TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 18

1Release of Agreements and Transfer of Easement for Non-Vehicular Access across One Foot Reserves in connection with 870 Pape Avenue

2Release of Agreement in connection with 1 Leaside Park Drive

3Pre-Servicing Agreement :Governor's Bridge Subdivision

4Conveyance of a Portion of the S. Walter Stewart Library Lands to The City of Toronto in connection with a request to Erect a Memorial Monument for the Hellenes

5Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87 of the former Borough of East York submitted by Jasamax Holdings Inc. for the installation of a single sign at the Governor's Bridge Estates on Bayview Avenue at Nesbitt Drive

6Disabled Pick-Up/Drop-Off Zone adjacent to 211 Randolph Road

7Request for the Implementation of Overnight Permit Parking on Westbrook Avenue between Westlake Avenue and Chisholm Avenue

8Parking Restrictions on Dawes Road

9Traffic Concerns on Cadorna Avenue

10Parking at St. Aloysius School located at 80 Queensdale Avenue

11Resident Notification of Proposed Traffic Control Devices

12Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 18

OF THE EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on November 12, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Michael Prue, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

1

Release of Agreements and Transfer of Easement

for Non-Vehicular Access across One Foot

Reserves in connection with 870 Pape Avenue

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October21, 1998) from the City Solicitor, East York Office:

Purpose:

This report to Council concerns a request by Upper East Side Developments Inc. for the release of a Section 36 Bonusing Agreement registered on title as Instrument No. C715143 and a Site Plan Development Agreement registered on title as Instrument No. C748850.

This report to Council also concerns a request by Upper East Side Developments Inc. to execute and register on title a Transfer of Easement for non-vehicular access across the 1' reserves established in this subdivision.

Funding Sources:

The cost of preparing and registering these releases will be paid by the owner.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.City Council authorize the release of the above agreements and the Transfer of Easement;

2.The City Solicitors for the East York Office be directed to prepare and register on title two Releases of Agreement and a Transfer of Easement; and

3.The appropriate City officials be authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to give effect to recommendations 1 and 2.

History:

The agreements relate to prior approvals given on the lands prior to their purchase by UpperEastSide Developments Inc. The prior approvals provided for the development of two 8 storey residential buildings and some ancillary ground related retail commercial uses. The agreements were entered into in 1991 and the Official Plan and zoning for the site were approved in 1992. Both agreements were secured by a letter of credit. The project was never built and the lands were sold to Upper East Side Developments Inc. who ultimately redeveloped the property again for townhouses. The plan of subdivision is now registered and the townhouses are almost complete. Now that the lands have been redeveloped and the plan of subdivision has been registered, the prior agreements are no longer relevant and should be deleted from title. This will also allow release of all letters of credit related to the prior development to the Bank.

With respect to the 1' reserves, this request is being made as a result of the potential access restrictions that are in effect due to the 1' reserve imposed on the property line fronting on PapeAvenue and Mortimer Avenue when the plan of subdivision was registered. The 1' reserves were taken to restrict vehicular access to Pape Avenue and Mortimer Avenue. The developer now wishes to allow pedestrian access over the reserves as the townhouses do have doorways facing these streets. Staff of the East York Office have no objection to the granting of such pedestrian access.

Conclusions:

We have circulated the request to City Planning Staff - East York Office and they have confirmed that there are no concerns with respect to the release of the agreements. It is appropriate to delete Instrument Nos. C715143 and C748850 from title to 870 Pape Avenue. It is also appropriate to release the letter of credits to the Bank since the original owner is obviously not proceeding with the old development proposed and in fact a new development has taken its place. We have also circulated the request for the Transfer of Easement to City Planning Staff - East York Office and they have confirmed that there are no concerns with respect to this. It is appropriate to transfer the easement over the 1' reserves.

Contact Name:

Quinto M. Annibale

Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish

City Solicitors - East York Office

Tel. 416-746-4710

Fax 416-746-8319

qannibale@loonix.com

2

Release of Agreement in connection

with 1 Leaside Park Drive

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October26, 1998) from the City Solicitor, East York Office:

Purpose:

This report to Council concerns a request by Invar (Leaside) Limited for the release of the Condominium Agreement registered on title as Instrument No. E195985 from certain units.

Funding Sources:

The cost of preparing and registering this release will be paid by the owner.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council authorize the release of the above agreement on title to units within the above-noted development;

(2)The City Solicitors for the East York Office be directed to prepare and register on title a Release of Agreement; and

(3)The appropriate City officials be authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to give effect to recommendations 1 and 2.

History:

The owner of this property has developed the lands as a condominium building. It was a condition of the City's approval of the draft plan of condominium that the owner enter into a condominium agreement with the City, which was done. The agreement provides for the conveyance of any easements to the City and Toronto Hydro that may be required.

Now that the units are being sold, the developer is asking that the agreement be released from title to individual units. Since easements would not be required over individual units (only common elements), a release of the agreement from the units would be appropriate. The agreement however will continue to be applicable to the common elements of the development.

Conclusions:

We have circulated the request to City Planning Staff - East York Office and they have confirmed that there are no concerns with respect to the release of the agreement. It is appropriate to delete Instrument No. E195985 from title to certain units of 1 Leaside Park Drive.

Contact Name:

Quinto M. Annibale

Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish

City Solicitors - East York Office

Tel. 416-746-4710

Fax 416-746-8319

qannibale@loonix.com

3

Pre-Servicing Agreement:

Governor's Bridge Subdivision

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

The East York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (October28, 1998) from the City Solicitor, EastYork Office, be adopted; and

(2)the following communication (November 9, 1998) from Mr. Donald Lake, East York, be received.

Purpose:

This report seeks permission to enter into a pre-servicing agreement with the owner of the Governor'sBridge Subdivision located at Bayview Avenue, south of Nesbitt Drive.

Funding Sources:

The owner has agreed to reimburse the City for all costs associated with this application.

Recommendations:

That the City enter into a pre-servicing agreement, substantially in the form set out in Schedule "A" of this report, with the owner of the Governor's Bridge Subdivision.

Background:

This property received planning approvals in early 1997. The plan of subdivision was the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing in December, 1997. The Ontario Municipal Board approved the plan of subdivision permitting the construction of 64 single family homes. One of the conditions of approval requires the entering into of a financially secured subdivision agreement.

Comments:

The developer has requested the municipality's permission to begin site preparation, prior to the completion of the subdivision agreement. In this case this will include:

• area grading;
• preparing the lands;
• stripping topsoil;
• cutting and filling;
• constructing bridge piles and reinforced earth walls.

Pre-servicing is a common practice in the development of subdivisions. Normally the municipality enters into a "pre-servicing" agreement with the developer in order to protect municipal interests and to restore the lands in the event the development does not proceed.

Conclusions:

Council, through the recommendations of the East York Community Council should give authority for the municipality to enter into a pre-servicing with the owner of the Governor's Bridge Subdivision.

Contact Name:

Quinto M. Annibale, Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish

City Solicitors - East York Office

Phone: 416-746-4710, Fax: 416-746-8319, e-mail: qannibale@loonix.com

The East York Community Council also submits the following Pre-Servicing Agreement between Jasamax Holdings Ltd. and the City of Toronto:

Pre-servicing Agreement

This Agreement Made This Day Of , 1998.

Between:

Jasamax Holdings Ltd.,

(hereinafter called the "Developer")

Of The First Part;

- and -

City Of Toronto,

(hereinafter called the "City")

Of The Second Part.

Whereas the Developer warrants and represents that it is the Owner of the lands and premises described in Schedule "A" attached hereto (hereinafter called the "Lands");

And Whereas the Developer has applied to the appropriate governmental authorities and agencies for approval of a registered plan of subdivision with respect to the Lands pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, a copy of the said proposed plan of subdivision being attached hereto as Schedule"B" (hereinafter called the "Draft Plan");

And Whereas the Owner wishes to proceed to service the Lands prior to the registration of the Plan of Subdivision.

Now Therefore This Agreement Witnesseth that in consideration of the covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration and the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) of lawful money of Canada now paid by each of the parties hereto to each of the other parties hereto (receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged) the parties hereto hereby covenant, promise and agree with each other as follows:

(1)In this Agreement:

(i)"Services" means all services which may be required to fully service the Lands and any lands adjacent thereto in conjunction with the Lands, whether municipal services or services of a nature or kind that are not deemed to be municipal services, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall include roads, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, private sewage disposal systems, water system, drainage works, swales, grading, landscaping, sodding, seeding, erosion control works, street lighting, fencing, signage, and all services, works, facilities and matters incidental thereto or in connection therewith, or necessary to complete any and all of the foregoing; and

(ii)"Plans and Specifications" means all plans and specifications for Services approved by the City Engineers and in accordance with the City "Design Criteria and Standard Detail Drawings", as adopted from time to time by the Council for the City.

(2)The Developer shall be permitted to area grade the Lands, prepare the Lands, instal sedimentation control fencing, clear and grub the Lands, strip topsoil, cut and fill (subject to all other approvals being obtained) and construct the bridge piles and reinforced earth walls (hereinafter deemed to be the "Services") provided that all of the following conditions have been complied with by the Developer at the Developer's sole cost and expense:

(a)The Developer has submitted and the City Engineer has accepted the Plans and Specifications for the Services to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement.

(b)All outstanding accounts for consulting services, including legal services, outstanding disbursements and related expenses incurred by the City in connection with the development of the Lands have been paid by the Developer and are current.

(c)The approval of all governmental agencies, including but not limited to, the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, where required for the construction of the Services, has been obtained.

(d)The City Engineer has been provided with copies of all construction contracts entered into by the Developer for the installation or construction of Services pursuant to this Agreement and the City Engineer has been provided with all construction grade sheets and reports on testing and all notices issued.

(e)The Developer has notified all agencies providing emergency services in the City, all public utilities and all adjacent landowners, of its intention to pre-service the Lands and the Developer has provided copies of all such notifications to the City.

(f)No topsoil is removed or permitted to be removed from the Lands and all topsoil is stockpiled on the Lands.

The Developer acknowledges and agrees that notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, no pre-servicing shall be permitted with respect to any Services, where required, which are external to the Lands unless the prior written consent of the CityEngineer is first obtained. Subject to the foregoing, all such external Services shall be constructed in accordance with a Subdivision Agreement, and only after the Subdivision Agreement has been registered on title to the Lands and all securities required pursuant thereto have been posted with the City.

(3)The Owner agrees that all Services shall be constructed in accordance with the accepted Plans and Specifications and in compliance with the Subdivision Agreement.

(4)The Developer agrees to allow the City, its employees, servants, agents and consultants to enter the Lands at all reasonable times and for all reasonable purposes, including and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, for inspecting any of the Services and to correct any problems with the Services, and any drainage problems with the Lands, including any problems which require corrective erosion and siltation control measures, and to correct or eliminate any other nuisance such as dust, garbage, debris or excavations and the cost incurred by the City in so doing shall be paid by the Developer.

(5)The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for all its costs incurred in preparing and registering this Agreement on title and in carrying out any of the provisions hereof.

(6)Upon execution of this Agreement, the Developer shall post security in the amount set out in Schedule "C" to this Agreement which amount shall secure all of the Developer's obligations pursuant to this Agreement. If in the opinion of the City at any time and from time to time, such amounts are insufficient, such amounts may be increased, and the Developer shall pay such additional sum as may be required as a result of such increase. In determining the sufficiency of the amount, regard need not be placed solely to the particulars outlined in Schedule "C" attached hereto, but the total cost of satisfying all of the obligations of the Developer pursuant to any of the provisions of this Agreement. The City may use any portion, or all of the security to satisfy any obligation set out in the Agreement regardless of the estimates set out in Schedule "C". The City may accept an irrevocable letter of credit drawn on a chartered bank of Canada acceptable to the City in lieu of such total cash amounts referred to in Schedule "C" attached hereto and such additional amounts as determined by the City, provided such letter of credit shall be in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor and contain the following provisions:

(a)the letter of credit shall be security for any obligations of the Developer pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, without any limitations whatsoever;

(b)drawings on the letter of credit shall be permitted upon presentation of a letter from the City to the bank claiming default by the Developer under the terms of this Agreement, and such default shall not be limited to the actions of the Developer;

(c)partial drawings shall be permitted;

(d)if the City has not determined the extent of the default or the amount required to rectify the default or compensate the City or third parties as a result thereof, the City may draw on the full amount of the Letter of Credit without any requirement to justify the amount of the draw;

(e)if the letter of credit is not renewed at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiry by an irrevocable letter of renewal or replacement letter of credit in such form and on such terms acceptable to the CitySolicitor, the City may be permitted to draw on up to 100% of the letter of credit on or before the date of expiry.

All reductions on the letter of credit shall be in the sole discretion of the City and the City shall not be obligated to reduce the letter of credit by any amounts based on actual work performed by the Developer.

In the event the Developer fails to provide sufficient cash or a letter of credit as required pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, such failure shall be deemed to be a substantial default pursuant to provisions of this Agreement and such default shall enable the City to realize on all or a part of the Lands secured by this Agreement in the same manner as if the City was enforcing its rights as a mortgagee against such lands.

(7)Prior to the commencement of construction of any of the Services, the Developer shall obtain and maintain insurance, and continue to maintain such insurance until final acceptance of the Services pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement against all damages or claims for damage, with an insurance company satisfactory to the City. Such policy or policies shall include the City as a named insured and a certified copy of such insurance policy shall be delivered to the City and be in full force and effect until a Certificate of Completion has been issued by the City Engineer for all Services pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement and final acceptance by the City of such Services pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement. Such policy of insurance shall be in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall provide:

(a)that the minimum limits shall be not less than $5,000,000.00 for any single occurrence;

(b)that it shall not contain an exclusion for blasting;

(c)that the insurance premium has been prepaid for a period of not less than one year;

(d)that the policy will provide that it is not cancellable unless prior notice by registered mail has been received by the City from the insurer not less than thirty (30) days prior to the cancellation date;

(e)the policy shall not contain a deductible clause, provided however, if the policy does contain a deductible clause, the same shall be approved by the City, and the Developer shall provide an additional cash deposit payable to the City in an amount to be determined by the City. In the event of claims made against the City to which the deductible applies, the City shall appoint an independent adjuster to investigate such claim, and the finding of the independent adjuster shall authorize the City to pay such claims deemed valid by such adjuster out of the additional cash deposit posted with the City. In the event such additional cash deposits are deemed to be insufficient by the City at any time and from time to time, the Developer hereby agrees to pay such additional cash deposits forthwith to the City. All costs of the adjuster shall be borne by the Developer.

(8)The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and save the City completely harmless with respect to any claims, demands, costs, actions, causes of action, suits, proceedings, debts, damages or costs whatsoever, at law or in equity, suffered or incurred by the City, whether directly or indirectly, as a result of this Agreement, the Lands, any pre-servicing of the Lands, the Plan, or as a result of any other matter or thing in connection therewith or pertaining thereto, including any default by the Developer pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, or by reason of any negligence or wrongful act of the Developer, its servants, agent or representatives, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, such indemnification shall extend to the following:

(a)all engineering fees, disbursements and related expenses of the City Engineer as a result of his services required to be performed for the City in connection with this Agreement, the Lands, the pre-servicing of the Lands, or the Plan or any other matter or thing in connection herewith or pertaining thereto;

(b)all legal fees and disbursements as a result of legal services rendered to the City in connection with this agreement, the Lands, the pre-servicing of the Lands, the Plan or any other matter or thing in connection herewith or pertaining thereto;

(c)any costs and damages suffered by third parties as a result of the negligence of the Developer or the default of the Developer pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or the contravention of any Laws, notwithstanding the fact that such third parties have not claimed or are not entitled to claim against the City for such damages or costs;

(d)the reasonable cost of all Services and the employment of all persons, firms and corporations in connection with this Agreement or referred to herein.

The Developer shall pay promptly any and all accounts rendered by the City to the Developer pursuant to any provision of this Agreement, and all accounts shall be due and payable upon the date that the same are rendered. Failure to pay such accounts within fifteen (15) days from the date thereof shall result in interest being added thereto at the rate of two (2%) per cent per month until payment in full has been received.

(9)The Developer acknowledges and agrees that in commencing the construction of Services in advance of the registration of the Plan of Subdivision, he does so at his sole risk. The execution of this Agreement shall not be construed by any party as constituting compliance with any condition of Draft Plan approval for the Lands. The execution of this Agreement and the construction of Services in no way commits the City to final approval of the Draft Plan, assumption of any of the Services or to the granting of any further planning approvals related to the Lands and in no way guarantees that final registration of the Plan of Subdivision will occur.

(10)The Developer agrees to engage the services of Marshall Macklin Monaghan (the "Consulting Engineer") to provide resident supervision for all works undertaken on the Lands and to carry out or provide for all field layout, contract administration and all testing whenever a contractor installing the Services is on the Lands. The Developer shall provide the City Engineer with a copy of the contract between the Consulting Engineer and the Developer.

(11)The Developer agrees that it shall, upon the request of the City, make, do, execute or cause to be made, done or executed all such further and other lawful acts, deeds, things, devices and assurances whatsoever to ensure the full implementation of the terms, provisions and conditions of this Agreement, and to satisfy the intentions of the parties as set out herein.

(12)The Developer agrees to comply with every direction issued or given by the CityEngineer during the course of pre-servicing, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the cessation of work, the installation or carrying out of additional works (whether within or beyond the limits of the proposed Plans), the phasing of works or any other matter which the City Engineer deems to be in the interest of the proper development of the Lands and surrounding lands. The Developer acknowledges that the City Engineer may for any reason require the cessation of servicing and agrees to comply with such direction. In the event the CityEngineer requires a cessation of servicing, then the Developer has no redress, claim, demand, right of action whatsoever against the City.

(13)The Developer agrees that the City may draw on the letter of credit deposited in accordance with Schedule "C" and described in paragraph 7 above for the completion of any works considered necessary by the City Engineer in his sole discretion and other works such as rectification of drainage problems and clean-up of existing roads, or for the purposes of restoring the Lands to its original condition if, in the sole opinion and discretion of the City Engineer, reasonable progress in the Construction of Services has not been made.

(14)The Developer agrees that he shall maintain and keep current the approvals of all government agencies referred to in sub-paragraph 2(c) above and that he shall comply with all the requirements of those agencies from time to time.

(15)The City may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving to the Developer twenty (20) days written notice of its intention to terminate, without any compensation, payment or liability to the Developer as a result of such termination.

(16)The parties agree that this Agreement shall terminate upon the earliest of:

(a)the termination of this Agreement by the City pursuant to paragraph 15;

(b)September 30, 1999; or

(c)the date of any default by the Developer pursuant to any of the terms of this Agreement.

Upon termination of the Agreement, if in the sole opinion of the City the pre-servicing of the Lands has not been completed to the satisfaction of the City, the City may require the Developer to restore the Lands to their original condition or may do so itself using Securities posted pursuant to this Agreement or may draw on any such Security to complete the Services in accordance with the Plans and Specifications.

(17)Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring the City to issue any building permits including foundation permits and permits for model homes. Building permits shall only be issued in accordance with the Building Code Act (Ontario), the Subdivision Agreement and any Model Homes Agreement.

(18)The Developer hereby consents to the registration of this Agreement upon the Lands and hereby acknowledge that the same constitutes a first lien upon the Lands (not subject to any other liens or encumbrances) as security for any obligation of the Developer pursuant to this Agreement. The said lien shall be enforceable upon a judgment or order of any court and all or any part of the Lands may be realized as security for such lien in the same manner as if the City was enforcing its rights as a mortgagee under a mortgage.

(19)The Developer hereby agrees not to assign this Agreement without the express consent to be obtained in writing from the City. Such consent may be refused by the City unless:

(a)the proposed assignee has executed an assumption agreement acceptable to the City Solicitor;

(b)the Consulting Engineer has agreed to be employed by the proposed assignee and continue on to act as Consulting Engineer as required by this Agreement;

(c)the encumbrancers have consented to the assignment;

(d)the Developer is not in default under any of the terms of this Agreement.

(20)Subject to the restrictions on assignment hereof by the Developer, this Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of each of the parties hereto. If a party hereto is a person, this agreement shall further be binding upon the respective heirs, executors, legal representatives and administrators of such person. "Successors and assigns" shall include any successor in title to the Developer as if such successor in title had entered into this Agreement in the place and stead of the Developer, and in the event of more than one successor in title to the Developer, or successors in title to part of the Lands, all of such parties collectively shall be deemed to be the Developer pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. For greater certainty, it is intended that the obligations of the Developer shall also be binding upon all of the successors in title to the Developer of the Lands save and except any Lands conveyed to the City, but no conveyance to any successor in title shall relieve the Developer of its obligations pursuant to this agreement.

In Witness Whereof the parties hereto have affixed their corporate seals, duly attested by the hands of their proper signing officers in that respect.

Signed, Sealed And DeliveredCity Of Toronto

In the presence of)

)

Authorized by Report No. ( ) of the)Per:

East York Community Council adopted)

by City Council on the days of)Name:

, 19 .)Title

)

)Per:

)

)Name:

)Title:

)

)Jasamax Holdings Ltd.

)

)Per:

)

)Name:

)Title:

)

)Per:

)

)Name:

)Title:

)

)I/We have the authority to bind the

)Corporation.

Schedule "A"

(Lands)

All And Singular that certain parcel or tract of land and premises situate, lying and being in the Cityof Toronto (formerly Borough of East York) and being composed of Parcel 14-1, Section Y-3, being Part of Lots 14 and 15, Concession 2, from the Bay, being part of Bayview Avenue as stopped up and closed by By-law No. 182-79 of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, registered as Instrument No. 228130 East York, designated as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 66R-15795.

Subject to a right-of-way described in Instrument No. 232084 East York in favour of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, in perpetuity over part of the said Lot 15, designated as Part2, Plan 66R-15795 for pedestrians only.

The boundary of the east limit of Pottery Road has been confirmed under the Boundaries Act by PlanBA-99 registered as Plan 7745.

Schedule "B"

(Reduced Copy of Plan)

Schedule "C"

(Security)

Total Security Required

For This Agreement$100,000.00

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (November9,1998) from Mr.Donald Lake, East York:

"Submission:

This agreement not be entered into as it is contrary to municipal interests.

Substitute Motion:

The East York Community Council wishes for the record to make the following statement to the developer of the Governors Bridge Subdivision. Municipal authority will exact the precise terms of the agreement and the by-law placed on this subdivision. The developer must follow each and every article of the agreement, all by laws, all federal and provincial laws and standards. Any action to date that is contrary to any laws or by laws will result in the full prosecution of any laws that have been transgressed. We hereby order a complete investigation into the behaviour of the developer on actions committed to date.

The East York Community Council wishes to reassure the Governors Bridge Neighbourhood that it has made a mistake by not telling the entire community in a timely fashion about this proposal for a pre-servicing agreement. We wish to tie the pre servicing agreement into the site plan agreement. We will also make the OMB appellant and abutter, as well as a elected member of the community, party to the siteplan. We will further order that all of the trees that were removed by the developer improperly or one city lands be immediately replaced and the developer will be asked to deposit with the municipality a sum of $100,000 to maintain these trees in perpetuity.

Reasons:

(1)The developer has no authority to commence work. He has acted very aggressively. The municipality acted in bad faith by not controlling the developer. The Nesbitt access looks like a napalm run from the movie "Apocalypse Now". The removal of trees was far greater than required or expected. Important trees were removed without notice and without authority. It would appear that the removal of trees included those on public property.

I am told by knowledgeable residents mature trees were also removed. This developer must be told either abide by the law or do not even attempt to build. The defeating of the agreement proposed by the "city solicitors" and the passing of the substitute motion should get the message across to the developer and the municipality.

(2)The agreement the "city solicitor" proposes was circulated, to the best of my knowledge to two people in my community there was between 7 and 8 days given for these two people to respond. There is a strange coincidence to this occurrence. On November 3/98 my solicitor and I visited the municipal offices to attempt to find out what was happening on the ghost land. That night I received a copy in mailbox with the agreement and covering letter dated Nov. 3/98. The letter of the "city solicitor" was dated "Oct. 28/98". Is it possible that no notice of this agreement would have been received by any member of the community, if I had not been investigating the matter? No municipal employee had any knowledge of what had occurred. However, My solicitor and I were told by an employee they received a call from a concerned neighbour the day before.

Grounds for grave concern exist in my community. This development will have a great impact. The land is environmentally important on the banks of the Don River, We expect municipal authority to enforce the law. We expect each and every member of our community to be informed about any and all new developments. The conditions of agreement of the plan of subdivision are many and complicated. We expect they will be enforced.

(3)All parties including the "city solicitor" should be aware the OMB has placed a condition requiring the sewage system must be sustainable before any construction can take place on the site. The condition has not been fulfilled. Ongoing work on the community's sewage system leads the neighbourhood to believe there are very serious problems with the sewage system.

(4)In view of the above why would the "city solicitor" be motivated in the protection of municipal interests to enter into an agreement that would involve premature to completely unnecessary destruction of the environment. The "citysolicitor" claims this is a "common practice". It is my understanding when municipalities enter into premature site plans in very suburban areas when there are a considerable number of sub divisions being built, the impact is slight when there are few existing homes. This is contrary to the current situation of a mature neighbourhood which is being adversely affected by this development. He claims that will "protect municipal interests". It is true this agreement must be entered into as a condition of the agreement, but why must it be premature? The "city solicitor" then claimed a premature agreement will be held "to restore lands..." in the event there is no development. If there were no premature destruction, then there would be no need to do any form of restoration. In short the "city solicitor" has provided no credible reasons for entering into a premature agreement.

(5)The "city solicitor" agreement is defective, as it does not include a map in Schedule B.

(6)In Schedule A it states the lands include the east limit of Pottery Road. It would appear the developer has removed tree beyond this boundary. I think it is reasonable to assume the developer should be aware of the boundaries and yet this would appear to be transgressed.

(7)The agreement of the "city solicitor" claims in schedule C that $100,000 is an appropriate security to restore what has currently been destroyed. My submission is it should be $500,000 if there is a premature agreement. If it reasonably expected these funds should be used to "to restore the lands in the event the development does not proceed." The fact the municipality must take a strong position on this matter is reflected by the bad faith displayed by the developer in proceeding to destroy foliage without authority.

(8)I have concerns about appointing the firm suggested by the "city solicitor" as the Consulting Engineers. It is my recollection there was evidence at OMB stating there was nothing wrong with the current sewage system. This evidence was quite contrary to the opinion of the community's expert and reports commissioned by the municipality all of which stated the system must be replaced, Their evidence on traffic was quite contrary to the community's views. The petition (with 150 names) presented by the community to the East York Council reflects the true concerns of the community.. The "city solicitor" should be asked to find a firm that can perform these duties with a more appropriate level of independence from the past and one that can enter this assignment without preconceived ideas contrary to those of the community. We do not wish our tax dollars to be spent on a firm that lacks an appropriate understanding of the situation.

Conclusion:

(a)The developer was aggressive and the municipality has acted in bad faith by not controlling his actions.

(b)The agreement is premature and no credible reasons have been presented that it is needed before the OMB condition has been removed.

(c)There was a complete denial of due and democratic process in the attempt to present this agreement to council.

(d)The document presented is defective and map is not included.

(e)The sum suggested in the agreement is inadequate to restore what was irregularly removed in the way of foliage.

(f)The selection of the consulting engineer is in inappropriate.

(g)The manner and timing of the notice of the agreement is contrary to the notion of due process and not democratic."

--------

Mr. John Alati, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners, on behalf of Jasamax Holdings Inc., Toronto, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

4

Conveyance of a Portion of the S. Walter Stewart

Library Lands to The City of Toronto in connection

with a request to Erect a Memorial Monument

for the Hellenes

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

The East York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (October27, 1998) from the City Solicitor, East York Office, be adopted;

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to continue discussions with the Toronto Public Library Board with respect to shared parking being made available at the S. Walter Stewart Libary parking lot on a permanent basis; and

(3) the following joint communication (November 12, 1998) from Mr. Efstathios Mihalidis, President, Brotherhood Pontion Toronto Panagia Soumela, Toronto, and Mr.Efstathios Xanthopoulos, Founder of the Monument, Toronto, be received:

Purpose:

To authorize the acceptance of a conveyance of a portion of the Walter Stewart Library lands from the Toronto Public Library Board to the City of Toronto in order to accommodate the construction of a monument by the Pontian Brotherhood of Toronto as a memorial for the occasion of the expulsion of the Pontians from Pontus.

Funding Sources:

The Pontians have agreed to reimburse the City for the costs associated with undertaking this conveyance, and as well, they have agreed to make a lump sum contribution for the ongoing maintenance of the monument.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council authorize the acceptance of a conveyance from the Toronto Public Library Board of the lands shown as Parts 2 through 7, inclusive, on the draft reference plan attached hereto as Appendix "1", on the terms and conditions set out in this report;

(2)The appropriate City officials be authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to give effect to recommendation number 1; and

(3)The City Solicitors, East York Office, be authorized to complete the conveyance from the Toronto Public Library Board to the City of Toronto on behalf of the City of Toronto.

Background:

In 1997, the Pontian Brotherhood of Toronto approached the former East York about the possibility of erecting a monument on the lands located adjacent to the Walter Stewart Library. They applied for a building permit to erect a monument in this location in order to mark the occasion of the expulsion of the Pontians from Pontus. The Building Division refused to issue the permit because the land was owned by the East York Public Library and they had not consented to the erection of the monument. Council considered an information report on this issue on October 6, 1997 which is attached as Appendix "2".

As a result of the inability of the Pontians to erect their monument, Councillor Prue commenced discussions with the Toronto Public Library Board about the possibility of the Toronto Public Library Board transferring the westerly parkland portion of their lands to the City of Toronto who could then in turn grant the proper authority to the Pontians for the erection of the monument. The Toronto Public Library Board authorized the conveyance to the City of Toronto on June 22, 1998 by resolution No. 98-111 (see letter attached as Appendix "3").

Council authority is required to accept the conveyance from the Toronto Public Library Board.

The transaction as proposed by the Toronto Public Library Board would be the conveyance of the lands described in the attached reference plan as Parts 2 through 7, inclusive, at no cost to the City of Toronto. The transfer of land would occur for nominal consideration and any costs associated with the transfer would be reimbursed by the Pontians, including any survey costs and costs incurred to complete the transaction. As well, the Pontians have agreed to contribute to the ongoing maintenance of the monument. The monument would be commissioned and completed off site by the Pontian Brotherhood. The Pontian Brotherhood will erect the monument on a concrete base with footings, on site. The Pontians would contribute $1,000.00 per annum towards upkeep and maintenance of the monument (defined as anything contained within the base), until such time as sufficient moneys are in reserve.

However, the Toronto Public Library Board has indicated that it would only be prepared to undertake the transaction if the City agreed to the following conditions:

(1)The Toronto Public Library Board wishes to ensure that any services upon which the Library building is dependent, are reserved by way of easements across the portion being conveyed. Specifically, the Library would like to see easements conveyed to them for the following:

a.the walkways located across the parcel;

b.the underground gas main lines;

c.any electrical installations that may be present;

d.any catchbasins upon which the Library lands are dependent. These easements are shown as Parts 2 and 5 on the attached draft reference plan.

(2)The Toronto Public Library Board have asked that the City of Toronto consider allowing the public use of the parking lot located immediately to the north of the land to be conveyed.

(3)As part of the conveyance of the land, the Toronto Public Library Board has asked that the existing statue located at the south end of the property be transferred as part of the conveyance of the land and that care for the monument would transfer to the City of Toronto.

(4)Once the lands have been transferred, maintenance, snow removal, etc. would accrue to the City of Toronto.

The proposal has been circulated to staff at the East York Office and staff have no objection to the transfer occurring on these terms, except for the shared parking of the East York parking lot. Staff at the East York Office have reviewed the request and have advised that all of the parking is required for staff parking at the East York Office and therefore they do not recommend that any parking be shared with the Library. There would be some ongoing maintenance obligations on the part of the City of Toronto with respect to the maintenance items discussed above, however it is expected that these are minimal.

Conclusions:

Staff have no objection to City Council accepting the proposed transfer of lands from the TorontoPublic Library Board, being the park portion of the Walter Stewart Library Lands located in the former Borough of East York. The appropriate staff and officials should be authorized to complete the transaction in accordance with the report set out herein.

Contact Name:

Quinto M. Annibale

Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish

City Solicitors - East York Office

Tel. 416-746-4710

Fax 416-746-8319

qannibale@loonix.com

The East York Community Council also submits the following joint communication (November12,1998) from Mr. Efstathios Mihalidis, President, Brotherhood Pontion Toronto Panagia Soumela, Toronto, and Mr.Efstathios Xanthopoulos, Founder of the Monument, Toronto:

"Please be advised effective November 8, 1998, the Brotherhood Pontion Toronto "PanagiaSoumela" unanimously voted to proceed with the Monument.

The representative for the Brotherhood Pontion Toronto "Panagia Soumela" is Mr.EfstathiosXanthopoulos, voted by the committee members to oversee the completion of the monument.

We look forward to working with you, and your continued support. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call at (416)466-6356 or fax at (416)466-1010."

--------

Mr. Steve Xanthopoulos, Scarborough, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix 1,2,3 and 4

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix 1,2,3 and 4

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix 1,2,3 and 4

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Appendix 1,2,3 and 4

5

Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87 of the former

Borough of East York submitted by Jasamax Holdings Inc. for the

installation of a single sign at the Governor's Bridge Estates on

Bayview Avenue at Nesbitt Drive

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

The East York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (October28, 1998) from the Manager, Field Office, East York, be adopted, subject to amending Recommendation No. 3 by adding the following Recommendation No. 3(iv):

"3(iv) that the owner of the property in question remove the word "Rosedale" from the sign and substitute in lieu thereof a more geographically correct adjective which describes this neighbourhood;" and

(2)the following communication (November 9, 1998) from Mr. Donald Lake, EastYork, be received:

Purpose:

The developer of the above property proposes to erect a sign incidental to construction and land development for marketing the new homes proposed to be constructed at this site. A variance from the Sign By-law requirements is required, because the sign is not permitted as proposed.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council approve the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of a single sign incidental to construction and land development having an aggregate area of 37.16 square metres (400 square feet) and an overall height of 6.1 metres (20 feet) for the Governor's Bridge Estates on Bayview Avenue at Nesbitt Drive;

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

(3)the sign approval to be subject to the following conditions:

i)one sign only shall be permitted on the land under construction or development;

ii)the sign shall be removed at the expense of the owner, forthwith upon completion of such construction or land development, or, if not removed, within ten days after the mailing of notice by the inspector, to such owner, requiring removal.

iii)the applicant for the permit sign shall deposit with the treasurer of the City of Toronto the sum of five hundred dollars ($ 500.00) to guarantee the removal of the sign. This deposit will be returned to the applicant if the sign is removed after the said notice from the inspector. The Chief Building Official shall have the right to remove the sign and the cost of any such removal shall be deducted from the deposit and any balance remaining shall be paid to the applicant. All the above require that the sign is erected only upon the privately owned property upon which construction or land development is taking place.

Background:

The Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating signs and advertising devices. The Act also authorizes Council to grant minor variances from the by-law where such variances, in the opinion of Council, would maintain the general intent of the by-law.

Comments:

The Sign By-law allows signs incidental to construction and land development subject to certain restrictions and regulations relating to sign area, height, number of signs, duration and removal of signs. In cases where the requirements of the by-law are not complied with, a request for variance may be submitted to the Council for its consideration. This report deals with such a request for variance.

The subject property is located along the west side of Bayview Avenue south of Nesbitt Drive. The 5.235 hectare site is currently vacant, but it is proposed to be developed with sixty four (64) single family detached houses.

The request for variance arises because Article 5.1(b) of Sign By-law No. 64-87 permits the installation of one sign, incidental to construction and land development, not exceeding 23 square metres in area, or a group of signs not exceeding 23 square metres of aggregate sign area, while the applicant proposes to install one sign with an area of 37.16 square metres (400 square feet).

The purpose of the sign is to advertise the development wishes to take advantage of the large open area around the site and construct a sign larger than what is permitted by the by-law.

Conclusion:

Staff is of the opinion that this type of sign is to be expected with land development and that the installation of the sign on this site will not adversely impact the neighbourhood due to the large open space around the sign and its great distance from other residential properties.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Iraklis (Eric) Tsotsos, 778-2239

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (November9,1998) from Mr. Donald Lake, East York:

"Submission:

The variance should not be granted.

Reasons:

1) The current by-law is more then adequate for any signage the developer wishes to use. The current by law is for signs up to 23 square meters which is in excess of 250 sq. ft.

2) As a result of premature and irregular clearing of foliage, the current sign is now a prominent part of the view from my backyard. In fact, given the size of the sign it adversely affects me. I find the sign to be poorly designed and considerably larger then needed.

3)The sign contains statements that are not accurate: the development is not in Rosedale. My tax dollars could one day be spent on a law suit as the municipality could become party to a law suit on in accurate advertising.

4)Municipal interests should be protected by making it very clear to this developer that he is expected to follow the law. Changing laws at this stage of the development will be a poor precedent for municipality which has placed a considerable number of conditions on this project. It must made clear that every time the developer wants more, he will not receive more unless there is an overwhelming case to be made for changing the law.

5)Staff has given no credible reason why the variance should be granted, other then the developer demands the variance.

6)I would personally welcome a series of smaller well designed and accurate signs that are less visible from my home.

7)The development has a condition requiring a sustainable sewage system. Why would such a large sign be needed at this moment?

8)The notice of this request for variance does not give the community adequate time to respond to the issue. Further, to the best of my knowledge, only two members of the community have been informed by the municipality of this request for a variance. My submission is this is a denial of due process."

--------

Mr. John Alati, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners, on behalf of Jasamax Holdings, Inc. Toronto, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Sign and Location Map

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Sign and Location Map

6

Disabled Pick-Up/Drop-Off Zone

adjacent to 211 Randolph Road

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October20, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One:

Purpose:

To report to the November 12, 1998, meeting of the East York Community Council on a request for the implementation of a "Disabled Pick-up/Drop-off Only" zone adjacent to 211 RandolphRoad.

Financial Implications:

The proposed work can be accommodated in the Current Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Schedule F of By-law No. 34-93, entitled "To provide for disabled person parking permit holders" be amended to implement a "Disabled Pick-up/Drop-off" space on the east side of Randolph Road, from a point 29.3 metres north of McRae Drive to a point 39.1 metres north of McRae Drive;

(2)Schedule X of By-law No. 92-93, entitled "To regulate traffic on roads in the Borough of East York" be amended to implement a "One Hour Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" restriction on the east side of Randolph Road, from a point 39.1 metres north of McRae Drive to a point 55.6 metres north of McRae Drive; and

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

Background:

The Works and Emergency Services Department received two requests from Councillor Case Ootes, on behalf of residents of 211 Randolph Road, requesting a loading zone for the disabled in the existing lay-by adjacent to the front entrance to the building. The residents were concerned that vehicles park in this area for extended periods of time, inhibiting access by Wheel Trans buses to pick up and drop off residents.

This lay-by was designed as part of the development application for the new condominium development at 211 Randolph, and was intended for use to pick up and drop off residents and visitors to the building. The lay-by is technically regulated by the same parking restriction on the east side of Randolph Road, between McRae Drive and Parkhurst Boulevard, which is a "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" restriction. This same restriction is also in effect on the west side of Randolph Road.

Comments:

The lay-by is 26.3 metres (86.3 feet) long and is located 24.3 metres (79.7 feet) north of McRae Drive. Assuming a standard parking space length of 5.5 metres, there is space for 4.8 vehicles to use the lay-by.

There is a disabled ramp adjacent to the south end of the lay-by for use by the disabled to access the front entrance of 211 Randolph Road. According to the residents, this lay-by is utilized by Wheel Trans to load and unload the disabled, when it is not filled with parked vehicles. Since a typical Wheel Trans bus is 6.7 metres (22.0 feet) long, staff recommend the installation of a 9.8 metre (32.2feet) long "Disabled Pick-up/Drop-off Only" space at the south end of the lay-by to accommodate Wheel Trans buses and allow for manoeuvring space.

The remaining 16.5 metres in the lay-by can accommodate three vehicles. To reduce the occurrence of vehicles parking for extended periods, but provide short-term parking for visitors, staff recommend the implementation of a "One Hour Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday" restriction. This restriction is consistent with the parking restrictions on McRae Drive in the vicinity of Randolph Road. Appendix 'A' illustrates the lay-by location and the proposed parking restrictions.

Conclusion:

The property at 211 Randolph Road provides a disabled access ramp from the south end of the existing lay-by on the east side of the street to the front entrance of the building. Concerns received by Councillor Ootes from the residents of 211 Randolph Road state that vehicles park in this lay-by for extended periods of time, which poses access problems for the Wheel Trans bus to access the disabled ramp. It is therefore recommended that a "Disabled Pick-up/Drop-off Only" restriction be implemented from a point 29.3 metres north of McRae Drive to a point 39.1 metres north of McRae Drive to provide clear access for the disabled.

Since the remaining portion of the lay-by can accommodate three vehicles, it is recommended that this area be provided for short-term parking by implementing a "One Hour Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00p.m., Monday to Saturday" restriction from a point 39.1 metres north of McRae Drive to a point 55.6 metres north of McRae Drive. This parking restriction is consistent with the parking restrictions on McRae Drive in the vicinity of Randolph Road.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bryan Muir, Transportation Technologist, Tel. No. 778-2227

bmuir@borough.eastyork.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Location Map

7

Request for the Implementation of

Overnight Permit Parking

on Westbrook Avenue between

Westlake Avenue and Chisholm Avenue

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One:

Purpose:

To report to the November 12, 1998, meeting of the East York Community Council on a request for the implementation of overnight permit parking on Westbrook Avenue.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The Clerks Department conduct a formal poll of the residents of Westbrook Avenue, between Westlake Avenue and Chisholm Avenue, to determine support for the implementation of overnight permit parking; and

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

Background:

The Works and Emergency Services Department received a petition dated September 3, 1998, from the residents of 16 of the 32 affected properties on Westbrook Avenue, between Westlake Avenue and Chisholm Avenue, requesting the implementation of overnight permit parking on their street block. This petition meets the minimum requirement of 25 percent support from the residents of the street block.

Comments:

Westbrook Avenue, between Westlake Avenue and Chisholm Avenue, is a 7.3 metre (24.0 feet) wide local street that is presently regulated by the unsigned three-hour parking restriction on both sides of the street. The location of this street block in relation to other blocks regulated by overnight permit parking is illustrated in Appendix 'A'.

Should overnight permit parking be considered on this street block, it is standard practice to concurrently implement the alternate-side parking regulation, where parking rotates side-to-side, typically on a monthly basis. Alternate side parking aids in street maintenance, cleaning and snow removal operations. Furthermore, since Westbrook Avenue is a two-way street, maintaining parking on one side of the street only would benefit traffic operations.

A study conducted by staff revealed that a total of 17 overnight parking permits can be issued for this street block.

Conclusion:

A petition received by the Works and Emergency Services Department dated September 3, 1998, from residents of Westbrook Avenue, between Westlake Avenue and Chisholm Avenue, requesting the implementation of overnight permit parking satisfies the minimum of 25 percent support required for staff to investigate their request.

In accordance with By-law No. 20-96, it is recommended that a formal poll be conducted of all the residences of this block of Westbrook Avenue to ascertain support for the implementation of overnight permit parking.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bryan Muir, Transportation Technologist

778-2227

bmuir@borough.eastyork.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Permit Parking Streets in the vicinity of Westbrook Avenue

8

Parking Restrictions on Dawes Road

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October27, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One:

Purpose:

To report to the November 12, 1998, meeting of the East York Community Council on a request to install a "One Hour Parking" restriction on the west side of Dawes Road, south of Gower Avenue.

Financial Implications:

The proposed work can be accommodated in the Current Operating Budget

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Schedule X of By-law No. 92-93 be amended to implement a "One Hour Parking, anytime except 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday inclusive" restriction on the west side of Dawes Road, from a point 30.5 metres south of Gower Street to a point 97.5 metres south of Gower Street;

(2)Schedule VIII of By-law No. 92-93 be amended to implement a "No Parking Anytime" restriction on the east side of Dawes Road, between Gower Street and Brenton Street; and

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

Background:

The Works and Emergency Services Department received a request to change the existing "NoParking Anytime" restriction on the west side of Dawes Road, south of Gower Street, to allow parking on the street adjacent to the stores. The resident advised that customers were being tagged when they parked on Dawes Road to shop at the stores.

Comments:

Dawes Road, between Gower Avenue and Brenton Street is presently regulated by a "No Parking Anytime" and a "No Stopping, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday" restriction on the west side of the street and a "No Parking Anytime" and a "No Stopping, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00p.m., Monday to Friday" on the east side. A "No Standing" zone also exists on the east side for a former Toronto Transit Commission stop that was recently relocated to the north side of the intersection of Dawes Road and Gower Street.

On Dawes Road, north of Gower Street, there is a "One Hour Parking, anytime except 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Monday to Friday" restriction and a "No Stopping, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday" restriction on the west side of the street and a "No Stopping, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" restriction on the east side. There is also a "No Standing" zone on the east side for the recently relocated T.T.C. stop. Appendix 'A' illustrates the parking restrictions in the area.

A commercial plaza is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Dawes Road and Gower Street, and parking is available on-site in a lot at the rear of the building which is accessed from Gower Street. A similar commercial district is located on the west side of Dawes Road, north of Gower Street, where the existing "One Hour Parking, anytime except 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Monday to Friday" restriction is located.

The implementation of a "One Hour Parking, anytime except 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Monday to Friday" restriction on the west side of Dawes Road, south of Gower Street, adjacent to the commercial plaza, will not adversely affect traffic operations in the area and is consistent with an existing parking provision further north on Dawes Road. Parking would continue to be prohibited within 30.5 metres (100 feet) of the traffic signals at Dawes Road and Gower Street.

The "No Standing" zone on the east side of Dawes Road, south of Gower Street should be removed because the T.T.C. bus stop was relocated to the north side of the intersection. To maintain consistent parking regulations, it is recommended that a "No Parking Anytime" zone be implemented on the east side of Dawes Road between Gower Street and Brenton Street.

Conclusion:

The installation of a "One Hour Parking, anytime except 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Monday to Friday" restriction on the west side of Dawes Road, south of Gower Street, will provide short term parking for motorists shopping at the adjacent commercial plaza and is not expected to adversely affect traffic operations in the area. It is also consistent with an existing restriction on the west side of Dawes Road, north of Gower Street. Therefore, it is recommended that this restriction be implemented.

On the east side of Dawes Road, south of Gower Street, there is a "No Standing" zone that was in place for a former T.T.C. bus stop. Since this bus stop has since been relocated to the north side of the intersection, the old "No Standing" zone should be removed. Furthermore, to maintain consistent parking regulations, it is recommended that a "No Parking Anytime" restriction be implemented on the east side of Dawes Road, between Gower Street and Brenton Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bryan Muir, Transportation Technologist

778-2227

bmuir@borough.eastyork.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Parking Restrictions on Dawes Road at Gower Street

9

Traffic Concerns on Cadorna Avenue

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October27, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One:

Purpose:

To report to the November 12, 1998, meeting of the East York Community Council regarding traffic concerns on Cadorna Avenue at O'Connor Drive.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The Clerks Department be requested to conduct a formal poll of the residents of Cadorna Avenue, between O'Connor Drive and Plains Road, with respect to the implementation of a "No Left Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, except public holidays" restriction for westbound traffic on O'Connor Drive at Cadorna Avenue; and

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

Background:

In February 1997, the Development Services Department of the former Borough of East York reported on a series of traffic concerns in the vicinity of O'Connor Drive and Donlands Avenue.

A part of this investigation included studies on traffic infiltration by westbound traffic on O'Connor Drive approaching Donlands Avenue. Specifically, left turn movements from westbound O'Connor Drive to Donlands Avenue, Lesmount Avenue and Cadorna Avenue were studied.

These studies resulted in a determination by staff that Lesmount Avenue was being used by westbound motorists on O'Connor Drive as a cut-through route to avoid vehicular queues at Donlands Avenue. In a report to former East York Council dated February 18, 1997, staff recommended a formal poll be conducted of the residents of Lesmount Avenue, to ascertain support for the implementation of a "No Left Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, except public holidays" restriction on westbound O'Connor Drive at Lesmount Avenue in an effort to reduce traffic infiltration. The results of the poll indicated a majority of support for the restriction and, on May20,1997, East York Council requested the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto implement the restriction. The restriction was subsequently approved by Metro Council and was installed on December 22, 1997.

Staff noted in the February 18, 1997, report that Lesmount Avenue was being used to bypass the queue of vehicles at Donlands Avenue due to its close proximity to Donlands Avenue. Cadorna Avenue was not expected to be used as a bypass if a left turn prohibition was implemented on Lesmount Avenue since westbound queues on O'Connor Drive seldom extend to Lesmount Avenue.

In January 1998, Councillor Prue received a telephone call from a local resident requesting a "No Left Turn" restriction on O'Connor Drive at Cadorna Avenue. Subsequently, on February3,1998, a request was received by Councillor Prue to review the impacts resulting from the introduction of the westbound left-turn prohibition at O'Connor Drive and Lesmount Avenue. Concurrently, staff received a request received from Councillor Ootes on January 23, 1998, regarding traffic safety issues raised by Mr. Dave Morgan, 349 O'Connor Drive.

On May 15, 1998, staff from the East Traffic Region and East York District responded to the East York Councillors regarding both of these issues. With respect to the impacts of the westbound left-turn prohibition at O'Connor Drive and Lesmount Avenue, studies revealed an increase in left-turn volumes at O'Connor Drive and Cadorna Avenue, a significant number of motorists disobeying the westbound left-turn prohibition at O'Connor Drive and Lesmount Avenue, and virtually no change in the westbound left-turn volumes on O'Connor Drive at Donlands Avenue. The actual westbound left turning volumes from O'Connor Drive, both before and after the implementation of the westbound left-turn prohibition at O'Connor Drive and Lesmount Avenue, are illustrated below:

Comments:

1. O'Connor Drive at Cadorna Avenue

Although the volume of westbound traffic on O'Connor Drive turning left onto Cadorna Avenue during the p.m. peak period has increased since the implementation of the "No Left Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, except public holidays" restriction on westbound O'Connor Drive at Lesmount Avenue, the traffic volumes on Cadorna Avenue remain consistent with volumes expected for a local urban street. However, staff are willing to consider a "No Left Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, except public holidays" restriction at Cadorna Avenue if the residents of the street are in support of such a measure.

In a letter to Councillor Prue dated October 6, 1998, from Mrs. Blakely, she advised the issue of left-turning vehicles onto Cadorna Avenue occurs at all times of the day, therefore a potential turn prohibition should be extended beyond the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Staff do not concur with her request since the restriction is intended to limit left turns when they are most prevalent, namely during the p.m. peak period between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Local traffic would still require access at other times of the day.

The East Traffic Region has advised that if the westbound left turns from O'Connor Drive at Lesmount Avenue and at Cadorna Avenue were transferred to Donlands Avenue, there would be an additional average delay of about three seconds per vehicle to westbound left-turning vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. Although the average delay would increase, there is sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate these vehicles.

2. O'Connor Drive at St. Hubert Avenue

A petition was received by residents in July 1997 concerned about a perceived traffic infiltration concern, and included a request for a "No Left Turn" restriction from O'Connor Drive. As with Cadorna Avenue, a turn prohibition onto St. Hubert Avenue is technically not necessary. Westbound left turn volumes onto St. Hubert Avenue during the p.m. peak period were minimal (7 vehicles) after the turn prohibition was installed at Lesmount Avenue. If a "No Left Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, except public holidays" restriction is implemented on O'Connor Drive at CadornaAvenue, residents of St. Hubert Avenue may renew their request for a turn prohibition at their street to correspond with prohibitions further west. We do not expect motorists to use St.Hubert Avenue because of the close proximity of St. Hubert Avenue to Don Mills Road of approximately 45.7 meters (150 feet) and because the queues of eastbound vehicles turning left onto Don Mills Road from O'Connor Drive during the p.m. peak period would deter motorists from performing this left turn manoeuvre.

Although the general reason for these residents to request turn prohibitions on their streets is to reduce a perceived traffic infiltration issue, it should be noted that these prohibitions will also eliminate access by local traffic. Local traffic would therefore have to utilize Greenwood Avenue (acollector street) and Donlands Avenue (an arterial street), but would subsequently have to proceed on Plains Road (a local street) to access their properties on St. Hubert Avenue, Cadorna Avenue and Lesmount Avenue. Therefore, those residents concerned about motorists cutting through their neighbourhood subsequently become the cause of that same issue on adjacent streets.

Conclusion:

Following the installation of a "No Left Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, except public holidays" restriction for westbound traffic on O'Connor Drive at Lesmount Avenue, a concern was received by Councillor Prue regarding an increase in westbound left-turning volumes during the p.m. peak period onto Cadorna Avenue. A follow-up study conducted by Works and Emergency Services staff confirmed this.

Although the traffic volumes on Cadorna are still considered typical for a local urban street, staff are prepared to recommend the implementation of a "No Left Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, except public holidays" restriction on westbound O'Connor Drive at Cadorna Avenue if the residents of Cadorna Avenue support this measure. Therefore, it is recommended that the Clerks Department conduct a formal poll of the residents of Cadorna Avenue, between O'Connor Drive and Plains Road, to ascertain support for this restriction.

It should also be noted that, if a "No Left Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, except public holidays" is implemented at Cadorna Avenue, residents of St. Hubert Avenue to the east may renew their request for a similar restriction. Since St. Hubert Avenue is approximately 45.7 metres (150 feet) west of Don Mills Road, the close proximity of the intersections coupled with the queues of eastbound vehicles turning left onto Don Mills Road from O'Connor Drive during the p.m. peak period is expected to deter motorists from performing this left-turn manoeuvre.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bryan Muir, Transportation Technologist

778-2227

bmuir@borough.eastyork.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Streets in the vicinity of Donlands Avenue/O'Connor Drive

10

Parking at St. Aloysius School

located at 80 Queensdale Avenue

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October28, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One, subject to adding the following Recommendations Nos. (3) and (4):

"(3)that the agreement allow local residents through permitting, access to the 7 parking spaces between 8:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. year round while St. Aloysius School has access to these 7 spaces for staff parking during the daytime hours and that this be effected through Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2); and

(4)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be given the authority to deny permit parking to those residents who are, in his opinion, in consistent violation of the By-law:"

Purpose:

To report to the November 12, 1998 Community Council meeting on the availability of parking at St. Aloysius School during the winter.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City of Toronto enter into an agreement to allow the Toronto Catholic School Board to use 7 parking spaces which encroach onto the municipal portion of Sammon Avenue at St. Aloysius School; and

(2)if the Toronto Catholic School Board does not wish to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto for use of the 7 parking spaces which encroach onto the municipal portion of Sammon Avenue that they be requested to cease parking in the 7 parking spaces and restore the parking area within the Sammon Avenue road allowance to landscaping.

Background:

Councillor Case Ootes requested that staff bring forward a report which outlines the history and concerns of the local residents who use the parking lot at St. Aloysius school for overnight parking. In 1997, the school erected a gate to close the parking lot at night to local residents during the winter to ensure that snow removal could occur in the morning unimpeded by parked vehicles. Prior to the gates being erected, residents parked on the school grounds overnight, throughout the year under an informal arrangement with the School Principal. There are 7 parking spaces on the school grounds which encroach onto the Sammon Avenue right-of-way. There is no encroachment agreement between the Toronto Catholic School Board and the City for these 7 spaces.

The purpose of this report is to update the Community Council on the issues and the options available to the City, the residents and the Toronto Catholic School Board in an effort to manage resident parking at the school lot and legalize parking on the municipal boulevard of Sammon Avenue.

Comments:

The demand for on-street parking in the vicinity of St. Aloysius School exceeds the supply. Many residents have used the parking lot at St. Aloysius School when parking spaces on adjacent streets were full and Overnight Parking Permits were sold out.

Residents in the vicinity of St. Aloysius School have had an informal agreement with previous Principals of St. Aloysius school to park in the lot between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Toronto Catholic School Board has indicated that they are willing to allow residents to continue to park on school property after school hours and on weekends except during the winter/snow season. The school has set this period to be November 15^th to the beginning of the winter break of each year. Furthermore, the School Board does not want local residents to park on the school property during school hours which are designated as 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Approximately 12 local residents use the St. Aloysius school lot for overnight parking. The overnight permit parking streets in the area, Bonnie Brae Boulevard, Monarch Park Avenue, Linsmore Crescent and Queensdale Avenue consistently sell out each permit parking period. The parking lot at St. Aloysius school offers a convenient alternative to on-street permit parking and is close to the residents homes.

Staff have met with representatives of the Toronto Catholic School Board as well as with staff of St. Aloysius School. The School has expressed concern with residents leaving their vehicles in the lot after 7:30 in the morning which interferes with snow removal and displaces parking spots for teachers. The Principal of the school also expressed a safety concern that the parked cars act as a shield to loitering kids of the neighbourhood.

In order to resolve the concerns of the local residents and the School, staff proposed to provide Permits to residents for the 7 parking spaces which encroach onto the Sammon Avenue. A Permitting system would provide greater control of who is allowed to park at the school, limit the number of parked vehicles and provide for easier removal of vehicles since school staff would know the owner of vehicles parked in the lot. Signs would be posted advising "Permit Parking Only, 8:00p.m. to 7:30 a.m.". A copy of the proposed Permit Parking By-law is attached to this report.

Representatives of St. Aloysius School did not accept the Permit program offered by staff because the system would not ensure that vehicles would be removed by 7:30 a.m.. The Principal was concerned that staff of the school would still need to monitor the parking lot and call tow trucks to remove vehicles. Staff indicated that the Permit Parking By-law would be enforced by the Parking Enforcement Unit of the Toronto Police Service similar to all other parking regulation in the City. School representatives wanted Transportation staff to monitor the lot on a daily basis and be responsible for ensuring that the Permit Parking By-law was adhered to.

There is presently no encroachment agreement between the Toronto Catholic School Board and the City of Toronto with respect to the 7 parking spaces which encroach into the Sammon Avenue right-of-way. The School does not have the authority to restrict access to these spaces by closing the gate. The City should have clear access to these spaces at all times.

If the School wishes to continue to use a portion of the municipal right-of-way of Sammon Avenue for parking purposes, the School Board would be required to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto. This agreement could outline the conditions for access for School vehicles, Municipal vehicles and local residents. Access for local residents could also be further controlled in the agreement, potentially in the form of a permit system.

Ultimately, if the school permanently discontinues parking in this area, the boulevard parking area should be restored to landscaping. It should be noted that if parking is occurring entirely on private property, the City has no authority to enter into an agreement with the School Board to provide parking for area residents.

Conclusions:

Staff recommend that an encroachment agreement be negotiated between the Toronto Catholic School Board and the City. The agreement would potentially allow local residents access to the 7encroaching parking spaces between 8:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. year round while the School has access to these 7 spaces for staff parking.

If the School Board does not wish to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City, the SchoolBoard should cease parking in the 7 spaces and restore the portion of the Sammon Avenue boulevard currently used for parking to landscaping.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Bartos, P.Eng.

Transportation Engineer

Transportation Services, District 1

778-2225

pbartos@borough.eastyork.on.ca

--------

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

-Mr. Emiolio Manini, Toronto Catholic District School Board, Toronto;

-Mr. George Vasilopoulos, East York; and

-Mr. Angelo Coracchia, East York.

11

Resident Notification of Proposed

Traffic Control Devices

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration; and the City Clerk was requested to submit a report to the Committee, for consideration therewith, on the cost implications of implementing a City-wide program in this regard.)

The East York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the City Clerk be requested to formally notify all residents within a 60 metre radius of the proposed location when the installation of traffic control devices are being considered;

(2)in the event that an apartment building is located within the 60 metre radius, the owner of the building be notified and requested to post the notice in an appropriate location for the information of all tenants;

(3)the City Clerk be requested to include sufficient funds in the 1999 Operating Budget to cover the costs associated with this notification procedure; and

(4)the following report (November 10, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One, be received:

Purpose:

To respond to a request of the East York Community Council to report on the implications of routinely notifying residents in the vicinity of proposed traffic control device installations.

Financial Implications:

It is estimated that if East York Community Council were to institute a policy of requiring formal notice to all residents within a 60 m radius advising of its intent to consider changes to traffic control devices (stop signs, speed limits, parking regulations, etc.) the costs could be $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 annually. Such funds are not currently included in the Clerks budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The East York Community Council, at its meeting of October 14, 1998, in considering a number of communications related to the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Hanna Road and Millwood Road, among other things, referred the following motion to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report to the Community Council on the cost implications thereof:

"It is recommended that, in future, when the installation of traffic control devices are being considered, the staff report in this regard be circulated to all residents within a 60 metre radius of the proposed location advising that deputations will be heard by the Community Council." (Clause 13(c) in Report No. 15 of the East York Community Council.)

Comments:

Unlike matters such as Zoning By-law amendments or physical alterations to the configuration of roadways, there are no statutory, or present policy requirements that proposed amendments to traffic or parking regulations must be subject to formal notice or public hearing. Staff reports recommending the installation of traffic control devices such as Stop signs or changes to other traffic or parking regulations are usually generated by a complaint from local residents, and an assessment is sent to the Ward Councillors prior to submission of the report. When the report is scheduled to appear on the agenda, the Clerks Department notifies the complainant of the meeting and any residents who are listed in the Clerks Department back file of the same issue. In a case where a report concerns the implementation of a disabled parking space, the policy of the former Borough of East York Council was to notify the adjacent property owners of the pending report.

The initiation of a policy requiring specific notice and public deputations could lead to a more cumbersome and protracted approvals process. In the vast majority of cases, amendments to traffic regulations are fairly routine, and it is expected that Councillors would like to maintain the flexibility of having such matters dealt with relatively expeditiously. Of course, in those instances where Councillors' canvassing suggests that a particular issue may be more contentious, a deputation item could be scheduled.

In terms of pursuing a process of formal notification for all installations of traffic control measures, it should be noted that since extensive notification is not part of the current staff workload, this would have to be accommodated within the current resources. Items such as staff time used in determining the properties in the affected area, developing mailing labels, costs of postage or delivery of notices, and photocopying would have to be considered under such a proposal. For example, assuming 30 single-family dwellings located within a 60 metre (197 feet) radius of a proposed all-way stop control installation at an intersection, the estimated labour and material costs are $60.00 per location. If it is the intent to also apply such a process in the case of other traffic control devices (i.e. changing speed limits on a street), the cost of notification would be substantially higher as many more residents would have to receive the notice.

Although the individual figure, in itself is not large, most of the Community Council agendas contain a number of reports recommending changes to traffic control measures. Therefore these costs, and more importantly the staff time, would multiply accordingly.

It should also be noted that, under present policy, if an apartment building is located in the vicinity of a proposed overnight permit parking regulation or a proposed disabled parking space installation, typically only the property owner is notified, not the tenants. The East York Community Council should determine if apartment tenants should be notified in cases where an apartment building is located within this 60 metre radius. Such a case could triple the number of residents requiring notification, thus increasing costs accordingly.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bryan Muir,

Transportation Technologist,

778-2227

12

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Request for All-Way Stop Control

at Westview Boulevard and Gardens Crescent

and Selwyn Avenue and Gardens Crescent

The East York Community Council reports having:

(1) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the EastYork Community Council on the feasibility of the installation of all-way stop control at Westview Boulevard and Gardens Crescent and to include in such report:

(i)the feasibility of narrowing the throats of the streets at the Westview Boulevard and Gardens Crescent intersection in order to make it more difficult to make U-turns; and

(ii)an estimate of the costs involved;

(2)received the following communications (October 19, 1998) from Mr. Allen Gaw, East York; (November2, 1998) from Mr. James and Mrs. Violet Layden, East York; and (November7,1998) from Mr. Victor and Mrs. Evelyn Hanton, East York; and

(3)received the video tape presentation by Mr. Allen Gaw, East York, in connection with the request for all-way stop control at Westview Boulevard and Gardens Crescent:

(October 19, 1998) from Mr. Allen Gaw, East York, submitting a letter requesting the installation of All-Way Stop Control at Westview Boulevard and Gardens Crescent and at Selwyn Avenue and Gardens Crescent

(November2,1998) from Mr. James and Mrs. Violet Layden, East York, requesting the installation of all-way stop control at Westview Boulevard and Gardens Crescent.

(November 7, 1998) from Mr. Victor and Mrs. Evelyn Hanton, East York, supporting the request for the installation of all-way stop control at Westview Boulevard and Gardens Crescent and at Selwyn Avenue and Gardens Crescent.

--------

Mr. Allen Gaw, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(b)Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87 of

the former Borough of East York submitted by Goodwill for

the store located at 3003 Danforth Avenue.

The East York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Manager, Field Office, East York, until the next meeting of this Community Council to be held on December 9, 1998:

(October 28, 1998) from the Manager, Field Office, East York, advising that a request by Goodwill at 3003 Danforth Avenue was received for a variance from the former Borough of East York Sign By-law No. 64-87 to install a facial sign with an overall height of 3.65metres (12 feet) which exceeds the height permitted by the Sign By-law of the former Borough of East York and recommending that:

(1)City Council deny the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of a facial sign for Goodwill with an overall height of 3.65 metres (12 feet) at 3003 Danforth Avenue, on the north wall of the building facing Danforth Avenue;

(2)if City Council wishes to permit the facial sign, to do so by way of a site specific Sign By-law Amendment for 3003 Danforth Avenue; and

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

--------

Mr. Chris Thornton, District Manager, Goodwill, Toronto, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(c)Filming Activity on Coxwell Avenue

The East York Community Council reports having:

(1) referred the following communication (Undated) from Mr. Peter Scaiff, CoxwellO'Connor Business and Professional Association, East York, to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request that he submit a report to the East York Community Council on the following:

(a)the feasibility of conducting a separate poll of local merchants and residents who will be affected by filming in a business area;

(b)the establishment of a compensation process that would take into account the loss of business suffered by the local merchants as a result of filming;

(c)in the interim, no further filming take place on Coxwell Avenue unless local businesses have been polled separately from the residential area and that the filming permit reflects that such consultation has taken place;

(d)that, whenever possible, all affected residents and businesses be notified 5 days in advance of filming and the minimum notification period be 48 hours;

(e)that, where feasible, film companies be requested to park their vehicles in a parking lot rather than using the parking spaces outside of local businesses; and

(f)that filming companies be requested to carry out filming during off-peak business hours or on Sundays when the local merchants are closed for business;

(2)directed that the Film Industry Liaison Committee be advised of the East York Community Council's action in this regard; and

(3)received the following communication (Undated) from Mr. Peter Scaiff, Coxwell O'Connor Business and Professional Association, East York:

(Undated) from Mr. Peter Scaiff, Coxwell O'Connor Business and Professional Association, East York, advising the East York Community Council of the concerns of merchants in the Coxwell - O'Connor area with respect to the disruptions that have occurred due to the recent filming on Coxwell Avenue.

--------

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

-Mr. Peter Scaiff, Coxwell O'Connor Business and Professional Association, East York; and

-M.. John Papadakis, East York.

(d)Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws

regarding the conversion to Condominium

and Demolition of Rental Housing.

The East York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that the East York Community Council endorses the report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services embodied in the report (November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to amending Section 135.4 by deleting the words "and to consider acquiring or leasing the property where such units are at risk of being demolished" after the word "units" so that such Section shall now read as follows:

"135.4 to seek the retention of rented residential units":

The East York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that the following votes were taken by the East York Community Council in connection with this matter:

A motion by Councillor Ootes, that Section 135.4 be deleted, was lost on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillor Ootes.

Nays:Councillors Pitfield and Prue.

A motion by Councillor Prue, that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that the East York Community Council endorses the report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services embodied in the report (November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to amending Section 135.4 by deleting the words "and to consider acquiring or leasing the property where such units are at risk of being demolished" after the word "units" so that such Section shall now read as follows:

"135.4to seek the retention of rented residential units",

was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Pitfield and Prue.

Nays:Councillor Ootes.

(November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk in connection with the Official Plan Policies and related By-laws regarding the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing.

--------

Mr. Joseph Colussi, President, Victoria & York, Toronto, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(e)Illegal Front Yard Parking Pads

on Sammon Avenue between

Greenwood Avenue and Linsmore Crescent.

The East York Community Council reports having referred the following communication (November 12, 1998) from Mrs. Nora Curran, East York, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to the January,1999, meeting of the East York Community Council.

(November 12, 1998) from Mrs. Nora Curran, East York, expressing concerns with respect to illegal and off-standard front yard parking pads on Sammon Avenue between Greenwood Avenue and Linsmore Crescent.

--------

Mrs. Nora Curran, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(f)Carbon Monoxide Detectors.

The East York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the City Clerk to provide a copy of the By-law No. 60-1998 regarding the installation of carbon monoxide detectors within residential buildings to Mr. Basil Alexiou, East York;

(2)requested the Fire Chief to arrange for a representative of the Fire Department to meet with Mr. Alexiou to explain the implications of this By-law; and

(3)received the oral deputation of Mr. Basil Alexiou, East York:

--------

Mr. Basil Alexiou, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(g)Request for Repairs to the Parkette located on the

South West Corner of Broadview Avenue and Gamble Avenue.

The East York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to include in his 1999 Capital/Operating Budget funding for the improvement of the Parkette located on the south west corner of Broadview Avenue and Gamble Avenue; and

(2)received the oral deputation of Mr. John Papadakis, East York:

--------

Mr. John Papadakis, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(h)Parking Restrictions on Frankdale Avenue.

The East York Community Council reports having received the following communications (October 7, 1998) from Mr. Nick Vlahos, East York:

(October 7, 1998) from Mr. Nick Vlahos, East York, submitting two letters requesting modifications to parking restrictions on Frankdale Avenue with respect to Alternate Side Parking and Overnight Permit Parking.

(i)Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre

at Thorncliffe Park Advisory Committee.

The East York Community Council reports having referred the following joint communication (October 7, 1998) from Mr. Geoff Kettel and Ms. Hazel Thornton-Lazier, Co-Chairs, Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre at Thorncliffe Park Advisory Committee, East York, to the Nominating Committee with the request that the appropriate action be taken as soon as possible with respect to citizen appointments to the Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre at Thorncliffe Park Advisory Committee:

(October 7, 1998) from Mr. Geoff Kettel and Ms. Hazel Thornton-Lazier, Co-Chairs, Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre at Thorncliffe Park Advisory Committee, East York, submitting a letter to inform the East York Community Council of the resignation of four members from this Committee and requesting the establishment of a process for the recruitment of replacement members.

(j)Site Plan Control Approvals

East York - Ward One.

The East York Community Council reports having received the following report (October15,1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

(October 15, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising the East York Community Council of Site Plan Control Approvals granted by the Director of Community Planning, East District.

(k)Request for the Removal of

Overnight Permit Parking Regulations

on Gatwick Avenue between Westlake Avenue

and Oak Park Avenue

The East York Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report (October 13, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One, until the forthcoming report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding Zone Permit Parking has been received; and

(2)in the event that the aforementioned report is not available, that this matter be considered at the East York Community Council meeting to be held in February,1999.

(October 13, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One, advising that the Works and Emergency Services Department has received a petition from residents on Gatwick Avenue, between Westlake Avenue and Oak Park Avenue, requesting the removal of the existing Overnight Permit Parking restriction on Gatwick Avenue, between Oak Park Avenue and Westlake Avenue, and recommending that:

(1)the Clerks Department conduct a poll of the residents of Gatwick Avenue, between Oak Park Avenue and Westlake Avenue, to determine support for the removal of the existing overnight permit parking restriction, and;

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

(l)Request for the Relocation of a Bus Stop

on Cosburn Avenue at Roosevelt Road.

The East York Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One, to the East York Community Council meeting to be held on December 9, 1998; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a further report thereon:

(October 29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One, advising that a request has been received by Councillor Prue's Office for the relocation of the existing bus stop on the south side of Cosburn Avenue, west of Roosevelt Road, and recommending that:

(1)the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to relocate an existing bus stop on the south side of Cosburn Avenue, 23.4 metres west of Roosevelt Road, to a point 30.5metres east of Roosevelt Road, and;

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

(m)Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board

regarding By-law No. 627-1998 in connection

with Official Plan Amendment No. 15 regarding

the O'Connor Drive Business Area.

The East York Community Council reports having received the following report (November6,1998) from the City Clerk:

(November 6, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising the East York Community Council that an appeal was received in connection with Official Plan Amendment No. 15 regarding the O'Connor Drive Business Area.

(n)Parks and Recreation User Fees.

The East York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Economic Development Committee to submit a consolidated report to City Council which shall incorporate recommendations from all Community Councils, including the following:

(a)adoption of Option No. 4 of the User Fee Committee as contained in the Recreation User Fees Discussion Paper with the proviso that each child in the City of Toronto be entitled to receive 2 weeks of summer day camp free of charge and that additional weeks of the summer day camp program be available for the balance of the summer on a user fee basis;

(b)that a means be found to assist those who are in need of financial assistance to pay for user fees;

(c)adoption of the recommendations embodied in the following communication (October 29, 1998) from the User Fee Committee, subject to:

(i)amending the fifth bullet in Recommendation No. (1)(b) by adding the words "and taxpayer ability to subsidize" after the word "costs" so that it shall now read as follows:

"(1)(b)-Price based on benefits to user, benefits to community and operating costs and taxpayer ability to subsidize";

(ii)striking out Recommendation No. 4; and

(iii)striking out Recommendation No. 5; and

(2)received the following communications (November 12, 1998) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, Toronto; (undated) from Mr. Gerard Van Deelen, Toronto and York Region Labour Council, Don Mills; (November 9, 1998) from Mr. Howard Birnie, Treasurer, Life Member, Toronto Baseball Association, Toronto; and (undated) from Ms. Margaret Watson, Co-Chair, Metro Chapter, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc., Ontario Division, Toronto:

The East York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that the following votes were taken by the East York Community Council in connection with this matter:

A motion by Councillor Ootes, that Option No. 2 of the User Fee Committee as contained in the Recreation User Fees Discussion Paper, be modified so that there are no user fees for drop-in programs and that there be user fees for all categories of subscriber programs, was lost on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillor Ootes.

Nays:Councillors Pitfield and Prue.

A motion by Councillor Ootes, that a means be found to assist those who are in need of financial assistance to pay for user fees, was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Ootes and Pitfield.

Nays:Councillor Prue.

A motion by Councillor Ootes, that the second bullet in Recommendation No. (1) (a) as contained in the communication (October 29, 1998) from the User Fee Committee, be deleted, was lost on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillor Ootes.

Nays:Councillors Pitfield and Prue.

On motion by Councillor Ootes, to adopt the recommendation embodied in the communication (October 29, 1998) from the User Fee Committee, subject to amending the fifth bullet in Recommendation No. (1) (b) by adding the words "and taxpayer ability to subsidize" after the word "costs", so that it shall now read as follows:

"(1) (b)Price based on benefits to user, benefits to community and operating costs, and taxpayer ability to subsidize;"

which was carried unanimously.

A motion by Councillor Ootes, to adopt the recommendation embodied in the communication (October 29, 1998) from the User Fee Committee, subject to deleting the words "subscriber programs and basic instructional programs" after the word "program" as contained in the last paragraph of Recommendation No. (2) so that it shall now read as follows:

"AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT the User Fee Committee recommends the elimination of all user fees for drop in programs",

which was lost on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillor Ootes.

Nays:Councillors Pitfield and Prue.

On motion by Councillor Ootes, to strike out Recommendation No. (4), which was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Ootes and Prue.

Nays:Councillor Pitfield.

On motion by Councillor Ootes, to strike out Recommendation No. (5), which was carried unanimously.

On motion by Councillor Prue, that Option No. 4 of the User Fee Committee as contained in the Recreation User Fees Discussion Paper with the provisio that each child in the City of Toronto be entitled to receive 2 weeks of summer day camp free of charge and that additional weeks of the summer day camp program be available for the balance of the summer on a user fee basis, which was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Pitfield and Prue.

Nays:Councillor Ootes.

(November 12, 1998) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local79, Toronto, opposing the implementation of user fees;

(Undated) from Mr. Gerard Van Deelen, Toronto and York Region Labour Council, Don Mills, opposing the implementation of user fees;

(November 9, 1998) from Mr. Howard Birnie, Treasurer, Life Member, Toronto Baseball Association Toronto, requesting an opportunity to provide input regarding Harmonizing Recreation User Fees; and

(Undated) from Ms. Margaret Watson, Co-Chair, Metro Chapter, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc., Ontario Division, Toronto, opposing the implementation of user fees.

--------

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

-Mr. Glenn Steeves, City Unit Officer, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local79, Toronto;

-Ms. Donna Devlin, East York;

-Mr. Gerard Van Deelen, Toronto and York Region Labour Council, Don Mills;

-Reverend Barbara Bishop, Woodbine Heights Baptist Church, East York;

-Mr. Brian Barron, President, Ward 2 Property Owners Association of East York, East York; and

-Ms. Donna-Lynn Mc Callum, East York.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL PRUE,

Chair

Toronto, November 12, 1998

(Report No. 18 of The East York Community Council was adopted, as amended, by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998.)