1 198 Winnett Avenue - Request for Removal of City Tree Ward 28, York Eglinton

2 Sale of Surplus Spadina Property at 41 Gloucester Grove Ward 28, York Eglinton

3 Encroachment Application for 1202 Jane Street Ward 27, York Humber

4 Change In Regulations on Scott Road at Cameron Avenue Ward 27, York Humber

5 Draft By-law - Alteration of Atlas Avenue by the Implementation of Various Traffic Calming Measures

6 Draft By-law to Authorize the Alteration of Dewbourne Avenue and Strathearn Road by the Implementation of Various Traffic Calming Measures - Cedarvale Traffic Management Plan Ward 28, York Eglinton

7 Request for All-Way Stop Control at Charlton Settlement Avenue and Dora Spencer Road Ward 27, York Humber

8 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

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

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

Purpose:

Staff were asked to report on Councillor Mihevc's request to have the City owned Norway spruce tree fronting 198 Winnett Avenue removed and replaced.

Source of Funds:

To be funded out of the Urban Forestry operating budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City tree fronting 198 Winnett Avenue be removed as it is in a state of significant and irreversible decline and that a replacement tree be planted in the spring of the year 2000; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

York Community Council had before it on September 14, 1999 a letter from Councillor Mihevc requesting its support to have the City tree removed. York Community Council requested that staff submit a report on the status of the tree.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The City owned, 30 cm diameter, Norway spruce is located on the mutual property line between 198 and 200 Winnett Avenue. As it is in a state of advanced and irreversible decline, it qualifies for removal under the York tree by-law. The property of owners of 198 and 200 Winnett Avenue are agreeable to having the Norway spruce removed and a replacement tree planted.

Conclusions:

The Norway spruce tree should be removed and a replacement tree planted.

Contact Name:

Dean Hart, 394-8549

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

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 28, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 41 Gloucester Grove.

Financial Implications:

Revenue of $245,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee Report No. 25, Clause No. 1, approved on December 4, 1996.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to accept the highest offer in the amount of $245,000.00 as detailed herein;

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

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CA700CA2523;

(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with the Province of Ontario Officials and/or agents, to complete this transaction on behalf of the City of Toronto and be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as considered reasonable; and

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

Background:

The Province of Ontario is the owner of 41 Gloucester Grove, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of the Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The processes with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

Comments:

Pursuant to the February 12 and 13, 1997 authority and July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 authorities, the property was listed with Wakefield Realty Corporation on August 3, 1999 at an asking price of $234,900.00. As a result the following offers were received:

Purchaser: Deposit Purchase Price Terms:

Laura Lynn Colligan $12,000.00 $245,000.00 (no conditions)

Fradell Epstein $12,000.00 $240,500.00 (no conditions)

Samuel Harry Nash $12,000.00 $240,000.00 (no conditions)

The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:

Property Address: 41 Gloucester Grove

Legal Description: Part of Lots 87, 88, 89 and 90, Registered Plan 2339, City of Toronto (formerly City of York), designated as part 18 on Expropriation Plan No. 7777

Approximate Lot Size: 8.02 metres (26.32 feet) fronting onto Gloucester Grove, 30.48 metres (100 feet) depth

Location: South side of Gloucester Grove, west of Everden Road

Improvements: Detached, 2-bedroom brick bungalow

Right of Way: Subject to a mutual right of way

Occupancy Status: Vacant

Recommended Sale Price: $245,000.00

Deposit: $12,000.00 (certified cheque)

Purchaser: Laura Lynn Colligan

Closing Date: December 1, 1999

Terms: Cash on closing, less the usual adjustments

Listing Broker: Wakefield Realty Corporation

Selling Broker: Harvey Kalles Real Estate Limited

Commission: Four (4) percent, plus GST, payable on closing of the transaction

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

By the adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 9 of the Corporate Services Committee, Council at the meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 directed that comparable sales data must be provided in future reports of property sales. Appendix "A" identifies three comparable properties located in the vicinity that have recently sold. While comparable sales information can be included as part of the staff report, this property was listed for sale on the TREB multiple listing service and the forces of the market place have determined the true market value.

Conclusion:

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

Contact Name:

Sheryl A. Badin

Tel.: 392-8142

Fax: 392-1880

The following three addresses represent comparables sales of properties that are quite similar to the residence which forms the subject matter of this report. These properties are 5-room, detached, brick bungalows with 2-bedrooms.

Address: Lot Size: Sale Price: Date of Sale

126 Everden Road 25 x 132 $215,000.00 current

30 Flanders Road 30 x 95 $236,250.00 May 6, 1999

106 Everden Road 30 x 105 $235,750.00 March 26, 1999

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

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 9, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To present comments from relevant agencies and departments regarding an encroachment application, with respect to the south wall of the subject property encroaching onto the Goldwin Avenue road allowance.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The encroachment application was first made on June 24, 1999. The existing structure currently encroaches on to the Goldwin Avenue road allowance.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the encroachment application be approved and that the City enter into an agreement with the owner of 1202 Jane Street, with terms to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and

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

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Bell Canada

Further to your letter dated June 24, 1999 please be advised Bell Canada has no objection to the existing encroachment on the above noted property.

Consumers Gas

We have indicated on the attached print our existing and/or proposed underground plant. We have no objection to the above proposal, provided our standard clearances of 0.3 m minimum vertically and 0.6 m minimum horizontally are maintained.

Hydro Commission

As per your request dated June 24, 1999, the existing encroachment does not conflict with our existing plant. We would expect that this encroachment will be covered by the City of Toronto (York) Standard Encroachment Agreement which makes provision for our future installations.

Subject to the above, we have no objection to the encroachment.

Planning Department

There is no objection to this application.

For information purposes, approval of this encroachment application is required to satisfy conditions of approval for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application to legalize the use of the existing multiple dwelling house on this property.

Community Council on January 21, 1999 recommended approval of the Official Plan and Rezoning application and the introduction of Bills to give effect to the approval, subject to a number of conditions including that the owner receive approval to permit the encroachment of the existing dwelling house on the road allowance. City Council approved Community Council's recommendation on February 2, 1999.

Approval of this encroachment application will satisfy this condition and permit the introduction of Bills to redesignate and rezone this property to City Council.

Building Department

The Building Department has no objection regarding the encroachment application for the above noted property.

Operations Department

This is in reply to your memo dated June 24, 1999 regarding the encroachment application at 1202 Jane Street.

In view that the encroachment is in existence, the water and wastewater division has no objection to this application.

Right of Way Management

I have received your circulation regarding the above application. I have reviewed the plans and have determined that this encroachment was existing prior to the dedication of the road and an encroachment agreement should have been entered into with the property owner when dedication took place.

Therefore, we have no objection to this encroachment agreement being executed.

Conclusion:

In view of the fact that there are no objections from any of the agencies and departments, that this encroachment application be approved.

Contact:

Nadia Bartha

Acting Property Co-ordinator

Tel: 394-2511

Fax: 394-2803

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated October 14, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, be received.")

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1) the current 'No Parking' prohibition on the east side of Scott Road from Cameron Avenue to approximately 15 metres south, be changed to a 'No Standing' prohibition;

(2) the Uniform Traffic By-law Nos. 196-84 and 2958-94 be amended accordingly; and

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

The York Community Council, reports for the information of Council, having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to submit a report to Council for consideration at its October 26, 1999 meeting, on the proposed change from a 'No Parking' to a 'No Standing' prohibition on the east side of Scott Road from Cameron Avenue to approximately 15 metres south.

The York Community Council submits the following communication (September 21, 1999) from Councillor Nunziata:

As a result of a community meeting on September 20th regarding parking issues in the Scott Road and Cameron Avenue area, please attach the following motion for consideration on the agenda of the next York Community Council meeting:

"That the 'No Parking' prohibition on the east side of Scott Road from Cameron Avenue to approximately 15 metres south be changed to a 'No Standing' prohibition."

The York Community Council also submits the following communication (October 10, 1999) from Mr. Fred Lindsay, Vice-President, Silverthorn Ratepayers' Association:

I would like to thank Councillor Nunziata for chairing the Safety and Parking Meeting on September 20, 1999 that reviewed by recommendations for the dangerous intersection of Scott Road and Cameron Avenue. It was a progressive and positive step forward for traffic and safety in our local area. It came to my attention on October 12, 1999. I understand that the item is No. 21 and No. 22 on the agenda.

There appears to be an oversight, however, regarding this item that needs clarification. The item, that requests a by-law for signage from 'No Parking' to 'Standing Zone Only' refers incorrectly to the area directly in front of the structure at 277 Scott Road. Carl Dillon of Parking Enforcement West suggested that change instead for the area on the south side of Cameron Avenue between Scott Road and the east end of 277 Scott Road and not on Scott Road. He suggested that it was more effective to implement 'Standing Zone Only' signs on Cameron Avenue. This item was given serious consideration due to the high incidence of double parking to unload passengers for services at 277 Scott Road. Double parking continues to force passengers to walk in between vehicles or directly out into the thoroughfare to reach the curb. We also discussed the double parking of vehicles during the weekday evening school for children and the dangerous nature of this activity for children and drivers alike. You should know that the narrow secondary streets, Cameron Avenue and Scott Road, have already been declared a dangerous intersection due to hidden sight lines by Parking Enforcement. Thus, it is imperative that the City reduce its liability and find the right solution to the double parking problem in general at this intersection.

As Scott Road presently stands, the large yellow striper lines across Scott Road denote the northern end of the one way northbound street at Cameron Avenue. These lines were also implemented on the west side to prohibit drivers from inadvertently driving the wrong way on a one-way street and possibly avoid a head-on collision. If vehicles are standing or parking directly in front of the property at 277 Scott Road for whatever reason, it is obvious that ALL northbound traffic are forced over the striper lines in violation of traffic laws and an even more dangerous problem is created. This is unsafe and it is paramount that Council ensure that the east side of Scott Road directly in front of 277 Scott Road, is clear at all times. The only way to ensure this is to change the signage from 'No Parking Anytime' to 'No Stopping Anytime'. This change would ensure that the entire community adheres to the safety stipulation, not exclusively those related to 277 Scott Road. Ultimately, a sign indicating 'No Stopping Anytime' benefits all parties and even reduces the liability risk for the City.

I hope that this letter helps correct that was discussed with respect to signage directly in front of 277 Scott Road. I would welcome the opportunity to personally present this letter to Community Council but, due to my wife's illness, I must go to the hospital on the afternoon of October 12th. If a morning hearing can be arranged on the agenda however, I could attend. Thank you for considering this matter.

- Mr. Fred Lindsay, Vice President, Silverthorn Ratepayers' Association, appeared before the Community Council in Connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from York Community Council to introduce a "No Standing Anytime" regulation at the intersection of Scott Road and Cameron Avenue.

Funding Sources:

Funds to undertake the necessary sign installation at the intersection of Scott Road and Cameron Avenue, in the estimated amount of $100.00, are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Uniform Traffic By-law Nos. 196-84 and 2958-94 be amended to prohibit standing at all times on the east side of Scott Road, from Cameron Avenue to a point 15 metres south thereof; and

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

Background:

York Community Council, at its meeting of October 12, 1999, requested a staff report to Council for consideration at its October 26, 1999 meeting, on the proposed change from a "No Parking" prohibition to "No Standing" on the east side of Scott Road from Cameron Avenue to approximately 15 metres south. (Clause No.4 of Report No. 10).

Comments:

On September 20, 1999, a public meeting was held at the York Civic Centre to hear a variety of safety and parking concerns within the Scott Road and Cameron Avenue area. The meeting was attended by local residents, representatives from the Silverthorn Ratepayers Association and Masjid-E-Noor, the Ward Councillors, Toronto Police Services and municipal staff.

One action item requested by the Community and mutually agreed upon was the introduction of a 15 metre "No Standing Anytime" regulation on the southeast corner of Scott Road and Cameron Avenue. The parking restriction is intended to discourage illegal short term parking, and to establish a momentary loading/unloading area.

Staff have also been requested to report on a number of other safety and parking issues within the area of Scott Road and Cameron Avenue, which will be addressed in a later report.

Conclusions:

Introduction of a "No Standing" regulation on the southeast corner of Scott Road and Cameron Avenue will facilitate a drop-off and pick-up zone, without jeopardizing public safety or vehicular traffic flow in the intersection. Implementation of this restriction will not result in a loss to the current complement of on-street, curb-side parking spaces, but will reinforce the need to maintain unobstructed sight lines within the intersection.

Contact Person:

Jacqueline White, Manager, Traffic Operations, District 1

Tel: 397-5021; Fax: 392-8504)

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

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

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having held a public meeting regarding the Draft By-law; and that pursuant to Clause No. 11(a), Report No. 8 of the York Community Council, titled "Request to Revert the Two-Way Operation on Atlas Avenue between Eglinton Avenue West and the Beth Shalom Synagogue to One-Way Northbound", a notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on September 20, September 27, October 4 and October 11, 1999.

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

Authority: York Community Council Clause 11(a), Report No. 8.

Enacted by Council:

Bill No.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration of Atlas Avenue was published in a daily newspaper on September 20, September 27, October 4 and October, 11, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on October 12, 1999 and it is appropriate to permit the alteration;

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

A. The following alterations are authorized:

1. The alteration of Atlas Avenue at a distance of 54 metres south of Eglinton Avenue West, by constructing a speed hump with a maximum height of 80 mm, together with a curbed narrowing, as shown on the drawing attached as Schedule "A" to this By-law; and,

2. The alteration of Atlas Avenue at a distance of 50 metres north of Gloucester Grove, by constructing a speed hump with a maximum height of 80 mm, as shown on the drawing attached as Schedule "A" to this By-law.

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

____________________________ __________________________

Mayor Clerk

The York Community Council also submits Clause No. 11(a) in Report No. 8 of the York Community Council meeting held on July 15, 1999, titled "Request to Revert the Two-Way Operation on Atlas Avenue between Eglinton Avenue West and the Beth Shalom Synagogue to One-Way Northbound - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

(City Council on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999, received this Clause for information.)

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) approved ScenarioThree in the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, which recommends the implementation of a pavement narrowing with a speed regulator hump immediately south of the entrance/exit to Beth Shalom Synagogue and a mid-block speed regulator hump; and that a road alteration by-law be prepared and public notice given as soon as possible for hearings to be held at the October 12, 1999 meeting of the York Community Council;

(2) the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to:

(a) proceed as soon as possible to give this work priority, should the poll determine that the residents are in favour of the proposal; and

(b) to examine ways by which Atlas Avenue can be returned to one-way northbound from Gloucester Grove to Eglinton Avenue West, including possible changes to Winnett Avenue:

(June 28, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, responding to a request from the York Community Council as a result of a petition submitted by residents expressing concerns regarding motorists are ignoring the one-way regulation to continue travelling southbound on Atlas Avenue to Gloucester Grove endangering public safety and that motorists were also reversing at high speeds; and submitting the following three alternatives:

Scenario One - Advising that to revert Atlas Avenue from two-way to one-way northbound between the entrance/exit to Beth Shalom Synagogue and Eglinton Avenue West, as requested by the petitioners; that this option may discourage motorists from illegally entering Atlas Avenue from Eglinton Avenue West, however motorists can continue to ignore the one-way northbound regulation on Atlas Avenue when exiting the Synagogue to Gloucester Grove; that speed will continue to be an issue on Atlas Avenue with the one-way northbound regulation; that residents within the community and persons attending the Beth Shalom will experience more circuitous routings which in turn will increase overall vehicular volumes on those select streets; and that the cost association with implementing this option (i.e. changing signage) is estimated at $300.00.

Scenario Two - Advising that to revert Atlas Avenue from two-way to one-way northbound and install a pavement narrowing and speed hump at the entrance/exit to Beth Shalom Synagogue and a speed hump mid-block between the Synagogue and Gloucester Grove; that the traffic operations impact on this alternative are the same as Scenario One above; that the additional traffic calming measures will deal with the vehicle speed concerns expressed by residents; that the traffic calming devices under this scenario as detailed in the attached appendix are an asphalt hump and modular concrete narrowing, installed on top of the existing roadway, unlike the permanent materials utilized for the existing traffic calming devices in the area; and that the costs associated with implementing this option are estimated at $3,800.00.

Scenario Three - Advising that the two-way operation on Atlas Avenue be maintained but install a pavement narrowing with a speed regulator hump, immediately south of the entrance/exit to Beth Shalom Synagogue and a mid-block speed regulator hump between the Synagogue and Gloucester Grove; that this scenario maintains the existing operation which eliminates the traffic circulation concerns associated with reverting the section of Atlas Avenue to one-way north bound operation while also dealing with the residents' speeding concerns; that the narrowing at the synagogue driveway will physically reinforce the change from two-way to one-way operation; and that the materials proposed are an asphalt hump and a modular concrete curb narrowing installed on top of the existing roadway and that the costs associated with implementing this potion are estimated at $3,500; and

recommending that:

(1) Scenario Three, recommending a pavement narrowing with a speed regulator hump immediately south of the entrance/exit to Beth Shalom and a mid-block speed regulator hump be approved, subject to a poll revealing the majority of municipally addressed property owners support this alternative; and

(2) a road alteration by-law be prepared and public notice be given; and

that funds required for the implementation of Scenario Three, involving two speed humps and a roadway narrowing estimated at $3,500.00 are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department 1999 Capital Budget.

The York Community Council also had before it during consideration of the aforementioned matter, a letter dated July 8, 1999 from Messrs. Stan Gershman and David Jourard, indicating support for Scenario Two.

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

- Mr. Stan Gershman; and

- Mr. David Jourard.

- Mr. Jim Shankman appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

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

The York Commuity Council reports, for the information of Council, having held a public meeting regarding the aforementioned matter; and that pursuant to Clause No. 12 of Report No. 9 of the York Community Council, titled "Cedarvale Traffic Management Plan" as adopted by Council on September 28, 29 and 30, 1999, a notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on September 20, September 27, October 4 and October 11, 1999.

The York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1) expedite the process this year and install as soon as possible, the traffic calming measures approved in report the dated September 10, 1999 from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, embodied in Clause No. 12 of Report No. 9 of the York Community Council, which was adopted without amendment by City Council on September 28, 29 & 30, 1999, viz, Items 1 to 5 in Table 1, Item 10 in Table 2 and Items 1 and 2 in Table 3;

(2) measure and report on the speed and volume of vehicles on the streets that have received traffic calming in Phase 1, such measurement to be conducted six months after for those streets in Phase II, and that this data and other statistics be used to evalue the traffic calming plan for the Cedarvale community; and

(3) also include in the report a list of the residents and their addresses who were polled in the Traffic Calming Survey.

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

Authority: Clause No. 12 of Report No. 9 of the York Community Council

Adopted by Council: September 28, 29 and 30, 1999.

Bill No.

To authorize the alteration of Dewbourne Avenue and Strathearn Road by the implementation of various traffic calming measures and to repeal By-law Nos. 3557-97, 3543-97 and 3538-97 of the former City of York.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alterations of Dewbourne Avenue and Strathearn Road was published in a daily newspaper on September 20, September 27, October 4 and October 11, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on October 12, 1999 and it is appropriate to permit the alterations;

AND WHEREAS By-law Nos. 3557-97, 3543-97 and 3538-97 of the former City of York were enacted as part of the implementation of the Cedarvale Traffic Management Plan and should be repealed as a result of certain proposed modifications with respect to Dewbourne Avenue and Strathearn Road.

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

A. The following alterations are authorized:

1. The alteration of Dewbourne Avenue at a distance of 30 metres west of Menin Road, by constructing a speed hump with a maximum height of 80 mm, as shown on the drawing attached as Schedule "A" to this By-law;

2. The alteration of Strathearn Road at a distance of 105 metres south of Ava Road, by constructing a speed hump with a maximum height of 80 mm, as shown on the drawing attached as Schedule "A" to this By-law; and,

3. The alteration of Strathearn Road at a distance of 130 metres east of Chiltren Hill Road, by constructing a speed hump with a maximum height of 80 mm, together with a curbed narrowing, as shown on the drawing attached as Schedule "A" to this By-law.

B. The following By-laws of the former City of York are repealed:

1. By-law No. 3557-97, being "A By-law To Authorize the alteration of Dewbourne Avenue, in the City of York."

2. By-law No. 3543-97, being "A By-law To Authorize the alteration of Strathearn Road, in the City of York."

3. By-law No. 3538-97, being "A By-law To Authorize the alteration of Strathearn Road, in the City of York."

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

____________________________ ________________________

Mayor Clerk

The York Community Council also submits Clause No. 12 of Report No. 9 of the York Community Council, titled "Cedarvale Traffic Management Plan" which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on September 28, 29 and 30, 1999:

(City Council, on September 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends that with regard to the Cedarvale Traffic Calming Survey Results, that:

(1) Items 1 to 5 in Table 1, Supporting Traffic Calming, be approved;

(2) the respective By-laws regarding Items 1 to 9 in Table 2, Opposed to Traffic Calming, be repealed;

(3) Item 10 in Table 2, Opposed to Traffic Calming, be approved;

(4) Items 1 and 2 in Table 3, Marginal Support for Traffic Calming, be approved;

(5) the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare road alteration by-laws for the individual street sections, where appropriate, and that public notice be given respecting those locations;

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

The York Community Council submits the following report (September 10, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To provide results of the survey conducted of Cedarvale Community residents on various street blocks to determine majority support and preference to complete construction of the Cedarvale Traffic Management Plan.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the construction of the preferred traffic calming measures for each of the individual street sections supported by the majority of the municipally addressed property owners, estimated at $110,000.00, are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department 1999 Capital Budget;

The funds associated with the construction of the preferred traffic calming measures on those individual street sections, where the responses were received from less than 50 percent of those polled, but the support from those who did respond is high, estimated at $60,000.00, are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. road alteration by-laws be prepared and public notice be given, for those individual street sections listed in Table 1 of the Appendix where the majority of municipally addressed property owners responded showing support for the preferred traffic calming measure; and

2. the York Community Council decide whether to proceed with the installation of the traffic calming plan on those individual street sections, listed in Table 3 of the Appendix where the number of responses received was not a majority, but the support for traffic calming is high, and if the decision is positive, road alteration by-laws be prepared and public notice given respecting these locations.

Background:

York Community Council, at its meeting of January 20, 1999, approved the following recommendation:

"That prior to the installation of the remaining pinch points and speed humps approved in the Cedarvale Traffic Management Plan, that the residents be polled on a block by block basis, requesting that they indicate their preference for either speed humps or pinch points on their respective blocks." (Clause No. 4(d) of Report No. 1 of theYork Community Council).

Comments:

The Cedarvale Traffic Management Plan was developed by a citizen task force, through an extensive public consultation process. The Traffic Plan consisted of numerous traffic calming measures aimed at reducing through traffic, reducing vehicular travel speeds, and improving pedestrian and cycling environments, to form a cohesive setting.

As a result the former City of York Council on June 25, 1997, approved the recommendations contained within the Cedarvale Community Traffic Plan within their jurisdictional control. Council further recommended the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto also approve those recommendations within their jurisdictional control, which was subsequently approved.

In late 1997, construction commenced on Phase I, which involved constructing twenty-one of the total forty traffic calming measures approved. For Council's information, it was the decision of both the citizen traffic committee and the local Councillor to choose and request those twenty-one locations, within the allocated Capital Budget.

Phase II involves completing the remaining nineteen individual traffic calming measures, subject to results of a survey undertaken on an individual street block basis revealing majority support.

The attached Appendix details the results of the residents survey for each individual street section and the preferred traffic calming measure, according to resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants. The survey results have been divided into three categories. It was concluded that traffic calming is supported if more than 50 percent of property owners responded and more than 50 percent of those responses were favourable (Table 1). It was concluded that residents were opposed to traffic calming if 50 percent. of the responses were not favourable whether a majority of property owners responded or not (Table 2). However, there were two street sections where less than 50 percent. of property owners responded, but of those responses, there was a significant majority that were favourable (Table 3). These were considered to be "marginally supported" and it is requested that York Community Council provide direction on whether the traffic calming measures should be installed at these locations.

Conclusions:

The survey results have been categorized as follows:

Supporting Traffic Calming

1. Camberwell Road between Eglinton Avenue West and Dewbourne Avenue;

2. Dewbourne Avenue between Westover Hill Road and Menin Road;

3. Dewbourne Avenue and Peveril Hill North;

4. Strathearn Road between Ava Road and Westover Hill Road;

5. Strathearn Road between Chiltern Hill Road and Bathurst Street.

Opposed to Traffic Calming

1. Avenal Drive between Peveril Hill South and Bathurst Street;

2. Dewbourne Avenue between Flanders Road and Westover Hill Road;

3. Dewbourne Avenue between Camberwell Road and Rostrevor Road;

4. Flanders Road between Eglinton Avenue West and Dewbourne Avenue;

5. Glen Cedar Road between Markdale Avenue and Strathearn Road;

6. Rostrevor Road between Eglinton Avenue West and Dewbourne Avenue;

7. Strathearn Road between Westover Hill Road and Warwick Avenue;

8. Strathearn Road between Markdale Avenue and Glen Cedar Road;

9. Strathearn Road and Glen Cedar Road;

10. Westover Hill Road between Eglinton Avenue West and Dewbourne Avenue.

Marginal Support for Traffic Calming

1. Chiltren Hill Road between Eglinton Avenue West and Dewbourne Avenue;

2. Glen Cedar Road between Eglinton Avenue West and Dewbourne Avenue.

Based on the survey results, the preferred traffic calming measures should be installed on those individual streets where there was support for traffic calming. Also, York Community Council is requested to decide whether the traffic calming measures should be installed on those individual streets where the number of responses received was clearly not a majority, but these responses did indicate support for traffic calming.

Contact Person:

Jacqueline White

Manager, Traffic Operations, District 1

Tel: 397-5021

Fax: 392-8504

Survey Results

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

- Jim Shankman, Toronto;

- Nathan Cheifetz, Toronto;

- Naomi Kestenbaum, Toronto;

- Howard Easkov, Toronto;

- Eleanor Osborne, Toronto;

- Edie Neuberger, Toronto; and

- Rick Orzy, Toronto.

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

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 6, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from Toronto Police Service, Community Policing Support Unit - School Crossing to install an all way stop control at the intersection of Charlton Settlement Avenue and Dora Spencer Road.

Funding Sources:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage installation at the intersection of Charlton Settlement Avenue and Dora Spencer Road, in the estimated amount of $300.00, are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Uniform Traffic By-law Nos. 196-84 and 2958-94 be amended to install stop signs on Charlton Settlement Avenue for north and southbound vehicular traffic, at the intersection of Dora Spencer Road; and

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

Comments:

Staff of the Transportation Services have been working with Toronto Police Services Community Policing Support Unit and the developer of the new community known as Riverboat Landing to ensure the safety of children travelling to Portage Trail Community School. As a result of a recent child safety audit for the Portage Trail Community School, the Toronto Police Service, Community Policing Support Unit - School Crossings is requesting an all-way stop control at the intersection of Charlton Settlement Avenue and Dora Spencer Road.

Charlton Settlement Avenue is classified as a local roadway, operating two-way in a north-south direction between Buttonwood Avenue and Sidney Belsey Crescent. Dora Spencer Road is classified as a local roadway, operating two-way in an east-west direction between Weston Road and Charlton Settlement Avenue. The streets form a "T" intersection with stop sign control for westbound vehicular traffic on Dora Spencer Road. Presently, there is an adult crossing guard assisting pedestrians crossing Charlton Settlement Avenue to ensure their safety.

In order for all-way stop control to be justified at an intersection, established warrant criteria must be fulfilled. The criteria include such factors as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, and surrounding area traffic control. According to our observations and analysis of the conditions at this intersection, the operational elements for the installation of an all-way stop sign control are satisfied.

Conclusions:

The installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Charlton Settlement Avenue and Dora Spencer Road would clearly establish right-of-way for vehicular traffic and would also enhance safety for the children attending Portage Trail Community School.

Contact Person:

Jacqueline White, Manager, Traffic Operation, District 1

Tel: 397-5021; Fax: 392-8504

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, received this Clause, as information, subject to:

(1) striking out and referring Item (r), entitled "Poll Results: Proposal to Change Direction of Traffic on the Municipal Lane Between Nickle Street and Mahoney Avenue from Two-way to One-way Southbound, Ward 27, York Humber", embodied therein, back to the York Community Council for further consideration; and

(2) adding thereto the following:

"Notwithstanding subsection 127(5) of the Council Procedural By-law, it is recommended that the action of the York Community Council embodied in Item (f) entitled 'Application for Liquor Licence - Madeira Cafe, 1671 Keele Street, Ward 27, York Humber' be rescinded, and that City Council adopt the following recommendations:

'It is recommended that:

(1) City Council advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission that it does not object to the issuance of a liquor licence to the Madeira Cafe at 1671 Keele Street, Ward 27, York Humber, having regard that:

(a) the School Trustee for the area has no objection to the issuance of the liquor licence;

(b) the Manager of Traffic, Building and Zoning, has confirmed that the site conforms to the former City of York Parking By-law; and

(c) the applicant has acknowledged that the following conditions shall apply to this licence and shall be binding on the current and future owners:

(i) no dance floor;

(ii) no video, arcade, gambling machines or game tables (foosball or air hockey) allowed on the premises;

(iii) no live music; and

(iv) no liquor sales after 11:00 p.m.; and

(2) the departmental comments outlined in the report dated September 14, 1999, from the City Clerk, pertaining to this application, be forwarded to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission.")

(a) Fire and Ambulance Services - KPMG Reports.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) held a public meeting to hear comments from the public regarding the KPMG reports; and

(2) noted the information contained in the following reports:

(i) (September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Fire Chief and General Manager, Ambulance - Re: Main Report

Providing City Council with a response from the staff of Toronto Fire Services (TFS) and Toronto Ambulance Services (TAS) regarding the recommendations contained in the KPMG Fire and Ambulance Services Station Location and Facilities Study; and advising that this is the main report from staff, with three supplemental reports of the same date addressing specific issues; that this report recommends:

(a) the construction of six new fire stations over the next six years - four of which will be constructed to accommodate co-sharing with ambulance;

(b) the construction of two new fire stations to replace four existing stations - one of which will be constructed to accommodate co-sharing with ambulance;

(c) the demolition and re-building of two existing fire stations; and

(d) the repair of numerous fire stations; and

that the estimated construction costs are noted in chart form on Attachment "A"; the estimated fire station repair costs are itemized in Attachment "D1", and calendarized in Attachment "D2"; 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 included as Attachment "B".

(ii) (September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and Fire Chief - Re: Supplemental Report #1 of 3;

Closing of Fire Station T26 - 153 Chatham Avenue - Ward 26

Closing of Fire Station T31 - 462 Runnymede Road - Ward 19

Providing City Council with a response from staff of Toronto Fire Services (TFS) to a Councillor's request to consider alternative options for the closing of fire stations T26 and T31 as recommended in the KPMG Fire Station Location and Facilities Study report; advising that the recommendation to close four fire stations and construct two new fire stations has capital budget implications which are contained in another report of the same date to Committee/Council; and recommending is recommended that City Council receive this report as information.

(iii) (September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and Fire Chief - Re: Supplemental Report #2 of 3 - Risk and Insurance

Providing City Council with a response from Toronto Fire Services (TFS) staff to a Councillor's request for additional information respecting recommendations contained within the KPMG Fire Station Location and Facilities Study report; advising that are no funding implications associated with the presentation of this report; and recommending that City Council receive this report as information.

(iv) (September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and Fire Chief - Re: Supplemental Report #3 of 3

- Rationalization of Facilities

- Re-allocation of Apparatus

- Fleet Maintenance

- Human Resource Implications

Advising that this report provides City Council with a response from staff of Toronto Fire Services (TFS) to a Councillor's request for additional information respecting recommendations contained within the KPMG Fire Station Location and Facilities Study report; that there are no funding implications associated with the presentation of this report; and recommending that City Council receive this report as information.

Fire Chief, Alan Speed and Mr. Ron Kelusky, General Manager, Ambulance Services, presented the abovementioned reports.

- Mr. Karl Stankov appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b) Organizational Structure for the New Committee of Adjustment, All Wards.

The York Community Council reports having recommended to the Transportation Committee for consideration at its November 1, 1999 meeting, that:

(1) the Panel for the West District consist of :

- 5 members all nominated by York Community Council; and

- 5 members all nominated by Etobicoke Community Council;

(2) the Committee of Adjustment Hearings for the West District be held in the evenings at the respective York and Etobicoke Civic Centre locations in the interest of accessibility and convenience to applicants and members of the community;

(3) the current fees charged by Committees of Adjustment be either maintained or lowered so as to provide a stimulus for renovations and re-development;

(4) the requirement that all panelists conduct site visits with respect to assessing applications be continued;

(5) that the Nominating Committee's role regarding the interviewing of candidates for Committee of Adjustment panels be delegated to the Community Councils to:

(a) interview only candidates to be nominated as panelists for the Committee of Adjustment in their respective geographic districts; and

(b) submit recommendations to City Council with respect to these appointments;

(6) the organizational structure for the Committee of Adjustment and its District Panels be re-visited after the matter relating to the structure of Community Councils is dealt with; and

(7) the Committee of Adjustment structure follow the principle of a Committee of Adjustment panel for each Community Council area.

The York Community Council reports for the information of Council, having held a public meeting to hear comments from the public with respect to the subject proposals.

The Community Council also had before it the following reports and communications during consideration of the foregoing matter:

(i) (September 24, 1999) Further Report from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services advising that this further report was requested by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting held on September 13, 1999; that the Planning and Transportation Committee requested that an information report be prepared for its meeting of October  4, 1999 regarding:

- a compilation of samples of planning reports currently used with a view towards a standard citywide format;

- how the proposed new citywide Committee process could be structured to allow for evening meetings where requested;

- the right of a Councillor to defer a hearing for additional community input;

- amending the basic qualifications for appointment; and

- what increase of application fees would be required to accommodate increased membership on the Committee of Adjustment panels;

and providing comments on the above issues; and recommending that the August 26, 1999 Report entitled "Organizational structure for the new Committee of Adjustment (All Wards)" be adopted.

(ii) (September 14, 1999) from the City Clerk , advising that on September 13, 1999, the Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the August 26, 1999 report from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and that the Planning and Transportation Committee recommended that:

Recommendation (2) to (6) in the report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and the following motions, be referred to the Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its November 1, 1999 meeting:

By Councillor McConnell:

"That Recommendation 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"

By Councillor Berger

"That the membership of the Committee of Adjustment consist of 5 members, chaired by the Secretary-Treasurer."; and

that the Planning and Transportation Committee further requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to:

(1) report to the next meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee on October 4, 1999, and to the Community Councils, if possible:

a. with a compilation of sample staff reports utilized by each of the Committees of Adjustment for review by the Planning and Transportation Committee with a view to recommending a standard format;

b. on how the process could be structured to allow for evening meetings where requested;

c. on a "bump-up" provision for evening meetings made at the request of a City Councillor;

d. on the right of a City Councillor to defer a hearing for additional community input;

e. on amending the second "Basic Qualification for Appointment to the Committee of Adjustment" contained in Appendix 3 of the report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services by deleting the words "and/or municipal property taxpayer in", so as to read:

"Any person applying for appointment shall be, and must maintain status throughout their term of office as:

• a resident of the City of Toronto
• a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant
• at least 18 years of age"

f. on a Committee of Adjustment fee increase to accommodate an increase in the membership of the panels, as follows:

• north, east and west panels to 7 members with 5 members sitting per session; and

• south district panel to 9 members; and

(2) give a presentation on the organizational structure for the new Committee of Adjustment to the Planning and Transportation Committee when it considers this matter and the comments from the Community Councils.

(iii) (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, advising that this report recommends the organizational structure for a new city-wide Committee of Adjustment, as requested by City Council prior to proceeding with the nomination process and subsequent appointments; that the City Solicitor will submit the draft enabling by-law which is required by the Planning Act; that no additional costs would result from the recommendations in this report; that City Council requested this report at its meeting of April 13, 14, and 15, 1999 when it adopted, with amendments, the February 10, 1999 report, Policy for Citizen Appointments through the Nominating Committee and the Corporate Services Committee; that at that meeting, City Council also terminated the terms of appointees to any Agency, Board, Commission or Tribunal of a former City effective December 31, 1999; that the Chief Administrative Officer was also requested to report to the Administration Committee at its September, 1999 meeting on those committees requiring an extension of appointments to facilitate the nomination process; that a new report on New Practices for the Review of Development Applications, which will be considered by Planning and Transportation Committee at its October 4, 1999 meeting, also recommends submission of an organizational structure report for the Committee of Adjustment; that a critical review was conducted of the organizational structure in place for the six Committees of the former municipalities and that given the common legislative base, the Planning Act, the difference in practices, resources and service levels are remarkable, but understandable as varied approaches were developed over time in the cultures of the former cities; that staff proposals with respect to (1) Composition of the New Committee (see Appendix 2); (2) the Time and Location of Hearings; (3) Member Qualifications; and (4) the Administrative Support and Budget are set out in this report for harmonizing the organizational structure for the new Committee of Adjustment city-wide; that these proposals provide a framework for development of common operations to offer consistent customer service levels across the new City; and recommending that:

(1) this report be referred to the Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its November 1, 1999 meeting;

(2) Council approve the following structure for the new Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto:

(i) the Committee operate as four District Panels corresponding with the four geographic Districts through which City Planning services are delivered;

(ii) the Committee comprise a total of 22 members assigned and nominated as follows:

North District: 5 members - all nominated by North YorkCommunity Council;

South District: 7 members - all nominated by TorontoCommunity Council;

East District: 5 members - 2 nominated by East York Community Council; and

3 nominated by Scarborough Community Council;

West District: 5 members - 2 nominated by York Community Council; and 3 nominated by Etobicoke Community Council;

(iii) the Committee 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;

(iv) each Hearing be conducted by three of the respective District Panel members, the sitting members to be assigned on a rotational basis;

(v) each Committee Hearing be held during regular business hours; and

(vi) the Committee's four District Panels conduct Hearings in the following four locations: Toronto City Hall and the North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke civic centres;

(3) the City Solicitor be requested to prepare a by-law for presentation to and approval by City Council to constitute one Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto and to delegate approval authority to hear applications for minor variance/permission and for the creation of new lots by consent, as permitted by the Planning Act;

(4) City Council direct the City Clerk's Division, Corporate Services Department to commence the process for nominations by the Community Councils;

(5) the Committee of Adjustment, when constituted, be requested to appoint the City Planning Executive Director/Chief Planner or delegate(s) as its Secretary-Treasurer; and

(6) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a report to City Council, at the beginning of its next term, evaluating the new Committee of Adjustment's organizational structure.

(iv) (October 5, 1999) from Mr. Vincent Santamaura, Chair, York Committee of Adjustment, (October 5, 1999) from Mr. Vincent J. Santamaura, Chair, York Committee of Adjustment, submitting comments and concerns in response to the following Recommendations in the report dated August 26, 1999 from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

1. Geographic Districts

2. Composition of the Committee

3. Time of Committee Hearings

4. Location of Committee Hearings

5. Member Qualifications

6. Financial Implications

7. Corrections to the Appendices

8. Committee Operations

9. Consultation Process; and

10. Integrity of the Committee;

(A copy of the complete communication is available from the Clerk's Division, York Civic Centre.)

(v) (October 8, 1999) from Mr. William H. Roberts, Director and former President, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association to the Toronto and York Community Councils, advising that the Association does not support the decision to exclude citizens from the process by holding daytime meetings; that the former City of Toronto took great pride in supporting "participatory planning" which involved citizens in the process not just the stakeholders (i.e. lawyers, agents, architects, builders) who because of their profession can attend daytime meetings; that it is often neighbours who draw to the Committee's attention inconsistencies in what may otherwise appear to be a minor variance; that they fail to see how access would be improved by requiring the citizens of York or East York to travel outside their communities to Etobicoke or Scarborough respectively; that this would require travelling by car not public transit given the existing connections and times to travel; and that the creation of four panels would appear to be a pre-emptive strike to end the existence of East York and York and to move to a four community council structure and preclude the recommendations of the Miller committee of having more, not fewer community councils;

(vi) (October 8, 1999) from Ms. Sandra Melville, Co-Chair, Warren Park Ratepayers Association; requesting that the hearings of the York Committee of Adjustment be maintained at the civic centre, 2700 Eglinton Avenue West; that moving the meetings will be less convenient for the residents of York and would further dilute and eliminate its local autonomy; and requesting that the meetings for the York district continue to be held at the York Civic Centre.

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

- Mr. Vincent Santamaura, Chair, York Committee of Adjustment;

- Mr. Rod Bissell, Chair, Etobicoke Committee of Adjustment;

- Mr. William Roberts, Director, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association; and

- Ms. Marjorie, Mt. Dennis Ratepayers Association.

(c) 3761 Dundas Street West, Loblaws Store Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) requested the Director of Building to extend the Stop Work Order relating to the work being done in the west parking lot of the Loblaws store at 3761 Dundas Street West, and that Loblaws be instructed not to proceed any further until the completion of the community consultation process and the site plan agreement;

(2) requested the Director, Community Planning, West District, to undertake a review of this process and bring forward any previous comments and minutes from meetings of the Traffic Committee;

(3) requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to organize a committee to address the traffic concerns in the area, such committee to consist of:

- a representative from the Warren Park Ratepayers Association; Gooch Avenue; the Loblaws Store; and the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority;

- appropriate City staff; and

- the two local Councillors,

(4) requested the Director, Parks and Recreation, West District, to determine the value of the trees which have been removed, communicate with Loblaws with respect to replacing the trees, or alternatively, that Loblaws be charged the equivalent value of the trees, with the funds being directed to the Heritage Tree Fund.

The York Community Council had before it the following communications:

(i) (October 6, 1999) from Ms. Sandra Melville, Co-Chair, Warren Park Ratepayers, expressing concerns regarding changes being made to the west parking lot of the Loblaws Store at 3761 Dundas Street West (at Gooch Avenue); and advising that:

(1) all asphalt has been removed from the west parking lot;

(2) as of 8:00 a.m. the ravine lands buffering Gooch Avenue on the west side of the parking lot had been excavated, down to the bare curb on the east side of Gooch; that excavated space appears to be the size of a two-lane, commercial driveway;

(3) significant earth, down to the level of the underground parking garage had been removed, including the support earth for the ravine; and

(4) trees have been removed;

and that without consultation with the residents of Gooch Avenue or the Warren Park Ratepayers' Association, the above action was taken and it is believed that an entrance onto Gooch Avenue is being considered; that these concerns were communicated to the Transportation Manager for the West District; that they understand that no permits were issued for the work actually taking place; that the Building Inspector visited the site this morning and issued a verbal Stop Work Order and a requirement that equipment be removed from the site; that as of 6:15 p.m. the large construction shovel was still on the site; and requesting that before any plans are approved and/or permits issued for any further work on this site, that there be full public consultation, particularly with the directly affected parties - the residents of Gooch Avenue and the Warren Park Ratepayers' Association and that this consultation take the form of a Planning and Traffic Committee comprised of representatives of Warren Park Ratepayers, Gooch Avenue and the Metro Toronto Housing Authority, the owners of the two apartment buildings on the west side of Gooch Avenue at Dundas, appropriate City staff and representatives of Loblaws; advising that the problems now experienced on Humbercrest Boulevard for which traffic calming measures have been implemented, would transfer to Gooch Avenue should a parking entrance be considered there; that an entrance to parking from Gooch Avenue would present serious hazards, such as impaired visibility of northbound Gooch motorists by the bends in the road; that in winter the bends, slope and driveways already present serious problems and conflicgts for all traffic, including many children walking to school; that another major concern is the environmental impact on these ravine lands; that the removal of the trees and these lands without consideration of their environmental value is unconscionable and immediate replacement is required; and requesting assurance that the only work that will be done on this site prior to the above-requested consultation process being implemented, will be the restoration of the ravine lands on Gooch Avenue;

(ii) (October 9, 1999) from Ms. Madeline McDowell, Chair, Humber Heritage Committee, advising that it was agreed as a result of public consultation, that before the Loblaws Humber store was built that vehicular entry and egress would be at the traffic light on Dundas Street installed for that purpose; that the committee is dismayed by the complete disregard by Loblaws for the preservation of the ravine slope on Gooch Avenue; and requesting that the slope be restored, restabilized and re-treed immediately, consistent with the former City of York's ravine policy which the Committee strongly supports; and

(iii) (October 10, 1999) from Ms. B. Frey, Property Manager, Area 6E, Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, advising that it has been brough to her attention that Loblaws has started construction of a driveway off Gooch Avenue near the Dundas Street West intersection; that the intended site of the access point to and from the Loblaws parking lot could have a detrimental impact on the residents of 3725 and 3735 Dundas Street West; and should the Community Council approve a committee for public consultation the MTHA is requesting representation.

*** Ms. Margo Duncan, Warren Park Ratepayers Association, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(d) Pedestrian Safety Issues.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) expressed support for the following recommendations of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee to the Works Committee, passed at their Special Meeting on October 7, 1999, regarding the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on a Proposed Consolidated Road Classification System, viz:

That the Works Committee:

1. consider the June 24, 1999 Proposed Road Classification System report a preliminary document to be evaluated in the broader context of goals for public health, sustainable transportation, environmental protection and the Official Plan;

2. recognize that this report provides a significant opportunity to improve the Toronto's pedestrian environment and eliminate the negative effects on the City of ever-increasing car traffic;

3. delay referral of any proposed road classification system to City Council for adoption until the Commisioner of Works & Emergency Services and the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services have had sufficient time to report back to the Works Committee on the inclusion of the issues raised by the Toronto Pedestrian Committee with regard to this critical document which outlines how 40% or more of the City's urban space is to be issued and classificied and that such a report be considered a priority item;

4. request the Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services to prepare a policy to reduce speed limits on minor and major arterial roads in close proximity to schools; and

(2) received the deputations.

The York Community Council had before it the following communications:

(i) (September 23, 1999) from the Co-Chairs, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, advising that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee is an active committee of the amalgamated City of Toronto, reporting to Council through the Works Committee and the Planning and Transportation Committee. Its purpose is to work for improved pedestrian safety and towards making the City of Toronto more comfortable and convenient for walking. We work with staff on such matters as sidewalk and intersection design, traffic signals, crosswalks, traffic calming, streetscaping, etc. both as general principles and on specific projects; that they have made many recommendations over the years and are now beginning to see increased awareness of the importance of pedestrian issues to the whole community and more willingness on the part of Council to take appropriate action; that currently the committee is concerned with the unprecedented 10 pedestrian deaths in August 1999 (most in suburban Toronto) and the proposed road classification system which raises issues of pedestrian safety on arterial roads; that the membership of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee at present is drawn from members of the previous Metro sub-committee on Pedestrian Issues, but that they need to expand their membership, making sure that they have good community representation from all parts of the City; that they would like to attend a Community Council meeting to discuss pedestrian issues, to hear local concerns and to encourage local participation in their committee; and requesting to make a brief presentation.

(ii) (October 10, 1999) from the Co-Chairs, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, forwarding the following recommendations regarding the proposed consolidated road classification system passed on October 7, 1999 at a Special Meeting of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee; requesting that the York Community Council consider the "Whereas'" that precede the recommendations as a summary of the committee's main concerns with the report; and urging the Councillors to support the committee's recomemndations in the interests of seizing the opportunity to enter the 21st century with an approach to road classification that supports the goal of the new Official Plan to enhance the liveability of the entire city as expressed in Toronto Plan: Reinvesting in the City's Quality of Life (No. 1, March 1999):

That the Works Committee:

1. consider the June 24, 1999 Proposed Road Classification System report a preliminary document to be evaluated in the broader context of goals for public health, sustainable transportation, environmental protection and the Official Plan;

2. recognize that this report provides a significant opportunity to improve the Toronto's pedestrian environment and eliminate the negative effects on the City of ever-increasing car traffic;

3. delay referral of any proposed road classification system to City Council for adoption until the Commisioner of Works & Emergency Services and the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services have had sufficient time to report back to the Works Committee on the inclusion of the issues raised by the Toronto Pedestrian Committee with regard to this critical document which outlines how 40% or more of the City's urban space is to be issued and classificied and that such a report be considered a priority item; and

4. request the Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services to prepare a policy to reduce speed limits on minor and major arterial roads in close proximity to schools.

The following persons appeared before the York Community Council in connectin with the foregoing matter:

- Joan Doiron, Co-chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

- Madeleine McDowell, Member, Toronto Pedestrian Committee.

(e) Traffic and Parking Concerns in the Scott Road and Cameron Avenue Area - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the proposed recommendations outlined in the following communication submitted by Mr. Fred Lindsay, Vice President, Silverthorn Ratepayers' Association, titled 'Parking and Traffic Proposal: The Future Impact on Cameron Avenue and Scott Road, prepared July 21, 1999'; and

(2) received the following communication:

(September 21, 1999)Councillor F. Nunziata, forwarding a communication titled, Parking and Traffic Proposal: The Future Impact on Cameron Avenue and Scott Road; prepared July 21, 1999, outlining recommendations and suggestions to avoid future parking difficulties and traffic congestion in the Scott Road and Cameron Avenue area.

- Mr. Fred Lindsay, Vice President, Silverthorn Ratepayers Association, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(f) Application for Liquor Licence - Madeira Cafe, 1671 Keele Street Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred the following report from the City Clerk to its November 9, 1999 meeting;

(2) requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the parking requirements for the subject establishment and on the parking adequacy on Keele Street and adjacent streets;

(3) requested the Urban Planning and Development Services, to provide more details regarding their communication of August 6, 1999 in relation to COA application 98-240 and permit 99-0099;

(4) requested the principal of George Harvey School and the local trustee to submit comments on this application;

(5) requested the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic School Board to forward copies of any comments they are submitting to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission to the York Community Council; and

(6) received the deputations:

(September 14, 1999) from the City Clerk providing departmental comments following circulation of the Municipal Information form from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and the Licence Clearance form completed by the applicant; and recommending that authorization be provided to forward these comments to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission.

- Floyd Migory, President, Silverthorn Ratepayers' Association appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Item (f), the following communication (October 26, 1999) from Councillor Frances Nunziata:

In light of information just received by my office (see below) and the time sensitive nature of this item, that is before you as York Community Council, Report No. 10, Clause 8 (f).

I request Council's indulgence in waiving the procedural by-law and to re-open and debate this item during this council session.

Background:

The item is an application for a Liquor License at Madeira Café, 1671 Keele St.

At the York Community Council, the item was deferred by myself to the November 9, 1999, Community Council Meeting, with several requests, including on site parking confirmation and confirmation by school officials that they don't have a concern with the application.

Since that meeting, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has scheduled a meeting to hear this application on November 5, 1999.

Furthermore, we have also heard from the school trustee in the area indicating that, "she could not see a problem with issuing the Madeira Café a Liquor License." In addition the Manager of Traffic, Building and Zoning confirms that the site conforms to the City of York parking by-law. The application requires 5 parking spaces and 5 spaces are provided.

Request (September 14, 1999) from the City Clerk providing departmental comments following circulation of the Municipal Information form from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and the Licence Clearence form completed by the applicant; and recommending that authorization be provided to forward these comments to the Commission.

(Report dated September 14, 1999, entitled "Application, for Liquor Licence -

1671 Keele Street - Madeira Cafe - Ward 27, York Humber",

addressed to the York Community Council from the City Clerk.)

Purpose:

To provide departmental comments following circulation of Municipal Information form from the Alcohol and gaming Commission of Ontario and the Licence Clearance form completed by the applicant.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendations:

That authorization be provided to forward departmental comments to the Alcohol and Gaming Commissioner of Ontario.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On February 15, 1999, copies of the Municipal Information form and Licence Clearance form were circulated.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The following is a breakdown of departmental comments received:

Urban Planning Development Services, Municipal Standards Division (June 25, 1999):

"Further to your memorandum dated June 22, 1999, please be advised that our department has no active file pertaining to the above noted property and therefore we have no comments or requirements."

Fire Prevention Division (July 2, 1999):

"In reply to your memorandum of June 22, 1999, please be advised that we have no objection to the issuance of a liquor licence for this premise.

The maximum occupant load of this premises, with non-fixed tables and chairs, should not exceed 40 persons."

Health Department (July 6, 1999):

"This establishment is under regular routine inspection by inspectors of this Heath Unit and no Health Unit orders under Food Premises Regulation 562/90 are currently outstanding against it.

We have no objection to the issuance of a liquor licence."

Works and Emergency Services (July 19, 1999):

"I am in receipt of a copy of an application for a liquor licence at 1671 Keele Street the Madeira Cafe, as indicated of this application, it has been revised to exclude any outdoor cafe. Therefore, we have no comment regarding this application within this establishment."

Urban Planning and Development Services Department (August 6, 1999):

"COA 98-240 & permit 99-0099 proposed seating area 40 seats for licence restaurant."

Conclusions:

That the above comments now be forwarded to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario as departmental clearances have been provided.

As per Councillor Nunziata's request, the attached petition is also included for your review.

Contact Name:

Molin Bunsee

Clerk's Division

Tel: 394-2523, Fax: 394-2608)

(Copies of supporting documents pertaining to the Madeira Cafe, appended to the foregoing communication, are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(g) Application for Liquor Licence, 2011 Lawrence Ave. W., #5 and #6, Three Kings Restaurant - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred the following report from the City Clerk to its November 9, 1999 meeting;

(2) requested the Police Services to submit a confidential report on this establishment;

(3) requested the City Solicitor to provide a legal opinion with respect to risk and liability to the City if the process for a liquor licence is delayed, by virtue of the City requesting confidential information from the Police when considering comments from staff regarding liquor licence applications; and

(4) requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the parking requirements for this establishment and on the actual number of parking spaces in the plaza:

(September 28, 1999) from the City Clerk providing departmental comments following circulation of the Municipal Information form from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and the Licence Clearance form completed by the applicant; and recommending that authorization be provided to forward the comments to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

(h) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Zoning By-law Amendment, 4 Venn Crescent and 2409 Eglinton Avenue West, Owner: Teresa Cieciara & Joseph Stepien, Applicant: Joseph Stepien - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having approved the recommendations in the following report from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

(September 23, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District Providing preliminary comments on an application to amend a site-specific By-law to permit an extension to an existing dwelling in order to accommodate 3 residential apartment units and one retail store; advising that the parcel of land is presently occupied by a Retail store fronting Eglinton Avenue West with a residential use above; that the commercial component was formerly used as an Auto Glass Repair shop, the site is zoned Local Commercial-Residential (LCR) and is subject to specific provisions under Zoning By-law No. 1-83 section 16.222 which identifies uses permitted on the subject lands; that this section limits the range of commercial uses permitted and does not permit a retail store or dwelling units and accordingly, an application to rezone the property to permit the proposed uses is required; the applicant has proposed a two storey structural addition to an existing one storey building on the Eglinton Avenue West frontage of the property; the proposed addition will have a ground floor area of 39.02m² and will facilitate the proposed retail store having exposure from Eglinton Avenue West; the commercial use will have a total gross floor area of 96.24 m² and will be accessible from Eglinton Avenue West, with the 265.32 m² balance of the building being utilized for three two-bedroom residential units; the building façade visible and accessible from Venn Crescent will be converted to a two storey building from a bungalow while maintaining a residential character and use; that four off-street parking stalls are proposed on the east side of the property, parallel to the building; that the application is currently under circulation and a staff report will be distributed to Councillors and will be available for review to the public; that a Community meeting will be held prior to the completion of the final staff report, if deemed necessary by the Ward Councilors, given the minor nature of this application; and recommending that:

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

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

(i) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Zoning By-law Amendment, Westside Developments Ltd., 1001 Roselawn Avenue - Ward 28, York-Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) approved the recommendation in the following report from the Director of Community Planning, West District;

(2) requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to attempt to have the Planning staff report ready for the December 2, 1999 meeting of the York Community Council;

(3) requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to report on the fast-tracking program to the Community Council and to the Planning and Transportation Committee; and

(4) received the deputation:

(September 28, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application received September 2, 1999, from Westside Developments Ltd. to amend alteration and Zoning By-law No. 1-83 from PE-Prestige Employment Zone to Residential Multiple Zone 1 (RM1), to permit the conversion of a manufacturing/warehouse building to an apartment building containing 171 condominium live/work units and construction of 61 residential townhouse units; and advising that City funding is not required and that there is no impact on capital or operating budgets which have been identified at this time; that the site is designated Employment in the York Official Plan and this designation generally provides for a wide range of employment activities; that residential and live/work uses may, without amendment to the Official Plan, be introduced subject to certain criteria (contained within Section 12.8 of the Plan) for considering the appropriateness of the residential use and staff are currently reviewing the application for compliance with the Official Plan; that the site is zoned PE-Prestige Employment under Zoning By-law No. 1-83 which does not permit residential uses and therefore an amendment is required; that the applicant has proposed the conversion of the existing 4-storey manufacturing/warehouse building and the construction of a partial 5^th storey, for a "loft style" 171-unit condominium live/work apartment building containing 1 and 2-bedroom apartments of approximately 78 to 112 m5 (840 to 1, 210 sq.ft.) in size; that the application is currently in circulation and a staff report on the application will be distributed to Councillors and will be available to the public, prior to the Public Meeting that a Community Meeting is recommended to be arranged in consultation with the Ward Councillors and a Site Plan application for the proposal is being processed concurrently; and recommending that:

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

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

(3) a community meeting be arranged in consultation with the local Councillors.

- Mr. Murray Goldman, applicant, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(j) New Development Applications for York District, Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 8, 1999)from the Director, Community Planning, West District, reporting that since the beginning of 1999 the number of applications received is as follows:

Official Plan Amendment 2 Plan of Condominium 1

Zoning By-law Amendment 6 Part-lot Control Exemption 0

Site Plan Approval 12

and advising that the following new development applications have been received since the last report to Community Council, within Wards 27 and 28 of the West Community Planning District (former City of York):

1. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

Applicant: Westside Developments Ltd.

Owner: Coats Canada Inc.

Property Address: 1001 Roselawn Avenue

Proposal: 171 Condominium Live/Work Units and New Townhouses Development with 61 residential units

2. SITE PLAN APPROVALS

Applicant: Westside Developments Ltd.

Owner: Coats Canada Inc.

Property Address: 1001 Roselawn Avenue

Proposal: 171 Condominium Live/Work Units and New

Applicant: Tony Cornacchia

Owner: Tony Cornacchia

Property Address: 164 Vaughan Road

Proposal: Four unit multiple dwelling house

Applicant: Ralph Griffo

Owner: Carlos Tavares in trust

Property Address: 561 Silverthorn Avenue

Proposal: Single Family Dwellings

3. PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM

Applicant: Gregory Defreitas

Owner: B.G. Schickedanz Central Inc.

Property Address: 1400 Weston Road

Proposal: 43-Unit Townhouses

(k) Poll Results: Proposal for Implementation of On-street Permit Parking on Teston Boulevard, Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report from the City Clerk:

(September 16, 1999) from the City Clerk providing the results of a poll conducted of residents on Teston Boulevard to determine interest in a proposal to implement on-street permit parking; advising that the following is a breakdown of the poll results based on the number of replies returned by resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants:

Total No. Polled: 22

No. of Replies Received: 5 or 23%

No. of Replies IN FAVOUR: 0

No. of Replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 5 or 100%

that the majority of residents, based on the responses received, are not in favour of the proposal to implement on-street permit parking on Teston Boulevard; and recommending that the Community Council provide direction.

(l) Poll Results: Proposal to Implement On-street Permit Parking on the East Side of Outlook Garden Boulevard, Ward 27, York Humber

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 16, 1999) from the City Clerk providing the results of a poll conducted of residents on Outlook Garden Boulevard, to determine interest in a proposal to implement on-street permit parking on the east side of the street; advising that the following is a breakdown of the poll results based on the number of replies returned by resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants:

Total No. Polled: 31

No. of Replies Received: 8 or 26%

No. of Replies IN FAVOUR: 2 or 25%

No. of Replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 6 or 75%

that the majority of residents, based on the responses received, are not in favour of the proposal to implement on-street permit parking on the east side of Outlook garden Boulevard; and recommending that the Community Council provide direction.

(m) Poll Results: Proposal to Implement a 'No Stopping' Regulation 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the West Side of Avalon Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 17, 1999) from the City Clerk providing the results of a poll conducted of residents on Avalon Avenue from Bexley Crescent to the north terminus, to determine interest in a proposal to implement a 'No Stopping" regulation, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, on the west side of Avalon Avenue; advising that the following is a breakdown of the poll results based on the number of replies returned by resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants:

Total No. Polled: 15

No. of Replies Received: 4 or 27%

No. of Replies IN FAVOUR: 0

No. of Replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 4 or 100%

that the majority of residents, based on the responses received, are not in favour of the proposal to implement a 'No Stopping' regulation on the west side of Avalon Avenue; and recommending that the Community Council provide direction.

(n) Poll Results: Proposal to Implement On-Street Permit Parking on the West Side of Riverside Drive, from a Point 58 Metres North of Bloor Street and Old Mill Drive - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 17, 1999) from the City Clerk providing the results of a poll conducted of residents on Avalon Avenue from Bexley Crescent to the north terminus, to determine interest in a proposal to implement a 'No Stopping" regulation, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, on the west side of Avalon Avenue; advising that the following is a breakdown of the poll results based on the number of replies returned by resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants:

Total No. Polled: 79

No. of Replies Received: 27 or 34%

No. of Replies IN FAVOUR: 9 or 37%

No. of Replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 18 or 67%

that the majority of residents, based on the responses received, are not in favour of the proposal to implement on-street permit parking on the west side of Riverside Drive from a point 58 metres north of Bloor Street and Old Mill Drive; and recommending that the Community Council provide direction.

(o) Poll Results: Proposal to Implement On-street Permit Parking on Landour Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 16, 1999) from the City Clerk providing the results of a poll conducted of residents on Landour Avenue, to determine interest in a proposal to implement on-street permit parking; advising that the following is a breakdown of the poll results based on the number of replies returned by resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants:

Total No. Polled: 37

No. of Replies Received: 8 or 22%

No. of Replies IN FAVOUR: 1 or 12%

No. of Replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 7 or 88%

that the majority of residents, based on the responses received, are not in favour of the proposal to implement on-street permit parking on Landour Avenue; and recommending that the Community Council provide direction.

(p) Poll Results Proposal to Implement On-street Permit Parking on Humber Hill Avenue, Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 17, 1999) from the City Clerk providing the results of a poll conducted of residents on Humber Hill Avenue, to determine interest in a proposal to implement on-street permit parking; advising that the following is a breakdown of the poll results based on the number of replies returned by resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants:

Total No. Polled: 9

No. of Replies Received: 3 or 33%

No. of Replies IN FAVOUR: 1 or 33%

No. of Replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 2 or 67%

that the majority of residents, based on the responses received, are not in favour of the proposal to implement on-street permit parking on Humber Hill Avenue; and recommending that the Community Council provide direction.

(q) Poll Results: Proposal to Replace Alternate Side Parking on Beechwood Avenue with Exclusive On-street Permit Parking on the East Side of Beechwood Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 20, 1999) from the City Clerk providing the results of a poll conducted of the residents on Beechwood Avenue (municipal addresses #2 to 50 only), to determine interest in a proposal to implement on-street permit parking on the east side of the street; advising that the following is a breakdown of the poll results based on the number of replies returned by resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants:

Total No. Polled: 54

No. of Replies Received: 14 or 26%

No. of Replies IN FAVOUR: 4 or 29%

No. of Replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 10 or 71%

that the majority of residents, based on the responses received, are not in favour of the proposal to replace alternate side parking on Beechwood Avenue with exclusive on-street permit parking on the east side of the street; and recommending that the Community Council provide direction.

(r) Poll Results: Proposal to Change Direction of Traffic on the Municipal Lane Between Nickle Street and Mahoney Avenue from Two-Way to One-way Southbound, Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 24, 1999) from the City Clerk providing the results of a poll conducted of the residents on Cobalt Street, Mahoney Avenue, Nickle Street and Sedan Avenue, to determine interest in a proposal to change the direction of traffic in the municipal lane between Nickle Street and Mahoney Avenue, from two-way to one-way southbound; advising that the following is a breakdown of the poll results based on the number of replies returned by resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants:

Total No. Polled: 193

No. of Replies Received: 19 or 10%

No. of Replies IN FAVOUR: 15or 79%

No. of Replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 4 or 21%

that the majority of residents, based on the responses received, are in favour of the proposal to change the direction of traffic on the portion of the municipal lane between Nickle Street and Mahoney Avenue, from two-way to one-way southbound; and recommending that the Community Council provide direction.

(s) (1) Proposal to Implement Alternate Side Parking on Hilldale Road;

(2) Proposal to Extend On-street Permit Parking on Hilldale Road, Between Garrow Avenue and Humber Boulevard South, Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) requested the City Clerk to re-poll the section of Hilldale Road from Garrow Road north to Humber Boulevard South to determine interest in alternate side parking; and

(2) received the following report:

(September 27, 1999) from the City Clerk providing the results of a poll conducted of the residents on Hilldale Road to determine interest in (1) the implementation of alternate side parking; and (2) the extension of permit parking on Hilldale Road between Garrow Road and Humber Boulevard South; advising that the following is a breakdown of the poll results based on the number of replies returned by resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants:

Total No. Polled: 74

No. of replies received: 19* or 26%

* Of the 19 forms returned, one did not include a response to proposal (2)

Proposal (1) - To Implement Alternate Side Parking

No. of replies IN FAVOUR: 7 or 37%

No. of replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 12 or 63%

Proposal (2) - To Extend On-Street Permit Parking on Hilldale Road

between Garrow Road and Humber Boulevard South

No. of replies IN FAVOUR: 7 or 39%

No. of replies NOT IN FAVOUR: 11 or 61%

that based on the responses received, the majority of residents are not in favour of Proposals (1) and (2); and recommending that the Community Council provide direction.

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

The York Community Council reports having noted the information and received the following report:

(September 16, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Economic Development and Parks Committee on September 13, 1999, had before it a report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, recommending that:

(1) this report be forwarded to the 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;

(2) upon consideration of this report and any comments from the Community Councils, the Economic Development and Parks Committee endorse the protocol outlined in this report 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; and

(3) authority be granted to introduce any necessary Bills in Council;

and 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 following 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."

(u) Speed Bumps on Ashbury Avenue - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to conduct a traffic analysis on Ashbury Avenue and to bring forward previous reports undertaken regarding Ashbury Avenue; and

(2) received the following communication:

(September 13, 1999) from Councillor J. Mihevc requesting that staff undertake a traffic analysis on Ashbury Avenue, particularly with regard to volume and speeds, such study to form the basis for a proposal for the installation of speed bumps; and that such study occur before the end of the year in order to prepare for construction in 2000.

(v) Traffic Management Measures on Holland Park Avenue Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred the issue related to alternate side parking on Holland Park Avenue between Oakwood Avenue and Winona Drive to a later date until all other options have been considered;

(2) requested the City Clerk to:

(a) undertake a poll of the residents only on Holland Park Avenue between Oakwood Avenue and Winona Drive to determine interest in the one of the following options:

(i) maintaining the status quo with or without a throat narrowing at the first house east of the parking lot;

(ii) extending the two-way directional traffic regulation on Holland Park Avenue to Robina Avenue; or

(iii) reverting to the previous one-way eastbound on Holland Park Avenue from Oakwood Avenue to Winona Drive;

(b) include in the poll letter the telephone number for Multilingual Services for residents to call if a translation is required.

(September 21, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, responding to a request from the York Community Council for a report on the feasibility of introducing a variety of traffic management measures on Holland Park Avenue related to residents' concerns on vehicular speed and direction of travel on the following:

(1) the installation of speed bumps on Holland Park Avenue in order to reduce the speed of traffic;

(2) the installation of stop signs at Robina Avenue and Cedric Avenue where they intersect with Holland Park Avenue;

(3) the narrowing of the road at the intersections to prevent vehicles traveling the wrong way;

(4) the introduction of alternate side parking on Holland Park Avenue during the months of April to September; and

(5) the reversion of the direction of traffic on Holland Park Avenue from two-way back to one-way; and

recommending that Uniform Traffic By-law Nos. 196-84 and 2958-84 be amended to extend the two-way traffic regulation on Holland Park Avenue from a point 52 metres east of Oakwood Avenue to Robina Avenue.

(w) Request for Information on Traffic Reports in Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to submit a status report with respect to the number of requests received for reports on traffic and parking issues relating to Wards 27 and 28.

Respectfully submitted,

ROB DAVIES

Chair

Toronto, October 12, 1999.

(Report No. 10 of The York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999.)