TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 11

1Park Drive Ravine - Ontario Municipal Board Decision(Midtown)

2Draft Zoning By-law - 535 Queen Street East (Don River)

3Rescindment of Permit Parking - Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street (Downtown)

4Conversion of Carus Avenue from 'Area Based Permit Parking to 'Street Based Permit Parking' (Davenport)

5Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road (North Toronto)

6Hearing - Alteration of Queen's Quay West, between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street(Downtown)

7Hearing - Alteration of Boulton Avenue- Installation of Speed Humps and Reduction in Speed Limit (Don River)

8Hearing - Alteration of Close Avenue -Installation of Speed Humpsand Reduction of Speed Limit (High Park)

9Hearing - Alteration of Margueretta Street - Installation of Speed Humps (Davenport)

10Alteration of Christie Street (Davenport, Midtown)

11Prescott Avenue,from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue -Implementation of Alternate Side Parking (Davenport)

12Extension of the Pavement and Construction of a Walkway at the South End of Atlantic Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

13Implementation of Alternate Side Parking -Hope Street (Davenport)

14Installation of Parking Meters and a Taxicab Stand -Robertson Crescent (Downtown)

15Conversion of Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to'Street Name Based Permit Parking(Davenport)

16Rescindment of Permit Parking on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street (Downtown)

17Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Madison Avenue,between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue (Midtown)

18Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road (Midtown)

19Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Shaftesbury Avenue(Midtown)

20Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Osler Street, from the Lane First North of the North Branch of Connolly Street to a Point 39.6 Metres South of St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)

21Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Clinton Street, Between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

22Introduction of Permit Parking on Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street(Downtown)

23Introduction of Permit Parking on the North Side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line (Devenport)

24Prohibition of Use By Vehicles Over 2.0 Metres in Width -Public Lane First North of Kingston Road Extending Between Bingham Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue (East Toronto)

25Adjustment to the Limits of the Existing No Parking Regulations -Castle Knock Road from Crestview Road to Roselawn Avenue on the West Side and from Elwood Boulevard to Roselawn Avenue on the East Side (North Toronto)

26Implementation of a "No Standing Anytime' Prohibition -Alpine Avenue, North Side (Davenport)

27Implementation of a One Hour Parking Limit, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.Monday to Saturday - Wanda Road (Davenport)

28Reversal of One-way Southbound Operation- St. Clarens Avenue between Bloor Street West and Paton Road (Davenport)

29Removal of Existing Speed Bumps - Lane System bounded by Rhodes Avenue, Danforth Avenue, Coxwell Avenue and Hanson Street (East Toronto)

30Proposed Installation of Speed Humps -Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue (Midtown)

31Ingress/Egress Turn Prohibitions from the West Toronto Street Driveway - 2129 St. Clair West (Canadian Tire Store)(Davenport)

32Installation of a School Bus Loading Zone in Front of Indian Road Crescent Public School - 285 Indian Road Crescent (Davenport)

33Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Contro l- Intersection of Geoffrey Street and Sorauren Avenue (High Park)

34Installation of a Northbound "Stop" Sign- Intersection of Hertle Avenue and Highfield Road (East Toronto)

35Installation of "Stop" Sign Control - Intersection of Grassmere Road and Willard Avenue and Intersection of Grassmere Road and Windermere Avenue (High Park)

36Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces and Disabled Persons Loading Zones (High-Park, Trinity-Niagara, Davenport, Midtown, Don Riverand East Toronto)

37Amendments to the Parking and Stopping Regulations -Balmuto Street between Charles Street West and Bloor Street West (Downtown)

38Proposed Parking Prohibition on the South Side of Rosedale Valley Road at the Manulife Centre Driveway(Midtown and Don River)

39Extension of Permit Parking Hours -Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue (East Toronto)

40Traffic Calming Measures - Bartlett Avenue North (Davenport)

41Provision of a "School Bus Loading Zone" and a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" in front of Essex Street School,- 50 Essex Street and in front of St. Raymond School, - 270 Barton Avenue (Davenport)

42Installation of Traffic Control Devices - Eastwood Road from Woodbine Avenue to Bellhaven Road (East Toronto)

43Introduction of a Prohibition to Restrict Vehicles First Lane South of Davenport Road Extending Between Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue (Davenport)

44Front Yard Parking - 95 Montgomery Avenue Results of the Poll (North Toronto)

45Maintenance of a Fence -499 Spadina Road (Midtown)

46Proposed Amendments to Chapter 331, Trees, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code

47Removal of City-Owned Tree - 40 Bellefair Avenue(East Toronto)

48Removal of City-Owned Tree - 30 Hemlock Avenue(East Toronto)

49Removal of City-Owned Tree - 40 Alexander Street (Downtown)

50Amendment of Grant Agreement- 243 Coxwell Avenue - Royal Canadian Legion

51Application for Consent Under Chapter 276, Article I, Ravines, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code to Bury Telephone and TV Cable within the Avondale Ravine- 27 Rosedale Road (Midtown)

52Variances from Chapter 297 - Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - (Midtown, East Toronto, North Toronto, Downtown, High Park)

53Variance from Chapter 297 - Signs,of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -1345 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

54Site Plan Approval- 64 Parliament Street (Don River)

55Appointments to Board of Management -Central Eglinton Community Centre

56Air Canada Centre - Liquor Licence Application

57Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

58Dufferin Street Jog Elimination -Effect of Abandoned Tracks on Property Requirements (Trinity Niagara, High Park)

59Renaming of Polson Street Park to Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park(Don River)

60Committee of Adjustment Appeal -184 Sherbourne Street (Downtown)

61Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -2223 Bloor Street West - Runnymede Theatre (High Park)

62Ontario Municipal Board Decision- 963 Bloor Street West (Trinity Niagara)

63Relocation/Removal of City-Owned Tree -30 Ossington Street (Trinity-Niagara)

64Tree Removal - 21 Elgin Avenue (Midtown)

65Tree Removal - 12 Armstrong Avenue (Davenport)

66Tree Removal - 142 Evelyn Crescent (High Park)

67Tree Removal - 420 Castlefield Avenue (North Toronto)

68Tree Removal - Wychwood Park Pond andForest Rehabilitation (Midtown)

69Tree Removal - 165 Roxborough Street East (Midtown)

70Removal of Tree - 48 Symington Avenue (Davenport)

71Tree Removal - 63 Strathcona Avenue (Don River)

72Tree Removal - 204 - 212 and 220 Eglinton Avenue East(North Toronto)

73Boulevard Cafe Application - Bosco's Restaurant -96 Tecumseth Street (Trinity-Niagara)

74Residential Boulevard Parking Appeal -Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street (Downtown)

75Driveway Widening Appeal - 50 Balsam Avenue(East Toronto)

76Front Yard Parking - 38 Spruce Hill Road (East Toronto)

77Drain Claim - 30 Hastings Avenue (East Toronto)

78Front Yard Parking - 86 Caledonia Road (Davenport)

79Driveway Widening - 315 Forman Avenue (North Toronto)

80Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing -70 Huron Street (Downtown)

81Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenueand Dundas Street West (Downtown)

82Application for Boulevard Cafe - Nairn Avenue flankage of1340 St. Clair Avenue West - Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc. (Davenport)

83Designation - 540 Dovercourt Road(Massey-Quick House) (Trinity-Niagara)

84Designation and Heritage Easement Agreement -84 Woodlawn Avenue East (James Avon Smith House) (Midtown)

85Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory ofHeritage Properties - 145 Annette Street(Annette Library) (High Park)

86Variance from Chapter 297, Signs,of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -195 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

87Final Report - Application No. 197027 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) (Midtown)

88Settlement Report -Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -9-17 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street (Midtown)

891107 Avenue Road - Site Plan Approval and Designation(North Toronto)

90Parks and Recreation User Fees

91Federal Funding for the Taddle Creek Project (Downtown)

92Garrison Creek Open Space Linkage Plan(Trinity Niagara, Davenport, Downtown)

93Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 11

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on September 16, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

1

Park Drive Ravine - Ontario Municipal Board Decision

(Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the City Solicitor be requested to continue to seek leave to appeal the Ontario Municipal Board Decision with respect to 119R Glen Road, and to withdraw the City's motion for leave to appeal with respect to 15 Beaumont Road."

City Council also gave confidential instructions to staff, and the matter of these instructions stayed in-camera, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

The Toronto Community Council requests that City Council schedule an in camera session at its meeting to be held on October 1, 1998, to consider a confidential report (September19,1998) from the City Solicitor respecting Park Drive Ravine, Ontario Municipal Board Decision on a Review Motion Pursuant to Section 43 of The Ontario Municipal Board Act issued September 3, 1998 exempting 15 Beaumont Road and 119R Glen Road from Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369, which has been forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (September 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provision of the Municipal Act.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (September 18, 1998) from the City Clerk, embodying the confidential report dated September 9, 1998, from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(September 30, 1998) from the Chair, Task Force to Bring Back the Don, in support of the Ravine By-law No. 1997-0369 and urging Council to appeal the Ontario Municipal Board decision to amend this By-law to exempt the properties at 119R Glen Road and 15 Beaumont Road;

(ii)(September 30, 1998) from the President, South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association, in support of the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council to appeal the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board; and

(iii)(undated) from Nancy and John McFadyen, attaching a list of concerned citizens in support of the OMB's decision on Ms. Dickinson's property and in opposition of the OMB's decision on Mr. Russell's property; and suggesting that Members of Council separate the vote on Ms. Dickinson's appeal from the vote on Mr. Russell's appeal.)

2

Draft Zoning By-law - 535 Queen Street East (Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-law attached to the report (September 14, 1998) from the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)the report (May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on September16, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 14, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report submits a site specific zoning by-law as recommended by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in her report dated May 11, 1998, (with certain modifications) to permit the conversion of a former industrial building at 535 Queen Street East to contain a combined maximum of eleven dwelling units and live-work units.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-law in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

(following the public meeting and in the event Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-law)

(2)the Draft By-law attached to the Report (September 14, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto."

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council will have before it the report (dated May 11, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that Zoning By-law No.438-86 of the former City of Toronto be amended to permit the conversion of a former industrial building at 535 Queen Street East to contain 11 dwelling units.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The attached Draft By-law would give effect to the recommendation of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services subject to certain modifications. Further to discussions with the Commissioner's staff the following modifications will be made to the form of by-law recommended by the Commissioner's report:

1.As the owner will still be required to provide the 8 bicycle parking spaces required by section4(13)(a), the site will not be exempted from that section; instead, it will be exempted from sections 4(13)(c) and (d) which deal with the manner in which the bicycle parking spaces are to be provided;

2.In addition to permitting dwelling units, the by-law will also permit live-work units to a combined maximum of eleven;

3.visitor's parking space will be defined to mean "a parking space reserved at all times for visitors to the building, individually designated by means of a clearly visible sign as being for the exclusive use of visitors to the building and having the way thereto designated by means of clearly visible signs on all driveways or passageways leading thereto from the street".

Conclusions:

Following the public meeting, should Toronto Community Council wish to permit the conversion of the former industrial building at 535 Queen Street East to contain a combined maximum of eleven dwelling units and live-work units, it would be appropriate to recommend that the Draft By-law attached to the report (September 14, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto.

Contact Name:

Stephen Bradley

392-7790

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW

NO. A BY-LAW

To amend the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 with respect to the lands known as 535 Queen Street East.

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

1.None of the provisions of Sections 4(13)(c) and (d) and Section 9(1)((a) of Zoning By-law No.438-86 being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the use on the site of the building which existed on the site in 1997, for dwelling units and/or live-work units, together with accessory parking spaces, provided:

(a)the lot on which the building is located comprises at least the site;

(b)no part of the building, above grade, is located otherwise than wholly within the area delineated by the heavy lines on Map 2 attached hereto,

(c)the total combined number of dwelling units and live-work units contained within the building does not exceed eleven,

(d)the residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 1 800square metres and the building is used only for the purpose of dwelling units and/or live-work units; and

(e)a minimum of 8 parking spaces, including one visitor's parking space, accessory to the dwelling units and live-work units are provided on the site.

2.For the purpose of this by-law:

(a)"site" means those lands delineated by heavy lines on Map 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law;

(b)visitor's parking space means a parking space reserved at all times for visitors to the building, individually designated by means of a clearly visible sign as being for the exclusive use of visitors to the building and having the way thereto designated by means of clearly visible signs on all driveways or passageways leading thereto from the street, and

(c)each other word or expression which is italicized in this by-law shall have the same meaning as each such word or expression as defined in By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

(Note: Maps 1 and 2 will be completed prior to the passage of the By-law)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development:

Purpose:

This report recommends that a site specific By-law be adopted by City Council to permit the conversion of a former industrial building to 11 dwelling units.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

1.That the Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

(a)exempt the site from Sections 4(13)(a) and 9(1)(a) of Bylaw 438-86, as amended:

(b)permit the alteration and use of a building that existed on the lot in 1997 for no more than 11 dwelling units provided:

i) the residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 1,800 square metres;

ii)at least 8 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot of which one parking space is designated for the exclusive use of visitors to the building; and

iii)storage is provided and maintained on the lot for at least 8 bicycles.

Background:

The building which is the subject of this application, was illegally occupied for residential purposes after a construction permit was granted by the City for interior alterations to the building for light industrial activities. The owner then submitted a condominium application to the City, which was set aside on the advice of the City Solicitor. This rezoning application, if approved, would be the first step to legalize the building for residential use. The owner will then be required to receive the appropriate building permits to ensure that the work already completed meets all applicable laws including the Ontario Building Code and the Ontario Fire Code. Once an appropriate building permit is granted by the City the owner will be able to complete the condominium approval for the legalized building.

Planning Discussion:

The site is located within the Corktown Mixed Industrial-Residential District of the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan area. One of the planning objectives for this part of King-Parliament is to gradually permit the reallocation of small industrial properties from industrial to residential or live/work usage. For this reason the Part II Official Plan permits through rezoning approval, the conversion of light industrial buildings to residential or live/work uses. The proposal does not alter the built form of the existing building and therefore the proposal is in keeping with the existing physical character of the neighbourhood. The proposal is in keeping with the objectives of the PartII Official Plan for Corktown.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has reviewed the proposal and has recommended that 8 parking spaces be provided for the project.

The Medical Officer of Health has reviewed the proposal in respect to environmental issues and is now satisfied that the building is suited to residential occupancy.

Conclusions:

This project meets the intent of Part II Official Plan policies for the Corktown neighbourhood of King-Parliament. I am recommending that this small proposal be approved.

Contact Name:

Lance Alexander

Planner

East Section

City Planning

phone: (416) 392-7573

Fax:(416)3921330

e-mail:lalexand@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Confirmed Municipal Address:535 Queen Street East and 540 King Street East.

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

3

Rescindment of Permit Parking - Baldwin Street,

between Henry Street and McCaul Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)permit parking on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street be rescinded;

(2)Schedule D of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to exclude Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the rescindment of permit parking on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

1.(a)permit parking on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street be rescinded;

(b)Schedule D of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to exclude Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street; and

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

OR

2.City Council deny the rescindment of permit parking on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Olivia Chow, on behalf of the Baldwin Merchants Association, to have the permit parking rescinded on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street.

Comments:

Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 6D, and the hours of operation are 12 midnight to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

There are 645 spaces within area 6D with 643 permits issued. Currently, out of a total of 46 on-street spaces on Baldwin Street, 30 permits have been issued to residents of this street.

The rescindment of permit parking on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the rescindment of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Star on June 30, 1998 and no objections were received.

However, given that 30 permits have been issued to residents of this street and that the rescindment of permit parking would require these residents to find alternate parking arrangements, I have requested the City Clerk to notify the affected permit holders, advising them of this proposal.

Conclusions:

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that permit parking be rescinded on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

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

-Mr. George Traini, Baldwin Merchants Association; and

-Mr. P. D. Wharton, President, La Bodega.

4

Conversion of Carus Avenue from 'Area Based Permit Parking'

to 'Street Based Permit Parking' (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)permit parking on Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the east end of Carus Avenue, be converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To convert permit parking on Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the East End of Carus Avenue, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking' with the current operating hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

1.(a)permit parking on Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the east end of Carus Avenue, be converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'; and

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

OR

2.City Council deny the conversion of permit parking on Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the east end of Carus Avenue, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'.

Background:

A request was received from Councillors Betty Disero and Dennis Fortinos to have permit parking on Carus Avenue converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'.

Comments:

Carus Avenue is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 5C, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

In area 5C, there are 1,213 on-street spaces with 1,014 permits issued. On Carus Avenue itself, there are 15 on-street spaces with a total of 14 permits issued to residents on the street.

The conversion of permit parking on Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the east end of Carus Avenue, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Star on May21,1998 and no objections were received.

However, given that the street has reached almost full space allocation, I have requested the City Clerk to notify the affected permit holders, advising them of this proposal.

Conclusions:

Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the east end of Carus Avenue, has already reached 93% space allocation. Once the street reaches 100% space allocation, any further applications for permit parking would have to be placed on a wait list.

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that permit parking be converted to a street name basis on this section of Carus Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

5

Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Bedford Park Avenue,

between Elm Road and Greer Road (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)permit parking hours of operation on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7days a week;

(2)Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking of the former City of Toronto, be amended to incorporate Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

1.(a)permit parking hours of operation on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7days a week;

(b)Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking of the former City of Toronto, be amended to incorporate Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road; and

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

OR

2.City Council deny the reduction of permit parking hours on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road.

Background:

A petition signed by residents of Bedford Park Avenue was received by this Department, requesting the reduction of permit parking hours on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, is authorized for permit parking on a street name basis, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week. Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, has a total of 84 permits issued against 229 on-street parking spaces.

The reduction of permit parking hours on this street, constitutes a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former City of Toronto Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking hours was mailed to all affected permit holders on April 30th, 1998 and a number of objections have been received.

Conclusions:

Objections were received from residents of Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, on the reduction of permit parking hours. On hearing the matter, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant approval to reduce the permit parking hours on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

--------

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

-(September 13, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Thwaites;

-(September 14, 1998) from Ms. Scorsone.

6

Hearing - Alteration of Queen's Quay West,

between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 13 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee Report No. 9, titled, "Widening of a Portion of Queen's Quay West to Accommodate the Waterfront West LRT Extension", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, notice of its hearing on September 16, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 25, September 1, September 8 and September 15, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Urban Environment and Development Committee

Report No. 9(13), adopted July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 and

Intended for first presentation to Council: September 16, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Queen's Quay West consisting of the widening of the pavement on the south side of Queen's Quay West between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

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

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-2" (Pavement Widening) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Drawing

Street)Side)Width)From)To)No./Date)

Queen'ssouthfrom: 14.7 mLower Spadina a pointSK-2204

Quay Westto: 17.3 m -Avenueapproximatelydated

20.5 m210 m westJuly 6, 1998

thereof

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 13 of Report No. 9 of the Urban and Environment and Development Committee, headed "Widening of a Portion of Queen's Quay West to Accommodate the Waterfront West LRT Extension":

--------

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 6, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the widening of a portion of the pavement on Queen's Quay West between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street to facilitate the construction of the Waterfront West LRT extension.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the pavement widening on Queen's Quay West, west of Lower SpadinaAvenue, can be accommodated within existing departmental appropriations. Incremental costs relating to the adjustments of parks facilities and utilities will be borne by the TTC, as will costs related to the streetcar line construction.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to widen the pavement on Queen's Quay West described as follows:

"The widening of the pavement on the south side of Queen's Quay West, from a width varying from 14.7 metres to 17.3 metres to a width of 20.5metres (including track allowance) between Lower Spadina Avenue and a point approximately 210 metres west thereof, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2204 dated July 6, 1998"; and

(2) that the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be necessary.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of April 29 and 30, 1998, in considering the 1998 Capital Budget request for the Toronto Transit Commission, approved the funds for the construction of a new streetcar connection on Queen's Quay West between Lower Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street as part of the westerly extension of the Waterfront West line.

TTC staff have advised that all approvals are in place to proceed with the segment of the streetcar line extension between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street and have requested City staff to take the necessary steps to facilitate the project. In this regard, it is necessary to seek Council approval for the widening of the Queen's Quay West pavement for a short distance westerly from Lower Spadina Avenue to accommodate the track allowance. Construction of the extension is scheduled by the TTC to commence in the fall of this year.

Comments:

The straightening of the alignment of Queen's Quay West from Lower Spadina Avenue to BathurstStreet and the widening of the road allowance to provide a 27-metre section was a longstanding objective in the Harbourfront area intended to advance a variety of land use, parks and transportation goals. More particularly, the widening of the right-of-way on the south side was pursued to accommodate the eventual extension of the Waterfront LRT beyond its present terminus at Lower Spadina Avenue. The Implementation Agreement of 1992 between the City of Toronto, Queen'sQuay West Land Corporation (formerly Harbourfront) and the Crown provided the specific mechanism for the City to obtain the widening of lands and construct the realignment.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the City, among other works, constructed the realigned section of Queen's Quay West. The work was authorized by the former Council in 1996 and completed in 1997. At the time of design and approval, it was noted that minor interim modifications to the plan approved under the TTC's Environmental Assessment (EA) would be appropriate in light of the circumstances at that time. These minor amendments were endorsed by the former Metropolitan Council and TTC staff. By all indications, it appeared that the LRT extension would not occur for some indefinite period into the future.

In order to minimize costs of the realignment, only the section of the actual jogged alignment was constructed. The two tangent sections, from Lower Spadina Avenue to about 200 metres west thereof, and from Bathurst Street to about 100 metres easterly, were not reconstructed or widened at that time.

It is noted that the realignment was designed in consultation with TTC staff in such a manner as to facilitate the construction of the Waterfront West LRT and minimize throw-away costs. Most of the line between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street will be built in the new median. The road works, including sidewalks, curbs, gutters, adjacent utilities and grades, were constructed in accordance with the ultimate condition. It is now necessary to secure approval of the widening of the Queen's Quay West pavement in the vicinity of Lower Spadina Avenue as described in Recommendation No. (1) above and shown on the attached print of Sketch No. SK-2204, dated July6, 1998, in order to accommodate the transit work.

The widening of the pavement on Queen's Quay West constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. This matter is being reported to your Committee at this time in order that the statutory requirements set out in the Act (advertising Council's intent to enact the by-law, public deputation hearing) can commence over the summer months to permit final approval and construction commencement this fall. Any required modifications or issues arising out of the detailed design or public consultation processes can be reported to a subsequent meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee or City Council.

The Waterfront West Light Rail Transit project, including the pavement widening described in this report, westerly to Exhibition Place and beyond received Environmental Assessment (EA) approval from the Ministry of Environment and Energy in August 1995. The approved project contemplated the line on Queen's Quay West to Lower Portland Street, then northerly to Lake Shore Boulevard West. TTC staff advise that they have applied to have the EA approval amended to allow the line to extend westerly on Queen's Quay West as far as Bathurst Street, before heading north to the existing tracks on Fleet Street.

A TTC staff report of July 15, 1997, acknowledged that a traffic study of this change is required, particularly with respect to operations at the Bathurst Street/Lake Shore Boulevard West/Fleet Street intersection. There will also be a need to encompass operations at the Bathurst Street/Queen's Quay West intersection in light of potential impacts to the new school/community centre located in the southeast quadrant. Upon completion of this work and design, it will be necessary to submit a further report outlining the necessary pavement alterations at this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. John Niedra, Manager of Programmes, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, 392-7711.

(A copy of Drawing No. SK-2004 dated July 6, 1998, referred to in the foregoing report, in on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Hearing - Alteration of Boulton Avenue

- Installation of Speed Humps and

Reduction in Speed Limit (Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to relocate the speed humps as outlined in the communication (September 15, 1998) submitted to Councillor Layton, and to consult Mr. Rowan as to the new location of the speed humps.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 4 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 6, headed "Boulton Avenue between Queen Street East and Dundas Street East - Installation of Speed Humps (Don River)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on June 3 and 4, 1998, notice of its hearing on September 16, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 25, September 1, September 8 and September 15, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 6(4), adopted June 3 and 4, 1998 and

Intended for first presentation to Council: September 16, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Boulton Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

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

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-4" (Pavement Alteration/Repair) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side/ Alteration/Drawing

Street)Corner)Repair)From)To)No./Date)

Boulton AlterationQueen St.Dundas St.421F-5175

AvenueconsistingEastEastdated

of theMay, 1998

installation

of speed humps

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (August 31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This report is to advise the Toronto Community Council of the results of a poll conducted on the subject section of Boulton Avenue respecting a proposal to install speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of June 3 and 4, 1998 adopted Clause 4 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 6 entitled, Boulton Avenue, between Queen Street East and Dundas Street East - Installation of Speed Humps (Don River) and in doing so, subject to the favourable results of a poll of affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council, approved the installation of speed humps at specific locations on this street and coincident with the installation of these traffic calming devices, the reduction of the speed limit from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour. The appropriate City Officials were also directed to take the necessary action to implement the foregoing.

Comments:

Works staff conducted a poll between July 6, 1998 and July 31, 1998 of adult residents on Boulton Avenue. About 20% of the eligible voters returned responses to the poll, the findings of which are as follows:

No. Of

Valid ResponsesPercentage

In support of the speed hump proposal2790%

Opposed to the speed hump proposal 310%

Under the provisions of the Speed Hump Policy adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997, a minimum of 60% of the valid responses to the speed hump poll must support the proposal to warrant further action by staff to install same.

In consideration of the results obtained and as the next step towards installation, I have requested staff of Corporate Services (City Clerk's Division and Legal Division) to arrange for the following:

a) The statutory advertising of the proposed highway alterations, which would include the date for the deputations meeting;

b) The preparation and distribution of a suitable notice to residents; and

c) The hearing of deputations concerning this matter at the Toronto Community Council meeting on September 16, 1998.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 4 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Boulton Avenue, between Queen Street East and Dundas Street East - Installation of Speed Humps (Don River)":

--------

(City Council on June 3 and 4, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce speed and volume of traffic on Boulton Avenue and to safeguard school children travelling to three area public schools.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $3,000.00 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

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

"The construction of speed humps on Boulton Avenue from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5175, dated May 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Boulton Avenue from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East, coincident with the implementation of traffic calming; and

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

Background:

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997 in considering Clause 61 in City Services Committee Report No. 11 entitled, Adjustment to Parking Regulations - Boulton Avenue (Ward 8), adopted a number of parking regulation changes which resulted in the implementation of a staggered parking arrangement on Boulton Avenue. In the departmental report contained in the Clause, it was noted that Works staff would examine the feasibility of implementing traffic calming measures on Boulton Avenue.

Comments:

In consideration of the above noted Clause and at the request of Councillor Jack Layton and area residents, a staff investigation has been conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Boulton Avenue from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East to reduce the number of speeding motorists on this street.

Boulton Avenue from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East operates one-way southbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and has a posted speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. A recent twenty-four hour speed and volume survey conducted on Boulton Avenue from Clark Street to Cummings Avenue has provided the speed data shown in the following table.

The incidence of speeding in excess of the forty kilometres per hour speed limit is approximately 40%; however, the percentage of vehicles recorded at a rate of speed in excess of fifty kilometres per hour (generally where Police enforcement would be provided) is 7.5%. This speed profile, although typical of many residential streets in the city, is of concern given the proximity of the adjacent schools along Boulton Avenue.

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting on August 21, 1997 adopted, as amended, Clause28 in City Services Committee Report No. 10 entitled Installation of Speed Humps on City Streets which sets out five primary criteria that must be satisfied when evaluating requests for speed humps (as opposed to speed bumps). Specifically, to warrant speed hump installation, one of the criteria stipulates that the street should carry a volume of between 1,000 and 8,000 vehicles per day. As noted above, Boulton Avenue carries a total of 1,029 vehicles per day and accordingly, the installation of speed humps is technically warranted.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street, and households on side streets whose only access is from the affected street. Given the relatively profound impact that such an initiative may have on a street, it is recommended that the high level of acceptance, namely 60% of those responding, be achieved in order to authorize the installation.

The changes proposed to the Boulton Avenue roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

As Community Council may know, pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Act, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip

Acting Traffic Investigator

392-7771

8

Hearing - Alteration of Close Avenue -

Installation of Speed Humps

and Reduction of Speed Limit (High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to discuss with the principal of the Queen Victoria School where the Speed Humps should be located.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 26 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, titled, "Installation of Speed Humps - Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue (High Park)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, notice of its hearing on September 16, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 25, September 1, September 8 and September 15, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 10(26), adopted July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 and

Intended for first presentation to Council: September 16, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Close Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

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

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-4" (Pavement Alteration/Repair) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side/ Alteration/Drawing

Street)Corner)Repair)From)To)No./Date)

CloseAlterationQueen StreetSpringhurst421F-5208

AvenueconsistingWestAvenuedated

of theJune, 1998

installation

of speed humps

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 26 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue (High Park)":

--------

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July3,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Close Avenue.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $13,500, funds for which are available in Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

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

"The construction of speed humps on CLOSE AVENUE from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5208, dated June, 1998";

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Ward Councillor and area residents, Works staff assessed the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue in response to concerns about the volume and excessive speed of traffic on this street.

Close Avenue from Queen Street West to a point 43 metres further south, operates two-way with a pavement width of 6.1 metres, and from a point 43 metres south of Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue, operates one-way southbound with a pavement width which varies between 6.1 to 7.3 metres. The posted speed limit is 40 kilometres per hour.

Close Avenue is approximately 783 metres long and at its mid-point, intersects with King Street West. "Stop" sign controls are posted for northbound traffic at Queen Street West and for southbound traffic at King Street West and at Springhurst Avenue. Heavy trucks are prohibited at all times.

The following summarizes the data which was obtained from traffic counts undertaken by Works staff on Close Avenue in October, 1997:

As can be seen from the table, the incidence of motorists' travelling in excess of the forty kilometres per hour speed limit on Close Avenue between Queen Street West and King Street West is approximately 45%. The percentage of vehicles recorded at a rate of speed in excess of fifty kilometres per hour is approximately 11% of all traffic. Similarly, the incidence of speeding in excess of the forty kilometres per hour speed limit on Close Avenue between King Street West and Springhurst Avenue is approximately 50%, with about 11% in excess of fifty kilometres per hour. This speed profile is of concern given the proximity of the adjacent schools along Close Avenue.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5208 dated June 1998, consists of nine speed humps at spacings of 45 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 km/h, as permitted by the City of Toronto Act, 1996, would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

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

The changes proposed to the Close Avenue roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

9

Hearing - Alteration of Margueretta Street - Installation of

Speed Humps (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 23 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue (Davenport)", which was amended and adopted by City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, notice of its hearing on September16, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 25, September 1, September 8 and September 15, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 10(23) adopted, as amended, July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 and

Intended for first presentation to Council: September 16, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Margueretta Street by the installation of speed humps from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

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

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-4" (Pavement Alteration/Repair) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side/ Alteration/Drawing

Street)Corner)Repair)From)To)No./Date)

MarguerettaAlterationBloor StreetWallace421F-5234

StreetconsistingWestAvenuedated

of theJuly 13, 1998

installation

of speed humps

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 23 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue (Davenport)":

--------

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to submit a report to the Toronto Community Council on the feasibility of reverting St.Clarens Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Paton Road, back to a northbound, one-way street.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July15,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Margueretta Street between Bloor Street West and Wallace Avenue.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $13,200, funds for which are available in Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

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

"The construction of speed humps on MARGUERETTA STREET from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5234, dated July 13, 1998";

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Davenport Councillors Disero and Fotinos and area residents, Works staff assessed the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue in response to concerns about the excessive speed of traffic on this section of street. Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue, operates one-way northbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited on both sides of Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to a point 76 metres north thereof. Alternate side parking is currently in effect on this section of street and the permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily.

Twenty four hour speed and volume counts were obtained over four consecutive days in September 1997 and it was found that, on average, Margueretta Street carries approximately 1,400 vehicles per day. Of these, 64% of all vehicles travelled at or below the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit and approximately 28% (400 vehicles per day) travelled between 41 kilometres per hour and 50 kilometres per hour. The percentage excessive speeding (vehicles recorded travelling at a rate of speed in excess of 50 kilometres per hour) is approximately 8% (120 vehicles per day) of all traffic.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5234 dated July 13, 1998, consists of six speed humps at spacings of 45 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 km/h, as permitted by the City of Toronto Act, 1996, would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

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

The changes proposed to the Margueretta Street roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl (392-7892)

Co-ordinator - Transportation Operations

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Margueretta Street

10

Alteration of Christie Street (Davenport, Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 15 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, titled "Proposed Road Narrowings - Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street (Davenport)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, notice of its hearing on September16, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 25, September 1, September 8 and September 15, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 10(15), adopted July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 and

Intended for first presentation to Council: September 16, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Christie Street by narrowing the pavement between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

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

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-3" (Pavement Narrowing) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side or Drawing

Street)Location)Width)From)To)No./Date)

Christiefrom: 11 mBloor StreetDupontSK-2200

Streetto: 8 m-10 m WestStreetdated

July 6, 1998

Christienorth-from: 9 mnorth of SK-2200

Streetboundto: 7 m - 8 mBloor dated

legStreetJuly 6, 1998

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 15 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Proposed Road Narrowings - Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street (Davenport)":

--------

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July6,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of the pavement on Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street to facilitate the planting of trees and landscaping portions of the boulevards and the traffic island at Bloor Street West while providing a measure of traffic calming on the street, as part of scheduled road reconstruction work in 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the planned reconstruction work on Christie Street have been accommodated in the 1998 Capital Budget. Funds to cover the incremental costs of the curb realignments, boulevard landscaping and island adjustments are available in the Urban Planning and Development Services Capital Budget and under Capital Fund Code No. 296702 for Traffic Calming.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow the pavement on Christie Street described as follows:

"the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 11 m to a width varying from 8 m to 10 m on CHRISTIE STREET between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street, and the narrowing of the pavement on the northbound leg of CHRISTIE STREET north of Bloor Street West from a width of 9 m to a width varying from 7 m to 8 m, as shown schematically on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2200, dated July 6, 1998; and

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

Comments:

Existing Conditions

Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street is an arterial route and has a width of 11 m. It carries two-way traffic under a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit and serves a TTC bus route. Approximately 12,000 vehicles per day use this portion of Christie Street, with about 55% of vehicles exceeding the 40 km/h speed limit and about 9% exceeding the limit by at least 10 km/h. Traffic signals are located at the intersections of Christie Street with Bloor Street West, Barton Avenue and Dupont Street and pedestrian crossovers are located at Yarmouth Road and Follis Avenue. Abutting uses are primarily residential in nature with some retail/commercial sites. Christie Pits abuts the west side of the street south of Barton Avenue.

The following parking regulations are in effect:

East side- "Stopping" is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday.

- Parking is prohibited at all other times.

West side- "Stopping" is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Monday to Friday.

- Parking is prohibited at anytime from Dupont Street to a point 67.6 m south thereof and along the one-way sections north of Bloor Street West.

- Parking is permitted for a maximum duration of one hour from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

- Permit parking operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum duration of 3 hours.

- Parking meters are in operation from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum duration of one hour; and from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday for a maximum duration of three hours.

Christie Street was realigned a number of years ago at Bloor Street West to eliminate the jog with Grace Street to the south of Bloor Street West. This realignment resulted in the construction of a traffic island and channelized northbound leg which also provides access to commercial properties and a subway station on the east side of the street.

The pavement on Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street was constructed in 1949 and is scheduled for reconstruction this year. In addition, portions of the sidewalks and curbs have reached the end of their economic life-cycle and also require reconstruction this year.

Proposed Plan

Staff of the Urban Design Division of Urban Planning and Development Services in consultation with staff of Works have developed a conceptual plan of streetscape improvements which includes a number of components. The main feature is the narrowing of the road by approximately one metre on the east side, generally as indicated in the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2200 dated July 6, 1998 and described in Recommendation No. 1 above. This will allow for the planting of a row of trees in the east boulevard. As the trees mature, this would gradually transform the appearance of the street.

A moderate level of traffic calming can be introduced at certain intersecting streets by providing localized sidewalk extension/road pavement narrowings on the west side of Christie Street to "frame" the on-street parking and at the same time provide more generous pedestrian space at intersections. Specifically, these sidewalk extensions measuring about 2 m in width are proposed at:

Melville Avenue- north and south sides

Yarmouth Road- south side

Garnet Avenue- north and south sides

Essex Street- north side

Pendrith Avenue- north and south sides.

Such sidewalk narrowings are precluded at other corners on the west side of Christie Street due to the presence of bus stops and the manoeuvring space needs.

Finally, a component of the proposal is a minor reconfiguration and enlargement of the existing traffic island just north of Bloor Street West, accomplished by narrowing the northbound leg of Christie Street. This will result in shorter pedestrian crossing distances and opportunities for additional landscaping and tree planting, while at the same time maintaining access to adjacent properties and facilitating bus turning movements.

Under the present configuration, the width of the street is not sufficient to accommodate parking on both sides. The one metre narrowing will allow the existing travel and parking lane arrangement to remain, and accordingly, will not adversely affect the functioning of the street. Parking will be retained on the west side, and the existing peak parking prohibitions will be rescinded, so that parking is available 24 hours per day.

Consultation and Approval Process

The narrowing of the pavement on Christie Street constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provision of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, it is anticipated that if this matter is recommended by Toronto Community Council at its July 22 meeting and endorsed by City Council at its July 29, 1998 meeting, the statutory advertising could proceed during the month of August. The required deputation hearing could be scheduled at the September 16, 1998 meeting of Toronto Community Council, with final approval by City Council on October 1, 1998. This schedule will allow for public consultation and an information session if deemed appropriate by the affected Ward Councillors in August or early September. Discussions with TTC and emergency services staff have been initiated and will continue as necessary. Any modifications to the proposal which are found to be desirable or necessary can be reported to the subsequent meetings of Community Council or City Council. The work is scheduled to be undertaken in the fall of this year.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra, Manager of Programmes

Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division

392-7711

11

Prescott Avenue,

from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue -

Implementation of Alternate Side Parking (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that Appendix 'A' to the report dated June 24, 1998, from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services, be amended by striking out the words 'Monday to Friday' embodied in Recommendation No. (6) and inserting in lieu thereof the words, 'Monday to Saturday'.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (June 24, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services be adopted;

(2)approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue for traffic calming purpose as described below, with implementation being subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto

"The construction of speed humps on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, generally as shown on Drawing No.T555-2, dated June 1998";

(3)the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 24, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To consider a report to implement alternate side parking on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1. That in order to implement alternate side parking on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, the recommendations noted in Appendix "A", attached, should be approved; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of area residents, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of implementing alternate side parking on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, for the purpose of allowing both sides of the street to be mechanically swept to remove litter and debris and to maximize the number of available on-street parking spaces during winter months.

Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue operates two-way with a roadway width of 7.3 metres. Parking on the east side of the street is allowed for a maximum period of three hours outside of the 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily permit parking hours of operation, excepting the section of street from St. Clair Avenue West to East Avenue, where parking is restricted to a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Parking on the west side of the street is prohibited at anytime.

There are currently a total of 34 on-street parking spaces on the east side of the subject section of roadway and 43 potential spaces on the west side. Implementing alternate side parking would result in a total of nine additional parking spaces being made available to residents during winter months and on a semi-monthly basis at other times. However, it should be noted that streets where alternate side parking operates must reflect the side of the street with the least number of parking spaces. Accordingly, the inventory of permit parking spaces on this street and in permit parking area 3C would remained unchanged.

The provision of alternate side parking on this section of Prescott Avenue will also provide the opportunity to mechanically, as opposed to manually, sweep both sides of the street to remove litter and debris on a more frequent basis.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth

Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

--------

Appendix "A"

In order to implement alternate side parking on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, it is recommended that parking regulations on this street be amended as follows:

1. That the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the west side of Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, be rescinded;

2. That the permit parking system operate on an alternate side basis on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily;

3. That parking on the west side of Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue be prohibited from the 16^th day to the last day of each month from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive;

4. That parking on the east side of Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue be prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, from April 1^st to November 30^th and at anytime from December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next following year inclusive;

5. That parking on the west side of Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to the first lane north thereof, be permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m., Monday to Friday, from the 1^st to the 15^th of each month from April 1^st to November30^th inclusive and December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next following year; and

6. That the "One Hour, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation which operates on the east side of Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to East Avenue, be adjusted to apply from the 16^th to the end of each month, from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive.

12

Extension of the Pavement and Construction

of a Walkway at the South End of

Atlantic Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the recommendation of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee embodied in the communication dated September 28, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on September 24, 1998, recommended to City Council the adoption of the recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the transmittal letter dated September 23, 1998, from the City Clerk, viz.:

"The Budget Committee:

(1)supported the approval of the project to extend the pavement and construct a walkway at the south end of Atlantic Avenue; and

(2)recommended to the Strategic Polices and priorities Committee and Council that:

(a)funds for this project be approved from the Transportation Department's existing Capital Budget; and

(b)if sufficient funds are not available within the Transportation Department's Capital Budget, that a further report be submitted to the Budget Committee." ' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Budget Committee to report directly to Council on the possibility of including the cost of the work to be done in the 1998 Capital Program, given the small amount of funds to be expended.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Service:

Purpose:

To authorize the acquisition of lands, execution of necessary agreements and licences, lay out and dedication of lands, and the construction of a pavement and walkway at the south end of Atlantic Avenue to facilitate access to the Exhibition GO Station and Canadian National Exhibition grounds.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of land acquisition and licence fees associated with this project, in the amount of $8,750.00, excluding land transfer tax and GST, are available in Capital Fund Code 296-001.

Funds to cover the cost of the planned construction in the estimated amount of $125,000.00 will have to be included in the Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Budget request for consideration by City Council.

Recommendations:

(1) That the concept of the southerly extension of the Atlantic Avenue pavement and the provision of a public walkway on CN lands to provide a pedestrian link to the Exhibition Go Station and CNE grounds be endorsed;

(2) That the acquisition of Part 1 on Reference Plan No. 64R-15697 from 1289777 Ontario Limited (shown as Part A on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2197 dated August 26, 1998) for the southerly extension of Atlantic Avenue be authorized;

(3) That the lands shown as Part A on Drawing No. SK-2197 dated August 26, 1998, be laid out and subsequently dedicated to form part of Atlantic Avenue;

(4) That, subject to the adoption of Recommendation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above, approval be given to construct a pavement, sidewalk and curbs on Atlantic Avenue as follows:

"The construction of a pavement, sidewalk and curbs and the necessary drainage facilities on ATLANTIC AVENUE from the southern terminus of Atlantic Avenue to approximately 13.6 m further south, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2197, dated August 26, 1998";

(5)That approval be given to enter into an agreement with CN in accordance with terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Corporate Services, City Solicitor and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the construction and maintenance of a pedestrian walkway by the City on CN lands shown as Part B on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2197, dated August 26, 1997;

(6)That the total cost of property acquisition not exceed $10,000.00 inclusive of Land Transfer Tax and GST; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone, staff from Works, Urban Planning and Development and Corporate Services have been assessing means of facilitating pedestrian access to the Exhibition GO Station located on CN lands at the foot of Atlantic and Jefferson Avenues. A walkway in this area, as shown on the attached context plan, will provide a much needed and desirable north-south connection between Strachan Avenue and Dufferin Street linking the Liberty and Parkdale areas to the GO Station, the TTC Loop, and Exhibition Place including the Trade Centre and Ontario Place.

This proposal meets one of the general planning principles of the Garrison Common North area by providing a physical connection to the waterfront. A design concept/preliminary functional plan has been developed to the satisfaction of GO Transit, CN Rail, the property owner of Premises No.1 Jefferson Avenue and City staff and is shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2197, dated August 26, 1998. The key components of the plan are as follows:

*The extension of the Atlantic Avenue pavement some 14 m south of its existing terminus and the construction of a sidewalk on the east side. This will provide vehicular access to Premises No. 1 Jefferson Avenue as well as service access to the rail lands to the south and pedestrian access to a walkway leading to the GO Station;

*The construction of a walkway from the proposed southerly end of Atlantic Avenue to the GO platform approximately 50 m south easterly. This walkway would terminate at the fair free zone on the platform and would connect to the existing GO pedestrian tunnel via the existing stairs and/or elevator thereby facilitating access and accessibility to the GO paid zone and/or the CNE grounds;

*The provision of the necessary landscaping, fencing, grading, lighting and adjustments to the existing platform and canopy/enclosure required in connection with the walkway construction; and

*The construction, in granular materials, of a driveway on CN lands to provide CN service vehicle access to the rail lands from Atlantic Avenue.

The implementation of the pavement extension and walkway involves the acquisition of property and the entering into of a license agreement between the City and CN, as more specifically set out below:

a) Southerly extension of Atlantic Avenue

The lands immediately to the south of the existing Atlantic Avenue right-of-way are known as 1 Jefferson Avenue and owned by 1289777 Ontario Limited. The land required for the southerly extension of Atlantic Avenue is shown as Part 1 on Plan64R-15697, a 20.12 m by 13.62 m parcel forming part of a larger 1.3 ha parcel. Discussions have been held between the owner and City real estate staff and the owner has verbally agreed to sell Part 1, Plan 64R-15697 to the City for $5,000.00, a price that is considered to be reasonable by the Interim Lead, Real Estate.

Assuming City Council authorizes the acquisition of this property, staff of Works and Emergency Services could prepare any required reference plans and the lands could be conveyed to the City and laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes in the usual manner. Staff of Corporate Services would finalize the terms and conditions of the sale and the City Solicitor would prepare, execute and close an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the owner.

b) Pedestrian Walkway

The walkway extending south of the extended Atlantic Avenue right-of-way would be constructed on lands currently owned by CN. Staff of CN are in support of this initiative provided that the City agrees to provide a service vehicle access to CN from the south end of Atlantic Avenue and the necessary fencing to separate the walkway from its track facilities. CN will also require that the City enter into an agreement with CN in respect of the walkway, its maintenance, indemnification, insurance, etc., and has agreed to a 25-year term at a total licensing fee of $3750.

The extension of the Atlantic Avenue pavement and construction of the walkway will provide a substantial benefit to the general public and under the circumstances the cost of the work should be borne by the City. Funds to cover the total cost of land acquisition and licensing, in the estimated amounts of $5,000.00 and $3,750.00, respectively, are available in the approved 1998 Works and Emergency Services Capital Budget, Capital Fund Code 296-001. Funds to cover the cost of construction, in the estimated amount of $125,000.00, will be included in the Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Budget request.

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

Policy of the former City of Toronto Council requires that those sites to be acquired are not contaminated, unless a specific exemption to the policy is approved. This often necessitates the retention of the services of a consultant to conduct environmental testing prior to an acquisition to assess the environmental condition of the lands. It is understood that CN had previously completed environmental reports of its land holdings and CN would make available these reports to the City. Depending on the information provided, additional environmental testing may be warranted. Staff will make the necessary arrangements for whatever additional evaluation may be required.

This concept has received favourable consideration from the West Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee (WTIAC) and was favourably received and has the support of the Ward Councillors. Staff of Works and Emergency Services, Urban Planning and Development Services and Corporate Services have participated in the preparation of this report and concur with its contents.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra, Manager of Programmes

Infrastructure Planning and Transportation

392-7835

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 28, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on September 24, 1998, recommended to Council the adoption of the recommendations of the Budget committee embodied in the transmittal letter (September 23, 1998) from the City Clerk.

Background:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had before it a report (September 23, 1998) from the Budget Committee respecting the extension of the pavement and construction of a walkway at the south side of Atlantic Avenue (Trinity-Niagara) and advising that the Budget Committee:

(1)supported the approval of the project to extend the pavement and construct a walkway at the south end of Atlantic Avenue; and

(2)recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council that:

(a)funds for this project be approved from the Transportation Department's existing Capital Budget; and

(b)if sufficient funds are not available within the Transportation Department's Capital Budget, that a further report be submitted to the Budget Committee.

The Committee recommended the adoption of the report from the Budget Committee and that such recommendation be considered with Clause 12 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council.)

(Transmittal letter dated September 23, 1998, from the City Clerk to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee)

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998:

(1)supported the approval of the project to extend the pavement and construct a walkway at the south end of Atlantic Avenue; and

(2)recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council that:

(a)funds for this project be approved from the Transportation Department's existing Capital Budget; and

(b)if sufficient funds are not available within the Transportation Department's Capital Budget, that a further report be submitted to the Budget Committee.

The Budget Committee reports having directed that a copy of this decision be forwarded to the appropriate standing committee for their information.

Background:

The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998, had before it a transmittal letter from the City Clerk forwarding the recommendations adopted by the Toronto Community Council and requested the Budget Committee to report directly to Council on the possibility of including the costs of the property acquisition in the 1998 Capital Program, given the small amount of funds to be expended.

Councillor Pantalone, Trinity-Niagara, appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with this matter.)

13

Implementation of Alternate Side Parking -

Hope Street (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement alternate side parking on Hope Street in order to enhance street cleaning opportunity on both sides of the street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the no parking at anytime prohibition on the north side of Hope Street, from Dufferin Street to Harvie Avenue, be rescinded;

(2)That parking on the south side of Hope Street, from Dufferin Street to Harvie Avenue, be prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, from April 1^st to November 30^th and at anytime from December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next year inclusive;

(3)That parking be prohibited on the north side of Hope Street, from Dufferin Street to Harvie Avenue, from the 16^th day to the last day of each month, from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of area residents, Works staff investigated the feasibility of implementing alternate side parking on Hope Street.

Hope Street, from Dufferin Street to Harvie Avenue operates two-way on a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side of Hope Street and parking is permitted on the south side of the street for a maximum period of three hours outside the hours of permit parking operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily.

There are presently 56 parking spaces available on the south side of Hope Street and a potential of 57 spaces on the north side of the street. For practical purposes, the inventory of available on-street permit parking spaces on streets where alternate side parking is in effect, must reflect the side with the least number of spaces (i.e. 56 spaces on the south side). Accordingly, the implementation of alternate side parking on Hope Street would not result in any additional parking permits being made available for area residents.

Alternate side parking would, however, allow for regular mechanical street sweeping on both sides of Hope Street from spring to fall.

I note that implementation of alternate side parking on a street that operates two-way on a pavement width of less than 8.5 metres is not normally advisable. When parking simultaneously occurs on both sides of the street during the changeover period, the travelled portion of the roadway can be reduced to the extent that traffic flow can be impeded. However, in this instance the volumes are quite low and only minor inconvenience would be expected. If obstructions become problematic, the plan can be revisited.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

14

Installation of Parking Meters and a Taxicab Stand -

Robertson Crescent (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August4,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

These adjustments are intended to provide convenient short term parking for customers of nearby businesses and to enable taxicabs to legally stand and wait for fares in the vicinity of the Radisson Plaza Hotel Admiral.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime be rescinded on:

1. the east side of the west branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 32.0 metres further south;
2. the north side of the south branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 18.0 metres west of the east branch of Robertson Crescent to a point 38.0 metres further west;
3. the east side of the east branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 28.0 metres further south;

(2) That parking be allowed for a maximum period of 30 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily and for a maximum period of 60 minutes from 9:00 p.m. of one day to 8:00 a.m. of the following day on:

(a) the east side of the west branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 32.0 metres further south;

(b) the north side of the south branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 18.0 metres west of the east branch of Robertson Crescent to a point 38.0 metres further west;

(3)That parking meters be installed to operate for a maximum period of 30 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily at a rate of $1.00 for 30 minutes on:

a)the east side of the west branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 32.0 metres further south;

1. the north side of the south branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 18.0 metres west of the east branch of Robertson Crescent to a point 38.0 metres further west;

(4)That a "Taxicab Stand" for 4 vehicles be installed on the east side of the east branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 28.0 metres further south; and

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

Comments:

Robertson Crescent was dedicated as a public highway in 1997. City Council at its meeting of April16, 1998 adopted the recommendations contained in my report of March 18, 1998 to the Toronto Community Council entitled, "Robertson Crescent, south of Queens Quay West - Traffic Regulations" (Clause 19 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 3) and in doing so authorized the prohibition of parking at anytime on both sides of Robertson Crescent in its entirety to establish an initial parking control mechanism on this street.

The parking prohibition on Robertson Crescent in combination with regular enforcement by the Toronto Police Service's Parking Enforcement Unit and Marine Unit (located on the south side of Robertson Crescent), has resolved many of the parking problems that occurred on the street prior to its dedication as a public highway. Notwithstanding, it would appear that the parking prohibition also has caused some inconvenience for business proprietors on Robertson Crescent and their customers. Therefore, at the request of local merchants, a representative of the Radisson Plaza Hotel Admiral (Premises No. 249 Queens Quay West) and representatives of the taxicab industry, Works staff, in consultation with Councillor Olivia Chow's staff have investigated rescinding the parking prohibition where appropriate on sections of the west and south branches of Robertson Crescent and in place thereof allowing short term metered parking and delineating a taxicab stand on the east branch of Robertson Crescent across from the entrance to the above-noted hotel.

Robertson Crescent has a variable pavement width resulting from several indentations or lay-bys in the curb alignment along the inner side of the "U" shape formed by Robertson Crescent. These lay-bys provide suitable locations where vehicles may park/stop without impeding traffic operation on the street. Based on our assessment and discussions with the persons noted above, short term metered parking as outlined in my recommendations should be allowed on:

1. the east side of the west branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 32.0 metres further south; and
2. the north side of the south branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 18.0 metres west of the east branch of Robertson Crescent to a point 38.0 metres further west.

Five parking meters would be installed at each of the foregoing locations to provide a total of 10 parking spaces on the street.

Additionally, a "Taxicab Stand" for 4 vehicles should be installed on the east side of the east branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 28.0 metres further south to meet the requirements of the Radisson Plaza Hotel Admiral and nearby businesses in Harbourfront.

Implementation of these regulations will not impact adversely on the operation of traffic on Robertson Crescent or at the signalized intersection formed by Queens Quay West, Rees Street and the west branch of Robertson Crescent.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton

Transportation Operations Coordinator

392-1806

15

Conversion of Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street

and Shaw Street, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to

'Street Name Based Permit Parking

(Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the conversion of permit parking on Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking', with the current operating hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking on Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, be converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of the residents, to have permit parking on Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'.

Comments:

Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking areas 3G and 3L, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week. Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, has a total of 104 permits issued against 151 on-street parking spaces.

The conversion of permit parking on Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Star on May 6, 1998 and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking on Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, be amended to indicate 'Street Name Based Permit Parking', with the operating hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a weeks.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

16

Rescindment of Permit Parking on Hayden Street,

between Yonge Street and Church Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the rescindment of permit parking on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street, be rescinded;

(2)Schedule B of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to exclude Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Kyle Rae, on behalf of the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association, to have the permit parking rescinded on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street.

Comments:

Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street, is authorized for permit parking on a street name basis, and the hours of operation are 10: 00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The rescindment of permit parking on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the rescindment of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Star on April 9, 1998, and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street, be rescinded.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

17

Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Madison Avenue,

between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue

(Midtown)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the hours of operation of the parking meters located on this section of Madison Avenue be adjusted to commence at 7:00 a.m. and that this change take effect concurrent with the change in hours of permit parking; and

(2)authority be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills to give effect thereto.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12 midnight to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule SS of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m., 7days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule SS of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor John Adams to reduce the permit parking hours on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, permit parking area 5D, and the hours of operation are 12: 01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The reduction of permit parking hours on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking hours was placed in the Toronto Star on April 9, 1998, and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking hours on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, be amended to indicate 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m., 7days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number: Bob Bonner, 392-7876

18

Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Prince Arthur Avenue,

between Avenue Road and Bedford Road (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road;

(3)on the south side of Prince Arthur Avenue, from a point 45.7 metres west of Avenue Road to Bedford Road:

(a)the existing parking meter hours of operation be adjusted to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum period of one hour and for a maximum period of three hours, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, at the rate of $1.00 per hour;

(b)the existing "One Hour Parking, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation be adjusted to indicate "One Hour Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday"; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor John Adams to have the permit parking hours on Prince Arthur Avenue reduced from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, permit parking area 5E, and the hours of operation are 12: 01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The reduction of permit parking hours on Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking hours was placed in the Toronto Star on April 9, 1998, and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking hours on Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road, be amended to indicate 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

19

Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Shaftesbury Avenue

(Midtown)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated September 22, 1998, from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the existing parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue from Yonge Street to a point 91.4 metres east be adjusted to apply from Yonge Street to a point 77.4 metres east; and

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on extending the permit parking two car lengths to the west.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, from 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 1:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, be extended from 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 1:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule R of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillors Ila Bossons and John Adams, on behalf of the Summerhill Residents Association, to have the permit parking hours extended on Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, so as to be in harmony with the operating hours in effect on other licensed streets within area 10A.

Comments:

Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 10A, and the hours of operation are 2:00 a.m. to 11:00a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

Given that the extension of permit parking hours on Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, is an administrative procedure, the hours should be amended to indicate 1:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 22, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide additional on-street parking spaces for residents of this street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the existing parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue from Yonge Street to a point 91.4 metres east be adjusted to apply from Yonge Street to a point 77.4 metres east; and

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

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 16, 1998, in considering a report entitled, "Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Shaftesbury Avenue (Midtown)", recommended the adoption of this report with the amendment (moved by Councillor Ila Bossons) that the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to submit a report to City Council for its meeting of October 1, 1998, on increasing the number of parking spaces by two to the west (Clause 19 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council).

Comments:

Shaftesbury Avenue from Yonge Street to Summerhill Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width ranging from 7.3 metres to 9.7 metres and a maximum speed limit of forty kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the entire south side and on the north side from Yonge

Street to a point 91.4 metres east. Parking is currently allowed elsewhere on the north side of the street by permit only from 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and for a maximum period of three hours at other times.

Based on our assessment, the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue should be rescinded from a point 91.4 metres east of Yonge Street to a point 14.0 metres west thereof. In place of the parking prohibition, the permit parking regulation currently in place elsewhere on this block of Shaftesbury Avenue would apply overnight as would the three-hour maximum parking regulation at other times. This would provide two additional parking spaces on the Shaftesbury Avenue and in permit parking Area 10A, and can be accomplished without adversely effecting operational safety on the street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Koropeski, Director,

Transportation Services District 1

Tel: 392-7711)

20

Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Osler Street, from the

Lane First North of the North Branch of Connolly Street

to a Point 39.6 Metres South of St. Clair Avenue West

(Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on the east side of Osler Street, from the lane first north of the north branch of Connolly Street to a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 24 hour permit parking, 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on the east side of Osler Street, from the lane first north of the north branch of Connolly Street to a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 24 hour permit parking, 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule S of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate the east side of Osler Street, from the lane first north of the north branch of Connolly Street to a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West;

(3)that the existing "No parking 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation on the east side of Osler Street from Connolly Street to a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West be adjusted to operate from the north branch of Connolly Street to the lane first north thereof; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Betty Disero to have the permit parking hours on the east side of Osler Street, from the lane first north of the north branch of Connolly Street to a point 39.6metres south of St. Clair Avenue West, extended from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00a.m., 7 days a week, to 24 hour permit parking, 7 days a week.

Comments:

Osler Street, between the north branch of Connolly Street and a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, permit parking area 3D, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Parking is prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on this section of Osler Street.

The extension of permit parking hours is to allow residents of Osler Street, from house Nos. 363 to375 to park on their streets.

Conclusions:

The extension of permit parking hours on the east side of Osler Street, from the lane first north of the north branch of Connolly Street to a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West, will allow permit holders of Osler Street and area 3D to park on the street 24 hours, 7 days a week. Given the parking problems experienced by residents of this section of the street, it is recommended that the permit parking hours be amended to indicate 24 hours, 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

21

Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Clinton Street,

Between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00a.m., 7 days a week.

(2)Schedule P of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate, Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva to have the permit parking hours on Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and the Bloor Street West, extended from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 4B, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

Given that the extension of permit parking hours of Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, is an administrative procedure, it is recommended that the hours be amended to indicate 12:01 a.m. to 10:00a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

22

Introduction of Permit Parking on Gerrard Street East,

between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the introduction of permit parking on Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street, on an area basis within permit parking area 6G, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking be introduced on Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street, on an area basis within permit parking area 6G, to operate during the hours of 12:01a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Kyle Rae, on behalf of the residents, to introduce permit parking on Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street.

Comments:

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

Ballots were mailed out on May 26, 1998, with the last date for filing a response being June 26, 1998. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of permit parking on Gerrard Street, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street. It is therefore recommended that permit parking be introduced on Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street, on an area basis within permit parking area 6G, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

23

Introduction of Permit Parking on the North Side

of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the

Canadian National Railway Line (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To introduce permit parking on the north side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line, on an area basis, within permit parking area 3H, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking be introduced on the north side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line, on an area basis, within permit parking area 3H, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule G of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate the north side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway line; and

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

Background:

In her communication of June 18, 1998, Councillor Betty Disero requested that we proceed with the introduction of permit parking on the north side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line.

Comments:

Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line, is currently authorized for permit parking on the south side, on an area basis, within permit parking area 3H and operates between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

The introduction of permit parking on this section of the street will provide 6 additional on-street permit parking spaces to residents of this street and area 3H.

Conclusions:

Given that permit parking is already authorized on the south side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line and that the introduction of permit parking on the north side will provide 6 additional on-street parking spaces for residents of this street and area 3H, it is recommended that permit parking be introduced.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

24

Prohibition of Use By Vehicles Over 2.0 Metres in Width -

Public Lane First North of Kingston Road Extending

Between Bingham Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August11, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the incidence of damage being inflicted on adjacent property by oversized trucks attempting to travel in this lane.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That vehicles over 2.0 metres in width be prohibited at anytime from travelling in the lane, first north of Kingston Road extending between Bingham Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue; and

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

Comments:

At the request of the residents at Premises No. 111 Bingham Avenue and in consultation with Councillor Tom Jakobek, staff have investigated prohibiting vehicles over 2.0 metres in width from travelling in the lane first north of Kingston Road extending easterly from Bingham Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue, to minimize the likelihood of damage occurring to a retaining wall at Premises No. 111 Bingham Avenue.

The subject lane has a width of 2.8 metres and traffic operates two-way. Parking is prohibited at anytime in this lane. It would appear that, overly wide vehicles attempting to turn into this lane have frequently contacted the retaining wall at Premises No. 111 Bingham Avenue causing repeated damage to the wall and cost to the owners.

Although this lane provides access to the rear of commercial/retail properties fronting on Kingston Road, between Bingham Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue, it is not wide enough nor intended for use by oversized vans and delivery trucks to service these properties. Accordingly, based on our assessment, vehicles over 2.0 metres in width should be prohibited at all times from travelling in the subject lane. This should resolve many of the concerns experienced by residents at Premises No. 111 Bingham Avenue and should not significantly inconvenience other commercial/retail property owners abutting the lane as the current parking regulations allow loading/unloading on Kingston Road for most of the day.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

25

Adjustment to the Limits of the Existing No Parking Regulations -

Castle Knock Road from Crestview Road to Roselawn Avenue

on the West Side and from Elwood Boulevard to

Roselawn Avenue on the East Side (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To adjust the limits of the "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking regulation on both sides of Castle Knock Road, south of Roselawn Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking regulation on the east side of Castle Knock Road from Elwood Boulevard to Roselawn Avenue be adjusted to operate from Elwood Boulevard to a point 41 metres south of Roselawn Avenue;

(2)That the existing "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking regulation on the west side of Castle Knock Road from Crestview Road to Roselawn Avenue be adjusted to operate from Crestview Road to a point 36.5 metres south of Roselawn Avenue; and

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

Background:

In response to requests from area residents, Works staff investigated complaints regarding long term non-resident parking on both sides of the subject section of Castle Knock Road. In order to address the issue of long term non-resident parking during the weekday daytime hours, Works staff suggested several alternatives to North Toronto Councillors Michael Walker and Anne Johnston by letter dated April 22, 1998. In response to this letter, Councillor Walker conducted a poll of area residents to determine a consensus of the preferred alternative and forwarded a letter to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of July 22, 1998 requesting that parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Castle Knock Road from Crestview Road to Roselawn Avenue on the west side and from Elwood Boulevard to Roselawn Avenue on the east side. City Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 in considering Clause No. 25 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, adopted the Clause without amendment.

Comments:

Councillor Michael Walker's office has now requested an adjustment to the northerly limit of the "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking regulation. In this regard, the aforementioned limits should be adjusted as described in Recommendations Nos.1 and 2, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

26

Implementation of a "No Standing Anytime' Prohibition -

Alpine Avenue, North Side (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement a "No Standing Anytime" prohibition on the north side of Alpine Avenue, for its entire length, to discourage the incidence of tractor-trailers obstructing the roadway.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the north side of Alpine Avenue, for its entire length, be changed to "No Standing Anytime"; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero on behalf of area residents, staff have investigated the feasibility of changing the existing "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the north side of Alpine Avenue, for its entire length to "No Standing Anytime". Alpine Avenue is a two-way roadway with a pavement width of 8.5 metres, extending 38 metres west of Edwin Avenue to its termination point. At that point the public highway becomes a private driveway that services a factory, Premises No.1655 Dupont Street. Parking on the south side of the roadway is allowed for a maximum period of three hours outside of the 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily permit parking hours of operation.

Residents have raised concerns that on many occasions, tractor-trailer drivers park their vehicles two-abreast on Alpine Avenue, while waiting to pick-up/drop-off materials at the factory. This situation renders the roadway impassable for other vehicles and necessitates that vehicles parked on the south side of the street be "shuffled" onto Edwin Avenue, should residents require their use.

The introduction of a "No Standing Anytime" prohibition on the north side of the street would prohibit tractor-trailer drivers from occupying the north side of the roadway while waiting to pick-up/discharge materials from the factory (which they are permitted to do in a "No Parking Anytime" zone) and subject violators to enforcement measures by Parking Enforcement Unit staff.

It should be noted that area residents would also be subject to similar enforcement measures for standing their vehicles in a "No Standing Anytime" zone (to load/unload goods or merchandise), however they would still be permitted to pick-/drop-off passengers on the north side of the street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

C. Booth,

Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

27

Implementation of a One Hour Parking Limit, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Monday to Saturday- Wanda Road (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement a one hour parking limit on Wanda Road in order to reduce the incidence of long term transient parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking on the south side of Wanda Road from Indian Road Crescent to Dorval Road be regulated for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of area residents, Works staff investigated the feasibility of implementing a one hour parking limit on Wanda Road.

Wanda Road from Indian Road Crescent to Dorval Road operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side of Wanda Road and parking is permitted on the south side of the street for a maximum period of three hours outside of the hours of permit parking operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily.

The implementation of a one hour parking limit on Wanda Road to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m, Monday to Saturday, should reduce the incidence of long term transient parking that is presently occurring along the street due to the nearby commercial district along Bloor Street West and the T.T.C. subway station at Bloor Street West and Keele Street.

As your Community Council is aware, vehicles displaying valid on-street area parking permits would be exempt from this one hour parking restriction. However, residents without parking permits, visitors and trades persons may be inconvenienced as selective enforcement by the Parking Enforcement Unit of the Toronto Police Service is not possible.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

28

Reversal of One-way Southbound Operation

- St. Clarens Avenue between Bloor Street West

and Paton Road (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the one-way southbound operation on St. Clarens Avenue between Bloor Street West and Paton Road be reversed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the reversal of the existing one-way southbound operation on St. Clarens Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Paton Road, to a one-way northbound operation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 City Council, in considering Clause No. 23 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 10 entitled, "Installation of Speed Humps - Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue (Davenport)", amended the foregoing Clause by adding thereto "It is further recommended that the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to submit a report to the Toronto Community Council on the feasibility of reverting St. Clarens Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Paton Road, back to a northbound, one-way street."

Comments:

In response to a memorandum dated September 30, 1993 addressed to the City Services Committee from former Councillor Rob Maxwell, Works was requested to review the possibility of reversing one block of St. Clarens Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Paton Road, from one-way northbound to one-way southbound, to address concerns raised by area residents regarding certain illegal activities taking place on St. Clarens Avenue just north of Bloor Street West.

The City Services Committee at its meeting of October 13, 1993 recommended that the above-noted block of St. Clarens Avenue be reversed to operate one-way southbound for a six month trial period and that the Commissioner report back on the results of the trial. The Committee also requested that the Commissioner report directly to City Council on November 1, 1993 on the implementation of this proposal.

Works staff undertook a study and prepared a report to City Council advising that the reversal of the one-way operation on this portion of St. Clarens Avenue would likely result in a shift of the traffic pattern west from the existing area to an adjacent area including Lansdowne Avenue and that the change would not curtail the illegal activity, just shift the problem over to the next available northbound street, namely Lansdowne Avenue. It was anticipated that Lansdowne Avenue would experience an increase in traffic of about 900 vehicles per day and that approximately 650 southbound vehicles would be displaced from neighbouring streets onto St. Clarens Avenue as a result of the reversal. City Council adopted the City Services Committee's recommendation and approved the one-way reversal at its meeting of November 1 and 2, 1993 (Clause 36 in City Services Committee Report No. 13). Signs to give effect thereto were posted on January 5, 1994.

In a report dated August 18, 1994 to the City Services Committee, the Commissioner, as requested, reported back after the six month trial. It was noted that there had been a 44% increase in traffic on St. Clarens Avenue between Paton Road and Bloor Street West but that on Emerson Avenue, one street to the east and the nearest southbound operating street, traffic had been reduced by approximately 17%. There had been no complaints from area residents during the trial period and it was recommended that the one-way operation be maintained. The report was received by the City Services Committee at its meeting of August 31, 1994.

Should Toronto Community Council wish to proceed with the one-way reversal of the portion of St. Clarens Avenue between Bloor Street West and Paton Road, then the following recommendations should be adopted:

(1)That the existing one-way southbound regulation on St. Clarens Avenue from Bloor Street West to Paton Road be rescinded;

(2)That a one-way northbound regulation be established on St. Clarens Avenue from Bloor Street West to Paton Road; and

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl, 392-7892

Co-ordinator - Transportation Operations Section

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter, Clause 23, contained in Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Margueretta Street from Bloor West to Wallace Avenue (Davenport)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting on July29,30 and 31, 1998, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

29

Removal of Existing Speed Bumps - Lane System bounded by

Rhodes Avenue, Danforth Avenue, Coxwell Avenue

and Hanson Street (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To remove the existing speed bumps and all associated signs at the laneway location as noted above.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

(1) That the by-law authorizing speed bumps in the laneway system bounded by Rhodes Avenue, Danforth Avenue, Coxwell Avenue and Hanson Street, as shown on Drawing Nos.421F-3047 and 3048, attached, be rescinded; and

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

Comments:

Councillor Tom Jakobek has requested that the existing speed bumps in the laneway system as noted above be removed. This request has been made on behalf of local residents who have expressed concerns to the Councillor that their vehicles are being damaged when travelling over the existing speed bumps.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Elio Capizzano

Transportation Administrator

392-7878

30

Proposed Installation of Speed Humps -

Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to

Highland Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $8,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

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

"The construction of speed humps on Roxborough Drive, from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5242, dated August 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Comments:

At the request of the Midtown Ward Councillors and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on this street.

Roxborough Drive is a local residential street, winding and hilly in nature, which operates two-way between Mt. Pleasant Road and Highland Avenue. The easterly portion of the street has a gradient of between 6% and 8% with a sharp curve while the westerly portion has more moderate gradients and a much gentler curve. Concerns about the speed of vehicles and loss of control have historically been focused at the sharp curve at the end of the steepest portion of the road. A flashing yellow light, with an advisory 20 kilometres per hour speed and sharp curve symbol signs have been installed to clearly indicate to motorists the need for extra caution at this location.

Roxborough Drive between Mt. Pleasant Road and Highland Avenue has a pavement width of 7.3 metres, a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and carries about 1,200 vehicles per day. Parking is permitted on the south side only, from a point 73 m east of Mt. Pleasant Road to a point 160 m further east for a maximum period of three hours. The permit parking system is not in place on this street.

Speed surveys have revealed that at least 59% of the vehicles are traveling in excess of the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit and at least 12 % are traveling more than 10 kilometres per hour over the limit. I also note that this survey was taken towards the Mt. Pleasant Road end of Roxborough Drive where the roadway is more level and speeds, particularly westbound, may not be at their maximum.

As the gradient from the sharp curve to the Highland Avenue end of the street is in excess of 5% speed humps cannot be safely installed on this section of Roxborough Drive. However, four speed humps could be installed on the remaining portion of the roadway as shown on the attached Drawing No. 421F-5242, dated August 1998. I note that the first hump west of the curve is placed approximately 70 metres from the curve and as a further precaution signs informing westbound motorists that speed humps are ahead would be posted in advance of the curve. With speed humps on the western portion and the recently installed traffic circle at the Highland Avenue end, the speed limit on this portion of Roxborough Drive should be reduced to 30 kilometres per hour.

In light of the historical speed related problems on this street and the current amount of speeding it is recommended that residents be polled to determine whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street, and households on Old George Place whose only access is from Roxborough Drive. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed to Roxborough Drive as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Mike Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711

31

Ingress/Egress Turn Prohibitions from the West

Toronto Street Driveway - 2129 St. Clair West

(Canadian Tire Store)(Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit southbound right turns and eastbound left turns at the West Toronto Street driveway access to the Canadian Tire parking lot (Premises No. 2129 St. Clair Avenue West).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The property owner (The Toronto Stock Yard Land Development Board) is required to bear all expenses to implement the turn restrictions, noted in Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2, below.

Recommendations:

(1) That southbound right turns be prohibited at all times, from the driveway access at the rear of Premises No. 2129 St. Clair Avenue West to West Toronto Street;

(2) That eastbound left turns be prohibited at all times, from West Toronto Street to the driveway access at the rear of Premises No. 2129 St. Clair Avenue West; and

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

Comments:

Pursuant to the terms and conditions noted in the "Statement of Approval/Undertaking" of May 22, 1998, between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Stock Yard Land Development Board respecting Premises No. 2129 St. Clair Avenue West (the Canadian Tire store), the turn restrictions noted in

Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 above, should be implemented to minimize the impact of transient traffic on the adjacent residential community. I note that the owner of Premises No. 2129 St. Clair Avenue West is required to pay for the installation of the above signage, estimated to be approximately $1,500.00 to $2,000.00.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

C. Booth, 392-7771

Senior Traffic Investigator

32

Installation of a School Bus Loading Zone

in Front of Indian Road Crescent Public School

- 285 Indian Road Crescent (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To establish a loading zone fronting Indian Road Crescent Public School for school buses to pick-up and discharge students.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That a school bus loading zone be established on the east side of Indian Road Crescent from a point 23.5 metres north of Humberside Avenue to a point 20 metres further north; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Ms. Meg Young, Principal of Indian Road Crescent Public School, Works staff have investigated establishing a school bus loading zone fronting Indian Road Crescent Public School.

Parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side of Indian Road Crescent from Humberside Avenue to Annette Street and parking is allowed on the west side of this section of Indian Road Crescent to a maximum period of three hours, outside the hours of permit parking operation between 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., daily.

To facilitate the safe movement of children and vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the school, a school bus loading zone should be established on the east side of Indian Road Crescent from a point 23.5 metres north of Humberside Avenue to a point 20 metres further north.

Given that parking is currently prohibited on the east side of the subject section of Indian Road Crescent, the implementation of the school bus loading zone will not effect the supply of on-street parking.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

33

Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control

- Intersection of Geoffrey Street and Sorauren Avenue

(High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Geoffrey Street and Sorauren Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That "Stop" signs be installed for northbound and southbound traffic on Sorauren Avenue at its intersection with Geoffrey Street; and

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

Comments:

At the request of area residents, and in consultation with High Park Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of installing an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Geoffrey Street and Sorauren Avenue.

Geoffrey Street from Sorauren Avenue to Roncesvalles Avenue operates one-way westbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Sorauren Avenue in the vicinity of Geoffrey Street operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Both streets intersect to form a "T"-type intersection.

A recent 8-hour traffic survey conducted by City Works Services at this intersection during the morning and afternoon peak and off-peak periods recorded a total of 366 vehicles travelling westbound on Geoffrey Street away from the intersection, 1510 vehicles approaching southbound on Sorauren Avenue and 1442 vehicles approaching northbound on Sorauren Avenue. Additionally, 248 pedestrians crossed Geoffrey Street and 75 pedestrians crossed Sorauren Avenue at this intersection.

An examination of Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersection revealed that from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996, there were no reported accidents.

Works staff have evaluated this intersection against the criteria governing the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control which encompass factors such as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience, and have concluded that the warrants for an all-way "Stop" sign control are satisfied.

Specifically, the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control at this intersection would be in keeping with the pattern already established in the area in that there is an all-way "Stop" sign control at every intersection on Sorauren Avenue from Marion Street to Wabash Avenue. Accordingly, it would be reasonable for a motorist to expect to stop at the subject intersection and would enhance safety for pedestrians.

Although Geoffrey Street operates one-way westbound away from its intersection with Sorauren Avenue, and there are no apparent conflicts for vehicular traffic, the installation of "Stop" sign control for northbound and southbound Sorauren Avenue motorists will improve safety for pedestrians using the intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

34

Installation of a Northbound "Stop" Sign

- Intersection of Hertle Avenue and Highfield Road

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a northbound stop sign be installed at the intersection of Hertle Avenue and Highfield Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request to install a "Stop" sign for northbound traffic Highfield Road at Hertle Avenue, thereby creating an all-way stop controlled intersection.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Tom Jakobek, I am reporting to the Toronto Community Council on the installation of all way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Highfield Road and Hertle Avenue to reduce northbound left turn cornering speeds.

Hertle Avenue and Highfield Road form a T-type intersection. Hertle Avenue operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.53 metres with a daily traffic volume of approximately 200 vehicles and a posted 40 kilometre per hour speed limit. Parking is allowed on the east and south sides of the street for a maximum period of three hours and parking is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily. A "Stop" sign is posted for eastbound traffic on Hertle Avenue at Highfield Road. Highfield Road between Dundas Street East and Richard Avenue is a residential street which operates one-way northbound on a pavement width of 8.53 metres with a 40 kilometre per hour maximum speed limit and a daily volume of approximately 500 vehicles. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street and permit parking is in effect on this section of Highfield Road from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. Highfield Road is the through roadway and traffic flow is not regulated by a "Stop" sign at the present time.

Having evaluated this intersection against the installation criteria for "Stop" signs adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of September 16 & 17, 1991, this intersection does not satisfy the technical guidelines for the installation of all-way "Stop" sign control (which would result from the installation of a northbound "Stop" sign on Highfield Road).

The aforementioned criteria have been applied by Works staff for the past seven years when evaluating "Stop" sign requests. However, these criteria are unique to the former City of Toronto and are significantly less stringent than the installation guidelines established by the Provincial Ministry of Transportation (MOT) and those used by other municipalities when evaluating all-way "Stop" sign requests. Notwithstanding, neither the former City of Toronto's installation criteria nor the MOT's installation guidelines endorse cornering speed or speed reduction in general as reasons for installing "Stop" signs.

Several site visits by Works staff have not detected any specific problems related to operational safety at the intersection of Highfield Road and Hertle Avenue. However, it is typical that sporadic incidents of high speed turns like those described by area residents occur which might not have been detected during our review.

For your Council's information, staff have also evaluated Hertle Avenue with respect to speed humps against the installation criteria for speed humps as approved by City Council in August of 1997 and have found that the installation of speed humps is not warranted as the daily traffic volume is approximately 200 vehicles which falls well short of the required 1,000 vehicle per day minimum.

Notwithstanding all of the above, should the Toronto Community Council wish to install a "stop" sign for northbound traffic on Highfield Road at Hertle Avenue it will be necessary to recommend that City Council approve the following amendments to Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code:

(1)That a "Stop" sign be installed for northbound traffic on Highfield Road at Hertle Avenue; and

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

35

Installation of "Stop" Sign Control - Intersection of

Grassmere Road and Willard Avenue and Intersection

of Grassmere Road and Windermere Avenue

(High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Grassmere Road and Willard Avenue and at the intersection of Grassmere Road and Windermere Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That a "Stop" sign be installed for westbound traffic on Grassmere Road at its intersection with Willard Avenue;

(2)That a "Stop" sign be installed for eastbound traffic on Grassmere Road at its intersection with Windermere Avenue; and

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

Comments:

At the request of area residents, and in consultation with High Park Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of installing a "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Grassmere Road and Willard Avenue and at the intersection of Grassmere Road and Windermere Avenue.

Grassmere Road from Willard Avenue to Windermere Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. Willard Avenue in the vicinity of Grassmere Road operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.6 metres and a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. Windermere Avenue has a pavement width which varies between 8.5 and 10.9 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Both streets intersect to form a "T"-type intersection respectively and there is currently no "Stop" sign control in any direction of travel at either of these intersections.

An examination of Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersections revealed that from January 1, 1993 to March 31, 1997, there were no reported accidents.

Works staff have evaluated these intersections against the criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs which encompass factors such as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience, and have concluded that the warrants for "Stop" sign control at both intersections are satisfied.

Specifically, the installation of "Stop" sign control at these intersections would clearly establish right-of-way for vehicular traffic and would enhance safety for pedestrians.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

36

Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking

Spaces and Disabled Persons Loading Zones

(High-Park, Trinity-Niagara, Davenport, Midtown, Don River

and East Toronto)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that Table 'A', appended to the report dated August 28, 1998, from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services, be amended by:

(1)adding 'from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.' to the Dovercourt Road location listed under the heading 'Establishment of Disabled On-Street Loading Zone', so that such location shall now read as follows:

'Dovercourt Road, east side, from a point 60 metres north of Shanley Street to a point 9.5 metres further north from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.'; and

(2)striking out the first reference to '5.5 metres' and inserting in lieu thereof '55metres' for the Stephenson Avenue location listed under the heading 'Removal of Disabled On-Street Loading Zone', so that such location shall now read as follows:

'Stephenson Avenue, north side, between a point 55 metres west of Westlake Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further west.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August28, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the installation/removal of disabled on-street parking spaces and disabled on-street loading zones as noted in Table "A" of this report be approved; and

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

Comments:

Works and Emergency Services staff have investigated the feasibility of installing/removing a number of on-street disabled persons parking spaces and disabled on-street loading zones at various locations as outlined on the attached Table "A" of this report.

All applicants for new spaces are holders of valid disabled persons parking permits as issued by the Ministry of Transportation and the designated space will not result in the deprivation of more than one on-street parking space. Locations where on-street disabled persons parking spaces and disabled on-street loading zones are to be removed result from applicants moving, holding expired permits or no longer requiring these on-street parking privileges.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano

Administrator - 392-7878

--------

TABLE "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

19Fern Avenue, south side, from a point 9 metres west of Roncesvalles Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. Pat McGuire, a resident of Premises No. 197 Fern Avenue).

20Markham Street, east side, from a point 42 metres south of Herrick Street to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. S. Roti, a resident of Premises No. 521 Markham Street).

20Claremont Street, east side, from a point 110 metres south of Dundas Street West to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. Maria Silva, a resident of Premises No. 141 Claremont Street).

20Bellwoods Avenue, east side, from a point 13 metres north of Treford Place to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. Anna Roberto, a resident of Premises No. 233 Bellwoods Avenue).

21Blackthorn Avenue, west side, from a point 42.5 metres north of Rockwell Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. Annamaria Bacchiocchi, a resident of Premises No. 126 Blackthorn Avenue)

21Laughton Avenue, east side, from a point 53.5 metres north of Kingsley Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. Salvatore Pompa, a resident of Premises No. 19 Laughton Avenue).

21Harvie Avenue, west side, from a point 133.5 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mrs. Margherita Pallotta, a resident of Premises No. 36 Harvie Avenue).

21Ossington Avenue, east side, from a point 9 metres south of Manchester Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Mr. V. Iamundo, a resident of Premises No. 941 Ossington Avenue).

23Palmerston Gardens, north side, from a point 76 metres east of Manning Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Mr. T. Brady, a resident of Premises No. 35 Palmerston Gardens).

26Fairford Avenue, south side, between a point 15.3 metres east of Craven Road nd a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Mr. Henry Fraser, a resident of Premises No. 47 Fairford Avenue).

26Wolverleigh Boulevard, south side, from a point 130.5 metres east of Woodington Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Mr. Paul Vaccarella, a resident of Premises No.265 Wolverleigh Boulevard).

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

20St. Clarens Avenue, east side, from a point 385metres north of College Street to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 331 St. Clarens Avenue has moved).

20Claremont Street, east side, a point 21 metres north of Robinson Street and a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 47 Claremont Street has moved).

21Indian Grove, west side, from a point 98 metres north of Glenlake Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 296 Indian Grove, no longer required).

25Chester Avenue, east side, from a point 216.0 metres north of Danforth Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 75 Chester Avenue has moved).

25Logan Avenue, west side, from a point 68.0 metres south of Eastern Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 48 Logan Avenue has moved).

26Monarch Park Avenue, both sides, between a point 47 metres south of Mountjoy Avenue to point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 53 Monarch Park Avenue has moved).

26Milverton Boulevard, north side, between a point 16.0 metres west of Donlands Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 60 Milverton Boulevard has moved).

26Ivy Avenue, north side, between a point 62 metres east of Prust Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 98 Ivy Avenue has moved).

26Pickering Street, east side, between a point 49 metres south of Gerrard Street East and a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 225 Pickering Street has moved).

Establishment of disabled on-street loading zone

WardLocation

21Dovercourt Road, east side, from a point 60 metres north of Shanly Street to a point 9.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mrs. Thelma Ashman, a resident of Premises No. 893 Dovercourt Road).

Removal of disabled on-street loading zone

WardLocation

26Stephenson Avenue, north side, between a point 5.5 metres west of Westlake Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. Thompson of Premises No. 36 Stephenson Avenue has moved).

37

Amendments to the Parking and Stopping Regulations -

Balmuto Street between Charles Street West and

Bloor Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to implement a parking and stopping arrangement on this street which will address the short-term parking and delivery needs of various stakeholders on the street, reduce traffic congestion at intersecting streets and enhance traffic movement during peak operational periods.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the entire east side of Balmuto Street, be rescinded;

(2) That the 1 hour maximum parking regulation, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on the entire west side of Balmuto Street, be rescinded;

(3)That the provision for parking meters, operating from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday at a rate of $0.25 for 15 minutes/$1.00 per hour, for a maximum period of 1 hour on the entire west side of Balmuto Street, be rescinded;

(4)That the following regulations be implemented on the east side of Balmuto Street from Charles Street West to Bloor Street West:

a) Stopping be prohibited from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday;

b) Standing be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday;

c) Parking be prohibited from 6:30 p.m. of one day to 8:00 a.m. of the following day, Monday to Friday, from 6:00 p.m. to midnight, Saturday and at anytime on Sunday;

(5) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Balmuto Street:

a) from Bloor Street West to a point 35.0 metres south;

b) from a point 112.0 metres south of Bloor Street West to Charles Street West;

(6) That stopping be prohibited from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Balmuto Street from a point 35.0 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 77.0 metres further south;

(7)That an on-street parking area for disabled persons, suitable of accommodating 3 vehicles be designated on the west side of Balmuto Street from a point 35.0 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 21.0 metres further south;

(8) That 2 parking meters for use by commercial vehicles only be installed on the west side of Balmuto Street from a point 56.0 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 28.0 metres further south, operating from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday at a rate of $1.00 per half-hour;

(9) That 4 parking meters be installed on the west side of Balmuto Street from a point 84.0 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 28.0 metres further south, operating from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, for a maximum period of 30 minutes at a rate of $0.25 for 15 minutes; and

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

Comments:

Over the past year, Works staff, in consultation with Councillor Kyle Rae, representatives of the Parking Enforcement Unit and neighbourhood business associations, have reviewed traffic conditions on Balmuto Street with a view towards resolving a number of operational issues, including traffic congestion at the intersections of Bloor/Balmuto and Charles/Balmuto, illegal parking, on-street delivery activity and parking for disabled persons.

Balmuto Street has a pavement width of about 11.0 metres and extends from Charles Street West to Bloor Street West, a distance of 163 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the entire east side of the street but is allowed (controlled by 18 parking meters) with certain temporal parking restrictions on the entire west side of the street.

Several site inspections have revealed that the metered parking spaces on the west side of Balmuto Street are generally occupied throughout the day, several for durations in excess of the one hour parking restriction and/or by vehicles displaying disabled persons parking permits. Illegal parking was also noted on the west side within the corner parking prohibitions and in front of a ramp leading from an underground parking garage. Despite the parking prohibition on the east side of the street, a considerable amount of short-term illegal parking occurs throughout the day, particularly close to Bloor Street West. This combined with delivery vehicles stopping on the east side and illegal parking on the west side as noted above, constricts traffic flow and causes congestion near the intersecting streets, particularly during the afternoon rush period.

In our discussions with the various stakeholders, it has generally been agreed that to enhance traffic operation on Balmuto Street more stringent stopping/standing regulations need to be implemented at specific times of day and on specific sections of the street. However, in combination with more stringent regulations, provisions should be maintained on the street for short-term parking, curbside deliveries and parking by disabled persons. With these goals in mind, staff have developed a parking plan for Balmuto Street which has been endorsed by Councillor Rae's office and the neighbourhood business improvement associations. The highlights and impacts of the plan are as follows.

East Side:

a) Standing would be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday. The higher set fine associated with this infraction might be a deterrent to would-be parkers during business hours of the day when the current illegal parking problems are most prevalent and have the greatest adverse impact on traffic operation. Motorists would still be permitted to stop and drop off or pick up passengers but vehicles would not be permitted to legally stop while making a delivery;

b) Stopping would be prohibited from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, to deter illegal parking/standing/stopping during the afternoon rush period. Typically, traffic volume on Balmuto Street and traffic congestion at Bloor Street West and at Charles Street West reach their respective peaks during this period of the day; and

c) Parking would be prohibited at all other times. This retains the regulation currently in place in the evening, overnight and on Sundays when traffic conditions would no longer justify more stringent regulations.

West Side:

a) Stopping would be prohibited at anytime from Bloor Street West to a point 35 metres south and from Charles Street East to a point 51 metres north (112 metres south of Bloor Street West). In combination with the stopping/standing/parking prohibitions on the east side, this should act as a greater deterrent to illegal parking near the intersecting streets, reduce traffic congestion and enhance traffic operation throughout the day;

b) Stopping would be prohibited from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday from a point 35 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 77 metres further south to augment the similar regulation on the east side of the street and enhance traffic operation during the afternoon rush period;

c) 3 Disabled Persons Parking Spaces for use at times other than the afternoon rush period by persons issued with disabled parking permits would be delineated from a point 35 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 21 metres further south. Based on the number of vehicles that staff have seen parked on this street with disabled parking permits (average of about 3 vehicles during the daytime), this would ensure that a reasonable number of parking spaces are provided for disabled persons in what appears to be a popular parking area;

d) 2 Metered Parking/Loading Spaces for use at times other than the afternoon rush period by commercial vehicles only would be identified from a point 56 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 28 metres further south. Although under the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, a vehicle may legally stop to make a delivery or pick-up in an area prohibited to parking provided that the vehicle is actually engaged in this purpose if the vehicle is left unattended while the driver completes the delivery, it becomes "parked" and is subject to enforcement. A metered parking/loading area for commercial vehicles is a relatively new initiative which delineates an exclusive location on the street where delivery operations should be conducted and enables the driver to leave the vehicle unattended provided that a fee is deposited in the meter and the meter is activated. In this particular instance, 2 spaces, each 14 metres in length, would be provided on Balmuto Street to facilitate curbside deliveries. The meters would operate from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday to off set the impact that the stopping/standing prohibitions on the east side of Balmuto Street would have on delivery operations; and

e) 4 Parking Meters for use by the general public for a maximum period of 30 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday (the operational periods of the meters) and for 3 hours at other times (with the exception of the afternoon rush period) would be identified from a point 84 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 28 metres further south. These parking spaces would discourage meter "feeding", which has been observed, address the short term parking needs of persons patronizing some nearby businesses and might encourage motorists requiring longer duration parking to use nearby off-street parking facilities.

Based on our assessment, these changes to the parking regulation should improve traffic operation on Balmuto Street. However, there would be a reduction of 14 metered parking spaces on this street which might be perceived as an inconvenience by some people in the neighbourhood. Notwithstanding, the benefits to traffic operation and safety out weigh the need for on street parking in this instance.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton

Transportation Operations Coordinator, 392-1806

38

Proposed Parking Prohibition on the South Side of

Rosedale Valley Road at the Manulife Centre Driveway

(Midtown and Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August18, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To implement a parking prohibition on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, at the Manulife parking lot driveway, to improve the sightlines and turning radii for motorists using this driveway.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with this work are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited at all times on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, from 152.5 metres east of Park Road to 82.5 metres further east thereof; and

(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of a member of the public, staff reviewed the feasibility of prohibiting parking on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, adjacent to the driveway which provides access to the Manulife Centre. The inquirer is concerned that the vehicles parked on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, near this driveway, are creating a sightline hazard for motorists using this driveway.

Discussion:

The driveway to the Manulife Centre is located on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, approximately 200 metres east of Park Road. The existing Rosedale Valley Road parking prohibitions are as follows:

Existing Parking Regulations on Rosedale Valley Road

Under the general rules of the Uniform Traffic By-law, vehicles are permitted to park within 0.6 metres of driveways. However, the operating characteristics of the subject driveway are similar to those of a minor street. Parking is generally prohibited at non-signalized intersections on roadways for a distance of up to 15 metres to maintain adequate sightlines and turning radii. Our field observations revealed that vehicles do park close to the Manulife Centre driveway during off-peak weekday and weekend periods.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to prohibit parking at all times for a distance of 15 metres on either side of the driveway to the Manulife Centre to improve access and egress at this driveway. The proposed parking prohibition would have a negligible impact on parking in this area.

A review of Toronto Police Service collision records over a five-year period ending December 31, 1997 did not disclose any collisions involving vehicles entering or egressing the Manulife Centre driveway and east-west motorists on Rosedale Valley Road.

All four ward councillors affected by the proposal have been notified of the recommendations. None have voiced any objections or concerns.

Conclusions:

The installation of a "No Parking Any Time" zone on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, at the driveway to the Manulife Centre, will provide better sightlines and turning radii for motorists using this driveway without negatively impacting parking in this area.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Jacqueline White

Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region

(416) 397-5021

39

Extension of Permit Parking Hours -

Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and

Walpole Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the existing parking regulations on Woodfield Road, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue be rescinded;

(2)parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Woodfield Road, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue;

(3)the permit parking hours of operation (from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily), currently on the east side of Woodfield Avenue, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue, be transferred to the west side, to operate from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily;

(4)Schedule Z of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 11, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule Z of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Sandra Bussin to have the permit parking hours extended on Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 8C, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

Given that the extension of permit parking hours on Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, is an administrative procedure, it is recommended that the hours be amended to indicate 10:00 p.m. to 10:00a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

Motion To Toronto Community Council for its meeting of September 16, 1998

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (undated) from Councillor Bussin:

It is suggested that the following motion be placed before Toronto Community Council in order to amend Item 112 to allow for the transference of parking from east side to the west side of the subject section of Woodfield Road:

"In order to transfer parking from the east side to the west side of Woodfield Road, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue, while at the same time, extending the permit parking hours of operation, that the recommendations contained in the report (September 11, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services, be deleted and replaced with the following:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the existing parking regulations on Woodfield Road, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue be rescinded;

(2)parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Woodfield Road, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue;

(3)the permit parking hours of operation (from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily), currently on the east side of Woodfield Avenue, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue, be transferred to the west side, to operate from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily;

(4)Schedule Z of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue; and

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

40

Traffic Calming Measures -

Bartlett Avenue North (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 15, 1998) from Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Bartlett Avenue North between Geary Avenue to Davenport Road by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $6,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Bartlett Avenue North between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Bartlett Avenue North between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5253, dated September 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Bartlett Avenue North between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Comments:

Councillor Betty Disero, in 1997, requested staff assistance in developing a traffic calming plan for Bartlett Avenue North to reduce vehicle speeds. A traffic calming plan was previously installed on Bartlett Avenue between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street in 1997, comprising 7 traffic islands which narrow the roadway at specific locations. Various alternatives to reduce vehicle speeds were developed by staff for Bartlett Avenue North, including traffic calming islands and speed humps.

Bartlett Avenue North from Geary Avenue to Davenport Road has a pavement width of 7.32 metres, a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h, and operates one-way northbound. The block is approximately 420 metres long. A 24-hour speed and volume survey recorded approximately 1000 vehicles during a typical weekday and of these about 36% exceeded the speed limit with about 13% in excess of 10km/h over the limit.

The alternate side parking system is in effect on this block under the following regulations:

West side

• Parking is prohibited at anytime from the 16^th day to the last day of each month from April1 to November 30, inclusive.

East side

• Parking is prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, April 1^st to November30^th, inclusive.

• Parking is prohibited at anytime from December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next following year, inclusive.

The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Four speed humps could be installed on this portion of Bartlett Avenue North as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5253, dated September, 1998. The humps, if constructed

7.5 cm high, would reduce average speeds at the humps to less than 25 km/h. The speed limit would be reduced to 30 km/h. I note that although spacing would accommodate it, we do not recommend installing another speed hump closer to Davenport Road, as the grade in this portion of the block exceeds 5%.

As outlined in the former City of Toronto speed hump policy, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adult residents (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the street. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed to Bartlett Avenue North as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Joe Gallippi, Transportation Technologist, 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Bartlett Avenue North

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (September2,1998) from Councillor Disero:

I refer to your letter dated March 16, 1998 with respect to the above subject.

Could you please proceed with the installation of speed humps on Barlett Avenue North, as per your number 2 proposal in your letter. Please submit your report to the next Toronto Community Council meeting of September 16th for the implementation of the speed humps.

Thank you for your anticipated co-operation.

--------

(Communication (March 16, 1998) from the

Director, Infrastructure and Transportation,

Works and Emergency Services, addressed to Councillor Disero)

Further to my acknowledgment of November 3, 1997 to your letter of October 8, 1997 regarding the above, Works' staff have completed a review of the matter and provide the following.

Bartlett Avenue North from Geary Avenue to Davenport Road has a pavement width of 7.32 metres, a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h, and operates one-way northbound. The block is approximately 420 metres long. A 24-hour speed and volume survey of November 23, 1995 recorded approximately 1000 vehicles during a typical weekday, and of these about 36% exceed the speed limit with about 13% in excess of 10 km/h over the limit.

The alternate side parking system is in effect on this block under the following regulations:

West side

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from the 16th day to the last day of each month from

April 1 to November 30, inclusive.

East side

-Parking is prohibited from the 1st day to the 15th day of each month, April 1st to November30th, inclusive.

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from December 1st of one year to March 31st of the next following year, inclusive.

The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours. The subject section of Bartlett Avenue North is located within permit parking area 3F where as of February 17, 1998, 630 permits have been issued against 998 parking spaces. Specifically on this portion of Bartlett Avenue North, 35 permits have been issued against 44 parking spaces.

Various traffic calming measures could be introduced on Bartlett Avenue North between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road:

1.Four chicanes could be introduced in the vicinity of the following locations:

-Premises No. 308;

-Premises Nos. 331, 332 and 334;

-Premises Nos. 337 and 368; and

-Premises Nos. 411, 396 and 400.

These would be similar in appearance to those on Yarmouth Road west of Christie Street. Parking would be staggered (and the alternate side parking system rescinded), and a total of about 39 parking spaces would be made available year round. The chicanes would consist of traffic calming islands and could contain planters if nearby residents were interested in maintaining flowers, trees or small shrubs;

2.Bartlett Avenue North satisfies the City's criteria for speed humps, and a suitable speed hump plan for this block would consist of approximately 6 speed humps. The alternate side parking system would be unaffected and there would be no change in the number of parking spaces available;

3.A combination of chicanes and speed humps could be introduced, and the alternate side parking system would need to be rescinded; or

4.The creation of several "islands" of parking on this block could be considered. Island parking means that parking is fixed to one side of the street with short zones or "islands" of parking on the other side. This would have the effect of slightly reducing vehicle speeds while leaving sufficient manoeuvring room for fire trucks and other large vehicles. When considering streets for island parking, the following conditions need to be met:

a)Parking islands should be restricted in length to 10-11 metres to accommodate a maximum of two vehicles per island;

b)"No Parking Anytime" zones between islands should have a minimum length of 36 metres;

c)A minimum driving lane width of 3.3 metres should be maintained on a street with a pavement width of 7.3 metres (such as Bartlett Avenue North). Parking "islands" and the parking spaces opposite the islands must be restricted to a maximum width of 2 metres by-law;

d)The islands should only be in effect during the non-winter months; and

e)The pavement width should be 7.3 - 10.0 metres.

Island parking requires a new sign pole and parking signs at each end of each island, and also requires the rescindment of the current alternate side parking system. This proposal would provide about 50 parking spaces year round (if parking is switched to the east side) and would also provide about 12 additional parking spaces in the non-winter months (April 1 to November 30), on the west side.

I will be pleased to receive your comments on the above before proceeding.

41

Provision of a "School Bus Loading Zone" and a "Student

Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" in front of Essex Street School,

- 50 Essex Street and in front of St. Raymond School,

- 270 Barton Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 11, 1998) from Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To implement a "School Bus Loading Zone" and a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" in front of Essex Street School, No. 50 Essex Street and in front of St. Raymond School, No. 270 Barton Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the amendments to parking regulations on Essex Street and on Barton Avenue be approved as outlined in Appendix "A"; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of the Principals of Essex Street School and St. Raymond School, Works staff investigated the feasibility of implementing the above-noted zones in front of both schools to enhance the safe arrival and departure of children attending the school.

As Toronto Community Council is aware, when a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" is established at a school it allows parents dropping off children to leave their vehicles unattended in the zone for a maximum ten minute period to accompany their child(ren) into the school, without the fear of being ticketed. The hours of operation of such zones are generally for an hour, prior to the beginning of the school day, at lunch time and at the end of the school day.

A "School Bus Loading Zone" is often established in addition to a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" for the purpose of maintaining a clear area along the frontage of a school to provide for the safe pick-up and drop-off of children by school buses at the curb. The area is generally signed as "No Parking" during the daytime hours to eliminate the standing of any vehicles in the zone. In many cases, parking is not prohibited during the evening hours to accommodate the needs of area residents who may hold on-street overnight parking permits.

Essex Street School, No. 50 Essex Street

Essex Street from Shaw Street to the east property limit of Essex Street School operates one way westbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is currently prohibited at anytime on the north side of this section of street and is allowed on the south side for a maximum period of three hours, outside of the permit parking hours of operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily.

Along the frontage of Essex Street School, which comprises two separate school buildings, parking is currently prohibited at anytime. Therefore, the implementation of a "School Bus Loading Zone" and a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" will not impact negatively on permit parking spaces or daytime parking spaces.

Ms. Melanie Tait, Principal of Essex Street School has requested that a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" be established between the two main entrances of the buildings, with a "School Bus Loading Zone" at either end of the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone". The east building houses the public school and the west building houses a day care centre. School buses service both buildings.

St. Raymond School, No. 270 Barton Avenue

Barton Avenue from Shaw Street to Pendrith Lane operates two way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is currently prohibited on the north side from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, and otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours, outside of the permit parking hours of operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the south side of this section of street.

Along the frontage of St. Raymond School parking is currently prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00p.m. daily and permit parking operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily. As above, due to the existing parking regulations and proposed hours of operation of the zones, implementation of this request will not impact negatively on permit parking spaces or on daytime parking spaces.

Ms. Arlene Blonde, Principal of St. Raymond School, has requested that the existing "School Bus Loading Zone" be relocated to in front of the main entrance of the school and that a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" be established in its former place.

I advise that I have no objections to these requests and have consulted with both Principals and Councillor Disero regarding the hours of operation of the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zones" as outlined in Appendix "A".

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl, 392-7892

Co-ordinator - Transportation Operations

Appendix "A"

Essex Street School, No. 50 Essex Street

(1)That the existing no parking at anytime regulation on the north side of Essex Street from Christie Street to Shaw Street be amended to operate from Christie Street to a point 167 metres west thereof and from a point 284 metres west of Christie Street to Shaw Street;

(2)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of ten minutes from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Essex Street, from a point 167 metres east of Christie Street, to a point 117 metres further west and that parking be prohibited at all other times; and

(3)That two "School Bus Loading Zones" be established on the north side of Essex Street, from a point 101.5 metres west of Christie Street to a point 65.5 metres further west and from a point 284 metres west of Christie Street to a point 67 metres further west.

St. Raymond School, No. 270 Barton Avenue

1.That the existing no parking 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily regulation on the north side of Barton Avenue, from a point 35 metres east of Shaw Street to Pendrith Lane, be adjusted to operate from Pendrith Lane to a point 94.5 metres further west;

2.That the existing "School Bus Loading Zone" on the north side of Barton Avenue, from the lane first east of Shaw Street to a point 50.5 metres further east be relocated to operate from Pendrith Lane to a point 80.5 metres further west;

3.That parking be allowed for a maximum period of ten minutes from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Barton Avenue, from a point 94.5 metres west of Pendrith Lane, to a point 50.5 metres further west; and

4.That parking be prohibited on the north side of Barton Avenue, from a point 94.5 metres west of Pendrith Lane, to a point 50.5 metres further west, from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:30a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday.

42

Installation of Traffic Control Devices -

Eastwood Road from Woodbine Avenue to Bellhaven Road

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the report (September 14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1 be adopted; and

(2)the poll referred to in Recommendation No. (1) of the report (September 14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services, be conducted from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue, south of Duvernet Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the operating speed of motorists using this section of Eastwood Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $3,000.00 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

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

"The construction of speed humps on Eastwood Road from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5200, dated April 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Eastwood Road from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue, coincident with the implementation of traffic calming; and

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

Comments:

As requested by residents of Eastwood Road and in consultation with Ward Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin, a staff investigation has been conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Eastwood Road from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue to reduce the number of speeding motorists on this street.

Eastwood Road from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.56 metres and has a posted speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. A recent twenty-four hour speed and volume survey conducted on Eastwood Road between Kingsmount Park Road and Glenmore Road has provided the speed data shown in the following table.

The incidence of speeding in excess of the forty kilometres per hour speed limit is approximately 84%; while the percentage of vehicles recorded at a rate of speed in excess of fifty kilometres per hour is 64.0%. This speed profile indicates that speeding vehicles are of genuine concern along this section of Eastwood Road.

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting on August 21, 1997 adopted, as amended, Clause28 in City Services Committee Report No. 10 entitled Installation of Speed Humps on City Streets which sets out five primary criteria that must be satisfied when evaluating requests for speed humps (as opposed to speed bumps). Specifically, to warrant speed hump installation, one of the criteria stipulates that the street should carry a volume of between 1,000 and 8,000 vehicles per day. As noted above, Eastwood Road carries a total of 4,655 vehicles per day and accordingly, the installation of speed humps is technically warranted.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street, and households on side streets whose only access is from the affected street. Given the relatively profound impact that such an initiative may have on a street, it is recommended that a high level of acceptance, namely 60% of those responding, be achieved in order to authorize the installation.

The changes proposed to the Eastwood Road roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Act, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard

Traffic Investigator

392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Eastwood Road

43

Introduction of a Prohibition to Restrict Vehicles

First Lane South of Davenport Road Extending Between

Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue

(Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 15, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit vehicles in excess of 2 metres in width from travelling in the first lane south of Davenport Road between Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That vehicles over 2 metres in width be prohibited from travelling in the first lane south of Davenport Road extending between Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero on behalf of area residents, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of introducing a regulation to prohibit vehicles in excess of 2 metres in width from travelling in the first lane south of Davenport Road between Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue.

The subject lane, being part of the public lane system bounded by Davenport Road, Uxbridge Avenue, Laughton Avenue and Pelham Avenue, is 3 metres in width. The east and west branches of this lane are offset and are connected by two right angle turns forming a tight "S" type jog in the lane. As a result of the narrow width and configuration of the lane it is impassible to large vehicles. The primary function of this lane is to provide vehicular access to garages at the rear of residential properties along Davenport Road. There are no commercial establishments abutting this lane.

In view of the above, regulations should be introduced to restrict vehicles having a width in excess of 2 metres from travelling in the first lane south of Davenport Road between Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue.

For Community Council's information, a heavy truck prohibition currently operates on Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue and signs giving effect to this prohibition are posted at Davenport Road.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

44

Front Yard Parking - 95 Montgomery Avenue

Results of the Poll (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of the poll conducted in connection with front yard parking at 95 Montgomery Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for front yard parking and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the applicant obtain permission from Urban Planning and Development Services for the alteration of the front porch.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 6, 1998, had before it a communication (April 27, 1998) from Councillor Walker, respecting front yard parking at 95 Montgomery Avenue, recommending that the request for front yard parking be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying the fee prescribed by the former Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to accept and process the application, including conducting a poll of area residents, and report back to the Toronto Community Council.

Comments:

Mr. Tony DiLeo, owner of 95 Montgomery Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4R 1E1, submitted an application for front yard parking on February 10, 1998. The application was refused as the proposal did not meet the current criteria of the Municipal Code. The refusal was appealed to the Toronto Community Council, which approved the parking and requested that the formal poll be conducted.

The polling was conducted in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 90, Polling and Notifications Procedures, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The area polled was on both sides of Montgomery Avenue, from Nos. 77 to 137 on the south side and between Nos. 118 to 140 on the north side. The deadline for receiving the ballots was August 24, 1998. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

The majority of the ballots cast were in favour of the parking proposal.

The vehicle the applicant intends to park in the front yard is 4.4 metres in length. The maximum length of a vehicle that can park fronting this property is 3.8 metres. In order to accommodate the vehicle, the applicant would be required to reduce the size of the front porch by 0.6 metre.

Conclusions:

As the polling results were in favour of front yard parking at this location, it is recommended that it be approved. However, modifications to the front porch would have to be made in order to accommodate the parking of the vehicle and a building permit must be obtained to alter the front porch by reducing it by 0.6 metre, to meet the physical criteria of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

45

Maintenance of a Fence -

499 Spadina Road (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowners' request to maintain a wrought iron fence within the City street allowance which exceeds the maximum height permitted under the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks. At Councillor Adams' request this is scheduled as a communication item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the maintenance of a wrought iron fence ranging in height from 1.58 m to 2.04 m within the City street allowance fronting 499 Spadina Road, subject to the owners entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Molly Sniderman and Carol Grafstein of 499 Spadina Road, Toronto, Ontario M5P 2W6, submitted an application on July 22, 1998 to maintain a wrought iron fence between the brick pillars. This fence ranges in height from 1.58 m to 2.04 m rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m allowed in Chapter313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

We have received letters, dated August 7, 1998, from the immediate neighbours on either side of the subject location, wherein it is stated that they have no objections to the wrought iron fence and consider the fence an improvement to the property and enhancement to the neighbourhood.

Staff have also inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that this fence does not impact negatively on the general streetscape.

Details of this fence and the letters from the owner and area residents are on file with this department.

Conclusion:

As this fence does not impact negatively on the streetscape in the area, the fence should be permitted to be maintained.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

46

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 331, Trees, of the

Former City of Toronto Municipal Code

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To respond to the request of the Toronto Community Council that the City Solicitor in consultation with appropriate staff report back to the Toronto Community Council on September 16, 1998 on proposed amendments to Chapter 331, Trees of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which would resolve joint ownership issues and issues respecting applications which straddle property lines and on the motion from Councillor Johnston that:

"In respect to trees that straddle property lines Council reinstate the former City of Toronto Municipal Code provisions that allowed the owner of either property to make an application to injure or destroy a tree that straddles a property line and allowed the owner of an abutting property to make an application to injure or destroy a tree on an adjacent property in respect to a development that would affect the roots or branches of such a tree."

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council amend By-law No. 1997-0418 by deleting section 331-13A(6) of Municipal Code Chapter 331 thereby reinstating the former Municipal Code provision which would permit the owner of either property where the base of a tree straddles the property line or where a property is physically impacted by the roots or crown of a tree on adjacent property to make an application to injure or destroy such tree; and

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to introduce a by-law in substantially the same form as the by-law attached to this report.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of June 25, 1998 Toronto Community Council had before it a communication respecting 204-212 Eglinton Avenue East and the resolution of a dispute surrounding the protection of a 33cm diameter elm tree located on abutting property at 220 Eglinton Avenue East.

Toronto Community Council requested that the City Solicitor report directly to City Council on July8, 1998 on options available to Council to grant an exemption to by-law No. 1997-0418 and to report back to Toronto Community council on September 16, 1998 on proposed amendments to Chapter 331, Trees of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code which would resolve joint ownership issues and issues respecting applications which straddle property lines.

At its meeting of July 31, 1998 City Council adopted by-law No. 610-1998 which provides an exemption from the requirement that applicants obtain the consent of the adjacent property owner in circumstances where the base of a tree straddles the property line or where a property is physically impacted by the roots or crown of a tree on adjacent property, however, this exemption is only applicable in circumstances where a development application was approved prior to the adoption of by-law No. 1997-0418 on August 21, 1997.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Prior to the passage of By-law No. 1997-0418 on August 21, 1997, the owner of either property where the base of a tree straddled the property line or where a property was physically impacted by the roots or crown of a tree on adjacent property could make an application to injure or destroy such a tree. By-law No. 1997-0418 removed the right of an owner in such circumstances to make an application without first obtaining the consent of the adjacent property owner.

Prior to the passage of By-law 1997-0418 the City Solicitor reported on amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, that would require joint ownership issues to be resolved prior to an application being accepted and advised that the Municipal Code provision in place at the time which allowed for either property owner to make an application to injure or destroy a tree where the tree straddled the property line had been adopted by City Council in November 1995 in order to permit applications to be processed in such situations thereby allowing the development review process to proceed. Prior to this 1995 amendment, several situations had arisen in which neighbours had used the trees by-law to effectively sterilize abutting properties from development because of the need to obtain a neighbouring property owner's consent. The 1995 amendment allowed the owner of an intended development site to submit the necessary application and required that notice be given to the abutting property owner so that any objections could be made. No consent was required. The owners of both properties affected by the trees at issue were advised that the City was dealing with the issue under the trees by-law but was not providing authority for the owner of a development site to enter onto or otherwise destroy his or her neighbour's property.

Amending the by-law to allow either owner to make an application will permit applications to be considered on their merits and result in the tree by-law causing the least possible delay to development applications. Requiring joint ownership issues to be resolved prior to an application for the injury/destruction of trees on private property removes the ability of an owner of a development site to move an application forward until the consent of the abutting property owner has been obtained and can result in substantial delays in the processing of development applications, thereby allowing an objecting property owner to effectively sterilize an abutting property from development.

Given the added benefit that having applications move forward forces property owners to consider each other's position and attempt to resolve the issues respecting such trees in a timely way, while still giving Council the opportunity to consider each case on its merits, it is appropriate for Council to consider amending the by-law to remove the consent requirement.

Conclusions:

If Council wishes to reinstate the former City of Toronto Municipal Code provisions, in place prior to the adoption of by-law 1997-0418 which permitted the owner of either property to make an application to injure or destroy a tree that straddles a property line or where the roots or branches of a tree will be injured or destroyed as a result of development on an adjacent property the appropriate course of action would be to amend by-law 1997-0418 by deleting Municipal CodeS.331-13A(6).

Contact Name:

Jasmine Stein, (tel. 392-7226)

--------

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No.

Adopted by City Council on

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

DRAFT BY-LAW No.

To amend the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III respecting trees that straddle property lines.

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

1.Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III of the former City of Toronto is amended by:

A.Deleting Subsection 331-13A(6)

ENACTED AND PASSED THIS Day of , A.D. 1998.

______________________________________________________

MayorCity Clerk

--------

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

-Clause 17, contained in Report No. 11 of the Neighbourhoods Committee of the former City of Toronto, titled "Municipal Code - Trees - Chapter 331, Article III - Injury of Destruction of Trees in Defined Areas", which was adopted, as amended by City Council at its meeting on August 21, 1997; and

-Clause 2 of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, titled "Committee of Adjustment Application - 204, 212 Eglinton East (North Toronto), which was adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.

47

Removal of City-Owned Tree - 40 Bellefair Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for tree removal at 40 Bellefair Avenue be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Councillor Jakobek on behalf of Ms. Susan Taylor, 40 Bellefair Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4L 3T8, for City Council to consider removal of a City owned Norway maple tree located at the above noted address. Ms. Taylor reports that the tree roots are clogging her drains.

Recommendation:

That this request for tree removal be denied.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 32 cm diameter Norway maple which is in good condition and is valued at $716.28. My staff inspected the tree on August 27, 1998 and found that the tree does not qualify for routine removal.

With respect to drain problems experienced at this address, I advise that if drains leak, they will attract tree roots to a much greater depth than the normal 60 cm and this may result in clogged drains. The only solution to this problem is to replace old, deteriorating drains with new drains which do not leak and attract roots. Partial replacement of drains usually only works for a short time until roots are attracted to another segment of deteriorating drains. Removal of the tree may not solve the problem of blocked pipes as water will still leak from the drain and the opening could allow soil and roots from other trees or shrubs into the pipe.

Removal of City trees suspected of causing damage to drains is neither practical nor advisable and would set an undesirable precedent for removing many City trees.

However, should Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, I recommend that the owner pay all costs involved, this includes the tree value of $716.28, the removal costs of $227.51, and the cost to plant a replacement, $475.01, for a total of $1,418.80.

Contact Name:

Warren Quan

Email: wquan @ city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-1940

Fax: 416-392-6657

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (August 6, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek forwarding a communication (July 28, 1998) from Mrs. Susan Taylor, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

48

Removal of City-Owned Tree - 30 Hemlock Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to consult further with the Ward Councillors and report back to the Toronto Community Council in the spring of 1999.

Purpose:

An application has been received from Councillor Jakobek for City Council to consider removal of a City owned Norway maple tree located at the above noted address. Councillor Jakobek reports that the tree attracts over 500 starlings during the summer months. The noise and mess from these birds are causing distress to the property owners of 28 and 30 Hemlock Avenue

Recommendation:.

That as a first option Forestry staff significantly thin the tree crown to try and preserve the tree while discouraging the starlings from roosting there leaving tree removal as a second option if pruning is not successful.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 102 cm diameter Norway maple which is in good condition and valued at $7,648.60.. Forestry staff inspected the tree on August 27, 1998 and found that the tree does not qualify for routine removal.

Forestry have been working with the property owners for several years and have tried sound repellents such as an air horn and recorded starling distress calls to deter the starlings from roosting in the tree. These efforts had limited success.

Removal of the City owned tree will probably not solve the problem because the starlings will roost in other trees around the property. Flocks of starlings often congregate in large numbers when trees form a dense crown. This particular tree does have a very dense crown. A possible solution is to prune the tree significantly to create a more open crown.

Contact Name:

Warren Quan

Email: wquan @ city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-1940

Fax: 416-392-6657

The Toronto Community Council also submits a communication (July 24, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek:

I am writing to solicit your support to remove a beautiful, healthy tree for a somewhat bazaar reason. The tree in question is located at 28-30 Hemlock Avenue. For some unknown reason, it attracts a group of over 500 starlings during the summer. The noise and the mess from these birds are something you cannot believe.

Our parks department has been great by pruning the tree, spraying the tree and installing speakers to keep the birds away. All of these efforts worked initially but not permanently.

I have, over the past seven or eight years, resisted acting on this matter in hope that the birds would perhaps go away or that another solution could be found.

Our staff believe there are only two answers: remove the tree or live with the birds. Both owners have said they cannot sell their homes nor continue living with the noise and smell. Although the tree is beautiful, virtually every neighbour on the street is in agreement. I ask you to please support the removal of the tree.

49

Removal of City-Owned Tree -

40 Alexander Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Matthew Bernstein, Terraplan, Landscape Architects, 20Champlain Boulevard, Unit 102, Toronto, Ontario, M3H 2Z1, for City Council to consider removal of two City owned trees.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be approved on the condition that:

(1)the applicant submit a certified cheque in the amount of $4,615.16 to cover the value of the trees, removal costs and replacement costs of two City owned trees;

(2)the applicant plant four trees on Alexander Street of minimum 80 mm caliper and of a species satisfactory to the Director of Development and Support, on completion of the project.

Background:

This request for tree removal forms part of a Committee of Adjustment application filed with Urban Development Services for the purpose of replacing the existing retail store and office building.

Comments:

The landscape plan indicates there are four City owned trees involved with this project. One of the two Norway maples is in poor condition. This tree will be removed and replaced at no cost to the applicant. The other Norway maple will be protected and preserved during the construction work. The remaining two trees do not qualify for removal and are the subject of this application for removal. The trees in question are a 26 cm diameter tree-of-heaven and a 50 cm diameter Mulberry. The building and underground garage are proposed to be constructed in close proximity to these trees so their preservation on site cannot be guaranteed.

These trees are in excellent condition and valued at $2,321.02. The costs to remove these trees is $1,344.12 and the costs to replace two City owned trees in turf are $950.02, for a total of $4,615.16.

Since these two trees cannot be preserved due to their proximity to the existing building and proposed building, I am recommending that approval be granted for the removal of the two trees provided that the applicant pay for all costs and tree values listed above, and plants four trees of minimum 80 mm caliper on Alexander Street.

Contact Name:

Warren Quan

Email: wquan@city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-1940; Fax: 416-392-6657

50

Amendment of Grant Agreement

- 243 Coxwell Avenue - Royal Canadian Legion

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council authorize the amendment of the grant agreement made as of 7th of October, 1997 by:

(1)deleting the requirement that the parking lot be signed in such a way that the members of the public will know that it is available for public use;

(2)inserting a requirement that any signage at the parking lot at 243 Coxwell Avenue may not exclude or restrict any member of the public from parking at the lot at any time; and

(3)inserting a requirement that the parking lot be fully available to the public for parking at any time at no charge.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following joint report (August 27, 1998) from the City Solicitor, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

To advise Council of the current status of the grant approved by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting held on September 22 and 23, 1997 and to seek instructions in respect of the proposed amendment of the grant agreement, the terms of which were authorized by the Council at its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

At its meeting held on September 22 and 23, 1997 the Council of the former City of Toronto authorized a grant in the amount of $10,000.00 to the Royal Canadian Legion (Baron Byng Memorial Hall Corporation) hereafter referred to as ("the Legion") to allow for the drainage repairs and repavement of the parking lot at 243 Coxwell Avenue. Although a grant agreement was executed by the former City of Toronto and the Legion the grant has not been disbursed. No source of funds for the grant was identified by the Council of the former City of Toronto. If the grant is to be disbursed at this time funds will be required to be provided.

Recommendations:

That Council decide whether or not to authorize the amendment of the grant agreement made as of the 7th of October, 1997 to delete the requirements that:

(1)the parking lot will be available for use by all members of the public, not just seniors and legion members, and;

(2)the parking lot be signed in such a way that members of the public will know that it is available for public use.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting held on September 22 and 23,1997 by its adoption, as amended, of Clause 58 of Executive Committee Report No.21 authorized a grant of $10,000.00 to the Legion to allow for the drainage repairs and repavement of the parking lot at 243 Coxwell Avenue on condition that the parking lot be open to the public, that a grant agreement be entered into with the Legion and that the terms of the grant agreement be considered at the Council meeting of October 6,1997. Release of grant funds was subject to the completion of a Declaration Form regarding the adoption of the then City of Toronto's Non-Discrimination Policy.

By the adoption of communication 49 as set out in Minute Number 24.95 the Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997, approved the terms and conditions of the grant agreement which included, among others, that the parking lot be available for use by all members of the public, not just seniors and legion members and that the lot be signed in such a way that members of the public know that it is available for public use, and that no fee be charged for parking on the lot. The grant agreement also provides that the grant funds would not be disbursed until execution of the agreement by both parties and the grantee's compliance with the Service Equity Program of the City. (i.e. execution of the Declaration Form regarding Non-Discrimination Policy).

The grant agreement was executed by both parties. However the Legion did not execute and return the Declaration of Non-Discrimination Policy form which was forwarded to it by letter dated December 23, 1997. As stated above the execution and return of that form was a precondition to the release of the grant funds. However I should advise that on August 25, 1998 I was provided with a copy of a report from the then Commissioner of Corporate Services, dated September 16, 1997, which was submitted to Council as a communication item at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997. The report listed organizations which had adopted the former City of Toronto's Non-Discrimination Policy and had filed a Declaration Form to that effect. Royal Canadian Legion (Coxwell) is on the list attached to the report.

I am advised that the Accounting Services division of the Finance Department has no record of the grant having been disbursed.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Councillor Jakobek has received correspondence dated July 22, 1998 from the President of the Legion outlining the Legion's concerns with respect to the conditions of the grant in particular those conditions that require that the parking lot be open to the public and signed in such a way that members of the public know that the parking lot is available for public use. Councillor Jakobek has requested that I report on the matter.

The Legion in its correspondence to Councillor Jakobek advises that its evening rentals are affected due to the use of its parking lot by others. In particular it advises that the parking lot behind the stores on Coxwell Avenue now charges for parking, the customers of a bingo hall on Coxwell Avenue have been told that the Legion parking lot is public, and that the landlord of an adjacent building has advised its tenants that they have parking on the Legion lot. It also advises that the three handicap spaces on the lot are being abused by the public and that handicapped veterans are being forced to walk a considerable distance to the building entrance.

As I understand the Legion's correspondence it is requesting relief from the provisions of the grant agreement which require it to provide public parking and to provide signage that indicates that the lot is available for public use.

Conclusions:

If so advised Council could authorize the amendment of the grant agreement made as of the Th day of October, 1997 to delete the requirements that the lot be available for use by all members of the public, not just seniors and legion members and that the lot be signed in such a way that members of the public know that it is available for public use.

Contact Name:

Dolores M. Morrell

Legal Services

392-7234

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (September 25, 1997) from the Assistant City Clerk, of the former City of Toronto, forwarding Clause 58 contained in Report No. 21 of the Executive Committee, titled "Grant Request - Parking Lot Repairs - 243 Coxwell Avenue (Ward 10)", which was adopted, as amended by City Council at its meeting on September 22 and 23, 1997, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

51

Application for Consent Under Chapter 276, Article I, Ravines,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code to Bury

Telephone and TV Cable within the Avondale Ravine

- 27 Rosedale Road (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report is an assessment of the City's position on the ravine consent application regarding the burying of telephone cable within the rear yards of the properties at 10 Avondale Road and 27 Rosedale Road.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council consent to Application No. 098049 pertaining to the burying of telephone and TV cable within the Avondale Ravine portion of the property at 27 Rosedale Road, substantially in accordance with the plan titled Avondale Ravine, Proposed Landscape, date stamped as received on June 12, 1998, prepared by Vertechs Design Inc., as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(2)That the owner undertake to hand dig a trench as shown on the Proposed Landscape plan, prepared by Vertechs Design Inc.

(3)That the owner be advised to contact the Forestry Services Section, Parks and Recreation Division, Community Services at 392-1900, upon the completion of all work as indicated on the approved plans.

Background:

The site is located within the Avondale Ravine, as designated by Chapter 276, Article I of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (see Map 1), and is located to the rear of properties bounded by Park Road, South Drive, Crescent Road, Rosedale Road and Avondale Road. The majority of the ravine consists of generally developed rear garden lands mixed with a substantial amount of natural vegetation.

The owners are proposing to bury existing telephone and TV cable by hand digging a trench within the Avondale Ravine.

A minor variance application from the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 276, Ravines, was submitted on June 12, 1998 by Inese Bite of Vertechs Design Inc, Suite 205, 1246 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4T 1W5 on behalf of Mark and Judith McLean of 27 Rosedale Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 2P5.

I have undertaken the required consultations with all relevant City departments. I am in agreement with the comments contained in the reports reproduced in Appendix B.

Comments:

No alterations are proposed to any existing landform and at the completion of the work, the valley floor would be restored to its current condition. The routing of the buried cables is such that they will be adequately directed around the roots of all existing trees and would not have any negative effects on the natural characteristics of the ravine.

Conclusions:

I believe that the current proposal to bury the existing above ground cable lines is both reasonable and within the intent of Chapter 276, Ravines, of the Municipal Code. Therefore, I recommend that the Community Council give consent to the proposed development.

Contact Name:

Angus M. Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-0425

Fax: (416) 392-7536, E-Mail:acransto@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

Appendix A

Reports of Civic Officials

1.Works and Emergency Services (August 20, 1998)

Comments:

The proposal has been reviewed and there are no Departmental requirements of the owner.

Location

North side of Avondale Road, west of Park Road.

Proposal

To bury Bell Telephone and Cable TV lines.

Ravine Control Area

The site is subject to Municipal Code Chapter 276, Ravines, Article I. (Avondale Ravine)

2.Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Toronto Parks and Recreation) (July 15, 1998)

This will acknowledge your Minor Variance from the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 276 Ravines, Circulation Forms which were circulated on June 16, 1998, and contained new plans for the burial of telephone and cable TV lines at the above noted address. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

I advise that the plans to hand dig a trench and bury Bell telephone and cable TV lines as shown on the Proposed Landscape Plan date stamped as received on June 12, 1998, by Urban Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services are acceptable.

3.Heritage Toronto (July 9, 1998)

We received the Circulation for the above noted property on June 16, 1998.

The property at 16 Avondale Road is not listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties; the property at 27 Rosedale Road which is affected by this application, is listed.

The Minor Variance will not affect the heritage attributes of 27 Rosedale Road.

4.The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (June 25, 1998)

Authority staff has reviewed the above noted application and we offer the following comments.

We note that the subject property is located within the Avondale Ravine. Although this corridor is affected by the City's Ravine By-law, we advise that it is not currently, or proposed to be, regulated by this Authority. Further, it is our understanding that the proposed works are limited to a hand dug trench for the purpose of burying telephone and cable lines.

Based upon the above, we would have no objections to the approval of this application as submitted.

We trust that this is satisfactory. However, should you have any questions please contact the undersigned or Gaspare Ritacca at extension 324.

52

Variances from Chapter 297 - Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(Midtown, East Toronto, North Toronto, Downtown, High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following reports from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(September 4, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit signage on each elevation of the historically designated building at 888 Yonge Street for identification purposes.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998070 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit seven illuminated non-encroaching fascia signs and two illuminated encroaching fascia signs.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998070, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-west corner of Yonge Street and Davenport Road, in a mixed use (Commercial-Residential) district. The property accommodates a historically designated building. The applicant is requesting permission to erect nine signs for identification purposes. The proposed signs are illustrated on the attached Figures 1- 5.

West Elevation:

The two proposed illuminated, non encroaching signs on the west elevation do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

1.The illuminated "Comedy Network" logo fascia signs, will not be located 20 metres from a lot in a "G" (park) district, as required.

This provision, respecting minimum separation distance, is intended to reduce the impact of illuminated signs adjacent to parks. Both signs face west and though visible from the small parkette, they are not directed towards the park users. While the separation distance between the signs and the "G' (park) district is less than 20 metres, the actual distance between the signs and the park is greater than 20 metres. Therefore, the signs in question will not have an adverse impact on the users of this parkette.

North Elevation:

The proposed illuminated, non encroaching sign on the north elevation does not comply with Chapter297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

1.The 34.8 m² illuminated fascia sign will exceed the maximum permitted 25 m² sign area by9.8m².

The variance relates to the size of the sign on the building. This provision restricts the size of signs in order to minimize their impact on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. The sign would be installed along a blank portion of the side wall between the second and third storeys. In this instance, the uses in the immediate vicinity are commercial in nature. In my opinion, the sign's excess size will not negatively impact the building, streetscape or adjacent uses.

Southeast Corner: (first storey)

The proposed illuminated, encroaching sign on the southeast corner does not comply with Chapter297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. The 14.6 m² illuminated encroaching sign will exceed the 30 % maximum required area of the building face of the first storey commercial unit.

2.The vertical minimum clearance between the public sidewalk and the lowest point of sign would be 0.9 metre instead of 2.5 metres as required by the Municipal Code.

3.The sign will be located less than 20 metres from a lot in a G (park) district.

The size and vertical clearance of signs are regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached and to ensure that pedestrian safety is maintained. In this case the sign has been sized and positioned to fit into the architectural recess at the corner of the building and it would project less than two inches beyond the property line. The applicant has been advised that this projection will have to be further reduced in order to satisfy the Ontario Building Code. It is my opinion that the sign will not create an unsafe condition for pedestrians.

Although visible from the parkette, the sign is directed towards motorists and pedestrians on Yonge Street and while the separation distance, between the sign and the "G' (park) district, is not 20 metres, the distance between the sign and the park is more than 20 metres. The sign should not negatively impact the park.

Southeast Corner: (above second storey)

The proposed illuminated, encroaching sign on the southeast corner does not comply with Chapter297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.The variance occurs because the sign will be erected above the second storey more than 10 metre above grade.

2.The sign will be located less than 20 metres from a lot in a G (park) district.

Signs are permitted to be located only within the first two storeys of a building. This provision restricts signs to their traditional locations in order to minimize the impact of signage on the building, on the streetscape and on upper floor residential units in the immediate vicinity. In this instance, there is no residential unit in the immediate vicinity and the sign consists of three modestly sized (1.8m x 1.8 m) individual letters. The sign has been sized and positioned to complement the proportions of this narrow, rounded and recessed facade.

With respect to the minimum separation distance between illuminated signs and park, I would advise that the sign is directed towards Yonge Street motorists and pedestrians. Also, while the separation distance between the sign and the "G" (park) district is less than 20 metres, the distance between the sign and the park is more than 20 metres.

South Elevation:

The four proposed illuminated, non-encroaching fascia signs on the south elevation do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

1.The signs will obstruct and interfere with windows of the building.

2. The signs will be located within 20 metres from a lot in a "G" (park) district.

The four illuminated signs on the south elevation of the building do not comply with provisions of Sign By-law 1994-0337 as they obstruct windows. However, the windows in question have been blocked by the previous owner to reduce sound transmission from the former concert hall and the new owner intends to use this premises for taping live comedy shows. Therefore, I have no concern with the blocked windows being covered by signage.

Again, while the separation distance between the signs and the "G' (park) district is less than 20 metres, the actual physical distance between the signs and the park is in excess of the required 20 metres separation distance.

Staff of the Heritage Toronto have reviewed the plans and have advised that they have no concerns.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I consider the requested variances to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar, Telephone: (416) 392-7209; Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: ngirdhar@city.toronto.on.ca

(August 27, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to install three

non-illuminated ground signs for the purpose of advertising the sale of new residential units within "Woodbine Park Community" at 1669 Queen Street East.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998063, respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit three non-illuminated ground signs at 1669 Queen Street East, on condition that the signs be permitted only for a period of 12 months from the date of City Council approval.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998063, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The 33 hectare property is the site of the former Greenwood Racetrack, bounded by Queen Street East, Woodbine Avenue and Lakeshore Boulevard East, and is zoned residential. The applicant is requesting permission to install signage in order to market residential properties which have been approved for this site (see Figure 1).

Ground signs 1 and 2 have a length of 3.7 metres and a height of 2.4 metres, with an area of 8.9 m² and sign 3 has a length of 7.2 metres and a height of 4.9 metres, with an area of 35.3 m² (see Figure2).

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the area of a sign is not permitted to be more than 1 m². The proposed ground signs 1 and2, each will have an area of 8.9 m², while ground sign 3 will have an area of 35.3 m²; and

2.the height of a sign is not permitted to be more than 2.0 metres. The proposed ground signs1 and 2, each will have a height of 3.7 metres, and ground sign 3 will have a height of 6.1 metres.

The variances occur because the land is zoned residential. Signs in residential districts are required to be small and low in order to limit any negative impact on the streetscape and on neighbouring residential uses. The proposed signs are much larger and higher than permitted by the Municipal Code. However, given that the non-illuminated signs will be temporary and will be erected at least 30 metres away from the closest residential property, there will not, in my opinion, be any adverse impacts.

I am recommending that this application be approved, with a condition respecting the length of the approval period, as I consider the proposed variances to be acceptable in this circumstance. The applicant is in agreement with this recommendation.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: ngirdhar@city.toronto.on.ca

(August 13, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one illuminated ground sign for identification purposes at 125 Chatsworth Drive.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve Application No. 998054 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated ground sign at premises 125 Chatsworth Drive.

Comments:

The property is located on the south-west corner of Lawrence Avenue West and Chatsworth Drive, in a residential district. The property accommodates Lawrence Park Collegiate Institute. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one illuminated ground sign for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 1.6 metres and a height of 1.7 metres, with an area of 2.7 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the area of the proposed sign (2.7 m²) will exceed the maximum permitted area of 2.5 m² by 0.2 m²; and

2.the proposed sign will not be erected between the front lot line and the main wall of the building as required.

The first variance occurs because the sign will be 0.2 m² larger than permitted by the Municipal Code. Signs in residential districts are required to be small and low in order to limit any negative impact on the streetscape and on neighbouring residential uses. Given that the closest residential property from which the sign would be visible would be approximately 30 metres away and across Chatsworth Drive, the sign would not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring residential uses.

Respecting the second variance, the Municipal Code requires that the sign be erected between the front lot line and the main wall of the building. The school building is situated on a corner lot and in this instance the sign would be located 2.0 metres inside the side lot line, near the south-west corner of Lawrence Avenue West and Chatsworth Drive. It would be directed toward motorists and pedestrians on both Lawrence Avenue West and Chatsworth Drive. I do not feel that the proposed sign would have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar, Telephone: (416) 392-7209, Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: ngirdhar@city.toronto.on.ca

(August 13, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated projecting sign and permit one additional illuminated projecting sign at 12 Richmond Street East.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998031 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated projecting sign and permit one additional illuminated projecting sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998031, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north side of Richmond Street East, between Yonge Street and Victoria Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a seven storey commercial building. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated projecting sign and install a second illuminated projecting sign on the south elevation of the building within the tenant's commercial unit frontage (see Figure 1). The signs each have a length of 1.4 metres and a height of 0.6 metres, with an area of 0.82 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that they will overhang the sidewalk by 2.1 metres instead of the permitted 1.0 metre.

At its meeting of November 18, 1996, City Council approved a minor variance application for this tenant to permit a sign which projected 1.52 metres instead of the permitted 1.0 metre. Since then, the applicant has installed a new sign that projects 0.58 metres beyond the previously approved sign. The applicant has advised that the canopy on the building made it difficult to see the previously approved sign. The applicant is proposing to mount a second similar projecting sign on an existing pole west of the existing sign (see Figure 1).

A recent site visit by staff has confirmed that the canopies extend substantially over the pedestrian sidewalk obscuring visibility of the signs from the street. In my opinion, the signs are appropriately located in order to be visible from Yonge Street and Victoria Street. Further, the signs are located approximately 3.0 metres above grade and their extent of projection will not endanger nor inconvenience pedestrians.

Heritage Toronto has advised that they have no objections to this application.

Given these reasons, I am recommending approval of this application.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

(August 31, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit a second illuminated ground sign on the Bay Street frontage for identification purposes at 825 Bay Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998055 respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated ground sign on condition that :

-the sign be illuminated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and that this be achieved by means of an automatic device; and

-all existing non-conforming signs posted on the light standards are removed prior to the issuance of the necessary permit(s) for the illuminated ground sign.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998055, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permit(s) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located north of College Street on the east side of Bay Street, and it consists of the entire block between Grosvenor Street and Grenville Street, in a CR district. The property accommodates Addison on Bay, an auto dealership. The applicant is requesting permission to erect a second illuminated ground sign for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 2.7 metres and a height of 5.9 metres, with an area of 7.0 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

1.only one ground sign for the purpose of identification is permitted within any frontage of a property.

The number of signs permitted within a single frontage is regulated so as to prevent sign clutter. In this instance, however, the lot frontage is a block long and is able, in my opinion, to accommodate a second ground sign without there being a negative impact on the streetscape. Further, the owner has agreed that as a condition of approval he will remove all existing non-conforming signs posted on the light standards. Given that the closest residential unit from which the sign would be visible would be approximately 30 metres away and at the 3^rd floor level, there should not be any adverse impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. However, to ensure this, I have required that the hours of illumination be restricted to between 7:00 a.m and 11:00 p.m.

I am recommending that this application be approved, with conditions respecting the removal of certain existing signs and the restriction of hours of illumination, as I consider the proposed variance to be acceptable in this circumstance. The owner is in agreement with this recommendation.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: ngirdhar@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

825 Bay Street

Key Map

Insert Table/Map No. 2

825 Bay Street

(August 31, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one encroaching illuminated projecting sign for identification purposes at 347 Jane Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998057 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one encroaching illuminated projecting sign at 347 Jane Street.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998057, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on east side of Jane Street, north of Bloor Street West and south of Annette Street, in a mixed use district. The two storey building accommodates a Scotia Bank Branch on the first floor and a Billiard Hall (Baby Point Lounge) on the second floor. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one encroaching illuminated projecting sign for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 1.0 metre and a height of 1.0 metre, with an area of 1.0 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the sign will overhang the public sidewalk by 1.2 metres instead of the permitted 1.0 metre.

The variance results from the extent of the sign's projection from the building face. The sign would overhang 0.2 metres more than permitted by the Municipal Code. In this instance, however, the sign is in keeping with other signs along this segment of Jane Street and its extent of projection will not endanger nor inconvenience pedestrians.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209; Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: ngirdhar@city.toronto.on.ca

(September 1, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one illuminated ground sign, four illuminated "outrigger" signs and two non-illuminated pedestal signs at 1800 Bayview Avenue.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998046 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated ground sign, four illuminated "outrigger" signs and two non-illuminated pedestal signs.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998046, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the south-west corner of Bayview Avenue and Roehampton Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates an automotive service station. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated ground sign, four illuminated "outrigger" signs and two non-illuminated pedestal signs in conjunction with the renovation of an existing gas station (see Figure 1). The signs have dimensions as follows:

Ground sign "A", has a length of 1.9 metres and a height of 6.0 metres, with an area of 11.4m²;

Outrigger signs "B", each have a length of 1.6 metres and a height of 0.5 metres, with an area of 0.8m²; and Pedestal signs "C", each have a length of 0.7 metres and a height of 1.0 metres, with an area of 0.7 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the ground sign will not be set back a minimum distance of 2.0 metres from the streetline and 6.0 metres from the point of intersection of two streetlines;

2.the "outrigger" signs are not defined under the Municipal Code and are therefore not permitted; and

3.more than one pedestal sign will be erected within both frontages of the lot.

The first variance occurs because the sign would be set back 1.5 metres from the east property line instead of 2.0 metres. At its meeting of April 2, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council passed By-law No. 1996-0172 to increase the separation and setback requirements for ground and pedestal signs throughout the city. These regulations are aimed at ensuring that, where possible, commercial streetscapes and view corridors are preserved and enhanced and sight lines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are improved. In this instance, the applicant proposes to remove the existing ground sign and install a new ground sign in the same location within a curbed landscaped area using the existing concrete base. The sign cannot be set back any further because of existing underground utilities and its slightly reduced setback would not interfere with motorists or pedestrians entering or existing the site.

The second variance is caused because the outrigger signs are not a sign type defined under the Municipal Code. The signs would be suspended 0.9 metres below the underside of the service canopy and would be oriented north/south parallel to the pump island. These signs are small in size and illumination from these signs would be minimal. Further, the closest residential dwelling is located approximately 50 metres away and across Roehampton Avenue. In my opinion, the signs are necessary for vehicles manoeuvring within the gas pump area.

The third variance occurs because leader boards would be installed on either end of the gas pumps totalling two pedestal signs per frontage. The leader boards are used to identify the type of fuel being sold at the pump and are non-illuminated and low in height which I consider acceptable.

At its meeting dated January 21, 1998, Toronto Community Council requested that I report back on design guidelines of gas stations and gas bars within the context of the urban environment. In this instance, the signs are necessary and in my opinion, their approval will not prejudice the results of the study currently being undertaken by staff.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

(September 3, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain six fascia signs at 912 Mount Pleasant Road.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998030 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one non-illuminated fascia sign and five illuminated signs on condition that the signs be illuminated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and that this be controlled by means of an automatic timing device.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998030, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the west side of Mount Pleasant Road, between Erskine Avenue and Broadway Avenue, in a residential (R4A) district. The property accommodates a two storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain four illuminated fascia signs on the east elevation of the building and one illuminated fascia sign and one non-illuminated fascia sign on the south elevation of the building (see Figures 1 and 2).

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that they are not permitted in this residential district.

The Municipal Code permits illuminated signs in residential districts in conjunction with uses that are normally permitted in this district. Car dealerships are not permitted and hence the variance. The applicant has advised that the car dealership use has existed in this location for approximately 20 years and therefore the use is legal non-conforming. The new signs have been installed in conjunction with exterior renovations that were approved as part of a Committee of Adjustment application in 1997.

Five of the six existing signs consist of channel letters mounted horizontally across the building face. The applicant has advised that the channel letters are halo-lit rather than front lit in order to minimize the impact of illumination. However, to ensure that there is no negative impact I am recommending that the signs be illuminated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and that this be controlled by means of an automatic timing device. Given that the closest residential use is located approximately 30 metres away and across Mount Pleasant Road this control on illumination should suffice.

I am recommending approval of this application with controls on the hours of illumination. The applicant concurs with this recommendation.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

53

Variance from Chapter 297 - Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

1345 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998037 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated ground sign for third party advertising on condition that the west facing sign panel only be illuminated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and that this be controlled by means of an automatic timing device; and

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998037, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (August 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated ground sign for third party advertising at 1345 Queen Street East.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998037 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated ground sign for third party advertising on condition that the west facing sign panel only be illuminated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and that this be controlled by means of an automatic timing device.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998037, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the south side of Queen Street East, west of Knox Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a one storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated ground sign at the north-west corner of the property (see Figures 1 & 2). The sign has a length of 3.6 metres and a height of 4.8 metres, with an area of 17.3 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that a third party ground sign is not permitted in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district.

On February 13, 1996, Urban Planning and Development Services issued permit no. 380703 to allow the installation of one illuminated, third party ground sign on the west side of this property. This variance application has been filed because the ground sign was installed 0.45 metres too close to the west property line and a revision to the permit was denied because third party ground signs are no longer permitted in this district.

At its meeting of April 2, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council passed By-law No. 1996-0172 to amend Chapter 297, Signs, of the Municipal Code to prohibit third party ground and pedestal signs in CR and MCR districts throughout the city. This regulation is aimed at reducing sign proliferation in the city's commercial/residential districts. Signs which were legally erected prior to the passing of the by-law and which do not conform to the current sign provisions of the Municipal Code are permitted to remain with a legal non-conforming status.

The ground sign has been a source of concern for the owner of the residential building immediately to the west. However, the applicant has advised, and a recent site visit has confirmed, that neither the sign nor its supporting elements encroach onto the adjacent property and the light sources have been shielded to prevent light from spilling over onto the adjacent residential properties. In areas where ground signs are currently permitted there is no sideyard setback requirement and in my opinion, closer compliance would not meaningfully improve the existing conditions. However, I am concerned about the potentially negative impact of the illuminated sign on the adjacent residential uses west of the site. Consequently I am requesting that the hours of illumination be controlled by means of an automatic timing device.

As a permit was issued for a ground sign prior to the prohibition of such signs and given that modifications were made to the sign to address the concerns of the neighbouring owner, I am recommending approval of this application to permit the maintenance of the illuminated ground sign with the above-noted condition. I have consulted with the applicant and he concurs with this recommendation.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421; Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

54

Site Plan Approval

- 64 Parliament Street (Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by adding a new Recommendation No. 2(12) to read:

"Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development, the owner shall have submitted to, and have approval by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, details of all the areas (including areas within the public road allowance) as shown on above reference plan #L1, which are intended to be landscaped and further, the owner shall provide and maintain the landscaping as shown on the plans approved by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services."

and that the report, as amended, be adopted; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to the Toronto Community Council, no later than November 12, 1998, on the current automobile uses in the King-Parliament Neighbourhood and recommending ways to deter the excessive growth of those uses.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report sets out the conditions of approval for construction of a one storey Volvo Service and Repair Shop, Class "A" with 22 parking spaces at the north-west corner of Front and Parliament Streets.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with this application, namely Plan Nos. A-1, A-2, A-3 and L1, date stamped received on April 22, 1998, prepared by Plaston Architect Limited, as redlined on May 28, 1998, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(2)That as a condition of City Council approval, the owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act requiring that:

(1)the proposed development, including all landscaping related thereto, shall be undertaken and maintained substantially in accordance with the drawings referred to above;

(2)the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 1 Type B loading space on the site with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(3)the owner shall provide and maintain minimum inside and outside turning radii of 8.6m and 13.4 m at all turns to be negotiated by trucks using the Type B loading space;

(4)the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 22 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(5)the owner shall submit an application for improvements to the public sidewalk/boulevard generally as shown on above referenced Plan No. L1 to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and carry out the improvements within a reasonable period of time or at the request of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services make a cash contribution to the City equal to the value of the improvements for the Commissioner to undertake the improvements as part of a comprehensive program;

(6)the owner shall immediately conduct a historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the subject site. This report should be submitted for review by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a building permit;

(7)the owner shall conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on the site and in the existing buildings. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Environment and Energy guidelines. A report on the site and building audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the issuance of a building permit;

(8)(i)the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposed remediation options to be submitted for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and

(ii)the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan;

(9)(i)the owner shall prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any building permit; and

(ii)the owner shall implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health;

(10)the owner shall submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development; and

(11)the owner shall provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Background:

The application was submitted on October 28, 1997, for Site Plan Approval and has been revised a number of times since then. Councillor Pam McConnell requested that this application be forwarded to Toronto Community Council for consideration.

Comments:

1.Location:

The site is located on the northwest corner of Front and Parliament Streets within the historic area of King-Parliament.

2.Site:

The site is approximately 1585 m2 in size (35 m by 46 m). There are a variety of surrounding land uses ranging from a vacant site to the north, gas station to the south, a commercial business depot to the west and a site in transition to the east where a major commercial\industrial\residential development proposal has been approved.

3.Proposal: (See Appendix A)

The proposal is to construct a one-storey motor vehicle repair shop "Class A" with 551 square metres of floor area. There are 22 at-grade parking spaces proposed to be located along the north and west property limits.

4.Requirements of Civic Officials: (See Appendix B)

The plans submitted with this application were reviewed by City staff. The applicant amended the plans to address a number of issues raised including the provision of a Type B loading space, expansion and relocation of the building, introduction of corner doors facing Front Street on the west side of the building and an improvement to the roof line.

Public Health requires a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as well as the implementation of a Dust Control Plan. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services requires a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction plan for the development.

In addition, the plans submitted have been reviewed by Buildings, Works and Emergency Services, Public Health and The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The recommended conditions of approval are contained in the Recommendations noted above.

5.Planning Considerations:

The introduction of a car-related use at this location is permitted as-of-right on the north side of Front Street fronting Parliament Street. The applicant has had regard for the comments of civic officials and has amended the plans to achieve staff's objectives for this historic part of the city. The proposed landscaping and pavement treatment of the sidewalk will greatly improve the sidewalk area along the west side of Parliament Street.

Conclusion:

That Site Plan Approval Application No. 397138 for 64 Parliament Street be approved.

Contact Name:

Denise Graham

Development Approval Division, Zoning Section

Toronto City Hall Office (392-0871)

E-mail: dgraham1@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

Appendix A

Application Data Sheet

Confirmed Municipal Address:64 Parliament Street.

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

--------

Appendix B

Reports of Civic Officials

1.Works and Emergency Services (June 5, 1998)

Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required, as a condition of approval of the plans and drawings for the project, to:

(a)Provide and maintain a maximum of 22 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(b)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development;

(c)Provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(d)Provide and maintain a minimum of 1 Type B loading space on the site with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(e)Provide and maintain minimum inside and outside turning radii of 8.6 m and

13.4 m at all turns to be negotiated by trucks using the Type B loading space;

2.That the owner be advised:

(a)of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance;

(b)that the storm water run-off originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm run-off; and

(c)of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for the proposed roof overhang within the Front Street East road allowance.

Comments:

Location

North-west corner of Parliament Street and Front Street East.

Proposal

Construction of a one-storey motor vehicle repair shop class A containing 551.5 square metres of floor area.

The proposal was dealt with in Departmental reports dated November 19, 1997 and February 26, 1998. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous reports, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised drawings which has been satisfied.

Parking and Access

The provision of 22 at-grade parking spaces, located along the north and west property limits, satisfies the Zoning By-law for the King/Parliament area which permits a maximum of 22 parking spaces for this use, with no minimum. However, it is estimated that this project would generate a demand for 28 parking spaces based on the surveyed parking and storage requirements of motor vehicle repair shops in the City. Although the proposed parking supply does not satisfy the estimated demand, the provision of 22 parking spaces is acceptable given that it satisfies the provisions of the Zoning By-law. The general parking layout and dimensions of the parking spaces and driveway widths are acceptable.

Access to the parking spaces is provided both on Parliament Street and Front Street East and is acceptable.

Loading

The provision of 1 Type B loading space located at the south-west limit of the site, within the access driveway, satisfies, as far as can be ascertained, the provisions of the Zoning By-law for the King/Parliament area, for 1 Type B loading space. This is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

This project does not qualify for refuse collection by City forces under the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. Refuse generated by this project would most likely consist of manufacturers' trade waste which may include hazardous waste and, as a result, the owner will have to make arrangements for the services of a private waste collection firm licensed to dispose of hazardous waste.

Encroachment

The plans indicate the proposed roof overhanging over the Front Street East road allowance and, as a result will require the submission of a separate application to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plans

The owner is required to submit a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan which will include:

(a)A description of the waste composition which shall be generated by the development and the expected quantity of each category of waste material;

(b)A description of the policies, programmes, processes and equipment which will be put in place to carry out material recovery and waste reduction;

(c)The provision of space required to store and/or process recovered materials; and

(d)Separate accommodation for the recovery, safe storage and disposal of hazardous waste, if any.

The owner is advised that staff of the Operations and Sanitation Division (telephone no. 392-1040) will assist in the format and content requirements in the preparation of the plan.

Storm Water Management

It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings, whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the Engineering Branch (telephone no. 392-6787).

Work Within the Road Allowance

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received from this Department.

2.Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public Health) (May 25, 1998)

Further to my request of January 13, 1998, the applicant has provided for review an "Environmental Investigation of 64 Parliament Street", prepared by Trow Consulting Engineers Ltd. (August 22, 1998). Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this information and offer the following comments.

The applicant proposes to construct a Volvo service garage on this site.

Historical Review:

The consultant reviewed Canadian Underwriter's Association fire insurance plans, Goad's Atlas, Might's Directories and Ministry of Natural Resources aerial photographs. A land title search was also conducted. Previous environmental studies were reviewed and regulatory agencies were contacted to obtain any pertinent environmental information that may be available. The accumulated information indicated that the site was used as a foundry from 1880 to approximately 1910, it appears to have been vacant until 1963 when an automobile service station was located on the site. According to Might's Directories, a service station was located on this site until approximately 1996, at which time the underground fuel storage tanks were removed and the soils were remediated.

Subsoil Investigation:

The consultant drilled 4 boreholes from 2.9 metres to 8.3 metres in depth, to assess groundwater and soil conditions at the site boundaries. Samples were obtained and visually examined prior to submission to a lab for chemical analysis.

The soil analysis reports indicate that there are no exceedances of the Ministry of Environment 1996 Guideline criteria for heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. I would note that the consultant conducted a peer review of a previous environmental report and using information contained in that report, along with the supplementary information gathered during this investigation, the consultant concluded that the site meets the Ministry of Environment criteria for commercial/industrial land use.

Excavation Dust Control Plan:

The report does not contain a dust control plan, therefore the Medical Officer of Health requests the following controls be put in place during excavation /demolition activities:

1.The daily, or more frequently if required, wetting of all soft and hard surfaces and any excavation face on the site, with the addition of calcium chloride or other recognized materials as a dust suppressant, if required.

2.The daily cleaning of the road pavement and sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property to a distance of 25 metres from the property line.

3.The designation of a truck loading point to avoid trucks tracking potentially contaminated soil and demolition debris off the site. Such loading points should be on a gravel base to minimize tracking of the soil onto the sidewalk and the street. If the loading zone becomes contaminated it should be cleaned and replaced.

4.All trucks and vans leaving the site should be cleaned of all loose soil and dust from demolition debris including the washing of tires and sweeping or washing of exteriors and tailgates by a designated labourer. A daily log of each truck leaving the site should be kept by the applicant (developer) noting when the truck was cleaned and by whom.

5.The tarping of all trucks leaving the site which have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris.

6.An air monitoring program, if necessary, as determined through consultation with Environmental Health Services.

7.Supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified environmental consultant.

Recommendations:

1.That the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

2.That the owner shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

Please inform the applicant in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of this letter. If you have any questions contact me at 392-7685.

3.(January 13, 1998)

Thank-you for your request of October 31, 1997 to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

Comments:

The applicant proposes to build a one-storey building to be used as a motor vehicle repair shop. The site area to be developed is 1584.79 m².

A review of information available to this Department indicates that this property was zoned industrial (1949). Our filed also indicate that this property is a former Consumer's Gas Company coal gasification site.

Additional information is required by EHS staff in order to adequately conduct a review of the environmental conditions at the subject site. This should include a Historical Review, Site and Building Audit, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, details of which are included in the enclosed attachment.

This information will help to identify any environmental concerns with respect to the subject property.

Recommendations:

1.The owner shall immediately conduct a historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the subject site. This report should be submitted for review by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a building permit (prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council);

2.The owner shall conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the existing buildings. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Environment and Energy guidelines. A report on the site and building audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the issuance of a building permit (prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council);

3.(i) the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposed remediation options to be submitted for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a building permit (prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council), and

(ii) the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

4.(i) the owner shall prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any building permit; and

(ii) the owner shall implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

By copy of this letter I will inform the applicant with respect to this matter. If you have any questions please contact Alan Banks, Gordon Chan or Anthony Nikolopoulos at 392-7685.

4.Urban Planning and Development Services (May 11, 1998)

Our comments concerning this proposal area as follows:

Description: Construct 1 storey motor vehicle repair shop class A building

Zoning Designation: RAMap:51G 322

Applicable By-law(s): 438-86, as amended

Plans prepared by: Plaston Architect Ltd.Plans dated:April 22, 1998

Zoning Review

A review of the information submitted indicates the proposal complies with the City's zoning by-laws.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal DOES NOT require conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu therefore pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

2.The proposal DOES NOT require City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

3.The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

4.The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

5.The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (February 24, 1998)

This will acknowledge receipt of the above noted application.

Authority staff has reviewed the proposal and since it does not appear to affect the program or policy interests of this Authority, we have no objections to the application as submitted.

We trust this is satisfactory. Should you have any questions please contact the undersigned at this office.

--------

Appendix C

Advisory Comments of Civic Officials

The owner is advised:

(a)of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance;

(b)that the storm water run-off originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm run-off; and

(c)of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Service for the proposed roof overhang within the Front Street East road allowance.

55

Appointments to Board of Management -

Central Eglinton Community Centre

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Mr. Dean Leach, Ms. Donna Matthews, Mr. John Carsone be appointed to the Board of Management of the Central Eglinton Community Centre and Mr. Alex Vander Veen be re-appointed to the Board of Management of the Central Eglinton Community Centre on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 20, 1998) addressed to the City Clerk's Department, Metro Hall from Ms. Susan Kee, Executive Director, Central Eglinton Community Centre:

On Tuesday June 23, 1998 Central Eglinton Community Centre held its Annual General Meeting.

The following were elected to the Board of Management for a two year term to fill vacancies left by directors who have resigned.

Mr. Dean Leach to replace Mr. Brian Chong

Ms. Donna Matthews to replace Ms. Jamie Aitken

Mr. John Carsone to replace Ms. Betty Heininger

Our Board Chair, Mr. Alex Vander Veen completed a two year term and was re-elected to the Board of Management for a second two year term.

I trust the foregoing is the information you require. Please forward the same to the appropriate committee for approval.

56

Air Canada Centre - Liquor Licence Application

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve, subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 719, as amended, and licence approval by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, the application by Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. for permission to sell beer, wine, coolers and spirits in Air Canada Centre for all events held therein commencing February, 1999.

The Toronto Community Council submits the communication (September 2, 1998) from Richard M. Borins, Director, Legal and Business Affairs, Air Canada Centre:

We are in the process of applying for a liquor licence for Air Canada Centre. The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario requires that we obtain a resolution from City Council approving the sale of beer, wine, coolers and mixed drinks containing spirits in Air Canada Centre. In this regard, we ask that City Council give our request consideration at its meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998.

We have provided a form of resolution for your consideration which has been based on the form of resolution provided by Council with respect to the Maple Leaf Gardens Licence.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter.

--------

Resolution of the Council of the City of Toronto

Be It Resolved That:

It is recommended that City Council approve, subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 719, as amended, and licence approval by the L.L.B.O., the application by Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. for permission to sell beer, wine, coolers and spirits in Air Canada Centre for all events held therein commencing in February, 1999.

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this day of , 1998.

57

Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes:

(1)advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the Argos Pre-Game Party to be held on October 23, 1998 in front of gates 8 and 9 at Skydome and has no objection to its taking place:

(2)since the following events take place prior to the meeting of Council, endorse the actions of the Toronto Community Council in having advised the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it:

(a)has declared the Community Street Fair to be held on September 27, 1998 on Brunswick Avenue to be an event of municipal and/or community significance and had no objection to it taking place;

(b)was aware of the Gala Folk Evening Event to be held in the Courtyard of the Performing Arts Lodge at 110 The Esplanade on September 19, 1998 and had no objection to its taking place.

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

-(July 23, 1998) from Ms. Catherine Cragg, Chair, Sussex-Ulster Residents' Association;

-(August 19, 1998) from Mr. Dale Bartlett, Sr. Operations Consultant, McDonald's at the SkyDome; and

-(August 18, 1998) from Ms. Pam Hyatt, The PAL Place, Producer of PAL's Special Events.

58

Dufferin Street Jog Elimination -

Effect of Abandoned Tracks on Property Requirements

(Trinity Niagara, High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Dufferin Street Jog Elimination project be undertaken; and

(2)the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer prepare the necessary reports to the Budget Committee, in order that the project can be included in the 1999 Capital Works Program.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 9, 1998) from the City Engineer, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the effect of the abandoned railway tracks at the Dufferin Street Jog and the feasibility of shortening the proposed underpass and thereby reducing or eliminating the need for property acquisition to the north of the railway corridor.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of July 22, 1998, in considering the July 2, 1998 report on the Dufferin Street Jog from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (Clause No. 87 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 10), requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to report to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council on the property requirements and how they have been affected by the fact that some of the rail tracks across this corridor have been abandoned.

Because of previous involvement of staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department on this project, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development requested that we report on this matter directly to the Toronto Community Council.

Comments:

The estimated total cost in 1998 dollars for the Dufferin Street Jog elimination project amounts to $31.0 million of which $6.5 million are required for the acquisition of properties at nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street and no. 1258 Queen Street West.

The construction of the underpass as previously proposed allows for the crossing of four mainline tracks, one service track and two future tracks requested by CN Rail.

Currently, the service track on the south side of the rail corridor has been abandoned and the railway companies (CN, CP and GO Transit) have initiated a sharing of the mainline tracks which has raised the issue of the need for the two future tracks.

The abandonment of the service track makes the connection to the existing underpass on Queen Street West somewhat easier but overall has little impact on the cost of the project. If the two future tracks, however, are not required, the underpass could be shortened and the road profile adjusted to meet the grade south of Peel Street.

In this regard, I have sent a letter dated August 26, 1998 to CN Rail requesting their consent to delete the requirement for the future tracks.

Furthermore, I have investigated the feasibility of constructing the underpass without acquiring the two properties at 405 and 440 Dufferin Street. If the two future rails are not required and the width of the underpass is reduced from 23.5 m to 21.3 m by eliminating provision for bicycle lanes, then construction of the underpass would not encroach on premises nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street. (See attached Plan No. 3, road cross section A-A north of the underpass.)

However, the construction of the underpass would require concrete caisson walls along the frontage of both 405 and 440 Dufferin Street at a distance of only 1.5 m from the building faces. This would cut off the access to two existing loading doors to 405 Dufferin Street and one of the two existing loading doors to 440 Dufferin Street. Some access to these properties could be maintained further north near the Peel Street intersection, however, this would, from a traffic point of view, not be desirable on the downslope to the underpass. Accordingly, if the City intends not to acquire these properties, it would be necessary to negotiate with the owners of these properties alternate access to their buildings from the rear and/or from Peel Street.

On the assumption that CN Rail will waive the requirement for the two future tracks, that premises nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street will not be acquired and excluding the cost for relocating access to premises nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street, we estimate the total construction cost of the underpass to be $24.0 million of which $0.2 million is for property acquisition.

Conclusions:

Subject to the CN Rail waiving their requirement to allow for two future tracks along the rail corridor at the Dufferin Street Jog and reducing the width of the proposed underpass by eliminating the provision for bicycle lanes, it would be possible to shorten the proposed underpass and thus reduce project cost and the impact of the proposed structure on premises nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street; e.g. construction would not encroach onto these two properties.

However, eliminating the encroachment of the underpass construction onto premises nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street would require the construction of a concrete caisson wall along the frontage of these properties and would cut off three of the four existing loading doors. Maintaining any loading door access on the down slope to the underpass (south of Peel Street) would be undesirable and cannot be recommended. Therefore, if the City intends not to acquire the two properties, it would be necessary to negotiate alternate access to the buildings from the rear and/or Peel Street.

CN Rail has been requested in writing to waive their requirement to accommodate future tracks and we will be reporting on their response.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Denes Pataky, Senior Works Engineer

Works and Emergency Services

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone (416) 392-7672; Fax (416) 392-7874

59

Renaming of Polson Street Park to

Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park

(Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication dated September 23, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998 recommended to City Council that funds in the amount of $2,000.00 for a plaque commemorating Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park be allocated from within the Parks and Recreation Division's budget.'; and

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit a report to the Economic Development Committee on necessary revisions to the Parkland Naming Policy which would ensure that there is direct input into the naming process from Parks officials and the community.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the lands known municipally as Polson Street Park be officially named Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park;

(2)Section 2(c) of the Policy for Renaming of Parks be waived with respect to this proposal;

(3)Heritage Toronto be authorized to install a plaque commemorating Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj in this park and that funds in the amount of $2,000 be allocated for this purpose; and

(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the foregoing.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Budget Committee to report directly to Council on the identification of source of funds for Recommendation No. (3).

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

To obtain approval to rename Polson Street Park as Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park in honour of Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj.

Source of Funds:

Heritage Toronto requires $2,000 to fund the installation of a commemorative plaque.

Recommendations:

(1)That the lands known municipally as Polson Street Park be officially named Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park;

(2)That Section 2(c) of the Proposed Policy for Renaming of Parks be waived with respect to this proposal;

(3)That Heritage Toronto be authorized to install a plaque commemorating Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj in this park and that funds in the amount of $2,000 be allocated for this purpose; and

(4)That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the foregoing.

Comments:

Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj was born in Toronto in 1989, she resided here until 1995 when a custody decision awarded the care of Jennifer to her father and necessitated a move to Bowmanville. On April 2, 1996, Jennifer's father, a diagnosed schizophrenic attacked his mother with a knife. Jennifer tried to protect her grandmother from being attacked, unfortunately, she was unsuccessful and both her grandmother and six year old Jennifer succumbed to injuries received in the attack. Jennifer is buried in Toronto. The Durham Police Force has honoured Jennifer with a posthumous citation for bravery. Jennifer's maternal grandfather who resides in Toronto has submitted a request to name a park or street in her honour as a lasting memory and a testimony to her courage. I have consulted with the Works and Emergency Services Department and it is agreed that should Council endorse the renaming, it would be more appropriate to name a park in honour of the little girl rather than a street. Polson Street Park is a 0.35 acre City-owned park located at the west end of Polson Street overlooking the lake.

At its meeting on July 8, 1998, City Council adopted, as amended, the Policy for Renaming of Parks, Section 2(c) of the policy requires that local residents be consulted and that they agree with the proposal. This park is located in the Ports area of Toronto and does not have a local residential population, further, Councillor's McConnell and Layton have advised they support the proposed renaming and the recommendation to waive the requirement in this instance. Heritage Toronto has expressed reservations about supporting the renaming in light of the intended honoree's residence being outside Toronto. City Council has previously the renaming of a park to commemorate the memory of a child who died under tragic circumstances. At its meeting of June 3, 1982, City Council endorsed the renaming of Carroll Street Park as Joel Weeks Park in honour of the eight year old boy who died when he was swept into a manhole.

Contact Name:

Susan Richardson, Director, Development and Support

E-mail:srichard@city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 392-1941; Fax: 392-0845

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 23, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation;

The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998 recommended to Council that funds in the amount of $2,000.00 for a plaque commemorating Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park be allocated from within the Parks and Recreation Division's Budget.

Background:

The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998, had before it a transmittal letter from the City Clerk forwarding the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council and requesting that the Budget Committee report directly to Council on the identification of source of funds for Recommendation No. (3) wherein $2,000.00 is being requested for the installation of a plaque commemorating Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj in this Park.)

60

Committee of Adjustment Appeal -

184 Sherbourne Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion from Councillor Rae:

WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment, on July 22, 1998 refused a Committee of Adjustment application for 184 Sherbourne Street; and

WHEREAS the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommended refusal of the application; and

WHEREAS the applicant has appealed this decision to the Ontario Municipal Board;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be instructed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in defence of the Committee of Adjustment Decision respecting 184 Sherbourne Street.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (July 16, 1998) from the Director, Development Approval and Deputy Building Official, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

61

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -

2223 Bloor Street West - Runnymede Theatre

(High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication dated September 23, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998, recommended to Council that, in the event it is necessary to retain the services of an outside planner, the necessary funds be absorbed from within the budget of the Legal Division.'")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the City Solicitor be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in opposition to the Committee of Adjustment decision respecting 2223 Bloor Street West - Runnymede Theatre; and

(2)he be authorized to retain an outside planner, if necessary.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Budget Committee to report directly to Council on a source of funds.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To advise Toronto Community Council on options for the October 5, 1998 Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the proposal to convert the Runnymede Theatre to a bookstore.

Source of Funds:

Funds would have to be allocated, if an outside planner is to be retained.

Recommendations:

If Council wishes to oppose the Committee of Adjustment approval of variances that permit the conversion of the Runnymede Theatre to a bookstore,

(1)the City Solicitor should be instructed to appear at the Board to oppose the variances; and

(2)an outside planner should be retained to give evidence at the Board hearing, if necessary.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Runnymede Theatre occupies the building at 2223 Bloor Street West, which is historically designated. The owner applied to the Committee of Adjustment for variances required to permit the conversion of the theatre use to a large bookstore. Variances are required because the existing theatre building partially extends into the adjacent residential zoning district, and the total floor area of the proposed bookstore would exceed the 1800 square metre limit on new retail uses by approximately 300 square metres.

A public meeting was convened by the Ward Councillors on June 10, 1998. The majority of the large turnout expressed concerns about the loss of a neighbourhood theatre and possible negative effects of a large format bookstore. Ideas regarding the best techniques to introduce the new use, protecting the historic building and even allowing for a further reconversion to a theatre use were also discussed.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances on June 24, 1998, but the approval was appealed.

Planning staff did not oppose the variances at the Committee of Adjustment. If City Council wishes to support the appeals, planning staff would have difficulty providing the best evidence.

Contact Name:

Barry Brooks

Telephone: (416) 392-0758

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: bbrooks@city.toronto.on.ca

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 23, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998 recommended to Council that in the event it is necessary to retain the services of an outside planner, that the necessary funds be absorbed from withing the Legal Division's Budget.

The Budget Committee reports having requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on October 1, 1998 on the amount of funds that have been allocated in the 1998 Budget for consultants.

Background:

The Budget on September 23, 1998, had before it a transmittal letter (September 18, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding the recommendations adopted by the Toronto Community Council wherein it requested the Budget Committee to report directly to the Council on the source of funds if an outside planner is necessary.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a petition signed by concerned citizens supporting the continued operation of the Runnymede Theatre.)

62

Ontario Municipal Board Decision

- 963 Bloor Street West (Trinity Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council receive the following report (July 23, 1998) from the City Solicitor and that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission be advised that City Council has requested that serving on the patio at 963 Bloor Street West cease at 10:00 p.m:

Purpose:

To advise the Toronto Community Council of the Ontario Municipal Board Decision respecting 963 Bloor Street West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications for the City. This matter requires no funding.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comments:

The owner of 963 Bloor Street West appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing a variance to permit a rear restaurant patio on property located 9.44m from the nearest R-zoned property, rather than the prescribed minimum separation of 10 m. At its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, Council adopted the motion made by the ward councillors seeking authority for the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the refusal.

The assigned solicitor reviewed the matter with the area planner, who had previously submitted a letter to the Committee of Adjustment recommending conditions for approval. The planner advised that he could not testify in support of outright refusal and informed the Ward Councillors. (No other member of planning staff could testify to that effect, either.) The assigned solicitor, therefore, attended the hearing without a planning witness and presented a case relying on cross-examination of the appellant's planner, the testimony of neighbours in opposition and final submissions.

The Board allowed the appeal and permitted the rear patio, subject to conditions directed to the operation and management of the patio. The conditions included the five originally suggested by the planner with two amendments making them stricter and two new conditions extracted by the City's lawyer through cross-examination, as set out in the decision.

In my view, there are no grounds for appeal of the decision.

A copy of the OMB Decision is attached and is on file with the City Clerk.

Contact Name:

John Paton, Solicitor

Telephone:392-7230

Fax:392-0024

E-mail:jpaton@city.toronto.on.ca

63

Relocation/Removal of City-Owned Tree -

30 Ossington Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council now recommends that City Council issue a permit for removal of the tree located at 30 Ossington Avenue, subject to the owner paying the costs for tree removal and the costs of planting a new tree of similar size and calibre in the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Community Council resubmits Clause 75 of its Report No. 10, headed "City-Owned Tree Relocation/Removal - 30 Ossington Street (Trinity-Niagara):

--------

City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for tree removal at 30 Ossington Street be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 30, 1998) from the Director of Development & Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. and Mrs. Macedo, 2 Kimber Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, L4L 9A7, for City Council to consider relocation or removal of a City owned honey locust tree located at the above noted address. Mr. and Mrs. Macedo reports that the tree is in direct conflict with a proposed new driveway entrance.

Recommendation:.

That this request for tree removal be denied.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 13 cm diameter honey locust which is in fair condition and is valued at $121.79. Due to the size and condition of this tree, it cannot be successfully relocated to another location. This tree does not qualify for removal at this time.

The costs to remove the tree are $186.20 and the costs to plant a replacement tree in a sidewalk tree pit at another location are $1,222.87, for a total of $1,530.86. However, there are also additional costs of approximately $250.00 for City Works Services to permanently cap the existing pit and approximately $200.00 to break open a new tree pit for a new tree to be planted at another location in the City. These costs can vary, depending on the type of pavement involved.

Since it would be necessary to permanently eliminate the planting site in order to avoid any conflict with the proposed driveway entrance, and such a tree removal would set an undesirable precedent for tree removals in Toronto, Forestry is opposed to removal of this tree.

Mr. Mike Defaria, on behalf of the owner of 30 Ossington Avenue, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

64

Tree Removal - 21 Elgin Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for removal of one of the two elm trees at 21 Elgin Drive to be determined by the applicant, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree in the general neighbourhood to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove two trees on private property that are overshadowing newly planted trees and shrubs has been filed by Mrs. Carol Ann Marshall, 21 Elgin Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5R 1G5, owner of 21 Elgin Avenue.

Recommendations:

Either 1, 2 or 3 below.

(1)Issue a permit for removal of one of the two elm trees to be determined by the applicant.

(2)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the trees.

(3)Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The trees in question are forty-four and forty-six centimetre diameter Siberian elms, both in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Al Miley that accompanies this application states that the trees are in fair condition and growing normally with a minor infestation of elm leaf beetle, a moderate amount of deadwood and overcrowding growth. The report states that the property owner has landscaped and that the plan at the time was to keep the trees until the landscape planting grew to a significant size. The elm trees are growing in close proximity to one another and the removal of one would provide more sunlight for the applicant's landscaping and would not significantly impact the tree cover in the neighbourhood.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One written objection was received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone: (416) 392-1894; Facsimile: (416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

(A copy of the objection referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

65

Tree Removal - 12 Armstrong Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal conditional on i) the issuance of a building permit for garage construction and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property in order to permit the construction of a garage at the rear of 14 Armstrong Avenue has been filed by Mr. Victor Hipolito, Ambient Designs Limited, 1579 Dupont Street, Toronto, Ontario, M6P 3S5, agent for the owner of 14 Armstrong Avenue. The owner's authorization form has been signed by the owner's of 12 Armstrong Avenue and accompanies the application for tree removal.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree.

(2)Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on i) the issuance of a building permit for garage construction and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty centimetre diameter Ailanthus altissima in fair condition. The tree is located at the rear of the property close to the property line with 14 Armstrong Avenue. The proposed construction of a garage would have a significant impact on the root system of the tree and would likely result in the decline of the health of the tree. If the tree is to remain, an alternative would be to construct a carport on piers thereby minimizing any impact construction activity would have on the health of the tree. This tree is one of only a few mature trees in the area and its removal would have an impact on the tree cover in the neighbourhood.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. The owner of 12 Armstrong Avenue has submitted a letter that accompanies the application stating that they are not opposed to tree removal provided the applicant plants a replacement tree to their satisfaction.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone: (416) 392-1894; Facsimile: (416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

66

Tree Removal - 142 Evelyn Crescent (High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 142 Evelyn Crescent, conditional on i) the issuance of a building permit for a rear addition and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to allow for the construction of a rear addition has been filed by Mrs. Jill A. Carpenter, 142 Evelyn Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, M6P3E2, owner of 142 Evelyn Crescent.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on i) the issuance of a building permit for a rear addition and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

(2)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree, requiring the applicant to abandon her plans for an addition.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-three centimetre diameter white birch in fair condition. The birch tree is located in close proximity to the rear of the existing house and any proposal for a rear addition would require the removal of the tree. The tree has an unbalanced crown due to past pruning on the west side to clear the property at 144 Evelyn Crescent and will require continual pruning to maintain clearance from the homes at 142 and 144 Evelyn Crescent. The birch tree as a species does not withstand heavy pruning and is susceptible to attack by insect and disease at the points of pruning wounds. This particular specimen is poorly located and reaching maturity and its removal combined with replacement planting is an acceptable option in the opinion of urban forestry staff.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

67

Tree Removal - 420 Castlefield Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 420 Castlefield Avenue, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that is obstructing the view and light into the house has been filed by Mr. Voja Zikic, 420 Castlefield Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5N1L5, owner of 420 Castlefield Avenue.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree.

(2)Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-five centimetre diameter blue spruce in fair condition located at the front of the property. The spruce tree is located within five metres of the front of the house and is approximately twelve metres in height. The applicant has consulted a landscape architect who indicated that the tree is unhealthy, obstructs the view and light into the house and therefore recommends removal of the tree. The south portion of the trees crown is sparse due to competition from a City owned Norway maple but the overall health of the tree is good and removal would only be necessary from an aesthetic point of view. The spruce tree could accommodate further pruning of the lower limbs in order to raise the crown and by so doing increase the view of the house from the street. Removal of the spruce tree will not increase the amount of light reaching the house in the summer months as there are numerous City owned shade trees fronting this property.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

68

Tree Removal - Wychwood Park Pond and

Forest Rehabilitation (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for removal of five trees at Wychwood Park, subject to the Wychwood Park Trustees planting five replacement trees in the general neighbourhood, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council that it has requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division) to write to the objectors and enclose a copy of the report (August 31, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support - Toronto Parks and Recreation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove five trees on private property in order to carry out pond restoration and forest rehabilitation work has been filed by Marc Gacomelli, 81 Wychwood Park, Toronto, M6G 2V5, Wychwood Park Trustee.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Issue a permit for removal of the trees.

(2)Refuse to issue a permit for tree removal.

Comments:

The trees in question are a thirty-one centimetre diameter black locust, two thirty-five centimetre diameter silver maples, a thirty-seven centimetre diameter white ash and a thirty-two centimetre diameter Norway maple. The report prepared by Gartner Lee Limited, Environmental Consultants states that the removal of the above trees is necessary to establish vegetation along the pond shoreline. The report states that as part of the pond and forest management, selective removal of trees along the shoreline should be conducted to reduce the shade canopy over the pond and permit the shoreline planting's to become established. The report also states that the purpose of the forest management would be to enhance the aesthetics of the woods, permit the establishment of a healthy groundcover and young vegetation, and promote a sustainable ecosystem consisting of more native species representative of the Carolinian forest that used to cover the area.

The arborist report prepared by Thomson, Bruce and Associates, Consulting Arborists and Foresters, identifies several reasons for removal of the trees described above, these include trees within the limits of pond excavation, trees located within a critical storm outfall zone identified for restoration, trees identified as a major source of organic debris which is undesirable for water quality and a mature Norway maple, an invasive exotic species that prevents the establishment of more desirable species. The arborist report also states that every effort will be made to preserve as many trees as possible. The proposed pond restoration and forest management proposed by the Wychwood Park Trustees demonstrates ecological awareness and in the opinion of Urban Forestry staff, the loss of the five trees described above is necessary to achieve the long term benefits which will result from this management plan.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. Four written objections were received in response to the application to remove the trees in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

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

-(September 15, 1998) from Ms. Marjorie Wilton, Chair, Wychwood Park Heritage Advisory Committee;

-(September 14, 1998) from Mr. Donald C. Harrison, on behalf of the three Wychwood Park Trustees.

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

-Dr. Don Harrison, Trustee, Toronto Ontario;

-Mr. Ruedi Hofer, PMA Landscape Architects, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Ian Bruce, Arborist, Toronto, Ontario.

(A copy of the objections, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

69

Tree Removal - 165 Roxborough Street East (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree at 165 Roxborough Street East, requiring the applicant to redesign his plans for construction of a new garage; and

(2)the building permit for the new garage at 165 Roxborough Street East be granted only if the utmost care is taken by the proponent to prevent injury to the tree.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property in order to construct a new garage has been filed by Mr. Stephen Kosa, 165 Roxborough Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1V9, owner of 165 Roxborough Street East.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree requiring the applicant to redesign his plans for construction of a new garage.

(2)Issue a permit for removal of the tree conditional on i) the issuance of a building permit for a new garage and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-eight centimetre diameter horsechestnut in fair condition. The report prepared by Bostock Tree Service that accompanies this application states that the chestnut tree is healthy and viable in spite of being surrounded on three sides by asphalt and concrete. The report states that the construction of a new garage is required due to a Manitoba maple located at the rear of 157 Roxborough Street East that fell and crushed the previous garage. The Manitoba maple also fell into the chestnut tree requiring extensive corrective pruning on the west side of the chestnut. The report also states that if a new garage is to be constructed on the same footprint as the old one, then the corner of the concrete pad will be lifted along with the asphalt in the laneway by expansion of the tree's root system, and the corner of the garage will have to allow for the expansion of the tree's stem. The report concludes that one solution is the removal of the tree while another involves an arborist working with an architect to save the tree during construction of a new garage. The chestnut tree was able to coexist with the previous garage and if the plans for the new garage are prepared with the thought of saving the tree, the tree could be preserved. The requirements of the Buildings Division of Urban Planning and Development Services will have to be considered prior to any proposed construction.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One written objection was received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

(A copy of the objection referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

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

-Mr. D. Mueller, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Stephen Kosa, Owner.

70

Removal of Tree - 48 Symington Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for removal of the tree at 48 Symington Avenue, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that is heaving concrete steps and walkways has been filed by Sudan Madhu Sharma and Urmila Sharma, 48 Symington Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6P 3W1, owner's of 48 Symington Avenue.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree.

(2)Issue a permit for removal of the tree conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a seventy-four centimetre diameter American elm in fair condition. The elm tree is located at the front of the property approximately two metres from the foundation of the house. The root system of the tree has caused cracking and heaving of a concrete walkway at 46 Symington and has also caused heaving of the steps at 48 Symington. The owner of 46 Symington would like to repair the walkway and has therefore approached the owner's of 48 Symington to submit the application for tree removal. If repairs to the walkway and stairs are made and the tree remains there is the potential that further cracking and heaving could result due to the expansion of the trees root system. There has been no evidence submitted with the application that would indicate that the tree is causing any damage to the foundations of either 46 or 48 Symington Avenue. There are very few mature trees on this street and removing the elm would be unfortunate.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

71

Tree Removal - 63 Strathcona Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for the removal of the Manitoba maple tree, but refuse to issue a permit for the removal of the elm tree at 63 Strathcona Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove two trees on private property that the applicant feels are too close to the house and have branches that fall onto the deck and into the rear yard has been filed by the owner, 63 Strathcona Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4J 1G9.

Recommendations:

Either 1, 2 or 3 below.

(1)Issue a permit for the removal of the Manitoba maple tree, but refuse to issue a permit for the removal of the elm tree.

(2)Refuse to issue a permit for the removal of both trees.

(3)Issue a permit for the removal of both trees.

Comments:

The trees in question are a thirty-six centimetre diameter Manitoba maple and a fifty centimetre diameter American elm, both in fair condition. The two trees are growing within a metre of one another and are located along the west property line approximately five metres south of the house. Neither tree meets the criteria for an exemption under Article III, Chapter 331 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code. If the Manitoba maple were to be removed, the weaker wooded of the two species, there would not be a significant loss in terms of tree cover in the neighbourhood and the native elm tree would benefit as a result.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (August 24, 1998) from Ms. L. Tanner and Ms. J. Tanner, in opposition to the removal of the two trees; and suggesting that the trees could be trimmed.)

72

Tree Removal - 204 - 212 and 220 Eglinton Avenue East

(North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for the removal of two trees located at 204-212 and 220 Eglinton Avenue East, conditional on:

(1)the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under Site Plan Application No.397135 commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(2)the applicant planting all plant material, in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Marius Ois, date stamped as received on March 23, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services, and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Toronto City Hall:

Purpose:

An application has been filed under the provisions of City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, for a permit to remove two trees situated on private property in order to facilitate the construction of a residential condominium apartment building with an underground parking structure on the properties 204 - 212 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto.

Recommendations:

That if Toronto Community Council approves the request for the removal of two trees indicated in this report, that such approval be conditional on:

1.the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under Site Plan Application No. 397135 commence which warrant the destruction of the trees;

2.the applicant planting all plant material, in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Marius Ois, date stamped as received on March 23, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services, and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services.

Comments:

I have received a request from Mr. Isaac Meisels of Cartier Place Apartments Ltd., 880 Ellesmere Road, Scarborough, Ontario, M1P 2W6, the owner of 204 - 212 Eglinton Avenue East, that the City consider the removal of two trees situated on private property.

One of the two trees which is the subject of this application is situated on the adjacent private property of 220 Eglinton Avenue East in close proximity to the property line of 212 Eglinton Avenue East. Given that extensive excavation must take place along the property line of 212 and 220 Eglinton Avenue East in order to facilitate the construction of an underground parking structure which is proposed as part of the subject development, the tree in question must be removed due to the impact on the root system of the tree.

The owner of the adjacent property, 220 Eglinton Avenue East, has not authorized the removal of the tree from that property given that Toronto City Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 amended City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III to exempt development applications approved prior to August 21, 1997 from the consent requirement of the by-law. It was on August 21, 1997 that the former Toronto City Council amended Chapter 331, Article III to require that adjacent property owners provide written consent when a permit application to injure or destroy trees on private property is filed to the City for a tree which an adjacent property owner either partial or solely owns. As such, a property owner may now apply for the injury or destruction of a tree on a property which they do not own if approval has been received for a development application prior to August 21, 1997.

In this circumstance, the owner of 204 -212 Eglinton Avenue East received approval from the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit the proposed development on June 4, 1997.

The request to destroy the two trees in question forms part of Site Plan Approval Application No.397135 for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a residential condominium apartment building with an underground parking structure on the properties 204 - 212 Eglinton Avenue East.

As required under Section 331-13.B. of Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, a 'Notice' of application sign was posted on the property for the minimum 14 day posting period. At the time of writing this report, three (3) letters were received in response to the notice of application to remove the trees in question which includes a petition signed by twenty-nine (29) individuals.

The two trees in question are as follows:

1.33 cm diameter White (American) Elm in fair condition

This tree is situated on the adjacent private property of 220 Eglinton Avenue East;

2.46 cm diameter Tree-of-Heaven in fair condition

This tree is situated on the private property of 212 Eglinton Avenue East.

Both trees require a permit and the consent of City Council to remove or injure.

The proposed development in its present form precludes the retention of the two trees proposed for removal due to the size and scale of the development.

The landscape plan which was filed with the subject development application indicates the planting of four ornamental pear trees on the Eglinton Avenue East City road allowance of the development site.

Should the Toronto Community Council recommend that the request to remove the trees in question be approved, such approval should meet the conditions outlined above in my recommendation.

Contact Name:

Gary R. Le Blanc

Telephone: (416) 392-0494; Facsimile: (416) 392-6657

E-mail:gleblanc@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

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

-(September 15, 1998) from Ms. Kimberly L. Beckman, Davies Howe Partners;

-(undated) from Councillor Johnston.

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

-Ms. Kimberly Beckman, Davies, Howe Partners, on behalf of the Applicant;

-Mr. Stephen Longo, Goodman & Carr, on behalf of the Applicant;

-Mr. Marius Ois, Marius Ois & Associates Inc.;

-Ms. Maria Szily, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. I. Meisels;

-Mr. F. Volpi, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. John Laverty, Toronto, Ontario.

(A copy of the letters and petition referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

73

Boulevard Cafe Application - Bosco's Restaurant -

96 Tecumseth Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 96 Tecumseth Street and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in §313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report o the Toronto Community Council in September, 1999 on the results.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owners' application for a boulevard cafe fronting 96 Tecumseth Street as requested by Councillor Joe Pantalone. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 96 Tecumseth Street and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

OR

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 96 Tecumseth Street.

Background:

Councillor Joe Pantalone, in his communication dated May 21, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested a report on the application, along with the relevant poll results, for a boulevard cafe fronting 96Tecumseth Street.

Comments:

Messrs. Robert Stanley Beasly, Dwayne Michael Bosco and Duy Tang, Bosco's Restaurant, 96Tecumseth Street, Toronto, Ontario M6J 2H1, requested a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 96 Tecumseth Street.

I have reviewed this application and I have determined that the application meets the physical criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

For your Committee's information, this location was previously licensed from May 1988 to April 1998, at which time, the business was sold to the current operator. Even though the licence was in effect until April 1998, the cafe did not operate for the past 2 years.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 19.31 sq. m. of City sidewalk fronting 96 Tecumseth Street, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). It can accommodate 4 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 17 people.

As the proposed cafe is located in a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 metres from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll, dated June 10, 1998 to July 10, 1998 was conducted on the west side from Nos. 96 to 118 Tecumseth Street, and on the east side from Nos. 85 to 101 Tecumseth Street, including 653 Adelaide Street West, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French.

The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Conclusions:

The application meets the criteria of § 313-36 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and staff can issue a boulevard cafe licence at 96 Tecumseth Street.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant a licence.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

--------

(A copy of Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

74

Residential Boulevard Parking Appeal -

Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for residential boulevard parking on the Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street, and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-40 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, including a favourable poll.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for residential boulevard parking facilities on the Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for residential boulevard parking on the Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street, and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-40 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, including a favourable poll;

OR

(2)City Council deny the application for residential boulevard parking on the Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street.

Background:

In a communication dated July 20, 1998 to Councillor Chow, Ms. Katrina McHugh, owner of 226 Major Street, appealed staff's refusal for three (3) residential boulevard parking spaces.

Comments:

Ms. Katrina McHugh, owner of 226 Major Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2L3, submitted an application on June 19, 1998, to park three (3) vehicles on the City boulevard, on the Sussex Avenue flankage of the property.

The property is located at the south west corner of Major Street and Sussex Avenue. The proposed parking area is presently paved in gravel and accommodates three (3) vehicles. The area is also serviced by a ramp which provides access to two (2) of the proposed parking spaces.

Adequate parking facilities can be constructed totally on private property in the rear yard by removing the existing fence in front of the ramped boulevard.

Consideration for residential boulevard parking is governed by Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria:

(a)prohibits residential boulevard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street or the property is within an area authorized for permit parking;

(b)prohibits residential boulevard parking where the property has access to existing parking facilities on the lot or where adequate space for parking can be provided on the lot;

(c)sets a maximum of one (1) residential boulevard parking space per property.

We have investigated the feasibility of residential boulevard parking at this location and we have determined that it does not meet the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code for residential boulevard parking for the following reasons:

1.Permit parking is authorized on an alternate side basis on both Major Street and Sussex Avenue, within permit parking area 6B;

2.There are no parking facilities on the lot, however parking can be accommodated totally on private property with access from an existing ramp on Sussex Avenue; and

3.The application is for three (3) parking spaces.

I note that for properties which meet the basic eligibility criteria (i.e. no on-site parking, not in a permit parking area), the application is then reviewed against a set of physical criteria (i.e. clearances from trees, landscaping, etc.). If it meets these physical criteria, a positive response to a public poll is also required before staff may issue a licence.

Conclusions:

As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking and has adequate space to construct parking facilities on the lot, it is not eligible for residential boulevard parking. In view of the above, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

--------

Ms. Katrina McHugh appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

75

Driveway Widening Appeal - 50 Balsam Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening for a second parking space, at 50 Balsam Avenue, subject to the owners:

(1)submitting an landscaping plan satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture, which would restrict the parking to two cars; and

(2)providing an Undertaking that they will not park more than two cars on the property.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on an application for driveway widening parking which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening for a second parking space, at 50 Balsam Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Ms. Sally Rollinson and Mr. Paul Rollinson, co-owners of 50 Balsam Avenue, have requested an appeal to staff's decision to refuse the application for a second parking space at this location.

Comments:

This location was previously licensed for driveway parking for one (1) vehicle. The parking was confined within the private driveway and totally on private property.

Ms. Sally Rollinson and Mr. Paul Rollinson have recently purchased the property and submitted an application on July 20, 1998 to park two motor vehicles on private property, situated on the private driveway and on a widened portion adjacent to the driveway in front of the property (see Appendix'A').

The property has a private driveway 3.04 metres wide, which leads to a single car garage at the rear of the property. The driveway is 16.5 metres long from the back edge of the sidewalk to the jog in the building where the driveway is reduced to 2.33 metres wide. The property can accommodate parking for 3 vehicles (see Appendix 'B'). Although parking on private driveways in front of houses is a zoning infraction, it is hard to enforce and is a fairly common practice throughout the former City of Toronto. (The former City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 governs any parking on the property. It prohibits any parking on any portion of the lot beyond the front wall of a dwelling, but permits casual parking on a properly surfaced driveway.)

Driveway widening is governed by the criteria set out in § 248-3 of Municipal Code Chapter 248 and Zoning By-law No. 438-86. This application does not meet the requirements of the legislation, as the Code limits the licensing to one (1) space in the front yard.

The Rollinsons have just been licensed for one space within the limits of the driveway. They are requesting a second parking space adjacent to the driveway. If the second parking space is licensed, this would effectively provide parking for 4 vehicles at 50 Balsam Avenue.

Accordingly, the second parking space has been denied and Sally and Paul Rollinson have been advised of this by letter on August 24, 1998.

Conclusions:

As the property is currently licensed for one (1) parking space at the front of the dwelling within the confines of the private driveway, and the Code limits the licensing to one (1) space, this location is not eligible for driveway widening for a second space. Since the proposal does not meet the current criteria, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

--------

Ms. Sally Rollinson appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

76

Front Yard Parking - 38 Spruce Hill Road (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for a second parking space at 38 Spruce Hill Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 20, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit a second front yard parking space. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it should be scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be deferred to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council for the hearing of deputations.

Background:

In a communication dated July 9, 1998 to your Committee, Ms. Helen Beauchamp is appealing staff's refusal for a second parking space at 38 Spruce Hill Road.

Comments:

History of applications at 38 Spruce Hill Road

A previous owner of 38 Spruce Hill Road applied for front yard parking on December 16, 1988. The necessary poll, required at the time, was conducted during the summer of 1989. The by-law to permit front yard parking on this block of Spruce Hill Road was adopted by the former City Council on September 7, 1989.

Our records indicate that since that time, the property changed ownership at least twice. The current owners, Henry and Terry Beauchamp, took ownership on August 21, 1989, and subsequently applied for front yard parking on August 31, 1989. They were advised in writing on September 28, 1989 that because the proposal involved extensive landscaping to create the parking area, that no further processing could be done on the file until detailed plans for the project were submitted for review.

The owners wrote requesting an extension to submit plans; this extension was granted to March 30, 1990.

On March 31, 1990, they wrote again requesting a further extension, which was granted until June4, 1990, by way of our letter dated April 17, 1990. This letter also noted that "Failure to receive your drawings by that date will result in the cancellation of your file."

No plans were received and the file was subsequently closed in 1990. No further communication was received from the owner, until Councillor Jakobek, in a letter dated September 17, 1997, requested that a report be submitted directly to the former City Council.

The former City Council, at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, had before it our report (October6, 1997) entitled "Front Yard Parking - 38 Spruce Hill Road". Council directed that should the owners of 38 Spruce Hill Road apply for front yard parking, that an exemption be granted to the requirement that prohibits front yard parking where a property is situated in an area authorized for permit parking and authorized the Commissioner of City Works Services to process the application accordingly.

Current status of the application

Mr. and Mrs. Beauchamp submitted a new application to park two vehicles at the front of their property on March 26, 1998.

The required poll was conducted and the results were in favour of the application. The applicants were notified on June 23, 1998 of the results of the poll and approval was granted for one front yard parking space. To date, no licence for front yard parking has been issued for 38 Spruce Hill Road.

I have been asked again to report on the appeal of staff's decision to refuse the application for a second parking space at this location.

On July 5, 1996, Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current front yard parking criteria of Chapter 400, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code:

(a)prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street or the property is within an area authorized for permit parking;

(b)prohibits front yard parking where the installation of the ramp to service the parking space will result in the loss of an on-street permit parking space; and

(c)limits the number of front yard parking spaces to one per property.

The former City Council granted an exemption to permit front yard parking at this location, notwithstanding that it was in an area licensed for permit parking. However, the application at that time was for only one parking space and therefore City Council did not comment on the number of spaces to be considered. The current application is for two parking spaces, but as the Municipal Code does not permit more than one parking space per property, approval for a second parking space cannot be granted.

Conclusions:

As the property has already received approval for one front yard parking space, and the property is not eligible for a second front yard parking space, under the criteria set out in Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the request for a second parking space should be denied by Council.

In addition, as this is a request for an exemption from Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, this report should be deferred to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council for deputations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (July 9, 1998) from Ms. Helen Beauchamp, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

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

-Mr. Terry Beauchamp, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Ms. Helen Beauchamp, Toronto, Ontario.

77

Drain Claim - 30 Hastings Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council waive the account for the drain claim at 30 Hastings Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 7, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek:

Ms. MacDougall had problems with her drains. She contacted the City to see if the problem was on City or private property. Our City work crew responded and found that the problem was on private property. Although Ms. MacDougall had the problem repaired by a private contractor, the City is now charging her $1,173.42 for the work the city did. She is aware that she signed an agreement with the City to pay all costs if the problem was not on City property, but feels she was forced to doso.

I would kindly request permission for Ms. Suzanne MacDougall to address the Toronto Community Council regarding the above.

--------

Ms. Suzanne MacDougall appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the invoice, agreement and work order, attached to the foregoing communication was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

78

Front Yard Parking - 86 Caledonia Road (Davenport)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by deleting the word "commercial" from the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council, so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"The Toronto Community Council recommends that approval be granted to permit boulevard parking at 86 Caledonia Road.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that approval be granted to permit commercial boulevard parking at 86 Caledonia Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 20, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit front yard parking which does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it should be scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be deferred to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council for the hearing of deputations.

Background:

In a communication dated July 2, 1998 to your Committee, Councillor Disero requested that the owner of 86 Caledonia Road be permitted to continue access to his front yard parking pad.

Comments:

The property is located at the south west corner of Caledonia Road and Norman Avenue which is located within an area zoned R2 that permits residential use only. This property contained a commercial establishment on the ground floor which was permitted on a legal non-conforming basis, and the owner, Mr. Pino Sacco, was previously licensed for commercial boulevard parking for one parking space parallel to the roadway, fronting the building. This location was licensed from May 1988 to November 1997.

The commercial ground floor of the building was recently converted from commercial to residential use and therefore, under the Municipal Code, the property no longer qualifies to have the commercial boulevard parking licence. I note that once the commercial use was converted to residential use, as the area is zoned R2, no future commercial use of the property would be permitted. In a letter dated November 4, 1997, we advised Mr. Sacco that his licence was cancelled.

Consideration for parking at the front of residential properties is governed by Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

On July 5, 1996, Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current front yard parking criteria of Chapter 400, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code:

(a)prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street or the property is within an area authorized for permit parking;

(b)prohibits front yard parking where the property has access to existing parking facilities on the lot;

(c)requires that the parking space must be perpendicular to the sidewalk;

(d)requires a minimum of 15% of the area on the City boulevard be soft landscaping, and all other areas other than the walkway and the parking pad must be soft landscaping;

(e)requires that the parking area be paved using semi-permeable paving materials; and

(f)sets a maximum of one (1) front yard parking space per property.

We have investigated the feasibility of front yard parking at this location and we have determined that it does not meet the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code for front yard parking for the following reasons:

1.Permit parking is authorized on the even side of Caledonia Road, and on both sides of Norman Avenue, within permit parking area 3B;

2.There is a 3 car garage at the side of the property with access from Norman Avenue; and

3.The paving specifications and the soft landscaping requirements are not met (boulevard on Caledonia Road is paved with asphalt).

I note that for properties which meet the basic eligibility criteria (i.e. no on-site parking, not in a permit parking area), the application is then reviewed against a set of physical criteria (i.e. clearances from trees, landscaping, etc.). If it meets these physical criteria, a positive response to a public poll is also required before staff may issue a licence.

Conclusions:

As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking and has existing parking facilities on the lot, it is not eligible for front yard parking. In addition, as it is now a residential property, it does not qualify for commercial boulevard parking. In view of the above, this request should be denied by Council.

As this is a request for an exemption from Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, this report should be deferred to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council for deputations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (July 2, 1998) from Councillor Disero:

I am writing to ask for Community Council's assistance in a matter that concerns the above noted address.

It has been brought to my attention that 86 Caledonia Road was licensed in 1988, under Commercial Boulevard Parking. In 1997, it was determined that the property no longer had a commercial component and the license was rescinded. Since then, cement barriers have been placed on the front yard pad.

The owner of the property has informed me that this parking entrance has existed since he bought the property in 1962 and that the previous owner had told him it had existed for many years prior to that. Since 1991, the owner had been paying for the use of the parking space and is prepared to continue to do so.

Of particular concern is the fact that the owner claims he never once received a communication from the City of Toronto stating that such actions were going to be taken.

For these reasons, I ask that Community Council allow this gentleman continued access to his front yard pad.

79

Driveway Widening - 315 Forman Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the parking space at 315 Forman Avenue, notwithstanding that the property is not eligible for a second parking space, conditional upon the landscaping proposal being altered to meet the minimum requirements of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To comment on the applicant's landscaping plans in connection with a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit driveway widening for a second parking space which does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that, should Council approve the second parking space, notwithstanding that the property is not eligible for a second parking space, the landscaping proposal be altered to meet the minimum requirements of the Code.

Background:

At its meeting on July 22, 1998, Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of a request for an exemption from the by-law from Mr. Allan Fleisher, co-owner of 315 Forman Avenue, and requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism comment on the applicant's landscaping plans.

Comments:

Mr. Allan Fleisher and Ms. Judy Fleisher, owners of 315 Forman Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4S2S6, submitted landscaping plans (see Appendix 'A'), in connection with their application for two (2) parking spaces adjacent to the mutual driveway.

Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code limits the size of the parking space, to 5.2 metres in width and 5.9 metres in length, for two (2) vehicles. Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto requires that 50% landscaped open space be maintained within portions of the front yard on private property and 15% must be constructed as soft landscape, ie. grass or an area to be used for planting of shrubs or flowers.

The landscaping plans were reviewed by staff of Works and Emergency Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and they confirmed that the proposal did not meet the requirements for landscaped open space and soft landscaping, including the planting of a tree.

Discussions with Mr. Fleisher on the landscape proposal resulted in further modifications, the results of which are as follows:

As can be seen, the revised landscape proposal has met most of the requirements, including the planting of a tree, with the exception of the total landscaped open space. Mr. Fleisher was informed of this, however, he is reluctant to increase this area due to maintenance of the area and more importantly due to safety concerns for Ms. Fleisher.

The requirement of the landscaped open space can be met, if Mr. Fleisher was to further revise his proposal by situating the parking area of the vehicles to within 5.9 m back of the sidewalk.

Conclusions:

Mr. Fleisher's proposal has met most of the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248 and Zoning By-law No. 438-86, with the exception of the landscaped open space.

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to grant permission for the parking of two vehicles.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

Works and Emergency Services

Warren Quan, 392-1940

Economic Development, Culture & Tourism

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 17, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit driveway widening for a second parking space which does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)an application for a second parking space at 315 Forman Avenue be denied by City Council, as such request does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the excessive paving is removed, as requested by City staff.

Background:

Mr. Allan Fleisher, co-owner of 315 Forman Avenue, has requested an appeal to staff's decision to refuse the application for a second parking space at this location.

Comments:

Mr. Allan Fleisher and Ms. Judy Fleisher, owners of 315 Forman Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4S2S6, submitted an application on February 20, 1998 for a second space adjacent to the mutual driveway (see Appendix 'A').

We opened a file on this location in September 1997 because the owners had paved the entire front yard in asphalt prior to approval and vehicles were parking without authorization.

Driveway widening is governed by the criteria set out in § 248-3 of Municipal Code Chapter 248 and Zoning By-law No. 438-86. The location met the requirements of the legislation for the parking of one vehicle and a permit was issued on April 24, 1998.

Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, requires that 50% landscape open space be maintained within portions of the front yard on private property and 30 % of the 50% landscaped open-space must be constructed as soft landscape.

If Council were to approve the second parking space, the landscaping requirements could be met, provided the parking spaces are situated within 5.9 m from the back of the sidewalk and all of the excess paving is removed.

For the Committee's information, the department has received complaints about the unauthorized parking of the second vehicle and we have asked the owners to cease the parking and remove the excess asphalt.

Conclusions:

Given that the owners had paved the entire front yard with asphalt and that the property is not eligible for a second parking space adjacent to the mutual driveway under the criteria set out in Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, this request should be denied by Council.

In addition, the excessive paving should be removed, as previously requested.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (July 9, 1998) from Councillor Johnston:

Recommendation: That the request for two (2) front yard parking spaces at 315 Forman Avenue be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying the fees prescribed by the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments: I have received a request from Mr. and Mrs. Fleisher, owners of 315 Forman Avenue, that they be permitted to install a second front yard parking space at their home.

Mr. and Mrs. Fleisher bought their home in February of 1996, and the two front yard parking spaces were a major selling point. The by-law which prohibited front yard parking on their property came into effect in July 1996, and as they did not close on the property until June 1996, they were unable to process their application before the new by-law came into effect. Since that time, they have made, at considerable expense, great improvements to their property, and now they wish to continue the improvements in the fall by repaving their driveway.

In addition, Mrs. Fleisher's job requires that she work various shifts and concerns have been expressed about her safety in returning home from work in the early hours of the morning and being unable to park.

The Fleishers in February 1998, made an application for two parking spaces and were granted approval for one parking space. They did not know that they could appeal the decision of the Commissioner to deny the second parking space or they would have done so earlier.

As they wish to upgrade the driveway in the fall, and Council will not be meeting until October, I am requesting that this appeal be considered at the meeting to be held on July 22nd, 1998, and that their request be granted.

--------

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

-(July 20, 1998) from seven residents of Forman Avenue;

-(July 21, 19980 from Ms. Judy and Mr. Allan Fleisher;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Ron Baker.

Ms. Judy Fleisher, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

80

Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing -

70 Huron Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 70 Huron Street;

(2)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder; and

(3)the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence fronting 70 Huron Street because of ongoing excessive display of goods. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That, after the hearing of deputations, should the Toronto Community Council decide to proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 70 Huron Street:

1.a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder; and

2.the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, in considering Clause No. 10 of Report No.10 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenue Between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, Between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street" adopted the report, as amended, by deleting:

(a)Licence No. M-1912 (264 Spadina Avenue) from Appendix 'A';

(b)Licence No. M-1138 (437 Dundas Street West) from Appendix 'B'.

In addition, City Council adopted the report (July 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services entitled, "Boulevard Marketing - 70 Huron Street" and in so doing:

(1)directed that, should a further 'Summons' for excessive marketing be issued to the licence holder of 70 Huron Street, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Toronto Community Council on the possible cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence and the applicant be given the opportunity to be heard by the Committee; and

(2)after the hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council recommend to City Council the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence.

Comments:

As outlined in our earlier report, staff have visited 70 Huron Street on numerous occasions and issued several "Notices of Advice" and "Summonses" to 1229920 Ontario Inc., o/a Hong Fat Seafood Market, for excessive marketing. Currently, there are 2 outstanding "Summonses" for excessive marketing at this location, and to-date, 1 conviction has been registered for excessive marketing.

In order to assist the business operator in confining their licensed marketing area to the permitted limits, arrangements were made on July 24, 1998 to repaint the boundaries of the licensed area.

On August 7, 1998, while on routine patrol, staff noted that there was display of goods outside the licensed marketing area. The inspector contacted the manager of Hong Fat Seafood Market to discuss the past problems concerning excessive marketing at the location and to ensure their responsibility in confining all marketing within the licensed area. The excessive marketing was removed in the presence of the inspector.

On August 24, 1998, staff again noted that there was an over display of goods fronting 70 Huron Street. Accordingly, a Part 1 Offence Notice was issued to 1229920 Ontario Inc., o/a Hong Fat Seafood Market for excessive marketing.

As the licence holder must be given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee or Council prior to cancellation or amendment of the licence, I have requested the City Clerk to notify the licence holder of the proposed cancellation.

Conclusions:

In view of the on-going problems associated with excessive marketing, it is recommended that the boulevard marketing licence fronting 70 Huron Street be cancelled.

Should the Toronto Community Council decide to cancel the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 70 Huron Street, in accordance with the Municipal Code requirements, a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder and the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

81

Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenue

and Dundas Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 433, 443, and 444 Dundas Street West; and

(2)(a)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holders; and

(b)the licence holders be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

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

(1)to report further to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting to be held on October 14, 1998, on the possible cancellation of boulevard marketing locations at 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 254 and 311 Spadina Avenue:

(2)to report to the Toronto Community Council on amending Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code so that boulevard marking fronting the premises is permitted only for goods for which the store has primary use; and

(3)to submit the locations at 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 254 and 311 Spadina Avenue to the Licensing Commission with the request that the Commission withhold the renewal of the premises' operating licences pending the requested report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of the survey conducted on August 27, 1998 of the licensed marketing locations within Toronto District's Downtown Chinatown (Spadina Avenue between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street) that were identified in the July 9, 1998 report.

As licence holders must be given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee or Council prior to cancellation or amendment of their licence, this matter is scheduled as a deputation item.

Recommendations:

That, after the hearing of deputations, should the Toronto Community Council decide to proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 433, 443, 444 and 459 Dundas Street West and 254 Spadina Avenue:

1.(a)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holders; and

(b)the licence holders be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee; and

2.I report further to your Committee at its meeting of October 14, 1998 on the possible cancellation of boulevard marketing locations at 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 311 Spadina Avenue.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, in considering Clause No. 10 of Report No.10 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenue Between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, Between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street" adopted the report, as amended, by deleting:

(a)Licence No. M-1912 (264 Spadina Avenue) from Appendix 'A';

(b)Licence No. M-1138 (437 Dundas Street West) from Appendix 'B'.

Comments:

In our report of July 9, 1998, we identified a number of licensed boulevard marketing locations which were selling merchandise unrelated to the use of the main business (i.e. hardware store selling fruits and vegetables on the sidewalk).

These licence holders were given 30 days from July 22, 1998 to modify their business practices so that merchandise being sold within the licensed marketing area are the same or similar to the merchandise being sold from within the premises.

The following are the conclusions of the survey conducted by staff on August 27, 1998 and the recommended action to be taken by your Committee.

Locations recommended for cancellation:

The business owner of 433 Dundas Street West (bakery) has indicated that he was leasing the boulevard marketing to a vendor. He is no longer leasing the boulevard, therefore the boulevard marketing licence can be cancelled.

The business owner of 443 Dundas Street West has indicated that he can confine his operations totally on private property, therefore no marketing licence is required.

Mr. A. Wong of 444 Dundas Street West operates a travel agency on the second floor and is registered on our files as the licence holder of the boulevard marketing. We have been unable to identify the ownership of the boulevard marketing area fronting this location as Mr. Wong, his staff and staff of the main floor business (meat store) claim no ownership of it. Under the circumstances, the boulevard marketing licence registered at this location should be cancelled.

The business operator at 459 Dundas Street West, Ms. Sandy Lo, Nung Fown Restaurant, has a vendor operating the marketing area selling T-shirts and jewellery. Given that the property is being used as a restaurant, it is recommended that the licence be cancelled.

The licence holder of 254 Spadina Avenue is operating his business from the foyer of the main entrance of the property. Under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the owner in possession or the occupant of the ground floor of the property which may be lawfully used for industrial or commercial purposes and which abuts on a boulevard is eligible for boulevard marketing. The main floor at the subject property is used as a restaurant. Given the above, it is recommended that this licence be cancelled.

Locations that complied with criteria of Municipal Code:

The business operators of 449 Dundas Street West, 273, 280, 300B, 305, 322, 340 and 346 Spadina Avenue have modified their business practices and now comply with the regulations of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks.

Ms. Le Lynh of 318 Spadina Avenue has indicated that the business will be undergoing major renovation in the immediate future and that she will ensure that the boulevard marketing comply with the regulations of the Municipal Code. Currently, the marketing area is not in use.

The business operators of 492 and 494 Dundas Street West, and 311 Spadina Avenue have somewhat modified their business practices to comply with the Municipal Code, however, the primary use of the business is not what is being sold within the boulevard marketing. These locations are currently being further reviewed and a report will be submitted to the next Toronto Community Council for its meeting of October 14, 1998.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

--------

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

-Mr. Nelson Wong, Nung Fown Restaurant and Souvenirs;

-Mr. Cheung Lee, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. David Huynh, Cam Ranh Fashion Boutique.

82

Application for Boulevard Cafe - Nairn Avenue flankage of

1340 St. Clair Avenue West - Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc. (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, notwithstanding the former City of Toronto Council's decision to cancel the business owner's licence to operate a boulevard cafe, and that such approval be subject to:

(1)the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the applicant ensuring that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 12:00 midnight, 7 days a week.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of July 22 and 23, 1998, in considering my report (July 9, 1998) entitled "Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc. - Application for a Boulevard Cafe - Nairn Avenue Flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West", recommended that the matter be deferred to its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998 and that the temporary permit for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West be extended to September 16, 1998, under the same terms and conditions approved by City Council, at its meeting held on May 13 and 14, 1998 (i.e. the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00p.m., Sunday to Thursday, and 12;00 midnight, Friday and Saturday).

In addition, the Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on any complaints respecting this boulevard cafe.

Comments:

As directed by City Council, a temporary cafe licence (expiry date July 31, 1998) for the cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West was issued to Mr. Pastore, Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc., on May 27, 1998, until such time as the poll results could be considered in July by City Council.

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of July 22, 1998, in considering the application for the boulevard cafe, together with the polling results, deferred the matter to its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998 and recommended that the temporary permit for the boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West be extended to September 16, 1998, under the same terms and conditions approved by City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998. A further temporary cafe licence (expiry date September 16, 1998) was issued to Mr. Pastore on August26, 1998.

Notwithstanding the poll conducted in May 1997 and the most recent poll in June 1998, wherein the area residents indicated that the neighbourhood is strongly opposed to the boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, the cafe has operated since May 27, 1998 without any complaints from members of the public or Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the location.

In addition, site inspections have confirmed that the cafe operator complied with the closing hours.

Given the above, should the Toronto Community Council wish to recommend that a boulevard cafe licence be issued to Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc. on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, as set out in my report dated July 9, 1998, staff should be requested to report back to the Toronto Community Council on the operation of the boulevard cafe at the end of the 1999 cafe season.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the Clause 83 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council headed, "Application for Boulevard Cafe - Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West - Boyz and Galz Cafe Inc. (Davenport)":

--------

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that this matter be deferred to its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998 and that the temporary permit for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West be extended to September 16, 1998 under the same terms and conditions approved by City Council at its meeting held on May13 and 14, 1998 (ie. the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., Sunday to Thursday, and 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998, on any complaints respecting this boulevard cafe.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (July 9, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's request to reinstate the boulevard cafe licence on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, notwithstanding the former City of Toronto Council's decision to cancel the business owner's licence to operate a boulevard cafe, and that such approval be subject to:

(a)the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b)the applicant ensuring that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 12:00 midnight, 7 days a week;

OR

(c)the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(d)the applicant ensuring that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., 7days a week;

OR

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, in considering a communication (February 24, 1998) from Councillor Betty Disero, requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a poll with respect to an application for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West (as shown on Appendix 'A') and to report back on the results of the poll to its meeting of June 24, 1998.

City Council, at its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, in considering a communication (May 7, 1998) from Councillor Disero, approved the issuance of a temporary permit for the cafe until such time as the poll results can be considered in July by City Council, subject to the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., Sunday to Thursday, and 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday.

Comments:

As directed by the Toronto Community Council, a poll was conducted, dated June 5, 1998 to July6, 1998, on Nairn Avenue, between house Nos. 6 to 50 and 7 to 51, including 1340 and 1312 St. Clair Avenue West to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English, French, Portuguese and Italian. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

A copy of the ballot sent to the owners and residents of Nairn Avenue within 120 m of the proposed cafe is attached in Appendix 'B' of this report.

In addition, as directed by City Council, a temporary cafe licence (expiry date July 31, 1998) for the cafe on Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West was issued to Mr. Pastore, Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc., on May 27, 1998. The cafe has operated since May 27, 1998 and we did not receive any complaints from members of the public or the Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.

In addition, site inspections have confirmed that the operator complied with the closing hours.

The location meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Conclusions:

A licence for a boulevard cafe was originally issued to Mr. Pastore on July 15, 1994, with the closing hours of 11:00 p.m. Because of a history of complaints associated with the business operation during the 1994, 1995 and 1996 cafe seasons pertaining to:

(a)the cafe operating beyond the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction;

(b)noise emanating from the cafe area;

(c)alcohol-related problems, i.e. "rowdiness" of cafe patrons;

(d) garbage and fowling; and

(e)vehicles obstructing the sidewalk on the Nairn Avenue flankage;

the former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of July 14, 1997, approved the cancellation of the boulevard cafe licence, effective September 10, 1997.

A poll conducted in May of 1997 and the most recent poll, June 1998, indicate that the neighbourhood is strongly opposed to the boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Although the proposed cafe meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (i.e. setbacks, physical design, location), this criteria alone cannot address all public concerns which relate to noise, garbage, pedestrian and car traffic.

On hearing the matter, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant permission for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

--------

(A copy of Appendix B, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

83

Designation - 540 Dovercourt Road

(Massey-Quick House) (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council state its intention to designate the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (August 27, 1998) from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

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

Background:

At its meeting of August 26, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it the attached report recommending the designation of the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property owner was advised of the request and wrote a letter supporting the designation.

Comments:

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

Massey-Quick House

540 Dovercourt Road

The property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. The property contains a double house completed in 1896 for contractor Robert Grant. First occupied by Arthur L. Massey and John E. Quick, the double house was designed by Toronto architect D. B. Dick.

The Massey-Quick House displays the mixture of materials, asymmetrical composition, and varied forms associated with Queen Anne styling. The building is constructed of brick on a stone foundation and trimmed with brick, stone and wood. Rising 2½-stories, the house is covered by a gable roof with cross-gables, dormers and chimneys. Important features are the round-arched principal (east) entrance, two-storey southeast porch, bay window (east wall), and pattern of round-arched and flat-headed window openings.

Located on the northwest corner of Dovercourt Road and Dewson Street, the Massey-Quick House is a prominent feature in the Dovercourt neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

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

--------

(Report dated August 10, 1998, from the Acting Managing Director,

Toronto Historical Board, addressed to the

Chair and Members, Toronto Historical Board)

Recommendations

1.That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical value.

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

Comments

1.Background:

In a letter dated May 15