle, the Terms of Reference for the South Etobicoke Action Plan and the New Toronto Secondary Plan contained in the staff report, "Moving Forward in South Etobicoke" (September 28, 1999), subject to a number of amendments (Clause 5, Etobicoke Community Council Report 12). Community Council requested that the Director of Planning for the West District report directly to City Council respecting the communications received from the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (SEIEA) and the Lakeshore Planning Council regarding the "Moving Forward in South Etobicoke" report. This report responds to the requests of Etobicoke Community Council.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds are available as part of the 1999 Urban Planning and Development Services Department approved operating budget.

Recommendation:

That City Council endorse the amended Terms of Reference for the New Toronto Secondary Plan and the South Etobicoke Action Plan as contained in Appendices 1 and 2, respectively.

Background:

The staff report, "Moving Forward in South Etobicoke" presents a work program for two initiatives for South Etobicoke. The first is an Action Plan for implementing the outstanding recommendations and initiatives contained in the numerous reviews and secondary plans that have been prepared for South Etobicoke over the years.

The second initiative will involve the preparation of a secondary plan for the New Toronto area that makes specific land use recommendations designed to resolve concerns raised by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) as part of the Canadian General Tower (CGT) hearing and to provide clear direction for the future re-use of lands within the broader context of the South Etobicoke area and City wide initiatives (see Map1).

Comments:

As noted above, Etobicoke Community Council adopted, in principle, the terms of reference for the Action Plan and the New Toronto Secondary Plan as contained staff's report, "Moving Forward in South Etobicoke" at its October 13^th meeting, subject to several amendments (Clause No. 5 of the Report No. 12 of Etobicoke Community Council).

With respect to the Action Plan, Etobicoke Community Council directed that it be produced jointly by Planning staff and Economic Development Division staff in full partnership and consultation with the stakeholders and Steering Committee of the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project. UPDS staff will be working closely with other departments and the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project to ensure that efforts are complementary and not duplicated.

Phase 2 of the Action Plan, (Phase 2 UPDS Initiatives/Recommendations) dealt specifically with initiatives and recommendations that the UPDS Department could implement within a six month to one year period. Staff were directed to broaden the scope of this section of the Terms of Reference by identifying issues and recommendations that other City Departments, specifically the Works and Economic Development Culture and Tourism Departments, could accomplish in a similar time period. This change has been made to Phase 2 of the Action Plan (see Appendix 2).

With respect to the boundary for the New Toronto Secondary Plan, Etobicoke Community Council directed staff to extend it eastward to Dwight Avenue. Staff have made the appropriate change to the map (See Map 2).

Finally, Etobicoke Community Council directed staff to review the Terms of Reference for both the Action Plan and the New Toronto Secondary Plan with the stakeholders of the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project prior to finalization. Staff have reviewed the terms of reference for both initiatives with the South Etobicoke Regeneration Steering Committee at its meeting of October 19, 1999. The Committee endorsed the Terms of Reference for both the Action Plan and the New Toronto Secondary subject to having the opportunity for further input into refining the Terms of References for the New Toronto Secondary Plan. UPDS staff will be meeting with the stakeholders of the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project Committee to address their concerns and further refine the Terms of Reference.

Also at the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 13, 1999, the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (SEIEA) and the Lakeshore Planning Council identified a number of concerns regarding the terms of reference for both the New Toronto Secondary Plan and the Recommendations and Initiatives Action Plan. These concerns are addressed below.

South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (SEIEA) (see Exhibit No. 1)

1. Secondary Plan Area needs to be enlarged.

SEIEA recommended that the boundaries for the New Toronto Employment Secondary Plan be extended as far east as Royal York Road and that consideration be given to including the lands north of the railway tracks. At its October 13^th meeting, Etobicoke Community Council directed staff to include the area as far east as Dwight Avenue but did not support extending the secondary plan area north of the railway tracks. The indutrial area to the north will be considered within the context of the study but will not be included in the study area. As noted above, staff have made the appropriate change to Map 2.

2. Overlapping Studies.

SEIEA expressed concern that the Action Plan proposed by the Urban Planning and Development Services Department and the current South Etobicoke Regeneration Project funded by HRDC would have overlap. City staff will be working closely with other departments and the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project to ensure that efforts are complementary and not duplicated.

3. Relevance of Previous Studies.

SEIEA is concerned that staff may be relying on the findings of studies undertaken for South Etobicoke over the past 15 whose findings are no longer relevant. Staff are aware that certain recommendations/initiatives may no longer be viable for South Etobicoke. The first phase of the Action Plan will assist staff in determining which of the studies and recommendations are still valid and achievable in South Etobicoke. As noted in the "Moving Forward in South Etobicoke" report, staff will also rely upon a number of initiatives currently underway (e.g. Economic Competitiveness Study, Official Plan Review) to assist in identifying the role of the New Toronto Employment lands within the New City of Toronto.

4. Residential Re-examination.

SEIEA is concerned that the Terms of Reference for the New Toronto Secondary Plan imply a re-examination of residential uses in the New Toronto Industrial Area. The Terms of Reference clearly provide for a review of the OMB decision on the CGT lands as well as a number of ongoing initiatives (e.g. Economic Competitiveness Study and the Official Plan Industrial/Employment Land Needs Study) to assist in providing the framework for the secondary plan.

5. Balanced Approach

SEIEA noted that the evaluation of land use alternatives does not include the determination of evaluation criteria. Criteria for the evaluation of land uses will be obtained from a number of sources. Staff will continue to use the criteria set out in the Etobicoke Official Plan to assess the appropriateness of land uses recommended for South Etobicoke. The issues and concerns identified in the OMB's decision on the Canadian General Tower Lands along with the work currently being done for the New City of Toronto Official Plan and the Economic Competitiveness Study will also provide tools by which to assess the appropriate use of lands.

Based on the history of trying to reach a consensus of the various interests in South Etobicoke, SEIEA is recommending that staff rely on expert planning and environmental advice to determine appropriate and compatible land use for the area. In the Terms of Reference for the New Toronto Secondary Plan, staff have included the requirement that the consultant(s) should have a broad range of expertise (including but not limited to) environmental issues and land use economics. SEIEA is also recommending that the consultant(s) have expertise in fiscal analysis to assess the fiscal and economic impacts of alternative land use scenarios. Staff have no objections to including this requirement and have made the appropriate change to the Terms of Reference. However, staff will need to review what data is available and the extent of the analysis.

6. Refining the Terms of Reference.

SEIEA requested that its comments be used to refine the Terms of Reference for the New Toronto Secondary Plan. Staff have reviewed these comments and indicated how they will be addressed. As noted above, staff will be meeting with the stakeholders of the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project, of which SEIEA is a member, to address any additional concerns with the Terms of Reference and to further refine them.

Lakeshore Planning Council (see Exhibit No. 2)

1. Public Consultation Process

The Lakeshore Planning Council is supportive of the two initiatives, but wants to ensure that "full/community consultation be guaranteed within each of these initiatives." Both studies have been designed to ensure that there is extensive public consultation throughout the process. The Terms of Reference for the Action Plan call for staff to consult with the Councillors and key members of the community in developing the Action Plan, as well as apprising them of the study's progress on an ongoing basis. The Terms of Reference for the New Toronto Plan call for staff and the consultant to identify a comprehensive public participation process before undertaking the Secondary Plan.

The Lakeshore Planning Council wishes to see a clear and integrated timetable and strategy showing how each of these plans ties to the other. Staff have addressed how the Action Plan will complement the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project in the above response to SEIEA's concern. A detailed timetable is not possible, at this time, as the exact completion dates for a number of the background studies, including the Economic Competitiveness Study, are not known.

The Lakeshore Planning Council has requested to be a member of the Steering Committee overseeing the development of the New Toronto Secondary Plan and a voice in the selection of he consultant. As noted in the Terms of Reference for the New Toronto Secondary Plan, the first step will be to establish a comprehensive public participation process. At that time staff and the consultant(s) will look to establishing an appropriate forum that allows all major interests to participate in the process. Staff do not support the Lakeshore Planning Council participation in the selection of the consultant(s). It has been the practice of the City to leave the responsibility for the selection of consultants to staff.

The Lakeshore Planning Council is requesting that the City or its consultant(s) prepare an Economic Competitiveness Study for South Etobicoke and New Toronto. The Lakeshore Planning Council is also requesting to be involved in the consultation process for the study. As mentioned previously, an Economic Competitiveness study is being prepared for the City. The Terms of reference for the New Toronto also allow for the consultant undertaking the Economic Competitiveness Study to provide a specific competitive analysis for South Etobicoke.

Conclusion:

Staff have made the appropriate changes to the Terms of Reference for the South Etobicoke Action Plan and the New Toronto Secondary Plan Study including the map showing the secondary planning area extending eastward to Dwight Ave., between Birmingham St. and the railway. Staff are aware of the concerns and issues raised by the various parties and their interest to participate in the process. As a first step in the secondary plan process staff would like the opportunity to meet with the consultant(s) to establish a comprehensive public participation process.

Contact Name:

Perry Vagnini, Senior Planner Tel: (416) 394-8236

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

Terms of Reference

New Toronto Secondary Plan

Purpose

To prepare a secondary plan that will guide the future re-use of lands in the New Toronto area (Map 2, Area B) by building on past and current City initiatives. The Secondary Plan will examine the New Toronto area within the wider context of South Etobicoke and identify the area's role within the new amalgamated City of Toronto. Initially, alternative land use scenarios will be prepared for the New Toronto Area. Through a process of ongoing public consultation, a final land use scenario will be identified and considered for adoption.

The following Terms of Reference identify the specific tasks for the New Toronto Secondary Plan area. The project will be undertaken by outside consultants with staff acting as resource on the synthesis of work previously undertaken. The funds allocated to the Planning Department's budget for studies for South Etobicoke would be used to secure an outside consultant(s) with a broad range of expertise to address the many issues in South Etobicoke. The consultant(s) should have, among other qualifications, experience in environmental issues, land use economics and fiscal analysis.

Public Consultation

- Prior to undertaking the New Toronto Secondary Plan, staff and the consultants should identify a comprehensive public participation process that allows all interested parties to have input into determining the appropriate land uses for the area. Emphasis should be placed on providing a forum that allows all parties to reach a consensus on issues.

- The consultation process should allow the public and other interested parties to have several opportunities to comment on the proposed re-use of lands within New Toronto.

Phase 1 - Introduction/Overview

- A general review of the New Toronto Area will be undertaken and the area will be placed within the wider context of the South Etobicoke Community and the New City of Toronto.

- A review of the OMB decision on the CGT lands and the specific issues/concerns it raised will provide the context for the study.

- Etobicoke's Official Plan and past studies (e.g. Lakeshore Industrial Strategy Study/Lakeshore Overview Report) of the area and ongoing initiatives are to be reviewed by staff. The policies and recommendations/initiatives from these efforts will play a key role in revitalizing South Etobicoke and providing future direction for the re-use of lands in New Toronto. The work being done by staff in the "Recommendations and Initiatives Action Plan" will prove a useful resource for this phase of the study. (See Work Program, Appendix 2)

- Current initiatives underway in the City must also be reviewed by the consultant, as they may provide direction for revitalizing South Etobicoke and the New Toronto Area or the re-use of employment/industrial lands. Key studies to be reviewed include (but are not limited to):

- The Industrial/Employment Land Needs Study (O.P.) - This study will provide a planning/policy framework to determine how industrial lands across the new amalgamated City fit in with the overall vision for the City and should be available in the near future.

- The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department and Urban Planning and Development Services Department's "Economic Competitiveness Study". This study will provide an overview of the Toronto/GTA economy and identify the City's role in the global economy and its economic competitiveness and is anticipated shortly.

- Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department's "South Etobicoke Regeneration Project." The goal of this Project is to prepare a results oriented Action Plan that will assist in guiding limited public funds available for infrastructure and revitalization improvements in South Etobicoke.

- Olympic Bid. - The City is currently preparing its bid for the 2008 Olympics. It is essential that the appropriate waterfront infrastructure be in place to demonstrate the City's commitment to securing the Olympics. This will provide an opportunity for the South Etobicoke waterfront to contribute to the Olympic bid and share in any infrastructure improvements.

- Key questions to be answered from this review of material and initiatives include:

- What type of investment is occurring in South Etobicoke and in the New Toronto Area? Commercial, residential, industrial and retail?

- Do the New Toronto Employment Lands "fit in" with the overall vision for the New City of Toronto. What are the areas assets for new employment generating uses? What role do they play in City's industrial/employment structure?

- Can New Toronto be an appropriate location for any specific business sectors or clusters? Is new residential development required to sustain new industry?

Phase 2 - Review Existing Services/Facilities and Assets of South Etobicoke

- This section will produce a listing of the areas assets and shortcomings and will assist in determining proposed land uses for the New Toronto area that can be adequately accommodated. It will also assist in identifying where funds/efforts should be focussed within the New Toronto area. Specific areas to be reviewed include:

- Public Works and Emergency Services (roads, sewers, fire halls)

- Community facilities (schools, libraries, daycares)

- Parks and Recreation facilities

Phase 3 - Review Issues/Constraints for Land Uses

This section of the report should identify any opportunities or impediments to land uses in the New Toronto area. The key issues raised by the OMB on the CGT lands should be identified. Some of the environmental issues reviewed should include among others:

- Mitigation of railway noises at source and reception points.

- Mitigation of air quality problems.

- Remediation of contaminated sites.

- Resolution of land use compatibility issues.

- Identify any servicing constraints within the area.

Phase 4 - Establish Objectives for the Areas.

Long term land use objectives for the New Toronto Area will be identified in this section of the study. The objectives will be shaped by the work that is underway by the Official Plan Team and the Economic Competitiveness Study. The information from these studies should identify the viability of the New Toronto lands to continue as employment generating lands or whether alternative land uses are more appropriate.

- Review findings of O.P. team's work on industrial/employment lands to determine viability of lands to remain employment generating lands.

- Review findings of Economic Development's "Economic Competitiveness" study to determine the possibility of attracting business sectors/clusters to New Toronto. (The consultant could also request the Economic Competitiveness Study's consultant to provide a specific analysis of South Etobicoke.)

- Based on these and other information from previous phases, identify the appropriate land uses for the New Toronto area.

Phase 5 - Identify Alternative Land Use Scenarios

A number of possible development scenarios for the New Toronto area should be identified based on the objectives identified for the area in Phase 4 of the study.

- Prepare alternative land use scenarios. Identify the pros and cons of each scenario.

- Identify initiatives needed to realize proposed land uses. (e.g. improvements in infrastructure, other planning/financial economic development mechanisms and tools.)

Phase 6 - Recommend Appropriate Land Use Plan

- Based on the input received from all interested parties and the result of the other ongoing initiatives in South Etobicoke identify the preferred land uses for the New Toronto area.

- Clearly articulate the pros and cons of the choice and demonstrate how it will build on other initiatives by contributing to the revitalization of South Etobicoke.

- Demonstrate how the Plan will contribute to City's overall objectives for industrial/employment lands within the entire City.

Phase 7 - Presentation to Council

- Present the recommended land use scenario to Community Council.

Timeframe

- The study should take between 8 to 10 months to complete once the consultant(s) has been hired.

Product

The study will produce a secondary plan that will provide clear direction for the re-use of lands in New Toronto and set out policies to resolve the land use planning issues identified by the OMB at the CGT hearing. The Plan will also identify the role of the New Toronto lands within the context of the newly amalgamated City of Toronto.

Work Program

Recommendations and Initiatives Action Plan

Purpose

The numerous studies prepared for the South Etobicoke area over the last 15 years have produced an extensive list of recommendations aimed at creating a vibrant and healthy community. (See Map 2, Appendix 3). While the Waterfront Amenity, Lakeshore Psychiatric Lands, Long Branch Mainstreets project and substantial residential development are visible signs of the success of these efforts, there are still many outstanding recommendations waiting to be implemented. With most of the recommendations spread among various studies, there is not one document that serves as an overall inventory of the proposed improvements to South Etobicoke.

The following Terms of Reference will assist in developing an action plan for implementing these recommendations and initiatives for the South Etobicoke area. A key focus of the study will be to identify those initiatives that can be implemented by UPDS and other City Departments over a short timeframe. Longer term initiatives will be itemized and the necessary action steps required to complete them will be identified, including estimates of funding, where possible. The recommendation and Initiatives Action Plan is an important piece of background research and synthesis to the Secondary Plan and will complement the efforts of the South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Plan Committee.

Scope of Work

Phase 1 - Synthesis of Recommendations

- Review all relevant documents that have been prepared for the South Etobicoke area over the past 10 years. Documents which were prepared prior to 1990 and set the background for later work may also need to be examined as part of this exercise.

- Develop a comprehensive list of all recommendations/strategies made within these studies. Recommendations are to be grouped into appropriate categories (i.e. environmental, parks, employment, mainstreets, etc.).

- Detailed summaries of the recommendations that have been implemented, or are currently in the process of being implemented, along with the cost of implementing them, is to be provided.

- Consult with other City departments and outside agencies/bodies (i.e. Province) on the success of the initiatives and identify any barriers/problems associated with their implementation.

- Recommendations/strategies that have not been implemented are to be identified. This section is to include a detailed explanation of why these recommendations have not been implemented (i.e. lack of funding, dependent on external agencies).

- Identify which of the recommendations is still achievable. Provide an explanation(s) as to why certain recommendations are no longer considered viable or relevant.

- Based on the review of past studies, current issues and Council's directions, identify those recommendations/issues that may need further study or "fine tuning".

- Detailed action steps, necessary for the implementation of the outstanding recommendation, are to be identified along with the estimated cost of implementation, where possible. An implementation timetable and responsibilities is to be developed showing the approximate time-frames for the delivery of each initiative/recommendation.

- This section of the study will culminate with a "Report Card" on the recommendations and initiatives implemented to-date. It will also provide a "blue-print" for implementing all remaining initiatives /recommendations.

Phase 2 UPDS Initiatives/Recommendations

- From the Work undertaken in Phase 1, a listing of the recommendations that can be undertaken primarily by the Urban Planning and Development Services Department is to be compiled.

- A work program for implementing these recommendations is to be drawn up showing the required manpower. Focus should be placed on identifying those issues that are "doable" within a six month period to one year. The staff required to complete these recommendations along with any other costs should be identified.

- Phase 2 will produce an "Action Plan" for the implementation of the recommendations /initiatives for the UPDS Department and other City Departments including the Works and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Departments.

Method/Approach

The study will be required:

- To review all relevant studies/documents, planning reports, Council directions etc. prepared for the South Etobicoke area over the last ten years. Earlier documents which lay the background work may also have to be reviewed.

- To liaise with key people from the various City Departments who have been involved in the past studies and the implementation of the recommendations. The local Councillors and key members of the community are to be consulted as well and apprised of the study's progress.

- To liaise with the Official Plan team for the purpose of determining how the remaining initiatives and additional recommended studies "fit in" with the New Official Plan's vision for the City.

- To liaise with external agencies that have initiatives underway (or planned initiatives) in South Etobicoke and to assess the opportunities to undertake joint ventures.

Product

At the end of this initiative the Urban Planning and Development Department will have a summary of the initiatives/recommendation implemented in South Etobicoke to-date. In addition, the UPDS will have an action plan to move forward on the outstanding initiatives. As an action document, it will clearly identify a set of specific initiatives that the UPDS can implement over the next 6 months to a year along with the manpower/cost to implement them. The Action Plan will also assist other Departments in the planning and implementation of their work programs. The products will be prepared in consultation with the South Etobicoke Regeneration Action Committee. Their input will be sought to assist in prioritizing items and identifying actions.

Timeline

- The study should be completed within the first quarter of 2000.)

(Copies of each of Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit No. 2 appended to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the Confidential report (October 7, 1999) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, respecting the confirmation of settlement instructions for the Park Lawn Cemetery property at 2801 Bloor Street West.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, considered the aforementioned report dated October 7, 1999, from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

(Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski, at the Council meeting on October 26 and 27, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he owns property within Park Lawn Cemetery.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Bloorhill Properties Limited - Proposal to Dedicate City-Owned Land as Public Highway - Bloor Street West, North Side, Between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road, 2842 to 2846 Bloor Street West (Kingsway-Humber).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled to be held on November 9, 1999:

(i) (September 14, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, respecting a request from Bloorhill Properties Limited to dedicate a strip of municipal property on the north side of Bloor Street West, between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road, as a public highway; advising that the Etobicoke Community Council on July 15, 1999, referred this matter to the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, for a report thereon to Community Council in September 1999; that, in October 1997, the Facilities and Real Estate Division initiated discussions with the abutting owner, Bloorhill Properties Limited, regarding the possibility of selling the subject property; that, responding to opposition to the sale from area residents and as recommended in the report (October 28, 1999) from the Manager of Realty Services, Etobicoke Community Council recommended that the property not be sold, and directed that steps be taken to renew the lease of the former laneway to the abutting owners for parking for a term of 10 years at a rate to be negotiated by the City's Realty Services staff; that City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted Community Council's recommendation; and recommending that:

(1) the City-owned land on the north side of Bloor Street West, between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road, not be dedicated as public highway; and

(2) the terms and conditions of a 10-year lease agreement with Bloorhill Properties Limited be negotiated according to City Council's decision of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998; and

(ii) (October 12, 1999) from Mr. Barnet H. Kussner, Weir & Foulds, requesting on behalf of Bloorhill Properties Limited, that consideration of this matter again be deferred to the meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council in November 1999.

(b) Fire and Ambulance Services - KPMG Fire Station Location and Fire/Ambulance Facilities Study: Main Report.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) recommended to the Community Service Committee and City Council the adoption of the following joint report (September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Fire Chief and the General Manager, Toronto Ambulance Services; and

(2) received the following joint supplementary reports, dated September 28, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Fire Chief:

(i) (September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Fire Chief and the General Manager, Toronto Ambulance Services, responding to the recommendations contained in the KPMG Fire and Ambulance Services Station Location and Facilities Study; advising that three supplementary reports of the same date address specific issues; and recommending that Council adopt the recommendations of the KPMG Study as amended by this report, and that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to implement those recommendations in accordance with the implementation schedule appended to the report as Attachment "B".

(ii) (September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Fire Chief, headed "Fire Services - KPMG Fire Station Location and Facilities Study: Closing of Fire Stations--T26 at 153 Chatham Avenue and T31 at 462 Runnymede Road", responding to a request by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee at its meeting on April 20, 1999, for a report on alternative options for the closing of Fire Stations T26 and T31 as recommended in the KPMG Fire Station Location and Facilities Study; and recommending that the report be received for information;

(iii) (September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Fire Chief, headed " Fire Services - KPMG Fire Station Location and Facilities Study: Risk and Insurance", respecting recommendations contained in the KPMG Fire Station Location and Facilities Study; responding to a request by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee at its meeting on April 20, 1999, for a report on the increased costs to local businesses and residents as a result of reduced fire protection services; and recommending that the report be received for information; and

(iv) (September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Fire Chief, headed "Fire Services - KPMG Fire Station Location and Facilities Study: Rationalization of Facilities; Re-allocation of Apparatus; Fleet Maintenance; and Human Resource Implications", respecting recommendations contained in the KPMG Fire Station Location and Facilities Study; responding to a request by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee at its meeting on April 20, 1999, for a report to the Community Services Committee on the four key areas outlined in Recommendations Nos. (3) to (8) of the joint report of the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and identifying all budgetary implications; and recommending that the report be received for information.

The Fire Chief and the Manager, Toronto Ambulance Services, made a presentation to the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(c) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code, Laura Christine Slater, 655 Evans Avenue - File No. Z-2301 (Lakeshore -Queensway).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(September 15, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application received from Laura Christine Slater to amend the zoning of a site at 655 Evans Avenue to permit the construction of a single family dwelling; and recommending that:

(1) the report be received; and

(2) upon completion of a final report, staff be authorized to schedule a Public Meeting to consider the application at a meeting of Community Council.

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

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(October 13, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing a summary of new development applications for the West District (Etobicoke) received since August 26, 1999; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(e) Claireville Land Use Study.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(September 28, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, respecting the results, to date, of the Claireville Land Use Study; and recommending that:

(1) staff circulate a copy of the report, entitled, "Claireville Land Use Study" to area residents, property owners and other stakeholders; and

(2) a statutory public meeting be scheduled to obtain the views of land owners and other stakeholders and to consider possible Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to implement the Claireville Land Use Study.

(f) Organizational Structure for the New Committee of Adjustment.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having recommended to the Planning and Transportation Committee that:

(1) parts (ii) and (iv) of Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended as follows:

(2)(ii) to provide that the Committee be comprised of a total of 30 members as proposed by the Planning and Transportation Committee on September 13, 1999; and that the assignment for the West District be amended as follows:

"West District:

7 members - 4 nominated by Etobicoke Community Council

- 3 nominated by York Community Council"; and

(2)(iv) to provide that each Hearing be conducted by 5 of the respective District Panel members, the sitting members to be assigned on a rotational basis; and

(2) the Planning and Transportation Committee recommend to the Mayor's Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions, that the honoraria paid to members be on the basis of per Hearing attended as opposed to an annual honoraria:

(i) (September 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting on September 13, 1999, amongst other things, referred Recommendations Nos. (2) to (6) contained in the report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, together with the following motions, to Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting on November 1, 1999:

Councillor McConnell moved:

"That Recommendation No. 2(iii) of the report (August 26, 1999) be amended to clarify that it is the Committee of Adjustment that appoints a City-wide Chair, so as to read:

'2(iii) the Committee of Adjustment appoint a City-wide Chair to provide leadership for the Committee and each Panel appoint a District Chair to guide the process at the local level; and' "; and

Councillor Berger moved:

"That the membership of the Committee of Adjustment consist of five Members, chaired by the Secretary-Treasurer";

(ii) (September 24, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, responding to the request by the Planning and Transportation Committee on September 13, 1999, for a further report; and recommending that the report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, headed "Organizational Structure for the New Committee of Adjustment (All Wards)", be adopted; and

(iii) (October 8, 1999) from Mr. Peter Milczyn, Chair, Lakeshore Planning Council, advising that the Planning Council generally supports the recommendations contained in the report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with the exception of changes and additional recommendations as outlined in the communication.

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

- Mr. Jerry Hartman, President, Humber Valley Village Residents' Association;

- Mr. Wes Peaker, Etobicoke; and

- Mr. Ken Lopez, President, Royal York Community Association.

(g) Proposed Road Classification System.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) requested that the Works Committee defer consideration of the proposed road classification system to its meeting scheduled to be held on December 7, 1999, in order for the Community Council to have an opportunity to review the report, requested from staff for its next meeting, on the various issues raised by the Community Council, residents and local ratepayer organizations;

(2) requested the Manager, Operational Planning and Policy, to submit a report to its next meeting scheduled to be held on November 9, 1999, on:

(a) possible inclusion of a 'residential arterial' category in the proposed road classification system to distinguish roads classified as 'major arterial' in residential communities from those arterial roads in industrial areas;

(b) a review of the proposed classification of the following roads to ensure that they are consistent with the Road Classification Criteria described in the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i) Dunbloor Road;

(ii) Government Road;

(iii) Lambeth Road;

(iv) Trehorne Drive;

(v) Wincott Drive;

(vi) Aukland Road;

(vii) Martin Grove Road; and

(viii) Highway No. 27;

(c) the classification of Rathburn Road, east of Kipling Avenue, as a collector rather than a minor arterial road;

(d) increasing the criteria describing "typical daily motor vehicle traffic volume (both directions)" on collector roads up to 10, 500 vehicles per day;

(e) the introduction of a 'no right turn on red' restriction at the signalized intersection of Rathburn Road and Islington Avenue; and

(f) the additional concerns and issues raised by residents and local ratepayer organizations; and

(3) referred the presentations by Ms. Janice Etter and Ms. Rhona Swarbrick to the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for consideration during the Official Plan process:

(i) (July 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Works Committee on July 14, 1999:

(1) referred the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the consolidation of the various road classification systems inherited from the amalgamated municipalities into a single, consistent system, and the clarification of the respective roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and various Standing Committees regarding traffic operations policies in the context of the new classification system, to all Community Councils for consideration, and requested that comments be submitted to the Works Committee for its meeting to be held on November 3, 1999; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit comments on the proposed road classification system to the Works Committee for consideration at such meeting;

(ii) (October 13, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, responding to a request by the Etobicoke Community Council on September 14 and 15, 1999, for a report to the public meeting scheduled on October 13, 1999, on the roads in the Etobicoke area that would be affected by the new system and their respective classifications; and recommending that the report be received;

(iii) (September 14, 1999) from Ms. Judy Shiels, Etobicoke, submitting comments on behalf of Burnhamthorpe Residents for Traffic Safety; and advising that they would like to be involved in further discussions regarding this matter;

(iv) (September 29, 1999) from Ms. Mary L. Campbell, President, Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc., requesting that a revision of the "traffic volume" in regard to collector roads be executed; and suggesting volume parameters for such roads;

(v) (September 15, 1999) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke, submitting a copy of her deputation to the Etobicoke Community Council on September 15, 1999, outlining her concerns with respect to the proposed road classification system;

(vi) (October 4, 1999) from Ms. Mary L. Campbell, President, Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc., forwarding, for review, a Transportation Plan approved by Vancouver City Council on May 13, 1997, and the City of Ottawa's Transportation Master Plan Executive Summary;

(vii) (October 4, 1999) from Mr. Ken Lopez, President, Royal York Community Association, requesting, on behalf of the Association, that Royal York Road remain a two-way, local road;

(viii) (Undated) from Ms. Barbara J. Levey, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to a change in the classification of Burnhamthorpe Road;

(ix) (October 7, 1999) from Ms. Louise Peacock, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to a change in the classification of Burnhamthorpe Road;

(x) (October 11, 1999) from Ms. Rita Alldrit, Etobicoke, submitting comments on behalf of the Burnhamthorpe Residents for Traffic Safety in opposition to the proposed classification of Burnhamthorpe Road as a major arterial road;

(xi) (October 11, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron and Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chairs, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, forwarding, for information, the Committee's recommendations to the Works Committee which were adopted at its special meeting held on October 7, 1999;

(xii) (October 12, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. D. Monie, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to the proposed classification of Burnhamthorpe Road as a major arterial road; and requesting that it be classified as a collector road;

(xiii) (October 12, 1999) from Mr. Edward V. Sado, Thorncrest Homes Association, Parks and Roads Committee, expressing concerns regarding the proposed classification of Rathburn Road between Kipling Avenue and Islington Avenue as minor arterial; and

(xiv) (Undated) from Burnhamthorpe Residents for Traffic Safety, submitting comments in opposition to the proposed classification of Burnhamthorpe Road.

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

- Mr. Terry Reardon, Islington Ratepayers and Residents Association, identifying an overall concern that the basis of the various classifications is the actual vehicle volume and not whether or not these volumes are appropriate for the specific roads; suggesting that there should be recognition of roads which go through residential areas; and filed a copy of his deputation with respect thereto;

- Mr. Alan Shiels, commenting in opposition to the classification of Burnhamthorpe Road and requesting that a prefix be added to the "major" and "minor" arterial road classification to take into consideration residential areas; and filed a copy of his deputation with respect thereto;

- Mr. Edward Sado, Thorncrest Homes Association, Parks and Roads Committee, commenting in opposition to the classification of Rathburn Road;

- Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, requesting that pedestrian concerns be addressed prior to the adoption of the proposed classification system; and filed a copy of her deputation with respect thereto;

- Ms. Janice Etter, providing through an overhead presentation, information regarding the impact of road classifications on neighbourhoods; and filed a copy of her deputation with respect thereto;

- Mr. Robert Divito, Operation Maximum 50 Project, commenting on various aspects of the staff recommendations and opposing the classification of Islington Avenue;

- Mr. Michael Linkruus, Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc., commenting that aspects such as bicycle lanes and traffic calming are lacking in the transportation plan and requesting that a "residential collector" classification be included; and filed a copy of his deputation with respect thereto;

- Mr. Bruce Keeling, commenting that the classification of Burnhamthorpe Road would open a floodgate of traffic to the detriment of the community;

- Ms. Cathy Hopewell, expressing concerns regarding the classification of Islington Avenue and its impact on the safety of the residents;

- Ms. Catherine Hull, commenting with respect to the negative impacts on the safety of residents, and particularly children, regarding the classification of Islington Avenue, Kipling Avenue and Rathburn Road;

- Mr. Heinz Mueller, expressing concerns regarding the classification of Burnhamthorpe Road and its impact on property values and current and future development in the area;

- Ms. Donna Monie, opposing the proposed classification of Burnhamthorpe Road; and requesting that it be classified as a collector road;

- Mr. Charles McLeod, commenting on the classification of Burnhamthorpe Road in relation to the excessive speed at which motorists currently travel on that road;

- Ms. Sylvia Giovanella, President, EFFRA, commenting on the proposed classification system as it relates to such issues as enforcement of speed limits and increase in traffic volumes; and further, as a resident of Dixon Road, commenting on the need for improved enforcement of the speed limits on Dixon Road which has two of the major accident intersections in the City, namely, Dixon/Martin Grove and Dixon/Islington;

- Mr. Wes Peaker, requesting a review of the proposed classification of Lambeth Crescent;

- Mr. W. Van Zant, respecting safety and speed issues and other possible changes in the uses of Islington Avenue if the classification is changed;

- Ms. Marlene Cater, commenting in opposition to any change in the classification of Burnhamthorpe Road;

- Mr. Ed Hogendoorn, expressing concerns regarding increased speeds if the classification of Rathburn Road is changed;

- Ms. Barbara Campbell, commenting on the need to classify Kipling Avenue between Burnhamthorpe Road and Dundas Street as a residential road, and noting the number of accidents that occur at the Burnhamthorpe Road/Kipling Avenue intersection;

- Mr. Harvey Edgar, opposing any change in the classification of Burnhamthorpe Road;

- Mr. Ronaldo Olay, expressing major concerns about the volume of traffic on Islington Avenue between Rathburn Road and Dundas Street and the safety of pedestrians;

- Ms. Carmen Greco, commenting on a recent fatal traffic accident at the intersection of Rathburn Road/Islington Avenue and the negative impact of a change in classification of these two roads;

- Mr. Vito Mondaro, opposing the classification of Islington Avenue and noting that the quality of life of residents will be further diminished if it is implemented; and

- Mr. Bill Bugyra, respecting the status of Kipling Avenue.

(h) Decision-Making Protocol for Parks and Recreation Matters - All Wards.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having endorsed the action of the Economic Development and Parks Committee embodied in the following communication:

(September 16, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Economic Development and Parks Committee on September 13, 1999, referred the report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to all Community Councils for consideration with a request that any comments be forwarded to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for consideration at its November 8, 1999 meeting, subject to the following amendments:

(1) amending Recommendation No. (2) to read:

"(2) upon consideration of this report and any comments from the Community Councils, the Economic Development and Parks Committee endorse a protocol for dealing with parks and recreation matters and authorize its use by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (or designate) in determining the appropriate Committee routing process for parks and recreation matters;";

(2) amending Recommendation No. (3) to read:

"(3) authority be granted, at the appropriate time, to introduce any necessary Bills in Council."; and

(3) deleting the word "citizen" in the aforementioned report and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "nomination to City-wide special committees and task forces of residents and/or municipal property taxpayers in the City of Toronto who are at least 18 years of age, except on bodies dealing with children and youth issues."

(i) Harmonization of Sign By-law.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having concurred in the action of the North York Community Council contained in Item (h), entitled "Harmonization of Sign By-law", embodied in Clause No. 24 of Report No. 8 of The North York Community Council, headed "Other Items Considered by the Community Council":

(October 1, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, notwithstanding subsection 127(5) of the Council Procedural By-law, struck out and referred Item (h), entitled "Harmonization of Sign By-law", embodied in Clause No. 24 of Report No. 8 of The North York Community Council, headed "Other Items Considered by the Community Council", to Community Councils for further consideration and report thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting to be held on November 1, 1999.

(j) Tenant Defence Fund: Options for Tenant Information and Support Services.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having advised the Community Services Committee that it supports the concept of the establishment of a Tenant Defence Fund, subject to the report from the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services, requested by the Planning and Transportation Committee on October 4, 1999:

(October 6, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Planning and Transportation Committee on October 4, 1999, amongst other things:

(1) endorsed the action taken by the Toronto Community Council on September 14, 1999, with respect to the Tenant Defence Fund, viz.:

"The Toronto Community Council:

(a) endorsed the recommendations for a Tenant Defence Fund presented to the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting held on September 13, 1999;

(b) supported the recommendations of the Sub-Committee to Restore Rent Control, including its request for a meeting with The Honourable Steven Gilchrist, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.";

and directed that notice of its endorsement be forwarded to the November 4, 1999 meeting of the Community Services Committee; and

(2) forwarded the action taken by the Toronto Community Council to the other Community Councils with a request that they consider this matter and provide comment back to the Community Services Committee.

(k) Etobicoke District Boards and Committees.

The Etobicoke Community Council, in considering the following report from the Chair, Sub-Committee to Review the Activities of Boards and Committees, reports having referred:

(1) Recommendations Nos. (1) and (7) to the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, with a request that he submit a report thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee;

(2) Recommendation No. (2) to the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, with a request that he submit a report thereon to the Works Committee;

(3) Recommendations Nos. (3) and (4) to the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, with a request that he submit a report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee;

(4) Recommendations Nos. (5) and (6) to the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services, with a request that she submit a report thereon to the Community Services Committee; and

(5) Recommendation No. (9) to the Director of Parks and Recreation, West District, for review and report back to Etobicoke Community Council:

(September 28, 1999) from Councillor Mario Giansante, Chair, Sub-Committee to Review the Activities of Boards and Committees, advising that the Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting held on May 26 and 27, 1999, requested the Chair to convene a meeting of a Sub-Committee of the Community Council to review the activities of boards and committees of the former City of Etobicoke and to make recommendations with respect to these boards and committees; and recommending that:

(1) one Property Standards Committee for the West District, comprised of four members from the Etobicoke area and three members from York, be established;

(2) the Etobicoke Environment Advisory Committee be dissolved until further recommendations come forward from the Environmental Task Force and the Chief Administrative Officer;

(3) the Municipal Arts Commission be dissolved, effective November 30, 1999;

(4) the Public Art Advisory Committee continue until a City-wide policy for public art is in place and that it report to Etobicoke Community Council;

(5) the Etobicoke Multicultural and Race Relations Committee be maintained, its mandate be expanded to include access and equity, and that the appropriate staff be requested to prepare a revised mandate and composition of the Committee for consideration by the Etobicoke Community Council;

(6) the Barrier Free Accessibility Committee continue until further recommendations come forward;

(7) the Sign Variance Advisory Committee continue until a City-wide sign by-law and variance procedure is in place;

(8) the foregoing recommendations be referred to the appropriate Commissioner for review and report through the appropriate Standing Committee to City Council at its meeting of November 23, 1999; and

(9) the need for an advisory board for the Lakeshore Lions Arena be referred to the Director of Parks and Recreation, West District, for review and report back to Etobicoke Community Council.

(k) Etobicoke Safety Committees.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following report to the Task Force on Community Safety for consideration :

(September 28, 1999) from Councillor Bruce Sinclair advising of the findings of the special advisory committee to review and make recommendations for a new comprehensive structure for community safety and improvement in Etobicoke; and recommending that:

(1) a new organization be established to be known as the Etobicoke Safe Community Association (ESCA), comprised of five citizen representatives of each of the three existing community safety groups; (Crime S.C.O.P.E., Etobicoke Safety Council, Toronto Crime Prevention Association), and one representative of each of the following:

- Etobicoke Community Council;

- Toronto District School Board;

- Toronto Catholic District School Board;

- Toronto Police Service;

- Toronto Fire Service;

- Community Social Planning Council of Toronto; and

- Crime Concerns;

(2) an annual grant be provided by Toronto City Council;

(3) the Association liaise with the Etobicoke Community Council in an advisory and advocacy capacity in the development of community programs to increase the safety consciousness of the public, government, business and industrial sectors of the Etobicoke community, including, but not limited to:

(i) traffic safety;

(ii) local crime prevention;

(iii) safe, clean neighbourhoods (vandalism/gangs); and

(iv) high priority issues that may occur from time to time, such as drug dealing/abuse, housing standards, etc.; and

(4) the Association continue to avail itself of the outside financial and advisory resources available to existing groups.

(l) Variances to the Etobicoke Sign By-law.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 20, 1999) from the City Clerk, recommending that the decision of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee from its meeting on September 14, 1999, regarding the application for variance to the Etobicoke Sign By-law by Thorncrest Plaza, 1500 Islington Avenue (Kingsway-Humber), be received for information.

(m) Third Party Outdoor Advertising on City Property and Assets - All Wards.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(October 6, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding, for information, Clause No. 9 contained in Report No. 3 of The Economic Development and Parks Committee, headed "Third Party Outdoor Advertising on City Property and Assets - All Wards", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on September 28 and 29, 1999.

(n) Proposed Waste Transfer Facility at 90 Shorncliffe Road(Lakeshore-Queensway).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication for consideration at the Public Meeting to be scheduled with respect to this matter:

(September 24, 1999) from Mr. Adam J. Brown, Brown Dryer Karol, submitting comments on behalf of property owners in the immediate vicinity of the property at 90 Shorncliffe Road in opposition to the proposal for a waste transfer facility at that location.

(o) Pedestrian Issues.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(September 23, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron and Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chairs, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, providing background information on the Committee's purpose, role, membership and the current issues under discussion; and requesting an opportunity at the meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council in October 1999 to discuss pedestrian issues, hear about local concerns, and to encourage local participation in the Committee.

Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter; and filed a copy of her submission with respect thereto.

(p) Minutes of Etobicoke Boards and Committees.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following Minutes from meetings of:

(1) Etobicoke Barrier Free Accessibility Committee held on May 27, 1999;

(2) Etobicoke Municipal Arts Commission held on June 24, 1999; and

(3) Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC held on July 14, 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

MARIO GIANSANTE

Chair

Toronto, October 13, 1999

(Report No. 12 of The Etobicoke Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999.)