Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-28 -

Destination: Technodome - Heathmount A.E. Corp. -

West of W.R. Allen Road, South of Sheppard Avenue West -

North York Spadina

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolutions by Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina and reports having deferred further consideration of this matter to its next meeting scheduled for December 9, 1998:

1. "BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(i)a Phase 2 Environmental Audit be undertaken on each site within the Downsview Land Use Plan including, but not limited to, all lands proposed to be used as parkland;

(ii)it be a requirement that all contaminants - but particularly PCB's and munitions - other than those currently being used for military purposes have been removed from the site to the satisfaction of a qualified soils engineer employed by the City of Toronto and paid for by Canada Lands and/or the applicants for development within the Secondary Plan area, as the case may be; and

(iii)no building permits be issued and no parkland be permitted to be used, within the Downsview Lands, until such time as these conditions are met;

2. WHEREAS during the consideration of the Secondary Plan for the Downsview Lands, it was the intent that all permanent parking associated with Destination: Technodome Sports/Entertainment facility would be contained on site; and

WHEREAS the Toronto Transit Commission has been involved in ongoing discussions with the applicant to develop a strategy whereby public transit is promoted to raise the transit modal split of Destination: Technodome;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(i)a study, to be funded by Heathmount A.E. Corporation, be undertaken by the City of Toronto's independent transportation consultant, to determine the following:

a.the impact on the parking supply requirements if the transit modal split for Destination: Technodome is increased;

b.the impact of providing free transit passes to all Destination: Technodome employees; and

c.the ability to provide all necessary parking on site;

and that the results of this study shall be presented at the North York Community Council meeting scheduled for December 9, 1998, along with any necessary supplementary staff reports.

3.BE IT RESOLVED THAT clause XI of Section 2.1 of Appendix A (Section 37 Agreements) be amended by the deletion of "where appropriate," on the second line, and substituting in its place the words "the applicant shall" so that the clause now reads:

"xi)Pay for the installation of new signal timing equipment, lane detectors, signal timing plans, etc., at intersections to be modified. Also the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the expansion of the City's SCOOT traffic adaptive system (or some other form of traffic responsive control). Ultimately, it may be desirable to have this system linked to the major intersections within the Secondary Plan area."

4.WHEREAS the Toronto Transit Commission raised concerns regarding the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(i)concerns raised by the T.T.C. regarding the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan be considered concurrently with the revised land use plan to be submitted by Canada Lands; and

(ii)the local councillors be involved in discussions between the City of Toronto and T.T.C. staff to develop language that can best accommodate acceptable amendments to the plan.

5.BE IT RESOLVED THAT recommendation 2(D)(ii) be amended by the addition of:

"and a cash contribution of $25,000.00 towards the establishment of a studio within the Downsview Collegiate Project."

so that the recommendation reads:

"ii)a cash contribution to the City of $25,000.00 towards the development of an Arts Park project within the Downsview Park and a cash contribution of $25,000.00 towards the establishment of a studio within the Downsview Collegiate Project."

The North York Community Council also reports having requested:

A.the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

1.report on drop-off and pickup facilities for both cars and buses, as to capacity requirements and locations;

2.determine the number of taxi-stand spaces required to service Destination: Technodome, and the appropriate location(s);

3.review and report on the feasibility of widening the ramp from southbound Allen Road to westbound Highway 401; and

4.report on the provision of emergency services to the facility and community surrounding Destination: Technodome;

B.the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to:

1.report on attaching a condition to the development agreement (Section 37) that the 10,000 seat Multi-Functional Arena only be permitted to open after:

(i)the balance of Destination: Technodome has been open and operating for a period of at least four months to allow patron attendance levels to stabilize; and

(ii)parking requirements have been reassessed by the City of Toronto's independent consultant; and

(iii)sufficient parking is made available to satisfy the demand for the stadium over and above parking requirements needed to service the remainder of the site based on actual use experience;

2.review the setback requirements as they relate to other properties along the Allen Road and address the need for appropriate setbacks with respect to:

(i)sight-lines;

(ii)provision of landscaping;

(iii)public art; and

(iv)other matters related to the siting including entrances;

3.report on progress made under Section 37 negotiations with respect to community benefits promised during the Destination: Technodome discussions; and

4.report on how all arena/stadium activities can be accommodated within one or two facilities, rather than the four facilities proposed;

C.the Toronto Police to report on policing requirements for Destination: Technodome and make recommendations to North York Community Council at the meeting scheduled for December9, 1998.

The North York Community Council further reports having referred:

(a)recommendations 1(F) and 1(G), to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Design Services with a request to adjust these clauses to conform with the requirements of the Downsview Secondary Plan as approved by Council; and

(b)the correspondence (and report) from Idomo dated November 12, 1998 and all the written submissions received at this meeting to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for a supplementary report to be considered by Community Council on December 9, 1998".

The North York Community Council also reports having held a statutory public meeting on November 12, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following Supplementary Report No. 1 (October 28, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is table, for Council's information, comments (Appendix "A") received from a second community consultation meeting held October 27, 1998 on the Destination: Technodome proposal and to provide revised comments received from the Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public Health) Department (Appendix "B").

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this information be received as information.

Discussion:

1.0Community Consultation

The applicant's proposal was presented to the community at a community consultation meeting on October 7, 1998. A second community meeting was held on Tuesday, October 27, 1998 to provide an additional opportunity for residents of the Clanton Park and Bathurst Manor neighbourhoods to learn more about the Destination: Technodome proposal and provide comments to the City.

At the October 27th. meeting, the applicant presented his proposal, followed by a question and answer period. In general, matters raised by the community focussed on:

Traffic and Parking Management

- measures should be taken to mitigate any traffic congestion on the City's adjacent roads;

- visitors to the Destination: Technodome must not park on local roads within neighbourhoods and commercial areas;

- the number of parking spaces must be sufficient to meet the needs of expected visitors to the Destination: Technodome; and

- transit usage should be encouraged.

Copies of the written comments received at the October 27, 1998 community meeting are attached. (See Appendix "A").

The staff report dated October 22, 1998 sets out recommendations respecting the provision of new roads, transportation improvements and measures to manage traffic and the parking necessary for the development of the Destination: Technodome. The report sets out the matters to be secured through Section 37 agreements such as the provision for a transit incentive program. Further, the report identifies the objectives to be achieved through site plan approval.

2.0Public Health Comments

The staff report dated October 22,1998, included comments from the Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public Health) Department respecting the applicant's Noise and Air Quality studies. As indicated in the report, Public Health advised (verbally) that the Noise and Air Quality studies satisfies its concerns. The report also incorporated Public Health's request that the applicant provide a noise assessment report, at the time of site plan approval. Public Health has now provided written comments which mirror its verbal comments. (See Appendix "B").

Contact Name:

Russell Crooks

Telephone: (416)-395-7108

________

The North York Community Council submits the following report (October 22, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of a zoning amendment application to permit "Destination: Technodome", a 236,300m² (2.5 million sq. ft.) indoor, sport and entertainment facility. New zoning standards, as set out in the recommendations of this report, will be applied to the site. Facilities, services and matters, identified in Appendices "A" and "B", will be secured through Section 37 and 41 Agreements between the applicant/landowner and the City.

The recommendations of this report represent further refinement of an interim report which recommended zoning standards for Destination: Technodome including permitted uses, gross floor area, height, parking and yards. The report, received as information at the July 29, 1998 meeting of Council also identified matters to be addressed before the proposal is considered by Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following:

(1)the zoning for the site be amended to establish a new zone category, "Downsview Sport and Entertainment Zone (DSE)", with the following provisions:

(a)Definitions:

"Sport, Leisure and Entertainment Use" means a building or part thereof used primarily for commercial recreation including spectator activities, sports, both participatory and passive (spectator) including computer assisted or enhanced activities, entertainment activities and events, amusement rides and simulation rides or a combination of both as well as adventure activities including but not limited to scuba-diving and rock climbing;

(b)Permitted Uses

the following uses shall be permitted:

Art Gallery, Artist Studio, Banquet Hall, Bandstand, Billiard Parlour, Bowling Alley, Commercial Gallery, Commercial Recreation, Communications and Broadcasting, Community Centre, Custom Workshop, Day Nursery, Fitness Centre, Museum, Outdoor Cafe, Park and Open Space, Personal Service Shop, Pinball and Video Games Arcade, Retail Store, Restaurant, Service Shop, Showroom, Sport, Leisure and Entertainment Use, Take-out Restaurant, Theatre;

(c)Use Qualifications

(i)the majority of gross floor area devoted to retail stores shall be related to, or oriented towards, sport, leisure, recreational and entertainment uses or shall be ancillary thereto. Retails stores shall not include an adult entertainment parlour, supermarkets, department stores, department store outlets and clearance centres, automotive parts and service related stores, home improvement outlets and household furnishing stores other than accessory or related to recreational and entertainment oriented merchandising;

(ii)a maximum of four arenas may be provided;

(iii)no more than 2 arenas may have seating in excess of 600 seats each;

(iv)for any arena in excess of 600 seats the following shall apply:

(I)one arena may have a maximum of 2,500 seats; and

(II)any arena in excess of 600 seats, but not exceeding 2,500 seats, the parking requirement shall be deemed to be satisfied with the 5,000 parking spaces as set out in (f) below;

(v)where an arena is proposed in excess of 2,500 seats, up to a maximum of 10,000 seats can be provided and up to a maximum of 7,000 parking spaces, may be required as set out in (g) below;

(vi)an outdoor cafe is permitted whether or not it is in conjunction with, or adjoining, a restaurant, provided that the outdoor cafe is located within an area adjacent to the building and not within an area used for required parking;

(vii)a custom workshop includes making articles or products to be sold on the premises; and

(viii)a restaurant does not include a nightclub;

(d)Gross Floor Area

the total gross floor area permitted on the lands shall not exceed 236,301m² (2,543,611sq.ft.) of which not more than 27,870m² (300,000 sq.ft) of the total gross floor area shall be used for retail and restaurant use;

(e)Building Height

the maximum height shall be as shown on Schedule "E₂" and shall not exceed 238.8 metres above sea level (ASL);

(f)Parking

parking for 5,000 vehicles will be provided on site, of which:

(i)a minimum of 75 bus parking spaces shall be provided on site;

(ii)a maximum of 4,500 parking spaces for vehicles shall be provided as surface parking on site; and

(iii)a minimum of 500 parking spaces for vehicles may be provided below grade;

(g)Temporary Parking

in addition to the 5,000 on-site parking spaces, a maximum of 2,000 parking spaces, shall be provided as a temporary measure at an off-site location. Prior to the opening of the facility, the applicant shall apply for, and receive approval of a Temporary Use By-law if required, to permit the parking area which shall be located on lands in close proximity to the Destination: Technodome and within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, excluding lands designated "Park and Open Space (POS)" and "Residential Density One (RD-1)";

(h)Yard Setbacks

subject to technical changes which may occur at Site Plan Approval, the minimum yard setbacks shall be as shown on Schedule "E₃";

(i)Loading Spaces

a minimum of 10 parking spaces, 11metres in length, 3.6 metres in width and a vertical clearance of 4.2 metres each, shall be provided;

(j)Pedestrian Walkway

a minimum 20 metre wide, landscaped, pedestrian walkway, to be located generally as shown on Schedule "D₂" and extends from the pedestrian bridge and the Sheppard Avenue/W.R. Allen intersection to the Transit Road extension shall be provided;

(k)Activity Plaza

a minimum of 1.5ha (3.7ac) shall be provided as an outdoor activity plaza located generally as shown on Schedule "D₂" and shall, without limiting its design, include active and passive recreational activities, formal plantings, lighting, seating and public art;

(l)Landscaping

a landscaped strip consisting of a minimum 3 metre width along all lot lines abutting a public or private street shall be provided;

(m)Other Regulations

outside display is limited to the temporary keeping of equipment, goods, materials, and products outside a building and used by, associated with, or promoted by the primary use and may include the display of one or more new vehicles for promotional purposes but does not include a motor vehicle dealership; and

(n)notwithstanding any severance, partition or division of the site, the provisions shall apply to the whole of the site as if no severance, partition or division has occurred;

(2)staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of any zoning by-law the following conditions have been satisfied:

(a)an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the recommended zoning provisions noted above, has been perfected;

(b)the applicant/landowner submit to the Director, Community Planning, North District, a Reference Plan of Survey prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor which delineates the lands subject to this application and any rights-of ways and easements appurtenant thereto;

(c)Section 37 Agreement(s)

the applicant/owner enter into an Agreement(s) with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.P.13, as amended, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Director, Community Planning, North District, to secure the facilities, services and matters noted in Appendix "A" to this report;

(d)should Council deem appropriate, the applicant shall provide a cash contribution to the Wilson Avenue Streetscape and Arts Park projects. The process to be followed and the timing of contributions, are to be reported on, prior to enactment of the zoning by-law. Such contributions shall be secured through a Section 37 Agreement(s) and include:

i)a cash contribution to the City of $150,000.00 for the purposes of streetscape improvements to Wilson Avenue; and

ii)a cash contribution to the City of $25,000.00 towards the development of an Arts Park project within the Downsview Park.

(3)Site Plan Approval

prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Director, Community Planning, North District, shall have granted site plan approval which satisfactorily addresses the technical requirements of City departments and commenting agencies and the site plan objectives outlined in Appendix "B"; and

(4)prior to the opening of the facility, the applicant shall apply for, and receive approval of a Temporary Use By-law, if required, to permit the temporary overflow parking area for a minimum of 1,500 parking spaces and a maximum of 2,000 parking spaces for vehicles on lands in close proximity to the Destination: Technodome and on lands within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, excluding lands designated "Park and Open Space (POS)" and "Residential Density One (RD-1)";

Background:

1.0Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application:

Heathmount A. E. Corp. has applied for an amendment to North York Official Plan and the Zoning By-law to permit "Destination: Technodome". At its meeting of July 29, 1998 Council adopted OPA 464 ( Downsview Area Secondary Plan) which specifies land use and development policies for the subject site.

2.0Destination: Technodome - Interim Report (July/98)

An interim report, tabled with Council on July 29, 1998, assessed the Destination: Technodome proposal within the context of the policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. The report illustrated for Council and the community, a zoning framework for the proposal that would implement the policies of OPA 464. Further, the report, as amended, identified for Council's information zoning standards including permitted uses, gross floor area, height, parking and yards for the proposed Destination: Technodome.

3.0Council Directives (July/98)

In its consideration of OPA 464 and the interim report on Destination: Technodome, Council adopted motions respecting the future development of the site. With respect to the official plan policies, Council directed that the landowner and applicant:

- pursue high levels of energy efficiency and parking minimization strategies;

- be urged to consider district heating options for heating and cooling facilities and that the Toronto District Heating be given an opportunity to make a proposal to that effect; and

- provide guidelines for the nature and form of the activity plaza, to be determined through the zoning process.

With respect to the future zoning of the site, Council requested the applicant and landowner to:

- provide and pay for an independent review of all parking studies;

- submit a plan, to the satisfaction of City officials, for the staging of construction and the routing of construction; and

- undertake an environmental analysis to determine the level of air emissions which will result from vehicles generated from Destination: Technodome.

Council also directed that:

- staff address the issue of deliveries to Destination: Technodome;

- no individual venue be permitted of a size that generates sufficient traffic that exceeds the capacity of the road system and that the Works and Emergency Services Department (Transportation Services) recommend the maximum size of any particular venue;

- notice of the public meeting include a mail distribution to all residents and business in all areas bounded by Jane Street, on the west, Finch Avenue on the north, Bathurst Street on the east and Highway 401 on the south; and

- Canada Lands Company Limited provide certification acceptable to the City that all PCB's and munitions (other than those currently being utilized for military purposes) have been removed from the site.

4.0Community Consultation

The applicant's proposal has been presented to the community at open houses and community meetings held in 1997 and 1998 during the preparation of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. In addition, the proposal has been discussed at numerous weekly meetings of the Downsview Community Advisory Panel (CAP) over the last 15 months. The Community Advisory Panel has been instrumental in articulating the community's comments respecting this proposal and has met with the applicant to discuss planning and transportation issues and identify measures to resolve these matters.

A community consultation meeting, specifically on Destination: Technodome was held on October 7, 1998, with approximately 180 persons attending. The applicant's presentation of the proposal was followed by a question and answer period. In general, the matters raised by the community focussed on:

Traffic:The proposal may cause traffic congestion on the City's adjacent roads and visitors may park on local roads within neighbourhoods and commercial areas.

Parking:That the number of parking spaces will be sufficient and that large parking lots will be necessary and may create a "sea of asphalt" which would be unsightly for the local neighbourhoods.

Transit:The proposed development should encourage greater transit ridership.

Copies of the written comments received at the community meeting are attached. (See Appendix "I")

A second community meeting on the proposed "Destination: Technodome" has been scheduled for October 27, 1998. A supplemental report will be tabled to advise Council on the matters raised at this meeting.

5.0Proposal

Destination: Technodome is a 236,300m² (2.5 million sq. ft.) sport and entertainment facility that is proposed to be constructed on lands that form a part of the former CFB - Toronto (Downsview) military base. The site is owned by the Federal Government and would be leased to the applicant. Destination: Technodome is to be located at the south-west corner of Sheppard Avenue West and W.R. Allen Road, adjacent to the existing Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine (DCIEM). (See Schedule "D₁").

The Destination: Technodome proposal would provide a variety of indoor sport and entertainment activities such as downhill skiing, snowboarding, hockey, tennis, basketball, volleyball, swimming, canoeing and kayaking. It features interactive and virtual reality attractions and rides, an IMAX theatre, cinemas, themed retail stores, restaurants, a 10,000 seat, multi-function hockey arena and three smaller hockey arenas that would provide a venue for the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League. (MTHL/International Sports Centre (ISC) Inc., in July, 1997, made an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law the City to permit a 55,480m² (597,200sq.ft.) multi-function arena facility containing four hockey arenas, two with 600 seats, one with 1,200 seats and one arena with 12,500 seats. In June, 1998 MTHL/ISC advised the City that it wished to place it s amendment application on hold (See Appendix "D"). Since that time, the applicant for the Destination: Technodome has advised that a venue for MTHL has been incorporated into its facility. MTHL/ISC, by letter dated September 28, 1998 (See Appendix "D"), advised the City that it has not yet finalized its agreement with the applicant, but that it has no objection to, and supports, the Destination: Technodome application.)

Following discussions with the City, the applicant has agreed to create a major pedestrian entrance to the Downsview Park on the subject site. A 20metre (66 ft) landscaped pedestrian walkway that connects with the pedestrian bridge will be provided. (See Schedules "D₁" and "D₂") The City also requested, that the Destination: Technodome proposal animate and enliven the outdoor areas adjacent to the building, specifically the area adjacent to the pedestrian walkway. The applicant has agreed to incorporate an "Activity Plaza", adjacent to the pedestrian walkway. This activity plaza that would be designed to reinforce the expression of this area as an entrance to the park. It would contain trees, formal plantings, lighting, seating, public art and other public features.

Destination: Technodome meets Transport Canada's height limitations for the Downsview Airport. The proposed building ranges in height from 5.5m (18 ft) to a maximum height of 42 metres (138 ft.) at its highest point. (See Schedule "E₂" . The facility would be approximately 15 percent larger in area, than the Toronto Skydome. Unlike Skydome however, 30 percent of the building would be below grade and the facility will be connected directly to the Downsview Subway Station by an above-grade, pedestrian bridge at the intersection of W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue.

On-site parking for 5,000 vehicles and 75 buses is proposed. Two parking areas would be provided. One area, located to the south of the building, would accommodate 2760 vehicles and be connected to the building by a landscaped pedestrian walkway. (See Schedules "D₁" and "D₂") A second parking area, located to the north of the DCIEM building, would provide parking for 1705 vehicles and 75 buses. This area would be connected to the building by a landscaped walkway adjacent to Sheppard Avenue. Below grade parking for 535 vehicles will be provided to the rear of the building. Access to Destination: Technodome would be provided by an extension of Transit Road from Wilson Avenue, north to Chesswood Drive including a new direction ramp over W. R. Allen Roads. Intersection improvements to Sheppard Avenue, traffic signalization at key access points and a direct connection to the subway would be required to manage traffic generated from the proposal and provide direct and easy access to, and from, the facility.

Destination: Technodome will complement and enhance the Federal Government's and the City's initiatives to create a unique mixed use, urban park and open space on the former military lands. Destination: Technodome will achieve economic benefits including the creation of construction jobs, opportunities for permanent, high-tech, management and service employment, tax revenue, and expand Toronto's tourist attractions.

6.0Existing Planning Controls

6.1Official Plan Policies

This amendment application proposes development on lands designated "Sport and Entertainment" by OPA 464 (Downsview Area Secondary Plan) (See Schedule "B"), adopted by City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 1998. As a result, the applicant's request for a site-specific amendment has been dealt with by OPA 464 and is not required.

In conjunction with the Secondary Plan, Council also approved a Transportation Master Plan which identifies and incorporates transportation improvements required in part to support the Destination: Technodome proposal. The applicant has appealed OPA 464 stating that the Transportation Master Plan, as an integral a part of the Secondary Plan, restricts Heathmount A.E. Corp.'s options respecting traffic and parking management. The applicant has also appealed the permitted density for the lands, the public art policy and the failure of the OPA to recognize lands designated Park and Open Space (POS) as parkland contributions.

6.2Current Zoning

The site is currently zoned "Airport Hazard (A)"(Schedule "C") which permits uses associated with the Department of National Defence. A site-specific by-law is required to delete the existing Airport (A) zone on the subject site and apply development standards required by the Downsview Area Secondary Plan.

Discussion:

7.0 Planning Considerations:

The July 29/98 interim report on Destination: Technodome reviewed the proposal within the context of the land use policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. As noted in that report, Destination: Technodome is consistent with the land use and development policies of OPA 464 which permit sport, entertainment and commercial recreational activities and events on lands designated "Sport and Entertainment".

The Destination: Technodome proposal has been further refined and additional work has been completed by the applicant. Updated transportation and parking studies have been submitted, as well as an urban design framework for the site. These matters have now been reviewed by the City and, with the input of area residents, a clear understanding of community interests and resolution of the planning considerations can be brought forward.

7.1 Urban Design Including Landscape Treatment

The Downsview Area Secondary Plan sets out design matters to be achieved. The applicant has retained EDA Collaborative Inc., a landscape architect and urban design consulting firm. EDA has submitted an "Urban Design and Landscape Submission" for the site that demonstrates how the Destination: Technodome proposal meets the design objectives of the Secondary Plan by:

- integrating the proposed development into the framework of the Downsview lands;

- creating a pedestrian friendly and safe environment at the Sheppard Avenue and W.R. Allen Road intersection;

- extending the public circulation system of Destination: Technodome so that it links with the Downsview Subway Station and the Downsview park and open spaces;

- establishing a strong pedestrian entrance to the Downsview park; and

- incorporating measures to mitigate the visual impact of parking areas, ensure pedestrian safety within these facilities and to enhance the park-like character of the area.

Further review of the applicant's urban design and landscaping submission and the objectives to be achieved, as noted in Appendix "B", will be detailed as the proposal proceeds through site plan approval and secured, as required, through a Section 41 Agreement with the City.

7.2 Programming for the Activity Plaza

Council, in its consideration of OPA 464, requested the applicant to provide guidelines for the programming and design of the proposed activity plaza to be located adjacent to the Destination: Technodome building and the pedestrian walkway. In response, the applicant's Urban Design and Landscape Submission, prepared by EDA Collaborative Inc., includes an urban design framework for the plaza, with particular emphasis on its intended programming. EDA identifies two distinct functional areas of the activity plaza. The "Multi-Use Activity Area" would be located between the Technodome building and the existing Defence and Civil Institute for Environmental Medicine (DCIEM) building.(See See Schedule "D₂") This area will accommodate a significant amount of pedestrian activity and will include bus and car drop-off areas, access to the building entrances/exits and at-grade and spill out activities from Destination: Technodome. The "Program Use Area" is located adjacent to the pedestrian walkway (See Schedule "D₂") so that events that require access control, visual and noise buffering can be easily provided. Program uses could include small venue plays, performances by community or professional groups, displays, exhibits, trade shows, product launches, and art shows. Its location at the extreme west of the site and the use of design features such as berms, landscaping, walls and baffles will mitigate noise associated with these uses.

Further refinement of the design elements to be applied will occur as the proposal proceeds through site plan approval and will be secured, as required, through a Section 41 (site plan) agreement with the City.

7.3 Examination of the Potential for an Impact on Local Retail

The applicant advises that the area within Destination: Technodome devoted to retail is intended to be themed oriented, highly specialized in nature and therefore would not be compete with the local retail area for the daily and weekly shopping needs of the surrounding community. The City requested the applicant to retain a market consultant to evaluate the Destination: Technodome retail component. Malone Given Parsons Ltd. (MGP) was retained by the applicant to determine whether the retail component would have any impact upon established retail commercial facilities and shopping centres in the local area. MGP concluded that the retail would not have an impact upon local businesses and this conclusion was confirmed by Robin Dee and Associates, acting on behalf of the City Appendix "C" provides details respecting these studies.

7.4 Expected Attendance:

One of key interests of the community relates to the expected visitors to Destination: Technodome and whether the assumptions respecting the attendance figures are valid. The study prepared by Malone Given Parsons (MGP) provides an analysis of the attendance and visitors origins for Destination: Technodome. The study concludes that the facility will serve a broad geographic area that extends beyond the Greater Toronto Area. The study indicates that Destination: Technodome is expected to generate approximately 11 million (primary) visits and provides a break-down of these visits by venue. Robin Dee and Associates on behalf of the City, was asked to verify the attendance and visitor origin for the Destination: Technodome and concluded that the methodology and assumptions were valid and that the 11 million visits to the site is a realistic assumption. (See Appendix "C").

7.5 Transportation Considerations:

The Works and Emergency Services (Transportation) Department has reviewed the Transportation Impact Study and Parking Demand Study prepared by Read, Voorhees and Associates, an behalf of the applicant. These studies have been further reviewed by an independent transportation consultant, MM Dillon Consulting Limited which has verified the methodology, assumptions and forecasts and concurred with the applicant's studies. (See Appendix 1 of the Works and Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department memorandum dated October 20, 1998).

Transportation Services has also undertaken its own examination of the Destination: Technodome proposal within the context of the transportation policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan and the Transportation Master Plan, endorsed by Council. In its analysis, Transportation Services evaluated a typical day of operation along with the worst case scenario to determine the ultimate requirements of the future road network, adequacy of the parking supply and the resulting impact of the Destination: Technodome on the transportation network.

One of the key objectives of the Transportation Services analysis is that traffic generated from the Destination: Technodome proposal not rely upon the local road network. Specifically, all traffic generated from the Destination: Technodome proposal would only be permitted to rely upon existing and future arterial and collector roads.

Parking demand and supply has been examined by Transportation Services within the context of creating a balance between an under-supply of parking that might threaten private property and the public road system and an over-supply of parking which is counter-productive in reaching and maintaining an appropriate transit modal split. In addition to the provision for 5,000 parking spaces on the site, Transportation Services recommends that a minimum of 1,500 parking spaces, up to a maximum of 2,000 parking spaces be available, on a daily basis, for a period of 12 months. During this period, the applicant will determine whether this additional parking will be required on a regular basis.

The applicant has advised that he is currently negotiating with the Toronto Transit Commission to develop a transit incentive program that would result in an improved transit modal split and which may negate the need for substantial parking. The zoning provisions recommended in this report provide for a temporary parking area for up to 2,000 vehicles. The applicant will be required to obtain a temporary use by-law to permit any additional parking. Should the implementation of the transit incentive program result in an improved transit modal split, the number of number of parking spaces may be reduced.

The recommendations and conclusions of the Transportation Services are set out in their memorandum dated October 21, 1998 .(See Appendix "E"). Transportation Services has recommended a number of road and transportation related improvements that are consistent with the Downsview Area Secondary Plan and the Transportation Master Plan, approved by Council. All roads and improvements will be constructed to the satisfaction of the City and the costs of acquisition and construction will be the responsibility of the applicant/landowner and will be secured through appropriate Section 37 and 41 agreements. The roads, improvements to facilities and measures to address parking and traffic management that will be secured through a Section 37 agreement are illustrated in Appendix "A" and include a provision that the building will not be open for operation until the necessary infrastructure is in place. Transportation matters to be addressed at the time of site plan approval are detailed in Appendix "B".

7.6 Loading Facilities:

The applicant proposes that loading and servicing areas for Destination: Technodome would be located on the west side of the building, in a below grade, enclosed loading facility that will be accessed from the new collector road. The applicant has advised that all deliveries would occur at the loading area and that 10 loading spaces would be provided. Transportation Services has advised that a minimum of 10 loading spaces is required.

7.7 Frequency of Truck Deliveries and Delivery Routes:

Council requested the applicant to provide details respecting truck deliveries to the site and the potential impact upon the existing road network. The applicant's transportation consultant, Read, Voorhees and Associates Ltd., has advised that the peak hour for truck deliveries occurs between 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., during which there would be 40 trips associated with trucks entering and exiting the facility. Truck volumes during the remainder of the day would be lower.

Read, Voorhees and Associates further advises that there are several routes to serve the Destination: Technodome which would provide delivery access including Sheppard Avenue (east and west), W.R. Allen Road, Chesswood Drive and the new collector road. The consultant also advises that most of the truck activity will relate to commercial deliveries to retail stores and restaurants. However, some of the trucks associated with the entertainment activities will stay on site all day. read, Voorhees and Associates concludes that, with 20 trucks (40 trips) spread over the available routes, the hourly load on any one section of a road or intersection in the vicinity of Destination: Technodome, will be nominal. Transportation Services has advised that these trip movements can be accommodated on the road network as they will not conflict with either the road peak or the facility peak periods.

7.8 Soils Review and On-site PCB storage

The landowner has submitted a soil's investigation report prepared by Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited (DCS), dated July, 1998 which concludes that the site is suited for the proposed Destination: Technodome. This report identifies that the environmental liabilities associated with the site are relatively minor and can be readily managed. A peer review of this report and a Record of Site Condition acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment is required. The peer review will be paid for by the applicant and secured through the Section 37 agreement(s). The City will select the consultant to undertake the peer review which will be required prior to site plan approval.

At its July meeting, Council requested that Canada Lands Company CLC Limited provide certification acceptable to the City that all PCB's and munitions, other than those currently being utilized for military purposes, have been removed from the Destination : Technodome site. In a letter dated July 20, 1998, (Appendix "F"Canada Lands advised that, with the closure of the Base, the Department of National Defence was required to formally decommission all operations associated with the Base which included the investigation, identification and removal/remediation of any contaminants and hazardous substances. Further, Environment Canada, has provided a letter indicating that PCB's formerly stored at Downsview were removed in 1996. (See Appendix "F").

As part of its soils review, DCS Limited undertook an audit of each building on the site and determined that the current inventory of PCB's is composed of 20mg of test fluid housed in a storage compound and that the only other know sources of PCB containing materials are found in fluorescent light ballasts and electrical transformers which are to be removed as part of building demolition.

7.9 Staging of Construction:

Council requested the applicant to provide a plan for the staging of construction and the routing of construction vehicles with particular emphasis on confining these vehicles to routes that will not impact on adjacent residential neighbourhoods and nearby commercial and industrial areas. The Section 37 agreement will require the applicant to provide such a plan to the satisfaction of City officials prior to the issuance of a building permit (See Appendix "A"). Further, this agreement will provide for the details of the plan to be provided at the time of site plan approval.

7.10 Public Art Contribution

OPA 464 requires that the applicant provide one percent of the gross building construction costs for public art on publicly-accessible or publicly-visible portions of the lands including abutting City-owned lands. Such contribution, its maintenance, the selection criteria and process is to be report on and finalized prior to the issuance of a building permit. Provision for the public art contribution will be secured through the Section 37 Agreement (See Appendix "A")

7.11 Energy Conservation/Efficiency

Council requested the developers to pursue high levels of energy efficiency in the redevelopment of the Downsview area. The applicant has advised that its consultants, Yolles Strategic Engineering Consultants Ltd. and Proctor and Redfern are examining a number of options to achieve greater energy efficiency within the Destination: Technodome proposal (See Appendix "G"). Options being explored include alternative sewage treatment measures, water conservation methods including storm water storage and re-use, innovative building materials to minimize heating and cooling requirements and high efficiency mechanical equipment to achieve maximum output. These and other measures will be further developed as the project is further refined. A report on this matter will be brought forward for Council's consideration, prior to site plan approval.

7.12 District Heating

Council has requested that Toronto District Heating Corporation be given an opportunity to bid on any future district energy system on the Downsview lands. Canada Lands Company CLC Limited, by letter dated October 9, 1998 (see Appendix "H") has advised that it is currently investigating the potential for a district heating system to serve developments on the former base lands. Canada Lands has indicated that it is its intent to initiate a proposal call for a district energy system. Once the proposal process has been established, Toronto District Heating could submit a proposal call along with other interested parties.

7.13 Noise Impact

The applicant retained Valcoustics Canada Ltd. to evaluate the potential impact of noise resulting from traffic generated from the Destination: Technodome proposal. This preliminary study concluded that there would be no adverse noise impacts on residential areas. The Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public Health) Department has requested that the applicant provide a noise assessment of on-site equipment such as outdoor mechanical equipment (See Appendix "J ". The applicant will be required to provide this study at the time of site plan approval.

7.14 Air Quality

Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin Inc. (RWDI), on behalf of the applicant, provided an analysis of impact of vehicular traffic generated from Destination: Technodome upon air quality. RWDI concludes that there will be no exceedence of Provincial air quality respecting carbon monoxide or nitrogen dioxide. Further, that there will be no exceedence of Provincial criteria respecting suspended particulate (TSP) and inhalable particulate matter (PM₁₀). Public Health has advised that it concurs with the findings of this study and that its concerns respecting long term and site-specific monitoring are satisfied (See Appendix "J")..

7.15 Contributions for Wilson Avenue Streetscape Improvement and Arts Park

Council, at its July 29, 1998 meeting, adopted motions that require developers within the Downsview Secondary Plan area to provide cash contributions to the Wilson Avenue Streetscape program and the future Arts Park project for Downsview. In keeping with Council's direction, the applicant has proposed a contribution of $150,000.00 to the Wilson Avenue Streetscape and $25,000.00 to the Arts Park project. Should Council agree with these proposed contributions, the provision of the funds and the parameters of how the funds will be used will be secured by the Section 37 agreement(s).

7.16 Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication

The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation) Department has advised that this application is subject to a 2 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

7.17 Notice for the Statutory Public Meeting

A public meeting on the Destination: Technodome proposal is targeted for the November 12,1998 meeting of Council. In accordance with Council's direction, notice has been given by mail distribution to all residence and businesses within the area bounded by Jane Street, on the west, Finch Avenue on the north, Bathurst Street on the east and Highway 401 on the south.

8.0 Planning Controls to be Applied

8.1 Zoning By-law:

This report refines the July, 1998 zoning framework which identified zoning standards for the site such as permitted uses, gross floor area, height, parking and yards. Following review of the applicant's proposal and refinement of the development standards to be applied to the site, it is now appropriate to recommend site-specific zoning for the lands. The recommendations of this report include zoning provisions that would implement the policies of OPA 464, establish development standards as required by the Secondary Plan and contain conditions of approval designed to address planning, transportation, urban design issues, community interests and Council directives.

8.2 Section 37 Agreement(s)

The Downsview Area Secondary Plan contains provisions for the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure services, facilities and matters, required for the desirable development of the lands and to meet the objectives set out in the Plan. In consideration of the necessary roads, transportation improvements and municipal infrastructure requirements for the Destination: Technodome proposal to proceed to development, new off-site transportation improvements are required as well as improvements to existing municipal servicing. To secure transportation and parking management measures, urban design features and public benefits such as public art as set out in Appendix "A", the applicant/ land owner is required to enter into a Section 37 agreement(s). Further discussions on the parameters and mechanisms of implementation are required for the matters to be included in the Section 37 Agreement(s) between the City and the applicant/landowner. If the City Solicitor determines that further clarification or direction on matters set out in Appendix "A" is required, he will report back to Council.

8.3 Site Plan Agreement(s)

The Destination: Technodome proposal has been reviewed within the context of the Downsview Urban Design Guidelines. During the site plan approval process, the urban design objectives, as generally set out in Appendix "B", will be achieved and secured in the development through a Section 41 agreement(s) with the City.

8.4 Temporary Use By-law

The recommendations of this report require the applicant to provide an overflow parking area to a maximum of 2,000 vehicles for scheduled special events in the proposed 10,000 seat arena. Therefore, it is appropriate for the City to require that the lands to be used for an overflow parking area be subject to a Temporary Use By-law for a maximum period of three years, with further extensions subject to Council approval.

Should traffic monitoring and/or the implementation of a transit incentive program determine that additional on-site parking is required, provisions for permanent on-site parking facilities would be necessary and an extension of the Temporary Use By-law would not be required. The location of the overflow parking area is limited to lands within the Downsview Secondary Plan area excluding lands designated for park, open space and residential use.

8.5 Environmental Assessment

The Downsview Transportation Master Plan identified specific road projects required for both an interim and the year 2011 planning horizons for the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. Review of the Destination: Technodome proposal by the Works and Emergency Services (Transportation) Department has determined the specific road requirements and transportation improvements necessary for the Destination: Technodome development to proceed.

The location and design of all new public roads, road improvements and intersection improvements for the Downsview Secondary plan area must satisfy the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road projects. The City has initiated the relevant Environmental Studies that will address, where necessary, the potential social, economic and environmental effects of specific projects and mitigation measures, where appropriate. While the specific road projects are being processed by the City, the transfer of the lands required for road right-of-way and construction costs are the responsibility of the landowner.

Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, consulting engineers, has been retained by the City to assist with the study of the road projects necessary for the interim planning horizon including the following roads and improvements required for the Destination: Technodome.

8.6 Next Steps

- Prior to enactment of any zoning by-law, a Section 37 agreement(s) between the applicant/landowner and the City must be executed, incorporating the matters set out, generally, in Appendix "a". As noted above, these matters will be reported on to Council following further discussions with the applicant/landowner and City officials.

- The applicant must apply for and receive site plan approval. Objectives to be achieved are set out in Appendix "B" and will be further refined during the site plan approval process.

- Completion of, and approval of the relevant Environment Studies and Class Environmental Assessment associated with the required roads and improvements necessary for the Destination: Technodome. This process is concurrent with planning approvals.

Conclusion:

This report recommends approval, subject to conditions, of Destination: Technodome, a multi-function, sport, commercial recreational and entertainment facility on lands within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA 464). The proposal is consistent with the land use and development policies of OPA 464, adopted by Council on July 29, 1998 and is in keeping with the City's reurbanization policies which support efforts to direct more intensified land uses, such as Destination: Technodome, to areas that are well served by transportation facilities. Planning and transportation issues can be resolved using the planning controls such as the zoning provisions set out in the recommendations of this report. The necessary road infrastructure and other transportation requirements, the provision of public art, a pedestrian bridge to the Downsview Subway Station and the public walkway through the site will be secured through Section 37 and Section 41 agreements.

The community and specifically the Downsview Community Advisory Panel, has made an invaluable contribution to the review of this application, especially in identifying community interests. Approval of the recommendations of this report will be a first step to ensuring their interests are met.

Contact Name:

Russell Crooks

Telephone: (416)-395-7108

(A copy of the Appendices and Schedules referred to in the foregoing report and Supplementary Report No. 1 is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:

(a)(November 12, 1998) from Mr. Bruce H. Enggell, Solicitor, on behalf of 81956 Ontario Limited, property owners of 120 Regis Crescent and 99 Tuscan Gate, advising of his client's objection to the application;

(b)(November 6, 1998) from Mr. Paul P. Ginou, Fraser, Milner, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of Canada Lands Company CLC Limited and CLC Downsview Inc., commenting on the concerns raised at the meeting held with planning and transportation staff;

(c)(November 8, 1998) from Mr. Bob Shour, advising of his objection to the application;

(d)(November 3, 1998) from Mr. Dennis Colautti, advising of his objection to the application;

(e)(November 1, 1998) from Mr. Morris Sosnovitch, advising of his objection to the application;

(f)(November 1, 1998) from Mr. Morris Sosnovitch, advising of his objection to the application and proposed project;

(g)(October 31, 1998) from Mr. Bruce J. Gitelman, advising of his support of the proposal for the new Destination Technodome;

(h)(October 29, 1998) from Mr. Jim Purnell, advising of his objection to the application;

(i)(October 29, 1998) from Mr. Dick Fisher, Richard H. Fisher Insurance Agency Ltd., advising of his concerns with the application;

(j)(October 29, 1998) from Mrs. Caradant, in support of the application;

(k)(October 28, 1998) from M. J. Anderson, President, The Toronto Parking Authority, reporting on parking matters arising out of the redevelopment proposals for the Downsview area;

(l)(October 28, 1998) from Mr. Paul P. Ginou, Fraser, Milner, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of Canada Lands Company CLC Limited and CLC Downsview Inc., advising of their support of the application and concerns with the conditions of approval;

(m)(October 28, 1998) from Mr. Frank Bruno, advising of his objection to the application;

(n)(October 28, 1998) from Mr. Shalom Schachter, advising of his concerns with the application;

(o)(October 27, 1998) from Dr. Jean O'Grady, advising of his opposition to the application;

(p)(October 27, 1998) from Ms. Eleanor Richmond and Mr. Laurence Richard, expressing their concerns with the application;

(q)(October 27, 1998) from Mr. Sam Pacht, advising of his objection to the application;

(r)(October 24, 1998) from R. Burnice McKay and Ruth E. McKay advising of their concerns with the application;

(s)(undated) from Mr. Stewart Richardson, expressing his comments with the application; and

(t)(undated) from Mr. John Berke, addressed to Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina, advising of his opposition to the development.

(u)(undated) from Mr. Christopher York, commenting on ways in which the Dehavilland site can be used to improve the recycling and waste collection process.

A staff presentation was made by Russell Crooks, Planner, City Planning Division, North District.

Prior to hearing the deputations the Chairman clarified that in light of Councillor's Moscoe intention to move a motion deferring consideration of this item and recommending a continuation of this public meeting on December 9, 1998, individuals could either make their comments on the application that evening or on the evening of December 9, 1998.

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

-Mr. Stephen Diamond, on behalf of the applicant, Destination Technodome, Heathmount A.E. Corp., who indicated that although there has been extensive consultation and progress has been made, a continuation of this public meeting in one month's time would allow the applicant an opportunity to resolve some of the outstanding issues. He therefore concurred with the deferral request suggested by the Mayor, Ward Councillors and residents.

-Mr. Paul Ginou, Solicitor on behalf of Canada Lands Company and CLC Downsview Inc., who indicated that he had no comments to make at this time but would like an opportunity to address the Community Council at the continuation of this public meeting.

-Mr. Garrit DeBoer, who thanked the applicant for conceding to the deferral request. However, in light of the Chairman's comments he was disappointed that he would only be given one opportunity to address the Community Council with respect to the application even though new information would be brought forward at the continuation of this public meeting.

-Mr. S. Hernick, who indicated that he would reserve his right to address the Community Council at the continuation of this public meeting.

-Mr. Jim Purnell, who expressed concern with the size and scale of the project. In his opinion, the number of visitors anticipated for the proposed theme park is excessive especially if the required road network is not in place.

-Ms. Rebecca Birnbaum, who expressed concern with the scale of the proposed theme park; increased traffic; overlow parking onto the residential streets; the character of the neighborhood being altered and negative impact on the quality of life. In her opinion consideration of this application should be deferred until such time as a full environmental assessment has been conducted.

-Mr. Joel Cohen, expressed concern with the process. He also indicated that he was opposed to the proposed theme park especially since it would have an adverse impact on the residents in the area.

-Ms. Maxime Povering, who expressed concern with the scale of the proposed theme park. She also pointed out that existing theme parks found throughout the world are not located within a residential community as is the case in this proposal. She was concerned about the increased traffic and was of the opinion that this project would create traffic gridlock on streets such as the Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue.

-Mr. Vincent Lombardi, on behalf of the Downsview Lands Community Voice Association, who indicated that he would reserve his right to make comments on the report at the continuation of the public meeting. He also thanked the applicant and City staff for attempting to address their concerns and trying to reach a resolution. In addition he pointed out that many individuals as well as Annemarie Castrilli, M.P.P. were wondering why a full environmental assessment has not been conducted on this application.

-Mr. David Birnbaum, who commented on the negative impact of the proposed theme park on the residents in the community. He also pointed out that the studies that have been conducted thus far have inaccuracies. In concluding he indicated that he supported the request for deferral since many of the outstanding issues must be resolved.

-Mr. Ron Hart, on behalf of the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, who indicated that he would like a pedestrian cycling trail and community bike parking being provided. He was also concerned about the large parking area and would prefer more greenspace and the parking being provided underground.

-Mr. Andy Doudoumis, on behalf of the Community Advisory Panel of Downsview, who supported the deferral request especially since there are still many outstanding issues. He was pleased that the applicant has finally shown a willingness to listen to the concerns of the residents.

-Mr. Albert Krivickas, who indicated that he had a number of concerns with the size and location and hours of operation of the proposed Technodome. He also indicated that in light of the developer's lack of experience in constructing theme parks, he should not be allowed to build one in the midst of a residential community. In addition he stated that the size of the proposed arenas and theatre should be reduced and the theme park should not be open beyond 10:00 p.m. in the evening.

-Ms. Lisa Graham, who enquired whether any thought had been given to a contingency plan in the event the proposed theme park is not successful.

-Mr. Morris Sosnovitch, who indicated that he would reserve his right to make comments on the application at the continuation of the public meeting tentatively scheduled for December 9, 1998. He further indicated that he was concerned about the size of the proposed theme park and the traffic impact. He agreed with the deferral because it would allow an opportunity for further studies as suggested by Councillor Moscoe and would allow the community time to review these studies. In addition he suggested that these reports be made available to members of the ratepayer and neighbourhood groups prior to the next meeting. Since the effects of this development would be irreversible once built, the project should not be allowed until the requested studies have been undertaken.

-Mr. Lou D'Angelo, who indicated that he would reserve his right to make detailed comments at the continuation of the public meeting tentatively scheduled for December 9, 1998. He also indicated that no residential community has ever been asked to absorb the kind of development contemplated by the applicant. In addition he stated that he wanted to remain in the community and he looked forward to more community involvement and input.

-Mr. Bob Shour, who indicated that he would reserve his right to make detailed comments once the additional information has been received. His primary concerns were with respect to traffic and parking. In his opinion it would be impossible to place a theme park, the size of "Canada's Wonderland" or "Disneyworld" in this residential community without creating gridlock or parking problems on nearby streets.

-Mr. Arthur Little, who indicated that this site is inappropriate for the proposed use. He also believed that the benefits will not equal the social cost and there are a number of social consequences that should be dealt with.

-Ms. Annemarie Castrilli, M.P.P., who indicated that two weeks ago she attended a meeting at Faywood Public School at which time she discovered that the City and the Federal Government have decided not to conduct a full environmental assessment. She has subsequently written to the Minister of the Environment to look into this matter and requested that a full environmental assessment be conducted.

-Mr. Allan Ettenson, who indicated that while the City may benefit from tax revenues from the proposed development, it will not make up for the losses in property values that will be experienced by property owners in the area.

-Mr. Leon Wasser, who indicated that there are many outstanding issues that have not been fully addressed. He supported the deferral request and he urged the Community Council to support the request for the full environmental assessment.

-Mr. Stewart Richardson, who expressed concern about the impact of the proposed development on the existing infrastructure such as water pressure and road capacity. He was also concerned about overflow parking on nearby residential streets and he supported the request for a full environmental assessment.

-Mr. Saul Schipper, who expressed concern about potential problems being created for residents in the future and wondered what measures would be taken to preserve and protect the existing residential communities,

Councillor Li Preti declared his interest in this matter since his principal residence is located within 600 metres from the subject site.

________

A recorded vote on the recommendation moved by Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Sgro, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Shiner, King

AGAINST: Nil

ABSENT: Councillors Augimeri, Chong, Filion, Li Preti, Mammoliti. Minnan-Wong

Carried