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

Destination Technodome - Heathmount A.E. Corp. -

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

North York Spadina

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following reports (October 22, 1998 and October 28, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, Supplementary Report No. 2 (November 27, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and supplementary information report (November 26, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District No. 3, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Heathmount A.E. Corp. regarding Official Plan and Zoning Amendment for the west side of W.R. Allen Road, south of Sheppard Avenue West, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the aforementioned supplementary reports from the Director, Community Planning, North District and Director of Transportation Services, District No. 3, and subject to the following amendments and additional conditions:

(1)that the 2,500 seat arena, and the two 600 seat arenas be deleted;

(2)that there be a 10 percent reduction in the Gross Floor Area;

(3)that the applicant provide 7000 visitor parking spaces on-site, subject to the adjustments outlined in (5) to (11) below;

(4)that the Applicant construct, at its expense, to T.T.C. standards, a 500 space commuter parking lot on T.T.C. lands adjacent to the Downsview Subway Station on property to be identified by the T.T.C. In exchange, Destination: Technodome patrons will be given available use of the lot during T.T.C. off-peak hours, and the 500 spaces shall be applied towards meeting the on-site parking requirements of the zoning by-law and as set out in (3) above;

(5)that the Applicant's employees be granted access to available T.T.C. parking spaces at the Wilson commuter parking lots during T.T.C. off-peak hours. For each space, the applicant will purchase an annual T.T.C. Metropass, to be utilized by employees to access the transit system and convey employees to Destination: Technodome. Each space purchased will be applied towards fulfilling the requirements of the zoning by-law as it pertains to employee parking, but in no case shall fewer than 830 passes be purchased annually;

(6)additional T.T.C. off-peak parking spaces at the Wilson commuter lots for Destination: Technodome patrons may be obtained annually from the T.T.C. by the applicant at a cost equivalent to the cost of a T.T.C. annual Metropass per space to a maximum of 934 spaces and each space shall be counted towards meeting the requirements of three-quarters of an on-site space, to a maximum of 700 on-site spaces;

(7)that the Applicant pay to the T.T.C. the transit fares for each Destination: Technodome or multi-functional arena attendee travelling by transit "To The Dome And Home";

(8)that the T.T.C. and the applicant work together to develop a co-operative advertising program to promote the use of transit for Destination: Technodome patrons;

(9)that for each one percent increase in the transit portion of the modal split over and above 12 percent, the Applicant be permitted to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by 50, to a maximum reduction of 500 spaces. Such adjustment will be determined by an assessment of the modal split conducted by the City, at the Applicant's expense, during the last month of the deferral of the opening of the multi-functional arena, in accordance with and in conjunction with section 5.1.4 of the Supplementary staff Report of November 26, 1998 from the Director of Transportation Services, and subject to the provisions of 5.1.3 of the same report as it applies to weekend use only so that the multi-functional arena shall remain closed for every weekend for a period of four months;

(10)that a parking analysis be developed by the City, at the Applicant's expense, with respect to section 5.1.4 of the Supplementary staff Report of November 26, 1998 and the parking requirement shall be adjusted in accordance with such analysis based on actual and projected use;

(11)Supplementary Report No. 2, Appendix A, Section 2.1 shall be amended by the deletion of everything following "public highways" in line 4, and replaced with:

"but the Applicant will not be penalized in the way of density loss for such conveyance";

(12)that the 2 percent cash in lieu payment required under the agreement shall not be modified except to accept a parkland dedication if the Applicant so chooses;

(13)there shall be no pedestrian access to Destination: Technodome from the North and East faces, save and except access through the Downsview Subway station, subject to possible revision through the site plan process;

(14)the hours of operation of Destination: Technodome shall not extend beyond the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.;

(15)the developer shall agree to fund intersection improvements that may be required at Dufferin Street and Finch Avenue;

(16)the widening of Chesswood Avenue be completed no later than the year 2004;

(17)pursuant to section 5.7.2 of the Supplementary Report dated November 26, 1998 from the Director of Transportation Services, the developer provide the necessary transportation improvements as may be required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, including signalization;

(18)the Applicant shall agree to advertise all employment opportunities within Destination: Technodome by door-to-door distribution within Toronto and a five kilometer radius of Destination: Technodome, at least three full months in advance of advertising such positions in any other media;

(19)the setback requirement be reviewed for possible increase at the site plan stage, in consultation with the local councillors; and

(20)the City establish neighbourhood advisory committees to review traffic and parking impacts that may result from Destination: Technodome and such committees work with the local councillor(s) to recommend such traffic and parking attenuation measures which may be required.

The North York Community Council also reports having requested staff to report directly to Council at its meeting on December 16, 1998, on the adjustments to parking that would emanate from these amendments.

The North York Community Council reports having held the continuation of the statutory public meeting on December 9, 1998, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following Supplementary Report No. 2 (November 27, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to address the motions adopted by Council at the November 12, 1998 public meeting that are required by Council for its consideration of the Destination: Technodome zoning application. This report also includes a discussion of outstanding matters identified by the Community Advisory Panel and how these matters have been addressed.

At the December 9, 1998 public meeting, the Works and Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department will report to Council concerning, and recommend options respecting, traffic and parking management for Destination: Technodome. Consequently, this report is based upon Planning staff's assessment of the proposal to date, and does not include a discussion of the traffic and parking management options to be provided by Transportation Services. Based upon Council's consideration of the recommendations contained within this report, the Transportation Services report and the October 22, 1998 Planning report, staff will provide a consolidated list of recommendations, including zoning provisions, revised matters to be addressed under Section 37 agreements (Appendix "A") and the urban design objectives to be achieved (Appendix "B") at the December 16, 1998 meeting of City Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the staff reports dated October 22 and 28, 1998, previously tabled with Council as modified in the attached Appendices "1", "A" and "B" to this report, be adopted; and

(2)should Council, in keeping with the request made by the Community Advisory Panel, deem it appropriate to delete the recommendation of the October 22, 1998 report respecting a cash contribution of $150,000.00 for the purposes of streetscape improvements to the Wilson Avenue, Item 2(d)(i), and replace this recommendation with the following, the recommendations set out in Appendix "1"- Revised Recommendations, should be amended as follows:

"2(d)(i)A cash contribution to the City of $500,000.00, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to be divided equally, for the purposes of streetscape improvements to the Cestoid/Tudor Business Area and Wilson Avenue.

Background:

At a November 12, 1998 public meeting, Council deferred consideration of an application to permit "Destination: Technodome", a 236,300m² (2.5 million sq. ft.) indoor, sport and entertainment facility at the south-west corner of Sheppard Avenue and W.R. Allen Road, directly west of the Downsview Subway and Transit Station. Two planning reports were before Council. The October 28, 1998 report tabled community comments received at the October 27, 1998 community consultation meeting. The October 22, 1998 report set out recommendations respecting the planning controls, including zoning provisions, Section 37 agreements to secure facilities, services and matters required for the development to proceed (Appendix "A") and urban design objectives and requirements to be addressed at the time of site plan approval (Appendix "B").

At the public meeting, Council adopted several motions respecting the development of the site and directed both Community Planning and Transportation Services staff to provide supplementary reports on these motions at the continuation of the public meeting on December 9, 1998.

Since that time, the Downsview Community Advisory Panel (CAP) has further reviewed the planning reports and are recommending that Council delay final approval of the Destination: Technodome zoning application until the matters identified by CAP have been addressed. This report highlights the outstanding matters identified by CAP and how these matters have been addressed.

Council Motions of November 12/98:

1.0Council requested staff of Planning and Transportation Services to report further on its motions noted below.

1.1The Works and Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department has been asked to report on the following Council motions:

a)a study by an independent transportation consultant to determine the impact of the parking supply requirements, on the proposed zoning by-law provisions, if the transit modal split is increased;

b)a condition of the Section 37 Agreement which would delay the use of the 10,000 seat arena pending a study of the parking requirements of Destination: Technodome by an independent transportation consultant;

c)the location and adequacy of drop-off/pick-up facilities for cars and buses;

d)the location and adequacy of taxi stands; and

e)the feasibility of widening the ramp from southbound Allen Road to westbound Highway 401;

The Works and Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department will report directly to Council at the December 9,1998 public meeting on the above matters and any necessary changes to the recommendations of the October 22, 1998 staff report as a result of their review of these matters. Following Council's consideration of the Planning and Transportation Services reports, staff will provide consolidated recommendations, Section 37 and site plan matters (Revised Appendices "1", "A" and "B") at the December 16, 1998 City Council meeting which will incorporate all recommendations by the Planning and Transportation Services staff.

1.2Council motions adopted on November 12, 1998 addressed within this report are:

a)Conformity of the parking requirements set out in the October 22, 1998 report, i.e., Recommendations 1(f) and 1(g), with the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA 464) and the Downsview Transportation Master Plan (TMP).

OPA 464 sets out guiding principles and objectives for transportation and parking to be achieved as development proceeds within the Downsview Secondary Plan area. An important objective of the Secondary Plan is to reduce reliance on the automobile and to increase the transit modal split through the maximization of transportation infrastructure and facilities, the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and co-ordinated management of parking. The recommendations of the staff report respecting the provision of new roads, road improvements and parking requirements are consistent with the policies of the Secondary Plan.

The recommended zoning provisions provide for up to 7,000 parking spaces. Parking for 5,000 cars and 75 buses is to be provided on-site to serve the activities of the Destination: Technodome. The report recommends that the 10,000 seat arena only be permitted, if additional parking, for up to 2,000 spaces, is provided. This parking may be provided, on a temporary basis, at an off-site location until such time as the operation of the Destination: Technodome and specifically the 10,000 seat arena, can be monitored over a period of one year, to determine whether permanent, on-site parking is necessary and the exact amount of additional parking that would be needed. This temporary parking measure also allows time for the applicant to continue negotiations with the T.T.C. to develop a transit incentive program that would result in an improved transit modal split and which may negate the need for substantial parking on the site. If it is determined there is a need for additional permanent parking spaces above the 5,000 vehicle spaces proposed on-site, the applicant will be required to construct an on-site parking structure.

The TMP sets out a number of objectives respecting parking for developments within the Downsview Secondary Plan area including the sharing of parking facilities, options to achieve a high level of non-auto usage and the minimization of parking areas. In July, 1998 Council amended the objectives of the TMP to clarify that parking facilities should be designed to preclude reliance upon off-site parking.

The intent of the parking objectives set out in the TMP is to enable Council to consider a number of options when reviewing individual development proposals. Council's amendment clarifies that parking for the Destination: Technodome be provided on-site but other viable options identified in the TMP, such as shared parking facilities would not be precluded. The recommendations of the October 22, 1998 staff report requiring on-site parking and permitting temporary, off-site parking are consistent with the objectives of the TMP. Upon completion of the monitoring program and the determination of the number of parking spaces that may be reduced through the implementation of a transit incentive program, parking required on a permanent basis will be located on-site. Therefore, the recommended zoning provisions that would permit temporary parking prior to the final determination of on-site parking needs, are appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the City's objectives to pursue and maintain an appropriate transit modal split are met and reliance on the automobile is reduced.

b)Negotiations regarding community benefits.

Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League/International Sports Centre Inc.(MTHL/ISC), a not-for-profit corporation, in July, 1997, submitted an application to the former City of North York to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a 55,480m² (597,200sq.ft.) multi-function arena facility containing four hockey arenas, two with 600 seats, one with 1,200 seats and one arena with 12,500 seats. The facility was proposed to be located on lands of the former Downsview Base, on the south-east corner of Sheppard Avenue and Chesswood Drive.

In February, 1997 the Destination: Technodome proposal was amended to incorporate MTHL, now known as the Greater Toronto Hockey League (GTHL). MTHL/ISC requested that their application be placed "on-hold" in consideration of the incorporation of MTHL into Destination: Technodome. The current Destination: Technodome proposal includes a 10,000 seat, multi-function hockey arena and three smaller hockey arenas, one 2,500 seat and two 600 seat facilities which would provide a venue for the MTHL.

In the course of the City's review of the original MTHL/ISC proposal, the former North York Parks and Recreation Department, in August, 1997, advised that this application would be subject to a parkland dedication. Following discussions with the former North York Parks and Recreation Department, MTHL/ISC, in April, 1997, offered to provide ice use to the community during the daytime hours. As there was a surplus of daytime ice available at the time, MTHL/ISC was requested to re-consider their proposal. A new proposal was not pursued by the applicant and consequently, there is no agreement or proposal before the City for community use of the facility.

The Toronto Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (Parks and Recreation) Department has advised that the Destination: Technodome application is subject to a 2 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. The City has not received a request from the applicant or landowner to satisfy this requirement through an alternative means, such as City access to the ice facilities. However, by letter dated November 24, 1998 (see Appendix "2"), MTHL/ISC has advised the applicant, Heathmount A.E. Corp. that it is prepared to provide community use of the ice facilities under the same terms as offered in April, 1997 to the former North York Parks and Recreational Department.

c)Appropriate setbacks.

Council requested staff to review the setback requirements for Destination: Technodome as they relate to other properties along W.R. Allen Road. Council also requested staff to address the need for appropriate setbacks with respect to:

i)Site-lines

The Urban Design and Landscape Submission for Destination: Technodome prepared by EDA Collaborative on behalf of the applicant and the drawings submitted as part of the re-zoning application, propose landscape treatment and setbacks along W.R. Allen Road. The landscape treatment and proposed setbacks meet the requirements of the Downsview Urban Design Guidelines adopted by Council and form part of the recommended zoning provisions set out in the October 22, 1998 staff report.

The Destination: Technodome building would be set back 15 metres, at-grade, from the property line at W.R. Allen Road. This at-grade setback is greater than the minimum setback of 10 metres required by Zoning By-law No. 7625 for the Idomo property, west of W.R. Allen Road, north of Sheppard Avenue and more generous than the 7.5 metre setback required for the industrial properties located north of the Idomo site, on the west side of W.R. Allen Road.

Above-grade, at a height of 14 metres (approximately 3 storeys), the building would project, in a curvilinear form, towards W.R. Allen Road, such that its roof line would be set back 3 metres from the property line. At this height, the roofline would project beyond the face of any other building permitted by the zoning by-law for properties north of Sheppard Avenue. However, staff is of the opinion that the unique shape of the roof provides a positive and dramatic terminus to the sky-line views as the W.R. Allen Road curves east and Sheppard Avenue curves south. The provisions of the zoning by-law (see Appendix "1") would, therefore, permit the building to project up to 12 metres into the yard setback above a minimum height of 14 metres.

The Downsview Subway Station is set back approximately 24 metres from the property line to the edge of the building. Recognizing that the lands immediately adjacent to the Downsview Subway Station may be, in the future, be developed at higher densities, it is a reasonable objective that such development would be "urban" in character and form. Consistent with this intent, buildings would be located closer to the street so that an attractive streetscape could be developed.

ii)Provision of Landscaping

The proposed 15 metre, at-grade setback, together with a 6 metre boulevard area that is required within the W.R. Allen right-of-way, would result in an at-grade setback of approximately 21 metres, providing ample opportunity for pedestrian movement, substantial landscape treatment and generous sidewalks. Where heavy pedestrian activity is anticipated adjacent to the building itself, these areas may be partially or entirely hard surfaced. Given the ample dimension between curb and building face, a detailed landscape plan which optimizes pedestrian comfort and provides a strong, continuous, visually appealing landscape for the W.R. Allan roadway, can be developed at the site plan review stage.

iii)Public Art

Within the setback areas along W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue and within the proposed activity plaza, there is sufficient space to provide opportunities for public art as well as opportunities to incorporate the public art component as part of the building and the pedestrian bridge.

iv)Other Matters Related to the Siting Including Entrances

Major entrances/exits to Destination: Technodome will be located adjacent to the north and south parking lots, at the westerly end of the building. The south entrance provides major access to the larger of the two parking areas. The north entrance provides access to the adjacent bus, car and taxi drop-off/pick-up areas and serves as an access point for the north parking lot. An entrance, located at the Sheppard/Allen intersection provides access for visitors arriving by transit buses along Sheppard Avenue and pedestrians from future development to the north and the City-owned lands east of W.R. Allen Road. It will also serve as the primary entrance for visitors using the pedestrian bridge and subway. The detailed design for the grade separated pedestrian link across W.R. Allen Road, in terms of its connection into the building, its relationship to the entrance and the way in which it arrives at the south-west corner of the intersection will be examined at the site plan review stage.

d)The feasibility of consolidating arena/stadium activities into one or two facilities.

Destination: Technodome proposes three sport pads (arenas) and one spectator facility (arena). Heathmount A.E. Corp., has advised that the three smaller arenas will provide a venue for the MTHL. The spectator facility will also be used, on occasion for MTHL functions such as tournaments, but will also be used for other sporting events such as exhibition matches for world-ranked tennis professionals and staged events such as theatrical shows or concerts.

With respect to Council's request to examine the feasibility of consolidating the arenas into one or two facilities, the Toronto Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (Parks and Recreation) Department has provided comments respecting the demand and supply for ice facilities within the City. Specifically, the Department's opinion is that four ice sheets is generally, more efficient to operate than one. This is in keeping with current trends in the recreational facility field such that arenas of less than four ice sheets, are not financially optimal. While an examination of the applicant's feasibility study for the arenas would be necessary, the Department's opinion is that a single ice sheet facility, generally is not profitable. Further, the Parks and Recreation Department comments that, despite the recent construction of a number of ice facilities in the Greater Toronto Area, prime time ice is unavailable at a reasonable cost. There is more than sufficient demand to rent all of the new facility's prime time ice to adult and minor hockey, however, the greater question is whether there is demand for non-prime time ice. It is the latter that determines the feasibility of a facility. Since the MTHL operates its own league, it would be able to rent its available ice time.

With respect to the demand for ice time, MTHL, by letter dated November 23, 1998 to the applicant (see Appendix "3"), advises that in the 1996/97 minor hockey season, the MTHL Division scheduled in excess of 22,000 games, the North York, Scarborough and Mississauga Hockey Leagues each scheduled approximately 6,400 games. This demand for scheduled ice time is for game time only and does not include the demand for practice time which is the responsibility of each team or association. Further, MTHL advises that the number of teams and players continues to increase yearly. MTHL also advises that it is currently utilizing 54 arenas in the GTA, many of which operate on an ammonia system. Those arenas which use ammonia must be converted or closed by the year 2000. Therefore, the supply of ice facilities may be reduced as arenas may be closed rather than be retrofitted.

If the three smaller arenas were eliminated, the 10,000 seat arena could be used for concerts and trade shows. This would generate the greatest revenue and would be more feasible than the three smaller arenas.

e)Appendix "A" of the October 22, 1998 report be amended to require the applicant to pay for the installation of a SCOOT traffic adaptive system.

The wording suggested by Council in its motions of November 12, 1998 has been incorporated into the revised Appendix "A"- Section 37 Agreement(s), attached to this report.

f)Recommendation 2(d)(ii) be amended by the addition of:

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

This wording has been incorporated into the revised recommendations set out in Appendix "1"- Revised Recommendations of this report.

2.0In addition to the motions adopted by Council, Planning staff were asked to comment on the following:

2.1The impact of the proposed Destination: Technodome on the City's water distribution, specific to water pressure complaints received from residents in the surrounding neighbourhoods.

The Works and Emergency Services (Works) Department has provided comments on the existing water pressure complaints (See Appendix "4"). The Works Division advises that there is sufficient water pressure within the City's watermain system to accommodate the Destination: Technodome, without a negative impact upon the water pressure within adjacent residential areas. While the City has received low water pressure complaints within adjacent residential neighbourhoods, the Works Department has advised that these complaints are not related to the capacity of the City's watermain network. Rather, the problem rests with the service connections that supply existing dwellings.

To investigate water pressure complaints, the City has undertaken extensive flow testing and where necessary, remedial works have been constructed in order to maintain the necessary fire flow capacity. Similar to the general watermain network, the capacity of the service connections between the watermain and the dwelling has decayed over time due to internal mineral deposit buildup. Thus, while there is excess capacity in the watermain network under regular flow conditions, there may be inadequate flow capacity within many of the pipes connecting the watermain to the dwelling.

The City has conducted flow tests within each of the complainant residences. Where flow capacity within the home is inadequate, the City has attempted to improve capacity by flushing the service connection. In locations where flushing fails to improve flow capacity to acceptable levels, the City will arrange to replace the portion of the service connection on the road allowance as per Council's policy. This usually results in a significant improvement in the measured flow capacity within the home. However, the maximum improvement will be achieved if the homeowner also arranges the replacement of the portion of the service connection on private property.

The Downsview lands are located on a high point of land and improvements to the watermain system will be required to ensure adequate service to these lands. The City is currently reviewing servicing options with the Canada Lands Company Limited that will ensure adequate water service to these lands.

2.2The potential re-use of the Destination: Technodome site in the event the applicant does not proceed with the proposal or the facility is forced to close.

Should Council enact a zoning by-law recommended by the October 22, 1998 staff report, a new zone category, "Downsview Sport and Entertainment (DSE) Zone" will apply to the lands. This zone would permit sport, recreational and entertainment uses including commercial recreational use, broadcasting and movie-production facilities, cinemas and attractions. Retail uses, up to 27,870m² (300,000 sq.ft) would be permitted but not as a stand alone use, but would be part of a complex that contains primary sport, recreational and entertainment uses.

Destination: Technodome is to be built for a very specific purpose and its design does not lend itself for a variety of re-use options. Should the present Destination: Technodome owners decide to cease operations of the facility, it is not unreasonable that other parties would seek to operate the facility with similar venues.

2.3The ability of adjacent Highway 401 ramps to accommodate traffic generated from Destination: Technodome.

The Works and Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department will comment on this matter as part of its report to Council at the December 9, 1998 public meeting.

3.0November 24, 1998 Submission by the Community Advisory Panel

Over the past four weeks, staff have met with the Community Advisory Panel to discuss the recommendations of the October 22, 1998 report. In their comments dated November 24, 1998, (Appendix "5"), CAP recommends that Council delay final approval of the zoning application until the matters noted below have been adequately addressed. Several of these matters are contained in the November 12, 1998 motions adopted by Council and have been addressed in this report or will be addressed by Transportation Services in their report to Council. Specifically, the matters addressed in Section 1.0 of this report include:

• Emergency Services (Item "D" - Appendix "5" (CAP Comments)
• Urban Design (Appropriate Setbacks) (Item "G" - Appendix "5")

Matters to be addressed by Transportation Services include:

• Parking (Item "A" - Appendix "5")
• Traffic Infiltration and Congestion (Item "B" - Appendix "5")

The remaining matters identified by CAP include:

3.1Item "C"Environmental Assessment

CAP requests that, prior to the enactment of a zoning by-law, a full environmental assessment under the Ontario Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Act, be conducted for Destination: Technodome.

The Ontario E.A. Act applies to public undertakings, for example, the construction of roads and road improvements. It does not extend to private projects such as the proposed Destination: Technodome.

The roads and road improvements necessary for the Destination: Technodome to proceed, and all roads projects identified by the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) for the entire Downsview Secondary Plan area are subject to the E.A. Act and must satisfy the requirements of a Class E.A. The City, acting as the proponent, has initiated the relevant Municipal Class Environmental Assessment that will address, where necessary, the potential social economic and environmental effects of these road projects and where necessary, the appropriate mitigation measures. Enactment of a zoning by-law would not occur until completion and approval of the Class E.A.

With the closing and decommissioning of the former Downsview Base, the Federal Government intends to transfer or lease lands to individual developers or, in the case of the new roads, convey lands to the City. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), all Federal lands intended to be conveyed or leased from the Federal Government must be meet the requirements of CEAA. No transfer or lease to the applicant can occur until these requirements have been met.

Canada Lands Company has advised that redevelopment of the Downsview Base does not warrant a comprehensive assessment as described by CEAA but rather a screening is required to review the potential impacts on environmental, social and economic factors. Canada Lands Company has retained Senes Consultants Ltd. to prepare the screening reports as development proceeds on the lands.

3.2Item "E"Permitted Uses

CAP requests that uses be defined in the zoning by-law for Destination: Technodome and that the uses and space utilization in the gated and ungated areas be defined to better understand traffic and parking demands.

The recommendations of the October 22, 1998 report set out the uses that could be permitted on the lands. The proposed Destination: Technodome uses are either currently defined in Zoning By-law No. 7625 or will be defined as part of the site specific zoning by-law for Destination: Technodome that will be brought forward for enactment by Council. As recommended in the October 22, 1998 report, the gross floor area devoted to retail and restaurant use, to which the public would have free access, i.e. no admission ticket is required, is restricted to a maximum gross floor area of 27,870m² (300,000 sq. ft). Food and beverage uses within the gated sport and entertainment areas are accessory to the primary, sport and entertainment uses. These uses are not freely accessible by the public and are not not unlike a food/beverage kiosk of a cinema, where a ticket to the cinema must be purchased prior to a purchase at the kiosk.

The proposed uses (both gated and ungated) have been assessed by Transportation Services in its analysis of the demand for, and supply of, parking and the impact of traffic generated from the Destination: Technodome on the existing and proposed road network.

CAP requests that there be a ban on pyrotechnic displays from the exterior of the Destination:Technodome. Pyrotechnics (fireworks) is not a land use matter that is regulated by the Planning Act. It is the responsibility of the Toronto Fire Services to issue a permit and to determine the suitability of a site for a fireworks display.

3.3Item "F"Municipal Infrastructure

The Works and Emergency Services (Works) Department has provided comments on the proposed Destination: Technodome. The Department advises that municipal services including sanitary sewer and water can be provided. Improvements to existing facilities and storm water management facilities are to be at the expense of the landowner/applicant. Provision for new infrastructure and improvements to existing infrastructure will be secured under Section 37 Agreements (See Appendix "A") and where appropriate, at the time of Site Plan review (See Appendix "B"). In conjunction with the proposed redevelopment of the Downsview Secondary Plan area, the Works Department is reviewing studies related to storm water management, sanitary sewer flow monitoring, water network analysis and sanitary trunk monitoring. All studies will be completed prior to the enactment of a zoning by-law for Destination: Technodome.

3.4Item "H"Business Associations

CAP requests that the recommendations of the October 22, 1998 report respecting the provision of a cash contribution by the applicant for improvements to the Wilson Avenue streetscape [(recommendation 2(d)(i)], be deleted and replaced with the following:

"2(d)(i)a cash contribution to the City of $500,000.00, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to be divided equally, for the purposes of streetscape improvements to the Cestoid/Tudor Business Area and Wilson Avenue.

The October 22, 1998 report provides for Council, should it deem appropriate, to require the applicant to contribute $150,000.00 for the purposes of streetscape improvements to Wilson Avenue. Should Council agree to CAP's request to delete this requirement and to replace it with that requested by CAP, the recommendations set out in Appendix "1" - Revised Recommendations, should be amended and provision for this contribution should be secured through a Section 37 Agreement.

3.5Item "I"Heritage

The existing warehouse buildings (known as Buildings 55 and 58) on the Destination: Technodome site were listed as "recognized" by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office (FHBRO) in 1990. FHBRO is a non-regulatory body. The Department of National Defence, as the landowner, decides whether the buildings are demolished and has informed FHBRO of its intent to dispose of the buildings. FHBRO may ask for the buildings to be photographed or a plaque provided on site to commemorate the buildings. Canada Lands Company's "Heritage Conservation Study (April, 1998)" concludes the buildings are not significant to warrant preservation.

Contact Name:

Russell Crooks

Telephone: (416)-395-7108

_________

The North York Community Council submits the following supplementary information report (November 26, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District No. 3:

1.0Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information and address the transportation related issues as requested by North York Community Council at its meeting of November 12, 1998.

2.0 Funding

N / A

3.0Recommendations

The following conditions are recommended to be included in the approval of Destination:Technodome as a result of the subsequent review. These conditions are supplementary to the recommendations as contained in my memorandum to the Director of Community Planing, North District dated October 20, 1998. Where appropriate, the previous recommendations as related to the parking supply are to be amended.

3.1Site Specific Zoning By-law

That the site specific zoning by-law be amended to include:

a)the provision of parking be based on the options detailed in the parking strategy described in this report, namely:

- the provision of 7,000 spaces on site; or

- the provision of 6,200 spaces on site, if appropriate arrangements can be secured to provide remote employee parking; or

-the provision of 6,000 spaces on site, if appropriate arrangements can be secured to provide remote employee parking and to increase the visitor non-auto modal split by at least 5 percent;

b)700 metres of curb space to be provided to accommodate the drop-off and pick-up facilities for 100 vehicles;

c)180 metres of curb space to be provided to accommodate drop-off and pick-up for 15 buses; and

d)140 metres of curb space to be provided to accommodate 20 taxi stand spaces.

3.2Emergency Services

That the comments as contained within the responses from the Emergency Service as attached to this report as Appendices 'A', 'B', and 'C' be incorporated into the conditions of approval.

3.3Dillon Consulting Limited

That the conclusions of Dillon Consulting Ltd. in Appendix 'D', be received as the foregoing recommendations have taken into account the findings of the consultant's study.

3.4Idomo Furniture

That the report of Tedesco Engineering prepared on behalf of Idomo Furniture dated November 1998, be received for information, as concerns raised in this report have been considered in the proposed parking strategy.

4.0Background:

4.1Community Council Motions

On November 12, 1998, Community Council, in its consideration of the application by Heathmount A. E. Corporation to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to construct a multi-use entertainment and sports complex known as Destination: Technodome recommended a continuation of the Public Meeting on December 9, 1998. As part of the recommendation, there were a number of motions requiring supplementary information to be brought forward. The North York Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1)report on drop-off and pick-up facilities for both cars and buses, as to capacity requirements and locations;

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

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

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

The North York Community Council also requested that a study be undertaken by the City's independent transportation consultant to determine the following:

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

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

(c)the ability to provide all necessary parking on site.

Dillon Consulting Ltd., the consultant retained by the City to undertake work earlier on with respect to Destination:Technodome, undertook the additional evaluation requested.

Further, Community Council requested comments on the submission by Idomo Furniture. The traffic related issues were presented in a report prepared by Tedesco Engineering dated November 12, 1998.

5.0Discussion

5.1Parking

The necessary parking supply on site, has become one of the principal issues raised through public consultation. It is an important and sensitive component of the development proposal which has been the focus of much of the direction to the City's transportation consultant.

5.1.1Proposed Parking Strategy

Some concerns expressed with regards to parking were related to the amount of parking provided on site, and that such parking might not be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated demand. Two principal factors in the determination of parking supply are the length of stay or duration of visitors to the facility and the accumulation of parking throughout the day.

The calculations conducted to determine the parking supply as indicated in previous reports, were based on assumptions of 4 to 5 hours visitor lengths of stay, and an accumulation of 39 percent being the daily peak hour factor of visitation to the facility.

Tedesco Engineering suggests that a parking accumulation of at least 50 percent should be utilized to reflect similar venues at other entertainment parks. An analysis of parking activities at large theme parks such as Disneyland indicates that accumulations of parking can reach between 50 percent and 55 percent. However it is important to note that this demand is associated with visitor stays of between 8 and 10 hours, which are unlikely to occur at Destination: Technodome, given the compact nature of this facility when compared to large land-consuming theme parks such as Disneyland.

In reviewing the data presented, a parking accumulation of 45 percent was deemed to be reasonable for Destination: Technodome. The difference between a 40 percent and a 45 percent parking accumulation, would equate to about 500 spaces.

The original parking supply recommended by the applicant's consultant was 6,500 parking spaces to accommodate the demands associated with Destination: Technodome, including employee parking and parking related to any special events in the 10,000 seat arena. The City's consultant had recommended a total of 6,850 spaces while the staff report requires the provision of 7,000 parking spaces.

The difference between the applicant's parking proposal and that recommended by staff accounts for variations which could occur in some of the base assumptions, such as parking accumulation. It is staff's opinion that the parking recommended continues to have the flexibility necessary to satisfy the concerns that overflow parking does not occur on adjacent land uses.

5.1.2.Employee Parking

The provision of employee parking, creates a significant demand for land immediately adjacent to the facility.

One of the objectives in the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan, states that the appropriate levels of parking must be supplied to preclude spillover opportunities and that parking should be controlled or managed to support a high level of non-auto use. Further, the Plan suggests that parking for facilities should be shared, to minimize the provision of excess parking. In view of these criteria, it is suggested that employee parking not be provided adjacent to the facility to reduce the demand for prime parking areas. Further, it is suggested that consideration be given to the provision of remote employee parking. This is a common method of operation in many facilities, such as shopping centres, arenas, theme parks, casinos, etc.

The estimated demand for employee parking is 830 spaces. The City's consultant has concluded that the provision of employee-oriented transit incentives could result in a decrease of 280 spaces, or a total demand of 550 spaces for employees.

In view of the above, it is suggested that the relocation of parking for employees can be considered in one of two options as follows.

i)The provision of a remote employee parking facility, which would accommodate 830 parking spaces if no employee transit-oriented initiatives are offered, or 550 spaces if they are. This parking area would be connected to the main facility with a specially dedicated van/bus service.

ii)The provision of remote employee parking during those periods of high Destination:Technodome demand such as weekends. For example an arrangement could be made with the T.T.C., to make use of an appropriate section of their facilities (such as the Wilson Station commuter parking lots) for employee parking when the demand for these public parking facilities is the lowest. Employees would not be allowed to park on site but could easily reach the facility either by subway or a van/bus link as described above.

In either case, the employee parking operation would be similar to those of many existing venues and therefore all employee parking should be removed from the on site parking supply during the highest peak periods particularly for special events.

5.1.3Visitor Parking

As in the case of employee parking, it is important to note the potential benefits in the overall transportation system for Destination: Technodome, that can be derived from the proximity of the Downsview Station on the Spadina Subway line. The City's consultant has advised that a potential 50 parking spaces can be reduced for each 1 percent increase in non-auto modal split that can be achieved.

As a significant proportion of parking demand is related to events in the 10,000 seat multi-functional arena, it is important to capture the potential of transit use related to these events in an attempt to reduce the on-site parking supply.

Given that the current plans only allow for 5,000 spaces, then any additional parking would have to be provided on site in a structure. Therefore, it is suggested that visitor parking be provided in one of the options described below. Options i) and ii), assume that employee parking is provided off site.

i) Provide 6,000 spaces for visitors on site in a structure that is adjacent to the venue in the proposed south parking lot. The applicant would have to enter into an agreement with the TTC to develop appropriate mechanisms to support special events at the 10,000 seat arena, such as:

- TTC pricing programs

- Destination-Technodome admission pricing programs

- Parking pricing programs

- Transit advertising programs, etc.

These programs would collectively achieve an increase in non-auto modal split of not less than 5 percent and would be made available and promoted in conjunction with the special events at the multi-function arena.

ii)Should an agreement not be reached with the T.T.C., then the applicant would have to provide all 6,200 visitor parking spaces on site, which would require a parking structure in the south parking lot that is adjacent to the venue.

iii)Should no satisfactory arrangement be concluded with regards to the provision of adequate off-site employee parking, then a total on site parking supply of 7,000 spaces would have to be provided.

5.1.4Multi-Functional Arena

The deferral of the opening of the 10,000 seat multi-functional arena for a period of four months after the opening of Destination: Technodome would allow the initial parking demand for the principal functions of the complex to stabilize, and that through the monitoring process, the total parking demand for the facility can be determined.

5.2Drop-off and Pick-up

5.2.1Private Automobiles

Destination: Technodome will require ample facilities to accommodate the drop-off and pick-up of passengers to the site. The facility should accommodate a minimum of 100 vehicles or 700 metres of curb space. Each drop-off procedure will likely take on average 1 to 2 minutes, while the pick-up process may take longer as drivers wait for their passengers. Experience at airports has shown that vehicles picking up passengers, have an average dwell time of about 5 minutes. Assuming this conservative dwell time for all activities in the pick-up/drop-off facility, then the theoretical capacity for drop-off would be 1,200 vehicles an hour if required. The design and location of the facilities can be refined at the site plan approval stage, but should be readily accessible to the main entrances. The drop-off and pick-up facility should be distinctly separated from other on-site traffic and be designed to enable a vehicle to proceed on its way once the drop-off or pick-up procedure has been completed. The operation of these facilities should be supervised by Destination: Technodome staff to ensure that illegal parking does not occur on these facilities. Shelters should also be provided for visitors waiting to be picked-up.

5.2.2Buses

The drop-off and pick-up area for buses should accommodate at least 15 buses in180 metres of curb space. Similar to the automobile operations, the drop-off at the bus facility is more efficient in terms of disembarking than in boarding. It is recommended that in order to maintain an efficient operation of the facility, then the pick-up area should be managed by Destination: Technodome staff such that buses should only leave from the bus marshalling area when their passengers are ready for boarding. This will minimize the length of time buses are required to wait for passengers. Bus companies have been contacted to determine typical dwell times for loading and unloading of buses. School buses, are typically loaded on an average of 5 minutes. Typical dwell time for buses at airports are in the order of 10 minutes. In allowing on average 10 minutes for each operation, the proposed bus loading area could accommodate 90 buses an hour. The design should enable buses to leave the area when ready and bus traffic should be separated from other on-site traffic. The exact location and design will be determined at the site plan approval stage.

The number of auto pick-ups will likely increase at the end of the operating day. At that time, the bus pick-up area could also be used for automobile pick-up operations. This would increase the facilities to accommodate approximately 125 vehicles.

5.3Taxi Stands

It is suggested that taxis be allowed to only drop off passengers in the drop off/pick up area defined above. The taxi stand area should accommodate 20 vehicles or 140 metres of curb space. The design of the facility should provide for stacking to enable the pick-up of passengers and departure in succession. A protective platform should also be provided to shelter patrons waiting for taxi service.

5.4Ramp Improvements - W.R. Allen Road to Hwy 401

The ramp operations along Highway 401 at the interchanges with Keele Street, Dufferin Street, the W.R. Allen Road and Bathurst Street were evaluated through the transportation assessment of the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan. The traffic generated from the proposed development was included.

The provision of an additional southbound ramp lane to accommodate the future traffic volumes along with improvements such as a widening at this location are feasible and have been explored at preliminary design level with the Ministry of Transportation. These improvements have been included in the recommendation with my October 20, 1998 memorandum.

5.5Emergency Services

The comments as related to the Emergency Services are attached as Appendix 'A', 'B' and 'C ' to this report. Recommendation 3.2 of this report addresses their requirements.

5.6Dillon Consulting Ltd.

Comments from Dillon Consulting Ltd. are attached as Appendix 'D' and have been taken into consideration in the recommendations of this report.

5.7Idomo Furniture - Tedesco Engineering

Idomo Furniture retained the services of Tedesco Engineering to undertake a study to address the transportation impacts affecting the Idomo Furniture lands on the north west corner of the W.R.Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue intersection. This report has been submitted as Report No. 1 dated November 1998.

5.7.1.Parking

The principal concern expressed in the Tedesco Engineering report is that the parking supply based on the accumulation may be deficient. The concerns have been taken into account in the sensitivity analysis used as the basis for establishing the parking strategy outlined in this report.

5.7.2 Traffic Impact

Through the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan all lands within the study area, including those known as the former Metro Lands, were analyzed with respect to traffic impact to determine the overall infrastructure requirements. Subsequent discussions with Tedesco Engineering were beneficial in that the methodology used by the City in its evaluation was explained.

Concern was also expressed by Tedesco Engineering that traffic which is destined to and approaching Idomo Furniture from the south via the Allen Road, in particular the north bound left turn at the intersection of the W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue would be affected. This movement is particularly important as it leads to the principal access to the Idomo site, from Sheppard Avenue. Tedesco Engineering has suggested a secondary access on the W.R. Allen Road north of Sheppard Avenue and that such access be signalized. Staff concur with this issue and are presently discussing the details of this request with Tedesco Engineering.

The consultant was further informed that as development proposals are submitted to the City, site specific traffic impact studies will be required to determine the specific traffic improvements required in the context of the Transportation Master Plan.

5.7.3 Pedestrian Link.

The applicant has proposed a bridge connection from Downsview Station as a viable pedestrian link between Destination: Technodome and the Spadina Subway. The City has agreed with this connection as a requirement to achieve the assumed non-auto modal splits. Tedesco Engineering has identified a preference for an underground connection. The rationale has not been provided to warrant a tunnel connection as opposed to a bridge connection with the Downsview Station.

It has also been noted that as part of the Tedesco Engineering report, Idomo Furniture would like a future connection from its site to the Downsview Station.

5.8Community Advisory Panel of Downsview (Cap)

A written submission has been forwarded by CAP dated November 24, 1998 outlining several transportation concerns similar in nature to concerns raised in the Tedesco Engineering report. Inasmuch as this report has taken into consideration those concerns raised, modifications have been applied particularly with respect to the parking supply. The other issues have been considered in the preparation of this report.

5.9 Toronto Transit Commission

In a letter from Mr. Mitch Stambler, Manager - Service Planning, dated November 25, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission has identified a number of concerns. In general the T.T.C. comments relate to the protection of the movement of transit vehicles on roads, the protection of T.T.C. property, etc., and are usually included in standard conditions of approval. The T.T.C. comments will be included in their preparation. In addition there are other matters in the letter forwarded by the T.T.C., that will be specifically addressed by staff.

The T.T.C. request to have the opportunity to comment in the design of roadways as the Downsview Lands progress, specifically the extension of Transit road and access to Yukon Crescent.

The protection of adequate access to the Wilson Complex and the Wilson Station Passenger Pick-up and Drop-off facility.

T.T.C.'s comments are attached in Appendix 'E'.

6.0Conclusion

The parking supply has become the most important issue and was premised upon an annual visitation estimated at 11 million persons. Incorporated into the visitation are special events to be held within the 10,000 seat multi-function arena and the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League facilities.

The parking supply has taken into consideration mixed use parking, peak accumulation based upon duration per visitation and the impact of introducing a parking strategy which in part requires an initiative for increased transit modal split.

The consultant for the City has assessed that for every 1 percent increase in visitor non-auto modal split, 50 less spaces are required, that by providing transit passes to employees one can reduce the parking requirement by 280 spaces, and that with the construction of a structure, all parking can be provided on-site.

The City's parking strategy allows for options to be introduced into the employee parking requirements, as well as options which can reduce the visitor parking supply, by the introduction of T.T.C. initiatives to facilitate transit use during the periods of highest demand, which occur during special events at the multi-function sports arena. A balance in trip making between public transit and the private automobile is an important objective for this application. In this regard, the options which encourage TTC ridership are feasible and should be promoted for those events that would result in the highest demand for parking.

________

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

Purpose:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this information be received as information.

Discussion:

1.0Community Consultation

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

At the October 27, 1998 meeting, the applicant presented his proposal, followed by a question and answer period. In general, matters raised by the community focussed on:

Traffic and Parking Management

• measures should be taken to mitigate any traffic congestion on the City's adjacent roads;
• visitors to the Destination: Technodome must not park on local roads within neighbourhoods and commercial areas;
• the number of parking spaces must be sufficient to meet the needs of expected visitors to the Destination: Technodome; and
• transit usage should be encouraged.

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

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

2.0Public Health Comments

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

Contact Name:

Russell Crooks

Telephone: (416)-395-7108

________

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

Purpose:

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

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

Recommendations:

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

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

(a)Definitions:

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

(b)Permitted Uses

the following uses shall be permitted:

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

(c)Use Qualifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(viii)a restaurant does not include a nightclub;

(d)Gross Floor Area

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

(e)Building Height

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

(f)Parking

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

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

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

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

(g)Temporary Parking

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

(h)Yard Setbacks

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

(i)Loading Spaces

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

(j)Pedestrian Walkway

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

(k)Activity Plaza

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

(l)Landscaping

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

(m)Other Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

(c)Section 37 Agreement(s)

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

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

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

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

(3)Site Plan Approval

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

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

Background:

1.0Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application:

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

2.0Destination: Technodome - Interim Report (July, 1998)

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

3.0Council Directives (July, 1998)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council also directed that:

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

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

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

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

4.0Community Consultation

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

A community consultation meeting, specifically on Destination: Technodome was held on October7, 1998, with approximately 180 persons attending. The applicant's presentation of the proposal was followed by a question and answer period. In general, the matters raised by the community focussed on:

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

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

Transit:The proposed development should encourage greater transit ridership.

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

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

5.0Proposal

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

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

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

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

On-site parking for 5,000 vehicles and 75 buses is proposed. Two parking areas would be provided. One area, located to the south of the building, would accommodate 2,760 vehicles and be connected to the building by a landscaped pedestrian walkway. (See Schedules "D₁" and "D₂") A second parking area, located to the north of the DCIEM building, would provide parking for 1705 vehicles and 75 buses. This area would be connected to the building by a landscaped walkway adjacent to Sheppard Avenue. Below grade parking for 535 vehicles will be provided to the rear of the building. Access to Destination: Technodome would be provided by an extension of Transit Road from Wilson Avenue, north to Chesswood Drive including a new direction ramp over W. R. Allen Road. Intersection improvements to Sheppard Avenue, traffic signalization at key access points and a direct connection to the subway would be required to manage traffic generated from the proposal and provide direct and easy access to, and from, the facility.

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

6.0Existing Planning Controls

6.1Official Plan Policies

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

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

6.2Current Zoning

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

Discussion:

7.0 Planning Considerations:

The July 29, 1998 interim report on Destination: Technodome reviewed the proposal within the context of the land use policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. As noted in that report, Destination: Technodome is consistent with the land use and development policies of OPA 464 which permit sport, entertainment and commercial recreational activities and events on lands designated "Sport and Entertainment".

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

7.1Urban Design Including Landscape Treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.2Programming for the Activity Plaza

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

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

7.3Examination of the Potential for an Impact on Local Retail

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

7.4Expected Attendance:

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

7.5Transportation Considerations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.6Loading Facilities:

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

7.7Frequency of Truck Deliveries and Delivery Routes:

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

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

7.8Soils Review and On-site PCB storage

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

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

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

7.9Staging of Construction:

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

7.10Public Art Contribution

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

7.11Energy Conservation/Efficiency

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

7.12District Heating

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

7.13Noise Impact

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

7.14Air Quality

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

7.15Contributions for Wilson Avenue Streetscape Improvement and Arts Park

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

7.16Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication

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

7.17Notice for the Statutory Public Meeting

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

8.0Planning Controls to be Applied

8.1Zoning By-law:

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

8.2Section 37 Agreement(s)

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

8.3Site Plan Agreement(s)

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

8.4Temporary Use By-law

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

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

8.5Environmental Assessment

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

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

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

8.6Next Steps

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Contact Name:

Russell Crooks

Telephone: (416)-395-7108

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

________

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

(a)(December 9, 1998) from Ms. Pamela Shapiro, North York Chamber of Commerce, advising of the Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of the application;

(b)(December 9, 1998) from Mr. Stewart Richardson, advising of his concerns with the application;

(c)(December 9, 1998) from Mr. Hamish Wilson, advising of his concerns with the application;

(d)(December 8, 1998) from Mr. Robert Melanize, Deputy Chief, North West Field Command, Toronto Police Service, forwarding a preliminary report dealing with concerns and requirements requested by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on November 12, 1998;

(e)(December 8, 1998) from Mr. Jim Purnell, advising of his concerns with the application;

(f)(December 8, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, requesting that consideration of the supplementary information report (November 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, be deferred in order to give T.T.C. staff an opportunity to review the analysis done by the City's consultant with respect to the forecast transit mode split to the Technodome, and the associated amount of parking required to accommodate expected visitor and employee traffic;

(g)(December 8, 1998) from Ms. Helen Mills, forwarding her comments on the application;

(h)(December 7, 1998) from Mr. Frank de Jog, Leader, Green Party of Ontario, expressing opposition to the application;

(i)(December 7, 1998) from Mr. David Birnbaum, President, Friends of the Downsview Lands, forwarding the organization's submission on the proposal;

(j)(November 23, 1998) from Mr. Stewart Richards, advising of his concerns with the application;

(k)(November 12, 1998) from Mr. Bruce H. Engell, Weir and Foulds, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitors on behalf of 81956 Ontario Limited, area property owners, advising of their client's objection to the proposed zoning;

(l)(November 10, 1998) from Mr. Ian James Lord, Weir and Foulds, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitors on behalf of ARC International Corporation, owner of Chesswood Arenas, advising of their client's objection to the proposal; and

(m)(undated) from Mr. Stewart Richards advising of his concerns with the proposed application.

________

Mr. Stephen Diamond, Solicitor, on behalf of the applicant, Destination: Technodome - Heathmount A.E. Corp., appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and commented on the merits of the application; the benefits to the community as well as the entire City of Toronto due to increased tax revenue and job opportunities; and the changes to the proposal as result of concerns expressed by the residents.

The following persons also appeared before the North York Community Council and spoke in support of the application because of its positive impact and benefits to the community; job creation and increased tourism:

-Mr. Don Farkas;

-Mr. Forrest Todd;

-Mr. Bill Robinson on behalf of the International Brotherhood, Local 353;

-Ms. Loriann Henderson;

-Ms. Anna D'Allessandro;

-Mr. John Cartwright;

-Ms. Karen Fallata;

-Mr. David Chusie;

-Mr. Ron Smith, Business Manager and Financial Secretary, Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada;

-Mr. Gary Sloane;

-Mr. Gary White on behalf of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers - Toronto;

-Mr. Ucla Powell on behalf of the Central Ontario Regional Council of Carpenters, Drywall and Applied Workers;

-Mr. Victor Ferreira;

-Mr. Chaim Weinman;

-Mr. Erez Karps;

-Mr.Steve Hewitt;

-Ms. Franca Mercuri;

-Mr. Phillip Newman;

-Mr. Peter Wilson, Director on behalf of the North York Chamber of Commerce;

-Mr. Eugene Hiscock;

-Mr. Keith Cooper;

-Mr. Zvi Brown;

-Mr. Joe Fasacia on behalf of Mr. Bob Gill;

-Mr. Sid Hernick;

-Mr. Yanki Walkenstein;

-Mr. Mitch Shore; and

-Mr. Joe McPhail, Union Representative for the Sheet Metal Workers.

The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and spoke in opposition to the application. Their primary objections were with respect to the size of the proposed Technodome; traffic infiltration into the residential neighbourhood; insufficient parking in light of the number of visitors that would be visiting the Technodome; overflow parking onto the residential streets; noise pollution; the inadequacy of the existing infrastructure to accommodate a project of this magnitude; and the negative impact on the environment, the surrounding communities and the residents' quality of life:

-Mr. Alan Heisey, Solicitor on behalf of Mr. Garrit DeBoer, owner of Idomo Furniture;

-Mr. Jim Purnell;

-Ms. Rebecca Birnbaum;

-Mr. Zan Molko;

-Mrs. Ann Winter;

-Mr. David Birenbaum;

-Ms. Elaine Muskat;

-Mr. Reiter Moshe;

-Mr. Albert Krivickas; (also filed a written submission)

-Ms. Cheryl Persad;

-Ms. Gemma Connolly;

-Mr. Joel Cohen;

-Mr. Michael Tedesco, Tedesco Engineering, on behalf of Mr. Garrit DeBoer, owner of Idomo Furniture;

-Ms. Maxine Povering;

-Mr. Jeff Chelin;

-Mr. Arthur Herzig;

-Mr. Andy Doudoumis on behalf of the Community Advisory Panel of Downsview; and

-Mr. Robert Shour.

The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council and expressed concern with certain aspects of the proposal; safety issues and the need to increase emergency and police services in the area; environmental issues; the political and planning process followed to date; and the conflicting information contained in the various transportation studies and reports. Some of these individuals were also of the opinion however that the notice of motion put forward by Councillor Moscoe goes a long way in alleviating some of the concerns expressed by the residents:

-Mr. Stewart Richardson, (also filed a written submission);

-Ms. Helen Mills;

-Mr. Alan Kauffman;

-Mr. Tony Varone;

-Mr. Vince Lombardi;

-Mr. Jefffrey Dorfman;

Mr. Michael Flynn, also addressed the North York Community Council on behalf of the M.T.H.L. and expressed concern with the recommendation put forward by Councillor Moscoe that the 2,500 seat arena and the two 600 seat arenas be deleted. He indicated that the M.T.H.L. has been working on this for the past 10 years. In light of this specific recommendation, he requested that consideration of this application be deferred in order to allow the M.T.H.L. to study this issue further.

________

A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor King, Seneca Heights, to refer Recommendation (1) back to staff for further consideration, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Flint, Filion, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Minnan-Wong.

ABSENT:Councillor Chong

The motion moved by Councillor King, was declared by the Chair to be lost.

A recorded vote on the adoption of Recommendation (1), was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong

AGAINST:Councillors Flint, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillor Chong

Carried

A recorded vote on the adoption of Recommendations (2) to (20), was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillor Flint

ABSENT:Councillor Chong

Carried