Options for Ward Boundary Changes.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following:

(1)ward boundary line changes and divisions for the following 9 Wards where no disagreement exists between the recommendations of the Community Councils:

(a)Kingsway-Humber (Ward 3), as shown on Map 3;

(b)Black Creek (Ward 7), as shown on Map 7;

(c)North York Centre (Ward 10), as shown in Map 10;

(d)Scarborough City Centre (Ward 15), as shown on Map 15;

(e)Scarborough Highland Creek (Ward 16), as shown on Map 16;

(f)Scarborough Agincourt (Ward 17), as shown on Map 17;

(g)Scarborough Malvern (Ward 18), as shown on Map 18;

(h)Trinity-Niagara (Ward 20), as shown on Map 20; and

(i)Downtown (Ward 24), as shown on Map 24;

(2)where a boundary conflict exists and the existing boundary line splits a property, the existing ward boundary be followed and the entire property be moved into the ward in which it fronts, unless the existing boundary line already splits the property front yard, the property should be moved into the ward with the largest percentage of the front yard;

(3)ward boundary line changes and divisions resolving boundary conflicts that resulted from Community Council recommendations, such that:

(a)East York (Ward 1), as shown on Map 1, follow the existing ward boundary lines as amended to:

(i)exclude the Shoppers World site south of Danforth Avenue;

(ii)move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2); and

(iii)divide East York (Ward 1) into three single member wards as shown on Map 1;

(b)North York Humber (Ward 6), as shown on Map 6, follow the existing ward boundary line for this ward and ward division, as amended only to move those properties, split by the existing ward boundary, into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(c)North York Spadina (Ward 8), as shown on Map 8, follow the existing ward boundary line for this ward and the ward division, as amended only to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No (2);

(d)North York Centre South (Ward 9), as shown on Map 9, follow the existing ward boundary lines for this ward and the ward division, as amended only to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(e)Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13), as shown on Map 13, as amended only to follow the existing west ward boundary line for this ward south of Bracken Avenue;

(f)High Park (Ward 19), as shown on Map 19, as amended to follow the centre line of JaneStreet between Annette Street and Bloor Street West and follow the southlimit of the Toronto Transit Commission right-of-way, north of BloorStreet West between Jane Street and the Humber River;

(g)North Toronto (Ward 22), as shown on Map 22, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(c) for North York Spadina (Ward 8) and Recommendation No. (3)(d) for NorthYork Centre South (Ward 9), and as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(h)Midtown (Ward 23), as shown on Map 23, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(a) for East York (Ward 1) and as amended to follow the existing ward boundary along the centre line of Bathurst Street, the north side of Heath Street West, and the property lines west and parallel to Spadina Avenue;

(i)Don River (Ward 25), as shown on Map 25, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(a) for East York (Ward 1), and as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(j)East Toronto (Ward 26), as shown on Map 26, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(a) for East York (Ward 1) and Recommendation No. (3)(e) for Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13), and as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(k)York Humber (Ward 27), as shown on Map 27, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(f) for High Park (Ward 19) and Recommendation No.(3)(b) for North York Humber (Ward 6), and as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2); and

(l)York Eglinton (Ward 28), as shown on Map 28, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(c) for North York Spadina (Ward 8) and Recommendation No. (3)(h) for Midtown (Ward 23), as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(4)ward boundary division for Lakeshore-Queensway (Ward 2), as shown on Map 2;

(5)ward boundary line changes and division for Don Parkway (Ward 11), as shown on Map 11, as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2), and as amended to move the area north of Highway 401 into Seneca Heights (Ward 12) to allow the proposed west ward division of Seneca Heights to meet Council=s population criteria;

(6)ward boundary line changes and division for Seneca Heights (Ward 12), as shown on Map 12, as the new ward boundaries for single member wards within, as amended by Recommendation No. (5);

(7)ward boundary line changes and divisions for Scarborough Wexford (Ward 14), as shown on Map 14, as amended to divide the ward along Highway 401;

(8)ward boundary line changes and ward division for Davenport (Ward 21), as shown on Map 21, such that the division runs eastward along the Canadian PacificRailway tracks, north on Lansdowne Avenue to Davenport Avenue, along Davenport Avenue to Christie Street;

(9)Recommendation Nos. (2), (3) and (4) of report (November 24, 1998) from the CityClerk, viz:

"(2)the City Solicitor commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a favourable determination of City Council=s right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council;

(3)the City Solicitor be requested to prepare the necessary implementing by-law giving effect to the recommended changes to the existing ward boundary lines; and,

(4)subject to the judicial determination, as set out in Recommendation No. (2):

(a)if the court determines that the City Council has the right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council, then the City Solicitor be requested to prepare the necessary implementing by-law giving effect thereto; and

(b)if the court determines that the City Council does not have the right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council without legislative change, then the City Solicitor be requested to report to City Council forthwith, including in any such report recommended draft legislation for Council=s consideration.@;

(10)subject to City Council=s decision to divide the wards to permit single member representation, the staff work team be requested to propose to City Council, through the Community Councils and with public input, recommendations for ward names that reflect the communities which make-up the new single member wards, directing the City Clerk to prepare recommendations, based on community consultations, for ward names for the revised ward system as adopted by City Council; and

(11)the Community Council recommendations with respect to this matter be received.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested that:

(a)Councillor D. Holyday and Councillor D. O=Brien (Markland-Centennial -Ward 4) submit, directly to City Council for its meeting on December 16, 1998, a report pertaining to preferred options respecting the Ward 4 boundary, for consideration with this matter;

(b)Councillor B. Sinclair and Councillor E. Brown (Rexdale-Thistletown - Ward 5) submit, directly to City Council for its meeting on December 16, 1998, a report pertaining to preferred options respecting the Ward 5 boundary, for consideration with this matter;

(c)the City Solicitor:

(i)report directly to City Council for its meeting on December 16, 1998, as to whether he can strongly represent the City of Toronto respecting single member wards in all legal proceedings and, if not, recommend a legal firm that the City could hire to strongly pursue the City=s position in this regard, for consideration with this matter; and

(ii)consult with the Province to gain its support with regard to the legal action being taken by the City of Toronto:

(Attached for Members reference is a map showing the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommendations for ward boundary line changes and divisions across the City, followed by a map for each ward showing the Urban Environment and Development Committee=s ward-specific recommendations.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (November 24, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

This report provides an overview of the Community Council recommendations, and their implications, pertaining to ward boundary changes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate financial implications from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee review the Community Council recommended wards in sequence, starting with East York (Ward 1), and recommend to City Council ward boundary line changes and divisions;

(2)the City Solicitor commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a favourable determination of City Council=s right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council;

(3)the City Solicitor be requested to prepare the necessary implementing by-law giving effect to the recommended changes to the existing ward boundary lines; and

(4)subject to the judicial determination, as set out in Recommendation No. (2);

(a)if the court determines that the City Council has the right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council, then the City Solicitor be requested to prepare the necessary implementing by-law giving effect thereto; and

(b)if the court determines that the City Council does not have the right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council without legislative change, then the City Solicitor be requested to report to City Council forthwith, including in any such report recommended draft legislation for Council=s consideration.

Background:

City Council, at its April 28 and May 1, 1998 meeting, directed staff to develop options for ward boundary changes. In a report from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated October 26, 1998, options for ward boundary changes were presented to each Community Council for their consideration. Statutory public meetings to consider public comments on the ward boundary options were held by each Community Council on the following dates:

East York Community CouncilNovember 3

York Community CouncilNovember 4

Toronto Community CouncilNovember 5

Scarborough Community CouncilNovember 12

North York Community CouncilNovember 16

Etobicoke Community CouncilNovember 18

The various recommendations from each Community Council are attached to this report as AppendixAA@.

In addition to the ward-specific recommendations from the Community Councils, a number of other recommendations were adopted in regard to the ward boundary exercise.

The Scarborough Community Council recommended that an office be established by the City to review the ward boundary changes prior to the municipal elections in the Year 2003 and that regular reviews be undertaken in every subsequent third election year. This recommendation should be considered by the Committee for recommendation to the next term of City Council.

The Toronto Community Council requested the City Clerk to consolidate the recommendations of each Community Council for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998. This staff report fulfils this request.

The Toronto Community Council also requested the City Clerk to provide further notice of the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, including direct notice to all resident and ratepayer groups, all Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) and all historical societies within the City of Toronto. In response to this request, City Clerk=s staff placed additional notices in the Toronto Star and various Community newspapers, and sent notices to all resident and ratepayer groups, BIAs and historical societies on file with the City Clerk=s Office.

The East York Community Council adopted a recommendation requesting the City Solicitor to clarify whether the Province accepts or concurs with the position of single member wards and report further to City Council on the legal ramifications. The legal issues impacting ward boundary changes are discussed later in this report.

The East York Community Council also adopted a recommendation that City Council be requested to re-open the issue of single member wards for further public consultation. City Council, at its meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998, adopted the principle that each of the existing City wards be divided in two, thus enabling election of a single Councillor per ward at the next municipal election in the year 2000. For City Council to re-open this motion, a motion would need to be introduced by a Member who voted in the affirmative and a two-thirds vote of City Council would be required.

The East York Community Council also adopted a motion to advise the Urban Environment and Development Committee that further public meetings must be held in the community of East York before any divisions or changes are made to the boundaries in the East York area.

Comments:

This report considers all the boundary recommendations put forward by the Community Councils. The report discusses:

(i)the recommendations pertaining to each of the 28 wards across the City and the implications of such recommendations; and

(ii)the status of the outstanding legal issues impacting the boundary review exercise.

Community Council Recommendations Pertaining to Individual Wards:

In considering all the Community Council recommendations on preferred ward boundaries, a number of conflict areas exist where two or more Community Council recommendations do not match. The main conflict areas include the western and southern boundary of East York (Ward 1), along the southern border of the former City of North York, and between Midtown (Ward 23) and York Eglinton (Ward 28). Appendix AB@ shows the ward boundaries across the City as recommended by the Community Councils and the resulting conflict areas.

The following comments review the Community Council recommendations pertaining to each ward and discuss the implications of such recommendations in light of the principles used in the ward boundary review exercise as established by City Council. The individual wards are discussed in order of ward number, beginning with East York (Ward 1). A map is attached to this report for each of the 28 wards, depicting the proposed ward boundaries as recommended by the respective Community Councils. The maps also show, as shaded, the areas of conflict between the different Community Council recommendations. The population numbers listed on each map indicate the estimated 1996 population based on the ward boundary recommendations made by each Community Council. Population numbers shown in parenthesis depict the ward populations with the conflict areas (shaded areas) removed from the ward.

It is recommended that the Urban Environment and Development Committee review the Community Council recommended wards in sequence, starting with East York (Ward 1), and recommend to City Council ward boundary changes and divisions. As the Committee works through the wards and adopts recommendations, by default, it will be defining boundaries for the adjoining wards.

East York (Ward 1):

The East York Community Council recommended deferring any recommendation on ward divisions until legal advice was received regarding single member wards and staff investigated other ward division options such that the Todmorden Community is maintained in one ward. The Community Council also reported that it had no objection to moving the southern boundary line to DanforthAvenue, and that the neighbourhoods of Governor=s Bridge and 701 Don Mills remain as part of the East York community. Map 1 shows the ward boundaries as recommended by the EastYork Community Council. It also recommended that the ward boundary issue be delayed until the first meeting of the Community Council to be held in January 1999.

The legal implications of dividing the current wards is discussed in another section further in this report. Staff investigated ways to maintain the Todmorden community in one ward, but found that doing so would result in proposed ward populations that would be above and/or below the plus and minus 25 percent population principle.

The Toronto Community Council, in adopting its recommendations on ward boundaries, selected a boundary option (23-1a, as amended) for Midtown (Ward 23), a boundary option (25-1a, as amended) for Don River (Ward 25), and a boundary option (26-1a, as amended) for East Toronto, all of which conflict with the East York Community Council recommendations.

The Toronto Community Council amendment to move Midtown ward=s east boundary line further east along the southern property lines of the Governor=s Bridge neighbourhood to the CN Rail line, south along the CN Rail line and west along Danforth Avenue to the Don River, conflicts with the East York Community Council recommendation to retain the lands south of the Governor=s Bridge neighbourhood in the East York ward. This area does not include any residential population, but does include the ABrickworks@ site.

The area of conflict with the Don River ward, as recommended by the Toronto Community Council, is bounded on the north by the north side of Fulton Avenue, Pape Avenue and Aldwych Avenue, on the south by Danforth Avenue, on the east by Donlands Avenue, and on the west by the CN Rail line. Including the north side of Fulton Avenue, as recommended by the Toronto Community Council, follows property lines and not the more recognizable feature of a street centre line (e.g., FultonAvenue).

The conflict area between East York ward and East Toronto ward is bounded on the north by Milverton Boulevard, Oak Park Avenue, Doncaster Avenue, Barrington Avenue, Coleman Avenue, Maryland Boulevard, Avonlea Boulevard and Sibley Avenue and on the south by Danforth Avenue. The recommendation by the Toronto Community Council to include Maryland Boulevard and Avonlea Boulevard in their entirety will result in boundary lines which follow property lines. The East York Community Council had no objection to moving the south boundary to Danforth Avenue. Where possible, boundary lines should avoid following property lines, but should follow local streets or arterial roads.

Lakeshore Queensway (Ward 2):

The Etobicoke Community Council recommended the adoption of staff option 2-1a, subject to a further report from staff with respect to the division of the industrial lands on a more equitable basis, and an adjustment of the boundary from Royal York Road to Dwight Avenue.

Amending ward option 2-1a to divide the industrial areas more equitably between the proposed split wards will not contravene the ward boundary principles, as the population estimates will not be significantly affected. Map 2 shows staff option 2-1a with an amendment that moves the ward division boundary further west along the Queen Elizabeth Way to Highway 427.

A further amendment to incorporate the Mimico community has been reviewed by staff and incorporated into Map 2 such that the ward division boundary follows south of the Queen Elizabeth Way along Islington Avenue, the CN Rail line, Dwight Avenue, Lakeshore Road, and Royal York Road to Lake Ontario. The population parity between the two proposed wards, as amended, is not as close as the three ward options (2-1a, 2-1b, 2-1c) put forward by staff, but does still meet the population principle and maintains the Mimico community intact.

Kingsway Humber (Ward 3):

The Etobicoke Community Council recommended option 3-1a. Map 3 shows the recommended ward division.

Markland Centennial (Ward 4):

The Etobicoke Community Council recommended option 4-1b. Map 4 shows the recommended ward division.

Rexdale Thistletown (Ward 5):

The Etobicoke Community Council requested staff to report further on the merits of a proposed ward division submitted by Mr. V. Crisanti. The proposal divides the ward along Finch Avenue, Albion Road, Kipling Avenue, and the west branch of the Humber River. The arguments for the proposal suggest it preserves existing communities and provides a fairer distribution of the workload in the residential and business sectors.

The proposed ward division would result in population distributions which meet the population principle established for this review process. The proposal would, however, divide a portion of the Jamestown community, as defined by the City Planning Division, if the boundary line followed Finch Avenue to Albion Road. If, instead, the proposed boundary line followed Finch Avenue, Martin Grove Road and Albion Road, the entire Jamestown community would be maintained within one ward. Map 5 shows the ward division as requested by the Community Council, with an amendment to maintain the Jamestown community intact. The proposal is consistent with the population principle.

North York Community Council Area Wards 6-12:

The North York Community Council recommended that, subject to City Council=s decision to revert back to single member wards, that the old ward boundaries of the former City of North York be maintained. The former City of North York wards were based on a division of the current City of Toronto (former Metro Toronto wards).

North York Humber (Ward 6):

Maintaining the existing ward boundary creates a conflict with the York Community Council recommendations pertaining to York Humber (Ward 27) and York Eglinton (Ward 28). The areas subject to boundary conflicts are shown shaded on Maps 6, 27, and 28. Following the existing ward boundary would contravene the boundary principle adopted by City Council of following recognizable geographic features. It defines the southern ward boundary with property lines. Following local street centre lines, as presented in options 6-1a, 27-1a, and 28-1a would define the ward by more recognizable features.

The existing boundary also included the area bounded on the north by Wilson Avenue, on the south by Highway 401, on the east by Jane Street, and on the west by Keele Street. The ward options prepared by staff moved this area into Black Creek (Ward 7) in consideration of Council=s principle of following recognizable geographic features and North York Community Council=s previous recommendation to consider Highway 401 in areas for boundary modification, where appropriate.

The two former City of North York wards within North York Humber were divided along Highway401 and Jane Street. Map 6 shows the ward division based on the Community Council recommendation.

Black Creek (Ward 7):

As discussed in the North York Humber (Ward 6) section, the area south of Wilson Avenue to Highway 401, and shown in staff option 7-1a, was proposed for inclusion in this ward. The two former City of North York wards within this ward followed Sheppard Avenue West and Black Creek to Steeles Avenue West. Map 7 shows the ward divisions as recommended by the Community Council.

North York Spadina (Ward 8):

Maintaining the existing ward boundary creates a conflict with the York Community Council recommendations pertaining to York Eglinton (Ward 28). The conflicting area is shown shaded on Maps 8 and 28. Following the existing ward boundary would contravene the boundary principle adopted by City Council of following recognizable geographic features. It defines the southern ward boundary with property lines. Following local street centre lines, as presented in options 8-1a and 28-1a would define the ward by more recognizable features.

In preparing the staff options, the area bounded on the north by Wilson Avenue, on the south by Highway 401, on the east by Bathurst Street, and on the west by the Allen Road, was proposed for inclusion in this ward from North York Centre South (Ward 9). This area was moved in consideration of Council=s principle of following recognizable geographic features and North York Community Council=s previous recommendation to consider Highway 401 in areas for boundary modification, where appropriate.

The boundary line between the two former City of North York wards within North York Humber followed a line which generally divided the Downsview air base from the DeHavilland community (as defined by City Planning). This division was not included in the options prepared by staff as the resulting wards would not have met the population criteria adopted by Council. Map 8 shows the ward divisions based on the Community Council recommendation. If the south boundary of NorthYork Spadina (Ward 8) is moved north along Glencairn Avenue, then the proposed south ward division would have a population less than the minus 25 percent population criteria. Therefore, the proposed ward division would need to be shifted. Drawing the ward division line along SheppardAvenue, as shown in staff option 8-1a, would result in population distributions in both proposed wards in North York Spadina which satisfy the population principle.

North York Centre South (Ward 9):

Maintaining the existing ward boundary creates a conflict with the Toronto Community Council recommendations pertaining to North Toronto (Ward 22). The conflicting areas are shown shaded on Maps 9 and 22. The entire southern boundary of the ward between Bathurst Street and Leslie Street conflicts with the recommended option (22-1a) for the North Toronto Ward. The current ward boundary in this area follows property lines and in many cases, splits private properties. Defining the ward boundary by following local street centre lines would result in a more recognizable ward boundary.

In preparing the staff options, the area north of Highway 401 and bounded by Sheppard Avenue on the north, Leslie Street on the east and Bayview Avenue on the west, was proposed for inclusion in Seneca Heights (Ward 12). This area was moved in consideration of Council=s principle of following recognizable geographic features and North York Community Council=s previous recommendation to consider Highway 401 in areas for boundary modification, where appropriate.

North York Centre (Ward 10):

Staff option 10-1a reflects the North York Community Council recommendation to maintain the former City of North York wards. Map 10 shows the recommended ward division.

Don Parkway (Ward 11):

In preparing the staff options for this ward, the area bounded on the north by Sheppard Avenue, on the south by Highway 401, on the east by the Don Valley Parkway, and on the west by Don Mills Road, was proposed for inclusion in Seneca Heights (Ward 12). This area was moved in consideration of Council=s principle of following recognizable geographic features and North York Community Council=s previous recommendation to consider Highway 401 in areas for boundary modification, where appropriate. Maintaining the area north of Highway 401 in this ward would result in a proposed western ward with a population (53,300) greater than the upper limit established through the population principle. To bring the proposed ward=s population back within the population threshold, the area north of Highway 401 should be moved into Seneca Heights (Ward12).

In regard to the southern ward boundary, the existing boundary line does not follow any recognizable feature between the west branch of the Don River and the CN Rail line. Also, the boundary line is projected east to Sunrise Avenue and south and east to Victoria Park Avenue. The staff options proposed a southern ward boundary which followed the west branch of the Don River to the intersection with the CN Rail line, and then projected to Sunrise Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue. The intent of the staff option was to follow more recognizable geographic features in defining the ward boundary. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendations with respect to East York (Ward 1) will define the southern boundary of this ward.

The two former City of North York wards within this ward followed the Don Valley Parkway and the CN Rail line. Map 11 shows the ward divisions as recommended by the Community Council.

Seneca Heights (Ward 12):

As discussed in the North York Centre South (Ward 9) and Don Parkway (Ward 11) sections, the areas: (i) bounded on the north by Sheppard Avenue, on the south by Highway 401, on the east by the Don Valley Parkway, and on the west by Don Mills Road, and (ii) bounded by Sheppard Avenue on the north, Highway 401 on the south, Bayview Avenue on the west, and Leslie Street on the east, were proposed for inclusion in this ward. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendations with respect to North York Centre South (Ward 9) and Don Parkway (Ward 11) will define the southern boundary of this ward.

The two former City of North York wards within this ward followed Finch Avenue and the CN Rail line. Map 12 shows the ward divisions as recommended by the Community Council.

Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13):

The Scarborough Community Council recommended option 13-2b. Map 13 shows the Community Council recommended ward division.

It should be noted that the Toronto Community Council recommendations for East Toronto (Ward26) conflict with the Scarborough Bluffs ward. The Toronto Community Council recommendation essentially maintained the existing ward boundary between East Toronto and Scarborough Bluffs, whereas the Scarborough Community Council recommendation for Scarborough Bluffs excluded that area west of Victoria Park Avenue between Bracken Avenue and Queen Street East, as proposed in the staff options. Staff proposed the change in the ward options to ensure the boundary line followed a street centre line to Lake Ontario.

Scarborough Wexford (Ward 14):

The Scarborough Community Council did not make a recommendation regarding a revised ward boundary and division for this ward. However, in adopting recommendations for Wards 13, 15 and 17, by default the remaining areas would form a proposed Scarborough Wexford ward. This is shown on Map 14. The Community Council did not discuss the proposed ward division for this ward, but the logical division is Highway 401, as was proposed in all the options prepared by staff, and shown on Map 14.

Scarborough City Centre (Ward 15):

The Scarborough Community Council recommended option 15-1a. Map 15 shows the recommended ward division.

Scarborough Highland Creek (Ward 16):

The Scarborough Community Council recommended option 16-1a, subject to the ward division being amended to follow Morningside Avenue between Highway 401 and the CN Rail line. The population distribution within the revised ward option meets the population principle adopted by City Council. Map 16 shows the recommended ward division.

Scarborough Agincourt (Ward 17):

The Scarborough Community Council recommended option 17-2a. Map 17 shows the recommended ward division.

Scarborough Malvern (Ward 18):

The Scarborough Community Council recommended option 18-1a. Map 18 shows the recommended ward division.

High Park (Ward 19):

The Toronto Community Council recommended option 19-1a, subject to the inclusion of the area north of Bloor Street West, west of Jane Street to the Humber River up to and including the southern edge of the TTC right-of-way. Map 19 shows staff option 19-1a, as amended by the Community Council. The current ward boundary extends north of Bloor Street West. The staff options proposed the boundary line to follow Bloor Street as it was a more recognizable feature.

It should be noted that the maps for staff options 19-1a, 19-1b, 19-1c, 27-1a, 27-1b, 27-1c, 27-2a, 27-2b, 27-3a, and 27-3b all showed the ward boundary immediately west of Jane Street. In fact, this was a graphical error and the boundary line should have followed the centre line of Jane Street between Annette Street and the boundary line just north of Bloor Street West.

Trinity-Niagara (Ward 20):

The Toronto Community Council recommended staff option 20-1a. Map 20 shows the recommended ward division.

Davenport (Ward 21):

The Toronto Community Council recommended staff option 21-1a. Map 21 shows the recommended ward division.

North Toronto (Ward 22):

The Toronto Community Council recommended staff option 22-1a. As was discussed in the NorthYork Humber (Ward 8) and North York Centre South (Ward 9) sections, a conflict exists between these two wards and the North Toronto ward. Map 22 shows the Toronto Community Council recommendation and areas of conflict with adjoining wards. The current ward boundary in this area follows property lines and also splits properties. A more understandable ward boundary would follow local streets closest to the current boundary. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendation with respect to North York Spadina (Ward 8) and North York Centre South (Ward 9) will define the northern boundary for North Toronto (Ward 22).

The Toronto Community Council also recommended moving the southern ward boundary, proposed as following Eglinton Avenue West, south of Eglinton Avenue to the current ward boundary. The current boundary is described as 33 metres south of Eglinton Avenue West between Bathurst Street and The Belt Line Trail. The staff options proposed the boundary follow Eglinton Avenue West as it is a more recognizable feature.

Midtown (Ward 23):

The Toronto Community Council recommended option 23-1a, subject to a number of amendments which essentially recreate the current ward boundaries and conflict with recommendations made by the East York Community Council in regard to East York (Ward 1) and the York Community Council in regard to York-Humber (Ward 28). Map 23 shows the ward divisions recommended by the Toronto Community Council with the conflict areas shown shaded.

The Toronto Community Council amendment to move the east boundary line further east along the southern property lines of the Governor=s Bridge neighbourhood to the CN Rail line, south along the CN Rail line and west along Danforth Avenue to the Don River, conflicts with the East York Community Council recommendation to retain the lands south of the Governor=s Bridge neighbourhood in East York (Ward 1). This amendment would not impact residential populations, but would move the Abrickworks@ site into the Midtown ward from the East York ward. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendation with respect to East York (Ward 1) will define the eastern boundary for Midtown (Ward 23).

The Toronto Community Council amendment to maintain the current boundaries with respect to Heath Street West, Lonsdale Road, Lonsmount Drive and Monclair Avenue conflict with the York Community Council recommendation to adopt option 28-1a to follow the Cedarvale ravine southeast from Bathurst Street and along the centre line of Heath Street West to Spadina Road. The Toronto Community Council also recommended that both sides of Spadina Road, from St. Clair Avenue West to Heath Street West remain in Midtown ward. This recommendation conflicts with the York Community Council recommendation to follow the centre line of Spadina Road.

The amendments recommended by Toronto Community Council keep the existing ward boundary in this area, a boundary which follows property lines. The boundary options proposed by staff were designed to avoid following property lines by following more recognizable features, including street centre lines and the Cedarvale ravine.

The Toronto Community Council also recommended moving the northern ward boundary, proposed as following Eglinton Avenue West, south of Eglinton Avenue to the current ward boundary. The current boundary is described as 33 metres south of Eglinton Avenue West between Bathurst Street and The Belt Line Trail. The staff options proposed the boundary follow Eglinton Avenue West as it is a more recognizable feature.

Downtown (Ward 24):

The Toronto Community Council recommended option 24-1a. Map 24 shows the recommended ward division.

Don River (Ward 25):

The Toronto Community Council recommended option 25-1a, subject to amendments to: (i) include Cherry Beach in the same single member ward as the Leslie Street Spit and (ii) include the north side of Fulton Avenue in the ward. The recommended ward option and latter amendment conflicts with the East York Community Council=s indication to move the ward boundary to Danforth Avenue. Map 25 shows the Toronto Community Council recommended option and area of conflict.

The area of conflict is bounded on the north by the north side of Fulton Avenue, Pape Avenue and Aldwych Avenue, on the south by Danforth Avenue, on the east by Donlands Avenue, and on the west by the CN Rail line. Including the north side of Fulton Avenue, as recommended by the Toronto Community Council, follows property lines and not the more recognizable feature of a street centre line. Using Danforth Avenue as the boundary between East York ward and Don River ward follows a more recognizable feature. Following the Toronto Community Council recommendation would result in Don River proposed ward populations of 42,300 and 45,800. Following Danforth Avenue, as recommended by the East York Community Council, would result in Don River proposed ward populations of 42,300 and 36,400. In this part of the City, it makes sense to either follow the centre line of local streets or arterial roads (e.g., Danforth Avenue) so that the boundaries are understandable. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendation with respect to East York (Ward 1) will define the northern boundary for Don River (Ward 25).

Based on the Community Council amendment to retain Cherry Beach and the Leslie Street Split in the same single member ward, the proposed ward division line would follow Cherry Street stopping at the Cherry Street bridge.

East Toronto (Ward 26):

The Toronto Community Council recommended option 26-1a, subject to a number of amendments, which result in conflicts with East York (Ward 1) and Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13). The Community Council also requested staff to investigate another ward option such that the west division of East Toronto ward be bounded by Danforth Avenue on the north and on the south, Lake Ontario, Coxwell Avenue, Queen Street East, Kingston Road, and Woodbine Avenue. Map 26 shows the ward recommended by the Toronto Community Council.

The conflict area between East York ward and East Toronto ward is bounded on the north by Milverton Boulevard, Oak Park Avenue, Doncaster Avenue, Barrington Avenue, Coleman Avenue, Maryland Boulevard, Avonlea Boulevard and Sibley Avenue and on the south by Danforth Avenue. The recommendation by the Toronto Community Council to include Maryland Boulevard and Avonlea Boulevard in their entirety will result in boundary lines which follow property lines. The East York Community Council recommended the boundary line be drawn along Danforth Avenue. Following the Toronto Community Council recommendation would result in East Toronto ward populations of 42,200 and 42,600. Following the East York Community Council recommendation would result in East Toronto ward populations of 34,700 and 41,000. In this part of the City, it makes sense to follow either the centre line of local streets or arterial roads (e.g., Danforth Avenue) so that the boundaries are understandable and avoid following property lines. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendation with respect to East York (Ward 1) will define the northern boundary for East Toronto (Ward 26).

Between the East Toronto ward and Scarborough Bluffs ward, another conflict area results from Toronto Community Council recommending the area of Victoria Park Avenue, south of Bracken Avenue, be included in the Scarborough Bluffs ward (i.e., current boundary line), whereas the Scarborough Community Council recommended option 13-2b which included this area in East Toronto ward. The staff options included this area in East Toronto Ward so that the east boundary of the ward followed a street centre line its entire length to Lake Ontario. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendation with respect to Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13) will define the eastern boundary for East Toronto (Ward 26).

The Toronto Community Council also recommended that the internal division of the ward be amended such that all of Eastwood Road, between Woodbine Avenue and Bellhaven Road, be included in the proposed west ward division. Staff interpreted this recommendation to include both sides of Eastwood Road, in this area, in the west ward division. This change would mean the ward division line would follow property lines in this area and not street centre lines.

The Toronto Community Council also requested staff to investigate a proposed west ward in East Toronto ward that would be bounded on the north by Danforth Avenue and on the south and east by Lake Ontario, Coxwell Avenue, Queen Street East, Kingston Road, and Woodbine Avenue. This request replicates the proposed west ward division shown on staff option 26-2b and would result in a ward population of 37,600, consistent with the population principle.

York Humber (Ward 27):

The York Community Council recommended option 27-1a, which conflicts with the recommendations of the North York Community Council in regard to North York Humber (Ward6) and the Toronto Community Council in regard to High Park (Ward 19). Map 27 shows the York Community Council recommended boundaries and the areas of conflict.

As was discussed in the North York Humber (Ward 6) section, following the existing ward boundary lines would mean following property lines. The staff options shown in 27-1a and 6-1a follow local street centre lines which make the boundary more understandable. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendation with respect to North York Humber (Ward 6) will define the northern boundary for York Humber (Ward 27).

York Community Council also requested the North York Community Council to consider allowing the area south of Highway 401 and west of Highway 400 to be included as part of York Humber (Ward 27). The recommendation adopted by the North York Community Council would not accommodate this request.

As was discussed in the High Park (Ward 19) section, the Toronto Community Council recommendation to move the ward boundary line north of Bloor Street West to the TTC right-of-way conflicts with the recommended option from York Community Council. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendation with respect to High Park (Ward 19) will define this southern boundary for York Humber (Ward 27).

It should also be noted that a graphical error was shown on staff options 27-1a, 27-1b, 27-1c, 27-2a, 27-2b, 27-3a, 27-3b which depicted the ward boundary immediately west of Jane Street when , in fact, it should have been shown following the centre line of Jane Street. Map 27 shows the correct boundary line for this area.

York Eglinton (Ward 28):

The York Community Council recommended option 28-1a, which conflicted with North York Community Council recommendation for North York Spadina (Ward 8) and Toronto Community Council recommendations for Midtown (Ward 23). Map 28 shows the York Community Council recommended option.

As was discussed in the North York Spadina (Ward 8) section, following the existing Ward 8 boundary would contravene the boundary principle adopted by City Council of following recognizable geographic features. It defines the southern ward boundary with property lines. Following local street centre lines, as presented in options 8-1a and 28-1a would define the ward by more recognizable features. Following the existing northern boundary for York Eglinton would result in a ward population below the threshold established by the population principle (i.e., plus or minus 25 percent) and is therefore not recommended. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendation with respect to North York Spadina (Ward 8) will define the southern boundary for York Eglinton (Ward 28).

As was discussed in the Midtown (Ward 23) section, the Toronto Community Council recommendations for the western boundary of Ward 23 (and eastern boundary of Ward 28) are in conflict. The Toronto Community Council recommendation to generally maintain the existing ward boundary would result in the use of property lines for boundaries and split properties. The boundary options proposed by staff were designed to avoid following property lines by following more recognizable features, including street centre lines and the Cedarvale ravine. The Urban Environment and Development Committee=s recommendation with respect to Midtown (Ward 23) will define this eastern boundary for York Eglinton (Ward 28).

Legal Issues Impacting the Boundary Review Process:

As discussed in the previous staff report on ward boundary changes, dated October 26, 1998, there remains a difference of opinion between the City and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as to whether the City of Toronto has the authority to create single member wards and to change the overall size of City Council under the current legislation. Council will recall that the Province passed legislation earlier this year to allow the size of City Council to be increased by adding a third Councillor in East York (Ward 1). This legislative change did not otherwise amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997, to allow Council to otherwise change its structure. The City Solicitor remains of the opinion that the City=s legislative authority in this regard is unclear, and that without legislative amendments to clarify the existing ambiguity, any by-law changing the size or composition of City Council would be vulnerable to legal challenge.

The above-mentioned report of October 26, 1998 outlined the following two options:

(a)seeking the necessary legislative amendment through a Private Member=s Bill, as directed by City Council at its meeting of April 28 and May 1, 1998; and

(b)should the request for a Private Member=s Bill be unsuccessful, commencing a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking a determination of City Council=s right to enact a by-law to change the size and composition of Council.

The City Solicitor advises that the City has been unsuccessful in seeking a Private Member=s Bill. Thus, it is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to commence a court application under Rule 14 seeking a determination of City Council=s right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council.

Prior to the court=s determination of City Council=s authority to change its size and composition, City Council can enact a by-law changing ward boundary lines, as its legislative authority to do so is clear. If City Council approves changes to the existing ward boundaries resulting from the Community Council recommendations outlined in this report, Council must pass an implementing by-law giving effect to such changes. As the preparation of such a by-law will require detailing the legal description of the area to be included in each ward, it is recommended, should Council approve such changes, that the City Solicitor submit the necessary by-law to a future meeting of City Council early in 1999.

Until the recommended court application is determined, however, the City Solicitor advises that no by-law should be introduced creating single member wards by the division of the existing wards. City Council can approve changes to the existing ward boundaries immediately, but should wait for the determination of the court application before introducing a by-law creating single member wards.

Conclusion:

The staff options for ward boundary changes were presented to the public and Community Councils through a series of public meetings. The subsequent Community Council recommendations result in a number of conflict areas which need to be resolved by the Urban Environment and Development Committee for a final set of recommendations to City Council. This report considers all the Community Council recommendations and identifies the areas of conflict for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Contact Name:

Mr. John Hollins, Director, Elections, City Clerk's Division, 392-8019, E-mail: jhollins@city.north-york.on.ca.

Mr. Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, City Clerk's Division, 392-8668. E-mail: pfay@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

________

Appendix AA@

Community Council Recommendations on Ward Boundary Changes

East York Community Council:

The East York Community Council held a public meeting on November 3, 1998. The Community Council made the following recommendations:

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

(a)by striking out Recommendation No. 1 contained in the joint report (October26,1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and replacing it with the following Recommendation No. 1:

(i)that the City Solicitor be requested to clarify whether the Province of Ontario accepts or concurs with the position of single member wards and report further to City Council on the legal ramifications;

(b)that the City Council be requested to re-open the issue of single member wards for further public consultation;

(c)that the East York Community Council defer any recommendations to the UrbanEnvironment and Development Committee until legal advice has been received regarding recommendation (1) (a) (1) and staff have investigated other ward division options such that the Todmorden Community is maintained in one ward and that this issue should be delayed until the first meeting of the EastYork Community Council to be held in January, 1999;

(d)that the East York Community Council has no objections to moving the southern boundary line to Danforth Avenue;

(e)that notwithstanding the railway lines, the neighbourhoods of Governors Bridge and 701 Don Mills Road remain as part of the East York Community;

(f)that a preferred option for ward boundary minor refinements and ward divisions as the basis for ward revisions for the municipal elections to be held in the year 2000 be deferred until advice has been received from the City Solicitor;

(g)that if the division of the ward boundaries to permit single member ward representation requires provincial legislation, the Members of Provincial Parliament for the ridings of York East, Don Mills, Beaches-Woodbine and Riverdale be advised that the East York Community Council is opposed to these changes and requests their assistance;

(h)that the Urban Environment and Development Committee be advised that further public meetings must be held in the community of East York before any divisions or changes are made to the boundaries in the East York area;

(2)received the following communications (November 3, 1998) from Ms. Carol Burtin-Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners= Association, East York; (November 3, 1998) from Mr.Colin MacLeod, East York; (Undated) from Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York; and (November 3, 1998) from Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York;

(3)received the following joint report (October 26, 1998) of the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(4)received the presentation by Mr. Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst and Mr.JohnHollins, Director of Elections, regarding the options for Ward Boundary Changes.

York Community Council:

The York Community Council at its public meeting held on November 4, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(1)the proposed ward boundary changes as indicated on Map 27-1a, Ward 27, York Humber, be approved;

(2)the proposed ward boundary changes as indicated on Map 28-1a, Ward 28, York Eglinton, be approved; and

(3)after its consideration of the staff report on November30,1998, that the Committee=s recommendations be forwarded to the York Community Council for further consultation with the public at its December 9, 1998 meeting, prior to Council=s adoption on December16, 1998.

The Community Council also requested the North York Community Council to consider allowing the area located south of Highway 401 to the proposed north boundary (Woodward Avenue/CN Rail) as noted on Map 27-1a, to be included as part of a continuing community of Ward 27, York Humber.

Toronto Community Council:

The Toronto Community Council at its public meeting on November 5, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:

(1)recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(a)with respect to High Park (Ward 19):

(i)Bloor Street West, west of Jane Street to the Humber River, and the area north of Bloor Street West up to and including the southern edge of the T.T.C. right-of-way be added to the proposed west ward of High Park;

(ii)the Option set out in Map 19-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(a)(i), be adopted;

(b)with respect to Davenport (Ward 21):

the Option set out in Map 21-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(a)(i), be adopted;

(c)with respect to Trinity-Niagara (Ward 20):

the Option set out in Map 20-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be adopted;

(d)with respect to Midtown (Ward 23):

(i)the Option set out in Map 23-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)the CN Rail Line be the dividing line between the ward and the area bounded by the East York Community Council, excluding the Governor=s Road Bridge neighbourhood;

(b)the present status quo remain in place with respect to Heath Street West;

(c)the south side of Eglinton Avenue West, between Bathurst Street and the Belt Line remain in North Toronto (Ward 22);

(d)both sides of Spadina Road, from St. Clair Avenue West to HeathStreet West, remain in Midtown;

(e)the present status quo remain in place with respect to Lonsdale Road, Lonsmount Drive and Montclair Avenue;

(ii)the Option set out in Map 23-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(d)(i), be adopted;

(e)with respect to North Toronto (Ward 22):

the Option set out in Map 22-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(d)(i)(c), be adopted;

(f)with respect to Downtown (Ward 24):

the Option set out in Map 24-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted;

(g)with respect to Don River (Ward 25):

(i)the Option set out in Map 25-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)Cherry Beach remain in the same new ward as the Leslie Street Spit;

(b)the north side of Fulton Avenue be included in the proposed east ward; and

(ii)the Option set out in Map 25-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(g)(i), be adopted;

(h)with respect to East Toronto (Ward 26):

(i)the Option set out in Map 26-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)Coleman Avenue to Sibley Avenue be included in the proposed east ward;

(b)Maryland Boulevard and Avonlea Boulevard be included in their totality in the proposed east ward;

(c)the Shoppers= World Site be included in its totality in the proposed east ward;

(d)all of Eastwood Road, between Woodbine Avenue and Bellhaven Road be included in the proposed west ward;

(e)Victoria Park Avenue, south of Bracken Avenue, be located in the proposed west ward for Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13);

(i)the proposed boundaries for the areas covered by the East York, York and Scarborough Community Councils be amended in accordance with Recommendation Nos. (1)(a) to 1(h);

(j)if the Legislature does not enact the necessary amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 before the end of the current legislative session, the City Solicitor be authorized to commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council=s right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997;

(2)requested the Urban Environment and Development Committee to set aside a specific time at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998 to consider this matter; and

(3)requested the City Clerk, in consultation with appropriate officials, to:

(a)consolidate the recommendations of each of the Community Councils, for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998;

(b)provide further notice of the special session of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, as set out in Recommendation No.(2), including direct notice to all resident and ratepayer groups, all BIAs and all historical societies within the City of Toronto; and

(c)report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998, with respect to the proposed west ward in East Toronto, on locating the northern boundary on Danforth Avenue, and the southern boundary on Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Kingston Road and from Kingston Road to Woodbine Avenue.

Scarborough Community Council:

At its meeting on November 12, 1998, the Scarborough Community Council adopted the following recommendations:

(1)the adoption of the following Options for Ward Boundary Changes:

Ward 13 -Scarborough Bluffs:Option 2b;

Ward 15 -Scarborough City CentreOption 1a;

Ward 16 -Scarborough Highland CreekOption 1a,

subject to the boundary going straight down Morningside Avenue and the area thus affected of Ward 13 being taken into Ward 13, in accordance with Maps 13-2a and 2b;

Ward 17 -Scarborough AgincourtOption 2a;

Ward 18 -Scarborough MalvernOption 1a; and

(2)that an office be established by the City to review the Ward Boundary changes prior to the Municipal Elections in the Year 2003 and that regular reviews be undertaken in every subsequent third election year.

North York Community Council:

On November 16, 1998, the North York Community Council held a public meeting on ward boundary changes, and adopted the following recommendation:

Aif a decision is made by City Council to revert to the single ward system, that the old ward boundaries of the former City of North York be maintained.@

Etobicoke Community Council:

At its meeting on November 18, 1998, the Etobicoke Community Council adopted the following recommendations:

(1)Ward 2 -Lakeshore-Queensway -Option 2-1a;

(2)Ward 3 -Kingsway-Humber -Option 3-1a;

(3)Ward 4 -Markland-Centennial -Option 4-1b; and

(4)Ward 5 -Rexdale-Thistletown -a revised Option using Finch Avenue, from Highway 427 east to Albion Road, east on Albion Road to Kipling Avenue, south to the West Branch of the Humber River, and then east to the Humber River, as the boundary.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the City Clerk to submit a further report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, with respect to:

(i)the division of the industrial lands in Ward 2 -Lakeshore-Queensway, on a more equitable basis within the existing ward boundaries; and adjustment of the boundary from Royal York Road to Dwight Avenue; and

(ii)the proposed revised Option for Ward 5 -Rexdale-Thistletown.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report provides options for:

(1)minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards; and

(2)ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate financial implications from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)if the Legislature does not enact the necessary amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 before the end of the current legislative session, the City Solicitor be authorized to commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council=s right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997;

(2)Community Councils recommend to the November 30, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee a preferred option, within its Community Council jurisdiction, for divisions within City wards, based on minor refinements, to permit single member ward representation;

(3)the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its November 30, 1998, meeting, consider this staff report, and the public input provided to and the recommendations submitted by each Community Council, and forward overall recommendations on ward boundary changes to City Council;

(4)City Council adopt a preferred option for ward boundary minor refinements and ward divisions as the basis for ward revisions for the municipal elections to be held in 2000;

(5)subject to City Council's decision to divide the wards to permit single member representation, the staff work team be requested to propose to City Council, through the Community Councils and with public input, recommendations for ward names that reflect the communities which make-up the new single member wards; and,

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

Background:

City Council, at its April 28 and May 1, 1998, meeting, had before it Clause No. 1 of Report No. 4a of the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding ward boundary review and adopted the following motions:

(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to request from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 to permit single member ward representation within the City of Toronto and to allow for increases or decreases in the overall size of City Council;

(2)the four commonly accepted principles on which ward boundaries options are to be evaluated be approved and that variations in average ward populations of plus or minus 25 percent be accepted as the norm;

(3)a Staff Working Group with representation from Clerk=s, Legal, Planning, Economic Development, Social Development and Corporate Policy and Planning be created to co-ordinate the process, liaise with Members of Council, and undertake the necessary research;

(4)existing ward boundaries within the new City of Toronto be used as the basis for the new ward boundaries, with minor refinements where needed;

(5)Council indicate its support for the principle that each of the existing City wards be divided in two, thus enabling election of a single Councillor per ward at the next municipal election in the year 2000;

(6)the appropriate staff develop plans which give effect to City Council=s decision that there will be three Councillors from East York;

(7)the process and time line outlined for refining existing boundaries and dividing wards be approved for implementation;

(8)Community Councils be requested to hold meetings to invite the public=s input on the matter of ward boundaries, ward division and governance, and report thereon through the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(9)the appropriate City officials be authorized to give effect hereto.

Subsequent to City Council=s direction, a number of Community Councils considered the matter of ward boundary changes. North York Community Council, at its May 27, 1998, meeting, requested staff, among other matters, to:

(i)take into account the population of the respective wards and attempt to keep the equalization of population while taking into consideration natural boundaries; and

(ii)have Highway 401 be considered in areas for modifications of boundary lines, where appropriate. York Community Council, at its May 27, 1998, meeting, requested staff, among other matters, to consider using major arterial roads as natural dividing boundaries, as part of Aminor refinements@. East York Community Council also considered this matter at its May 27, 1998, meeting, and requested scenarios which would allow the appropriate division of the Ward 1, East York, into three equal wards.

This report responds to the direction of City Council, and requests of various Community Councils, by identifying options for minor refinements to current ward boundaries and options for dividing the wards to achieve a single member ward system.

Comments:

This covering report:

(a)discusses the legal issues impacting the boundary review exercise;

(b)outlines the process through which staff developed the ward options;

(c)explains how the options are presented; and

(d)describes the remaining process for City Council to approve a revised ward system prior to the next municipal election in 2000.

Attached to this report are six (6) option papers presenting ward boundary options for each Community Council area.

Legal Issues Impacting the Boundary Review Process:

The City=s statutory authority to change ward boundaries is obtained from both the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (the AAct@) and the Municipal Act. The City Solicitor is of the opinion, expressed in the previous staff report, that amendments to the Act are required to permit Council to change its overall size or move to single member ward representation. Subsequent to City Council=s authorization, the City Solicitor requested the Province to amend the Act, to permit single member ward representation within the City of Toronto and to allow for increases or decreases in the overall size of City Council.

As of the date of this report, there remains a difference of opinion between the City and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as to whether amendments to the Act are necessary to permit City Council to change its ward boundaries and Council composition. The City Solicitor remains of the opinion that an amendment to the Act is necessary to clear up any ambiguity regarding the statutory authority of the City to permit single member ward representation and to allow for increases or decreases in the overall size of City Council. Without such enabling legislation in place, it is doubtful that City Council has the statutory authority to create single member wards or to change the number of its overall membership. As a result, any such by-law enacted by City Council may be subject to legal challenge.

In the absence of the Minister taking action to ensure the City has the proper enabling legislation in place, the City will need to seek legislative amendment through a Private Member=s Bill. Staff are currently pursuing this avenue. The challenge for the City is time. The current session of the Provincial Legislature is expected to conclude in December and is expected to recess until the Spring of 1999, at which time there is the possibility that a provincial election may be announced. City Council must have its ward boundary changes adopted and approved before January 1, 2000, for implementation in the next municipal election. Therefore, the practical window of opportunity for seeking the statutory authority is within the current legislative session, ending this December.

If the option of statutory amendments through a Private Member=s Bill is unsuccessful, the City=s only recourse is to commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council=s right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997 . It is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to pursue such an application, if the Legislature fails to enact the necessary amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 before the end of the current legislative session.

Work Process:

City Clerk's staff lead this project with assistance from a cross-corporate team representing the City Planning Division, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, the Social Development Division, the City Solicitor's Division, and the Economic Development Division. City Clerk's staff also consulted with Members of Council on the need for minor boundary refinements to existing wards and possible options for ward divisions.

The Municipal Act requires City Council to consider criteria, established through regulation by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, when examining ward boundary changes. To date, no such criteria have been prescribed. City Council's direction for the ward boundary review cited four principles for identifying options:

(a)representation by population;

(b)representation of communities;

(c)recognition of distinct geographical features; and,

(d)present and future populations.

With respect to principle (a) above, Council directed that variations in ward populations of plus or minus 25 percent be accepted as the norm for developing new ward options. These principles were followed by staff in developing options for a revised 28-ward system incorporating minor refinements and for identifying ways to divide the wards to allow for single member representation. However, in some instances, the application of these principles led to conflicts between two or more principles. In cases of such conflict, the principle of representation by population, within the plus or minus 25 percent variation from the average, was used as the overriding principle in this exercise.

Applying the 25 percent criterion provides enough flexibility to develop ward options that will prevent communities from being further divided, consider significant population trends, incorporate densely populated areas that cannot be easily divided, and include a population that would otherwise become physically isolated. Given that the existing 28 wards were used as the starting point for dividing the wards, the 25 percent criterion allows for options to be developed which meet this criterion. A figure smaller than 25 percent would not allow for practical options to be developed.

1996 Statistics Canada census data was used to estimate populations for the ward options. In particular, census enumeration areas (i.e., block-level geographic units through which census data is collected) were used as the basis for determining representative populations for each option. Census data is the commonly used reference data for population-based analysis and is used by the provincial and federal governments in determining their electoral boundaries. All population data used in this exercise has been rounded to the nearest hundred.

Some important assumptions were needed to guide this exercise. First, the options presented through this report respond to the direction of City Council only. Other principles were not considered in developing these ward boundary options (e.g., using a 10 percent population variation principle instead of the 25 percent criteria established by Council). Second, staff investigated options for boundary changes within the context of "minor refinements" to the 28 existing wards, precluding any notion of completely redesigning the ward system or deleting any one ward to accommodate another new ward elsewhere. Third, the minor ward boundary changes contemplated through this report will mean that the geographical responsibilities of each Community Council will be modified slightly after the next election as minor refinements are made to their boundaries through this exercise.

Minor Refinements to Existing Ward Boundaries:

The first step in developing ward options was to identify minor refinements to the existing wards. The term Aminor refinements@ was not defined in the previous staff report or through the direction of City Council. Staff have interpreted minor refinements to deal with current ward boundary anomalies and inconsistencies which should be resolved. This included addressing current ward boundaries that crossed and/or followed private property lines. Most cases involved the boundary interfaces of the former municipalities. In general, minor refinements were identified to eliminate boundaries with no "on-the-ground" definition (i.e., no street identifiers) and minimize the use of property lines as a boundary definition. Also, distinct geographical features were used wherever possible to delineate ward boundaries and maximize community inclusions (based on social, economic, natural, and major infrastructure).

Minor refinements were identified for every existing ward except the following wards: Kingsway Humber, Markland Centennial, Rexdale Thistletown, North York Centre, and Downtown. Options put forward for minor refinements followed the closest distinguishable geographic feature, such as a local street, or a more recognizable feature such as an arterial road, rail line or watercourse. The Highway 401 corridor was used as a natural divide for refining the existing ward boundaries, unless the new ward population contravened the preeminent population principle. Minor refinements to existing ward boundaries in the Scarborough Community Council area were necessary to resolve minor boundary issues and ensure the wards could be divided into single member wards and still satisfy the population criteria.

The population principle (i.e., plus or minus 25 percent) applied to the existing 28 wards translates into an average ward population of 85,200, with a range of 63,900 (minus 25 percent) to 106,500 (plus 25 percent). Table 1 attached to this report shows the variations from average for the current wards and the options for minor refinements. With the minor refinements suggested through this report, each of the 28 wards will meet the population variance criteria of plus or minus 25 percent, except for Ward 1 - East York. East York Ward=s new population is 28 percent greater than the average ward population size (as is the current population of Ward 1). However, given the fact EastYork Ward is currently represented by three Members, and options are included in this report to divide the ward into three single member wards, it was concluded that the variance in population above the acceptable range was not an issue. The attached option papers outline the specific options for ward minor refinements.

Options for Ward Divisions to Permit Single Member Representation:

The second step was to identify potential ward divisions within the new ward boundaries, as amended above through the minor refinements. Options were developed having regard for the four principles endorsed by Council.

(a)representation by population (with variations of +/- 25 percent from average ward populations):

The population principle (i.e., plus or minus 25 percent) applied to the proposed 57 wards translates into an average ward population of 41,800, with a range of 31,400 (minus 25 percent) to 52,300 (plus 25 percent). Table 2 attached to this report shows the variations from average for the options for ward divisions. Relative population parity within a ward was the desired goal when examining options for dividing the wards. Representative population within the plus or minus 25 percent range was taken as the overriding criteria for devising the ward division options. Every option presented through this report has a population that falls within the criterion range established by City Council.

(b)representation of communities:

In developing the options for dividing each ward, every effort was made to maintain identifiable communities. Defined communities referenced in the City official plans and mapped by the City Planning Division were used in considering ward division options. In certain cases, dividing a ward to maintain a community intact resulted in boundaries whose population contravened the basic population principle, and were therefore considered unacceptable options. Where possible, and consistent with the other principles, ward division options recognized the validity of former local municipal ward boundaries.

(c)recognition of distinct geographical features:

Where possible, ward division options followed highly visible infrastructure features (e.g., arterial roads, highways, rail lines) and geographic features (e.g., watercourses). In some cases, however, to achieve the population principle, following such features was not possible and other features such as local streets and changes in land use were used for boundaries. The boundaries for the ward division options presented with this report all follow some recognizable features and no boundary lines split or cross properties.

(d)present and future population trends:

Present populations and the potential for future population growth were also considered in developing ward division options. However, this principle presented a challenge for dealing with the Scarborough Community Council area, where significant population growth is occurring and the existing wards with minor refinements were to be the basis for ward divisions. The large populations within the existing wards, coupled with the population growth from development, made it extremely difficult to identify ward division options that had sufficiently low populations to accommodate anticipated future growth. The division options suggested for the current Scarborough Community Council wards have populations generally larger than the other options across the City and closer to the upset population limit without contravening the population principle.

Ward Boundary Options:

Attached to this report are six (6) options papers presenting ward boundary options for each Community Council area. All options presented in the papers satisfy the principles and all fit within the population range established by City Council. No options were included which did not satisfy at least the population principle of plus or minus 25 percent of the ward average. The options fulfil the mandate set by Council to investigate minor refinements and ward divisions for the existing 28 wards, and not to redesign the entire ward system.

The ward options create a system of wards that are more easily defined, recognized and understood. The options eliminate all former boundary lines which split private properties and minimize the use of property lines for boundary definition. The revised boundaries generally follow Aon-the-ground@ recognizable features such as arterial roads, rail lines, and watercourses. Overall, the options represent minimal change to the existing ward system, accommodating the desire to divide wards, and yet minimize disruption of neighbourhoods and communities.

An overview of the options for ward boundary minor refinements and ward divisions is shown in the maps attached to this report. Map 1 depicts option 1 for ward boundary minor refinements and generally proposes the least amount of change to the existing boundaries. Map 2 depicts option 2 for ward boundary minor refinements and generally follows more arterial roads. Map 3 shows option3 for ward boundary minor refinements and applies only to five wards (North York Humber, North York Spadina, North York Centre South, North Toronto, and York Humber) where more opportunity for minor refinements exist. Maps 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a and 3b show the options for ward divisions based on the revised boundary options depicted in Maps 1,2 and 3, respectively.

Not all wards have more than one option. For some wards, no minor refinements were necessary (e.g., Kingsway Humber, Markland Centennial, Rexdale Thistletown, North York Centre, Downtown) or only one or few practical options existed (e.g., Lakeshore Queensway, Black Creek, Seneca Heights, Scarborough Bluffs, Trinity-Niagara). For a few wards, a number of practical options were available (e.g., North York Centre South, North Toronto, York Humber).

Each option paper profiles each affected ward by briefly describing the options for ward boundary minor refinements and options for ward boundary divisions and illustrating the ward boundary options on ward-specific maps. The rationale for and implications of each option are also outlined.

Approving a Revised Ward System:

This report and the option papers are being presented to each Community Council throughout November 1998. In accordance with the Municipal Act, at least one public meeting must be convened before City Council can pass a by-law changing ward boundaries or changing the composition of City Council. Public meetings have been scheduled for each Community Council to allow for public comment on the ward boundary options. The public meetings, to be hosted by each Community Council, are scheduled for the following dates:

East York Community CouncilNovember 3

York Community CouncilNovember 4

Toronto Community Council November 5

Scarborough Community CouncilNovember 12

North York Community CouncilNovember 16

Etobicoke Community CouncilNovember 18

All public comments and Community Council recommendations on the options will be forwarded to the November 30, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration and final recommendation to City Council.

The challenge in approving a revised ward boundary system for the City is in gaining consensus on a set of recommended boundary changes that are co-terminus. If one Community Council recommendation on a preferred set of boundary changes does not coincide with the adjoining Community Councils preferred option, the Urban Environment and Development Committee will have to make a recommendation, and City Council will need to make a decision, which selects one option over another.

If the preferred options of the Community Council are not compatible, the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City Council should consider in their respective debates the four principles established by Council, including communities of interest, distinct geographic features, representative populations and future population trends. Only if Council, after such deliberations, still cannot decide between two or more options considered equally appealing, then Council should consider applying an objective decision-making framework to help determine its decision on ward boundary changes. The following two decision-making principles, based on the notion of representative population, should be used to resolve conflicts between ward boundary recommendations:

(a)revised ward boundaries, incorporating minor refinements, should be as close to the existing ward average (85,200) as possible; and

(b)the population estimates for the new ward divisions should be as close to parity as possible.

The new ward system adopted by City Council will not come into effect until the 2000 municipal election. However, the Municipal Act dictates that boundary changes must be approved by City Council prior to January 1, 2000, if they are to be implemented by the next municipal election that same year. Therefore, Council has just over one year in which to have an approved ward system in place. Council must first pass a by-law setting out the boundary changes. The Bill will set out the Ametes and bounds@ of the revised ward system and will be brought forward by Legal Division staff, but cannot be prepared until Council has adopted a set of changes. Subject to Council adopting the by-law, the Act allows for an appeal of the by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board. Notices of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 35 days of the ward boundary by-law being approved by City Council. If Council=s by-law is appealed to the Board, control of the process is transferred to the Board. Depending on the demands placed on the Board, it could be well into 1999 before a hearing is scheduled. If the ward changes are not approved by the end of 1999, the status quo boundaries will remain for the next election, including two member ward representation. Therefore, a Council decision on ward boundary changes is needed as soon as possible to have a revised ward system in place for the 2000 municipal election.

With a revised ward system with single member wards in place, it will be necessary to individually identify each new ward. It is recommended that the staff work team be requested to propose to City Council, through the Community Councils and with public input, recommendations for ward names that reflect the communities which make-up the new single member wards. Until such time as ward names are approved, and for consistency, each existing ward should retain its existing ward name and number and each ward division be referenced with an Aa@, Ab@, or Ac@ (Ac@ for Ward 1 only), with Aa@ assigned to the most northern and/or western ward division and Ab@ assigned to the most southern and/or eastern ward division.

Conclusions:

Staff have used the principles approved by Council to develop a number of options to make minor refinements to the existing 28 wards and divide the wards to permit single member representation. The resulting options provide an overall ward system that is easier to define, recognize and understand. Six option papers attached to this report outline the ward options.

The City Solicitor is of the opinion that all uncertainty as to City Council=s statutory authority to change its representation basis must be resolved as soon as possible. The implementing by-law must be adopted and in effect prior to the statutory deadline of January 1, 2000. The revised ward system Council adopted will be used as the basis for the next municipal election.

The City Solicitor concurs with the recommendations included in this report. The City Planning Division has provided support in the preparation of this report.

Contact Name:

Mr. John Hollins, Director, Elections, City Clerk's Division, 392-8019, E-mail: jhollins@city.north-york.on.ca.

Mr. Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, City Clerk's Division, 392-8668, E-mail: pfay@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 11, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The East York Community Council reports having advised the Urban Environment and Development Committee to consider the following position put forth by the Community Council:

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

(a)by striking out Recommendation No. 1 contained in the joint report (October26,1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and replacing it with the following Recommendation No. 1:

(1)that the City Solicitor be requested to clarify whether the Province of Ontario accepts or concurs with the position of single member wards and report further to City Council on the legal ramifications;

(b)that the City Council be requested to re-open the issue of single member wards for further public consultation;

(c)that the East York Community Council defer any recommendations to the UrbanEnvironment and Development Committee until legal advice has been received regarding recommendation (1) (a) (1) and staff have investigated other ward division options such that the Todmorden Community is maintained in one ward and that this issue should be delayed until the first meeting of the EastYork Community Council to be held in January, 1998;

(d)that the East York Community Council has no objections to moving the southern boundary line to Danforth Avenue;

(e)that notwithstanding the railway lines, the neighbourhoods of Governors Bridge and 701 Don Mills Road remain as part of the East York Community;

(f)that a preferred option for ward boundary minor refinements and ward divisions as the basis for ward revisions for the municipal elections to be held in the year 2000 be deferred until advice has been received from the City Solicitor;

(g)that if the division of the ward boundaries to permit single member ward representation requires provincial legislation, the Members of Provincial Parliament for the ridings of York East, Don Mills, Beaches-Woodbine and Riverdale be advised that the East York Community Council is opposed to these changes and requests their assistance;

(h)that the Urban Environment and Development Committee be advised that further public meetings must be held in the community of East York before any divisions or changes are made to the boundaries in the East York area;

(2)received the following communications (November 3, 1998) from Ms. Carol Burtin-Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners= Association, East York; (November 3, 1998) from Mr.Colin MacLeod, East York; (Undated) from Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York; and (November 3, 1998) from Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York;

(3)received the following joint report (October 26, 1998) of the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(4)received the presentation by Mr. Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst and Mr.JohnHollins, Director of Elections, regarding the options for Ward Boundary Changes.

The East York Community Council reports for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee that it received the joint report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Background:

The East York Community Council, at its meeting on November 3, 1998, had before it the following joint report (October 26, 1998) of the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with respect to Options for Ward Boundary Changes.

The East York Community Council also had before it communications from the following in opposition to the proposed Ward Boundary Changes in Ward One, East York:

-(November 3, 1998) from Ms. Carol Burtin-Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners= Association, East York;

-(November 3, 1998) from Mr.Colin MacLeod, East York;

-(Undated) from Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York; and

-(November 3, 1998) from Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York.

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

-Mr. John Papadakis, East York;

-Ms. Carol Burtin-Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners Association, East York;

-Mr. John Ridout, East York;

-Mr. Colin McLeod, East York;

-Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York;

-Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York;

-Mr. Gord Crann, East York;

-Ms. Donna-Lynn McCallum, East York;

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

-Mr. Jerry Hagen, East York; and

-Mr. Allan Gaw, East York.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 19, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting on November 18, 1998, recommended the following preferred options within its Community Council jurisdiction for divisions within City wards, based on minor refinements, to permit single member ward representation:

(1)Ward 2 - Lakeshore-Queensway - Option 2-1a;

(2)Ward 3 - Kingsway-Humber - Option 3-1a;

(3)Ward 4 - Markland-Centennial - Option 4-1b; and

(4)Ward 5 - Rexdale-Thistletown - a revised Option using Finch Avenue, from Highway 427 east to Albion Road, east on Albion Road to Kipling Avenue, south to the West Branch of the Humber River, and then east to the Humber River, as the boundary.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the City Clerk to submit a further report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, with respect to:

(i)the division of the industrial lands in Ward 2 - Lakeshore-Queensway, on a more equitable basis within the existing ward boundaries; and adjustment of the boundary from Royal York Road to Dwight Avenue; and

(ii)the proposed revised Option for Ward 5 - Rexdale-Thistletown.

Background:

The Etobicoke Community Council had before it a report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing options for (1) minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards, and (2) ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation.

The Community Council also had before it the following communications with respect to the foregoing:

-(November 11, 1998) from Ms. S. Pavan, Beacon Hill Tenants Association, in favour of Option 5-1a (Rexdale-Thistletown);

-(November 14 1998) from Mr. M. Harrison, Etobicoke, in favour of Option 2-1c (Lakeshore-Queensway);

-(Undated) from Mr. B. Melanson, Etobicoke, in favour of one member per ward, with a reduced number of wards across the City in line with the new Federal and Provincial ward boundaries;

-(November 9, 1998) from Mrs. S. Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers= and Residents= Associations, in favour of one member per ward;

-(November 16, 1998) from Mr. V. Crisanti, Etobicoke, proposing a revised boundary for the division of Ward 5 (Rexdale-Thistletown);

-(November 17, 1998) from Councillor M. Giansante, in support of Option 3-1a (Kingsway-Humber);

-(November 18, 1998) from Ms. R. Swarbrick, Etobicoke, supporting the retention of the two councillor ward system, and therefore not in favour of the proposals for revisions to the ward boundaries; and

-(November 18, 1998) from Mr. M. Kachala, Vice President, Kingsway Sunnylea Residents=s Association, in favour of two councillors per ward which the Association feels serves the best interest of the residents and taxpayers and is effective, direct responsible and competitive democracy at its best.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the foregoing matter:

-Mr. B. Melanson, Etobicoke;

-Mr. T. Reardon, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers= and Residents= Associations;

-Mr. L. Paron, Etobicoke;

-Mr. R. Summers, Etobicoke;

-Ms. R. Swarbrick, Etobicoke;

-Mr. M. Stanise, Etobicoke;

-Mr. I. Nishisati, Past President, Humber Valley Village Ratepayers Association;

-Mr. P. Milczyn, Chair, Lakeshore Planning Council;

-Mr. F. Di Giorgio, on behalf of Councillor M. Giansante;

-Mr. R. Ciupa, Etobicoke; and

-Mr. H. Ashley, Etobicoke.

Copies of the written submissions are attached for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 17, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The North York Community Council on November 16, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and Council, that if a decision is made by City Council to revert back to the single ward system, that the old ward boundaries of the former City of North York be maintained.

Background:

The North York Community Council had before it the following:

(1)report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing options for: (a) minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards, and (b) ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation; and

(2)report (November 5, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the York Community Council on November 4, 1998, recommended to the North York Community Council that consideration be given to allowing the area located south of Highway 401 (Ward 6, North York Humber) to the proposed north boundary (Woodward Avenue/CN Rail) as noted on the map attached to its report, to be included as part of a continuing community of Ward 27, York Humber.

A staff presentation was made by John Hollins, Director of Elections, Clerk's Division, and Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, Clerk's Division.

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

-Mr. Dominic Di Luca, President of the Stanley Community Centre Seniors' Club, who was in favour of splitting the wards into two;

-Mr. Hank Mulder, President of 325 Bogert Avenue Tenants' Association, who spoke in opposition to the wards being split;

-Mr. Jim Loftus, President of the 7 Roanoke Road Tenants' Association, who had concerns over the splitting of neighbourhoods;

-Mr. Morry Smith, who was in favour of retaining two Councillors per ward; and

-Mr. John Maletich, who spoke in favour of splitting the existing wards.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 16, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Scarborough Community Council recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following Options for Ward Boundary Changes:

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs:Option 2b;

Ward 15 - Scarborough City CentreOption 1a;

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland CreekOption 1a,

subject to the boundary going straight down Morningside Avenue and the area thus affected of Ward 13 being taken into Ward 13, in accordance with Maps 13-2a and 2b;

Ward 17 - Scarborough AgincourtOption 2a;

Ward 18 - Scarborough MalvernOption 1a; and

(2)that an office be established by the City to review the Ward Boundary changes prior to the Municipal Elections in the Year 2003 and that regular reviews be undertaken in every subsequent third election year.

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council had before it a report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending that the Community Council recommend to the November 30, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee a preferred option, within its Community Council jurisdiction, for divisions within City wards, based on minor refinements, to permit single member ward representation.

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

-Mr. Clancy Delbarre, Highland Creek Community Association;

-Ms. Sheila White, C.D. Farquharson Community Association;

-Mr. Douglas Grigg, Cliffcrest Community Association;

-Mr. John Stapley, Toronto;

-Mr. Ben Loughlin, Toronto;

-Mr. John Brickenden, Toronto;

-Ms. Helena Nielsen, Toronto; and

-Mr. Alan Heisey, Snr., Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 9, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council:

(1) recommends to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(a)with respect to High Park (Ward 19):

(i)Bloor Street West, west of Jane Street to the Humber River, and the area north of Bloor Street West up to and including the southern edge of the T.T.C. right-of-way, be added to the proposed west ward of High Park;

(ii)the Option set out in Map 19-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(a)(i), be adopted;

(b)with respect to Davenport (Ward 21):

the Option set out in Map 21-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(a)(i), be adopted;

(c)with respect to Trinity-Niagara (Ward 20):

the Option set out in Map 20-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be adopted;

(d)with respect to Midtown (Ward 23):

(i)the Option set out in Map 23-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)the CN Rail Line be the dividing line between the ward and the area bounded by the East York Community Council, excluding the Governor=s Road Bridge neighbourhood;

(b)the present status quo remain in place with respect to Heath Street West;

(c)the south side of Eglinton Avenue West, between Bathurst Street and the Belt Line remain in North Toronto (Ward 22);

(d)both sides of Spadina Road, from St. Clair Avenue West to Heath Street West, remain in Midtown;

(e)the present status quo remain in place with respect to Lonsdale Road, Lonsmount Drive and Montclair Avenue;

(ii)the Option set out in Map 23-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(d)(i), be adopted;

(e)with respect to North Toronto (Ward 22):

the Option set out in Map 22-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(d)(i)(c), be adopted;

(f)with respect to Downtown (Ward 24):

the Option set out in Map 24-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted;

(g)with respect to Don River (Ward 25):

(i)the Option set out in Map 25-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)Cherry Beach remain in the same new ward as the Leslie Street Spit;

(b)the north side of Fulton Avenue be included in the proposed east ward; and

(ii)the Option set out in Map 25-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(g)(i), be adopted;

(h)with respect to East Toronto (Ward 26):

(i)the Option set out in Map 26-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)Coleman Avenue to Sibley Avenue be included in the proposed east ward;

(b)Maryland Boulevard and Avonlea Boulevard be included in their totality in the proposed east ward;

(c)the Shoppers= World Site be included in its totality in the proposed east ward;

(d)all of Eastwood Road, between Woodbine Avenue and Bellhaven Road be included in the proposed west ward;

(e)Victoria Park Avenue, south of Bracken Avenue, be located in the proposed west ward for Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13);

(ii)the Option set out in Map 26-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(h)(i), be adopted;

(i)the proposed boundaries for the areas covered by the East York, York and Scarborough Community Councils be amended in accordance with Recommendation Nos. (1)(a) to 1(h);

(j)if the Legislature does not enact the necessary amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 before the end of the current legislative session, the City Solicitor be authorized to commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council=s right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997; and

(2)requests the Urban Environment and Development Committee to set aside a specific time at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998 to consider this matter.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, having requested the City Clerk, in consultation with appropriate officials, to:

(a)consolidate the recommendations of each of the Community Councils, for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting to be held on November30, 1998;

(b)provide further notice of the special session of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, as set out in Recommendation No. (2), including direct notice to all resident and ratepayer groups, all BIAs and all historical societies within the City of Toronto; and

(c)report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998, with respect to the proposed west ward in East Toronto, on locating the northern boundary on Danforth Avenue, and the southern boundary on Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Kingston Road and on Kingston Road to Woodbine Avenue.

Recommendation No. (1)(j) was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Disero, Jakobek, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynksi, Layton, McConnell and Pantalone.

Nays:Councillor Miller.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, on November 5, 1998 had before it a report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Options for Ward Boundary Changes.

During consideration of the foregoing matter, the Toronto Community Council also had before it the following communications:

-(October 10, 1998) from Mr. Alan Heisey Sr, the Annex Residents Association;

-(November 3, 1998) from Ms. Helen Ness and Ms. Nancy Heaney, Junction Community Police Liaison Committee;

-(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Carolyn Riemer, Dundas West Residents Association;

-(November 5, 1998) from Mr. Norman McLeod, Swansea Historical Society;

-(October 31, 1998) from Councillor Silva;

-(November 4, 1998) from Mr. Bill Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association;

-Revised Map 21-1a, submitted by Ms Lynn Daly; and

-Revised Map 23-1a, submitted by Councillor Bossons.

Mr. Peter Fay, City Clerk=s Division, made a presentation to the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

-Mr. William Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association;

-Ms. Fanny Patterson, Director, Annex Residents= Association;

-Mr. Zak Khan, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Dale Ritch, C.O.R.R.A.;

-Ms. Carolyn Riemer, Dundas West Residents= Association;

-Mr. Sid Bruyn, Chair, Parents Council;

-Ms. Lynn Daly, Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre;

-Mr. William Phillips, Secretary, South Rosedale Ratepayers= Association;

-Ms. Hilary MacKenzie, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Ms. Marion Lewis, Toronto, Ontario

The Community Council=s actions are noted above.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 5, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The York Community Council at its Special Meeting held on November 4, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(1)the proposed ward boundary changes as indicated on Map 27-1a, Ward 27, York Humber, be approved;

(2)the proposed ward boundary changes as indicated on Map 28-1a, Ward 28, York Eglinton, be approved; and

(3)after its consideration of the staff report on November30,1998, that the Committee=s recommendations be forwarded to the York Community Council for further consultation with the public at its December 9, 1998 meeting, prior to Council=s adoption on December16, 1998.

The Community Council reports, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, having requested the North York Community Council to consider allowing the area located south of Highway 401 (Ward 6, North York Humber) to the proposed north boundary (Woodward Avenue/CN Rail) as noted on Map 27-1a, to be included as part of a continuing community of Ward 27, York Humber.

Background:

The Community Council had before it a joint report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing options for: (1) minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards, and (2) ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation.

At this Special Meeting of the Community Council to hear public comments on the proposed ward boundary changes, approximately 25 persons were in attendance. Most of the deputants were from the west section of Ward 27, York Humber, who emphasized the importance of maintaining the existing cohesiveness of the Weston, Mt. Dennis and Black Creek communities, in view of their historical and economic significance. Since these communities remained undivided as reflected in Map 27-1a, the deputants expressed preference for this option.

It was also suggested that by extending the proposed northerly boundary (WoodwardAvenue/CNRail) on Map 27-1a to Highway 401, not only would the Weston Business Improvement Area be able to establish a closer commercial link with the Cross Roads Shopping Centre, but this area would also form part of a continuing community to be included in Ward 27.

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

-Ms. Elaine Heaton, Weston Residents and Ratepayers= Association, Ward 27;

-Mr. Albert Pietersma, Weston Community Improvement Plan, Ward 27;

-Mr. Lorne Berg, Executive Director, Black Creek Business Area Association, Ward 27;

-Ms. Marjorie Sutton, President, Mount Dennis Association; and Chair, Mount Dennis Community Improvement, Ward 27;

-Mr. John Kiru, Coordinator, Weston Business Improvement Area, Ward 27;

-Ms. Sandra Melville, President, Warren Park Ratepayers= Association, Ward 27;

-Mr. Steve Tasses, Chair, Keele-Eglinton Business Improvement Area, Ward 27;

-Mr. Karl Stankov, West Fairbank Ratepayers Association, Ward 28

-Mr. Bob Churchill, North York; and

-Mr. Tim Lambrinos, Executive Assistant to Councillor George Mammoliti, Ward 6, North York Humber.

________

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

-(November 16, 1998) from Mr. Albert Pietersma, Weston Community Improvement Committee (WCIC), in support of Option 1a for the division of City of Toronto Ward 27 (Map 27-1a, YorkHumber), with one amendment: that the northern boundary of the new west ward be extended to Highway 401; and setting out the reasons therefor.

-(November 18, 1998) a facsimile addressed to Councillor Betty Disero, Davenport, from Ms.May Uusbergin support of the section of Ward 21, Davenport, being moved to Ward19, HighPark; and setting out the reasons therefor.

-(November 23, 1998) from Ms. Sheila White, Past President, C.D. Farquharson Community Association, expressing the Association=s objections to the boundary changes proposed for Ward 18, Scarborough-Malvern; and setting out the reasons therefor.

-(November 25, 1998) from Ms. Sylvia Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers= and Residents= Associations, submitting, as requested, comments from the various Ratepayers= Associations located within Ward4; pointing out that the aforementioned comments are from persons who were not at the special meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council on November 18, 1998; and requesting that consideration be given to holding a meeting at the Etobicoke Civic Centre in early December 1998, at which time Councillors Holyday and O=Brien would state the reasons for their option preference, and then the public would be permitted to vote.

-(November 26, 1998) from Mr. Ross Vaughan, President, Islington Ratepayers and Residents Association, expressing support for the position taken by Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland Centennial; pointing out that Option 4-1a has the lowest number of factors to be considered and is, therefore, the simplest solution; and urging that the traditional communities in this area of the city not be divided.

-(November 25, 1998) from Ms. Diana Fancher, President, West Toronto Junction Historical Society, expressing support for changing the area from Bloor Street north to the CP Rail tracks, and from Keele Street to the CP Rail tracks on the west, from Sard 21 to Ward 19; and setting out the reasons therefor.

-(November 27, 1998) from Ms. Dianne Burnett, Project Co-ordinator, West Toronto Junction Team, advising that the Team=s vision and commitment to the area is to strengthen, unite and rebuild the section known as the Junction; that the West Toronto Junction is currently part of Ward 21 and is an integral part of that vision; and expressing support for the DundasWest Residents= Association=s efforts to become part of Ward 19.

-(November 27, 1998) from Ms. Maureen Lynett, President, Malta Village Business Association, expressing support of the Ward 21 residents= request for a section of Ward 21 (Dundas/Keele to Dundas/Bloor) to rejoin Ward 19.

-(November 27, 1998) from Mr. Victor Latchman, Chairman, and Mr. Paul Komarnicky, Director, Junction Gardens BIA, expressing the Board of Management=s strong desire to see the West Toronto Junction Triangle become properly situated during the proposed ward boundary change activity; and requesting that the boundary between Wards 19 and 21 be redrawn along the tracks all the way from Bloor Street north, rather than along Keele Street to the tracks.

-(November 27, 1998) from Mr. Bill Roberts, Director, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association, expressing support for the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council to run the Ward 19 north-western boundary between Jane Street and the Humber River along the southern edge of the TTC right-of-way; further expressing support for one Councillor per ward, and for the division of the existing City wards into two parts; and recommending that:

(1)the former village of Swansea and the Bloor West Village BIA not be separated; and

(2)if it is the City=s intent to change the boundary between Wards 19 and 21, then a boundary should be selected north of the existing properties fronting on the BloorStreet West diversion using the southern edge of the subway cut.

-(November 27, 1998) from Mr. Mr. Sam Singh, President, The Association of Concerned Citizens of Etobicoke North, expressing strong support of Option Map 5-1b for Ward 5 (Rexdale-Thistletown); and setting out the reasons therefor.

-(November 29, 1998) from Kean Bhatacharya concern to protect against the changes of boundary of Ward 18.

-(November 30, 1998) from Councillor Mike Tzekas, Scarborough Wexford, expressing concern to simply add that Highway 401 should be used as a natural divide for refining the new ward boundary into two separate wards.

-(undated) communication from residents of Ward 21 expressing to remain part of boundaries.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Justin Van Dette (regarding East York boundaries);

- Mr. Phil Egginton, President, Bridlewood Community Association;

- Mr. Ben Loughlin, Scarborough;

- Ms. Margaret Simpson, Toronto;

- Mr. William Gallos, Toronto;

- Mr. William Roberts, Swansea Ratepayers Association;

- Ms. Helen Ness, Toronto;

- Ms. Carolyn Reimer, Dundas West Residents Association; and filed a written submission;

- Mr. Zak Khan, Toronto;

- Mr. Abdul Alakhatib; Toronto;

- Mr. Colin McLeod, East York;

- Ms. Louise Bridge Toronto;

- Mr. Alex Grenzebbach, Toronto;

- Mr. Ross Vaughan, Etobicoke;

- Councillor S. Bussin, East Toronto (Ward 26);

- Councillor B. Disero, Davenport (Ward 21);

- Councillor D. Fotinos, Davenport (Ward 21);

- Councillor D. Holyday, Markland Centennial (Ward 4);

- Councillor C. Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park (Ward 19);

- Councillor D. Miller, High Park (Ward 19);

- Councillor M. Prue, East York (Ward 1);

- Councillor B. Sinclair, Rexdale-Thistletown (Ward 5); and

- Councillor M. Walker, North Toronto (Ward 22).

(A copy of the appendices, which were appended to the foregoing reports, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 30, 1998 and December 1, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)