Agenda

Report of the Executive Committee from Meeting 1 on December 9, 2010

            Submitted by Mayor Rob Ford, Chair

Report of the Etobicoke York Community Council from Meeting 2 on December 10, 2010

            Submitted by Councillor Mark Grimes, Chair

Report of the North York Community Council from Meeting 2 on December 10, 2010

            Submitted by Councillor Maria Augimeri, Chair

Report of the Scarborough Community Council from Meeting 2 on December 10, 2010

            Submitted by Councillor Paul Ainslie, Chair

Report of the Toronto and East York Community Council from Meeting 2 on December 10, 2010

            Submitted by Councillor Gord Perks, Chair

The Executive Committee referred the following motions to the Deputy Mayor and City Clerk for consideration as part of their review of the Councillor Expense Policy:

By Councillor Del Grande:

"That Councillor Office Expense Budgets be adjusted each year to reflect Consumer Price Index increases."

By Councillor Milczyn:

"That the City Manager and City Clerk report to the Executive Committee, as part of the review of the Councillor Expense Policy, on a policy and funding which City Councillors may access in order to communicate to their Ward residents in emergency or extraordinary situations."

By Councillor Shiner:

"That the City Manager, in consultation with the Mayor's Office, include in the new Councillor Expense Policy a recommendation which would faciliate Members of Council having a constituency office in Toronto Civic Centres or other City or Agencies, Boards and Commissions facilities, subject to those properties being able to accommodate a constituency office, without the use of the space impacting the Councillors' office budget."

By Councillor Mammoliti:

1.         "That the Deputy Mayor and City Clerk, as part of their review of the Councillor Expense Policy, give consideration as to how the provincial model might be applied to the Councillor Office Expense budget."

2.         "City Council request the Federal Government to consider a no-charge policy for postage for constituency mailings by Members of Council."

The Executive Committee consented to the withdrawal of the letter (December 6, 2010) from Councillor Lindsay Luby ( Item EX1.5a).

The Executive Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council receive the item for information.

This report identifies options and sets out procedural and contractual requirements for the repeal of the Personal Vehicle Tax (PVT) and termination of the PVT Collection Agreement ("Agreement") with the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Government Services (the "Province") in 2011.

Termination of the PVT in 2011 would have a direct impact on the 2011 operating budget. It would (i) reduce the PVT revenues by an average of $4 million for each month it is no longer in effect, (ii) require certain refunds of PVT payments made prior to the effective PVT repeal date, and (iii) result in City administration costs to process refunds, and reimbursement of costs incurred by the Province for system changes to implement termination of PVT collection. The total estimated 2011 budget impact is approximately $64 million if the tax is repealed on January 1, 2011.

One of my priorities as the newly elected Mayor of Toronto is to improve the services that impact the daily lives of Torontonians.  Creating a more accountable and efficient transit system will provide enhanced service while restoring citizens' faith in publicly operated organizations.

The TTC is one of the most widely used transit systems in North America.  It carries approximately 1.5 million passengers daily, including 85% of transit trips in the Greater Toronto Area.  Hundreds of thousands of Toronto residents rely on the TTC on a daily basis to get to work, school and to perform various other important tasks.  Similarly, Wheeltrans is often the only means of transportation for many Toronto residents who are elderly or physically challenged.

Transit work stoppages create an enormous impediment for Toronto residents, both functionally and economically.  Passengers are left stranded while millions of dollars are lost in economic activity.  Each day of a transit strike also leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions as many residents have no alternative but to rely on automobiles as their primary form of transportation.  Designating the TTC an essential service would satisfy a number of statutory requirements, as a work stoppage in Toronto may pose a threat to life, health or safety and may also lead to serious environmental damage.

Presently, a private member's bill is being considered at the provincial legislature that would effectively make public transit across Ontario an essential service.  The City of Toronto, due to its size and population, would especially benefit from such a designation.  In order to prevent a transit workers' strike that will paralyze Toronto residents and negatively impact their well-being and the City's economic situation, it is incumbent on council to request that the Province of Ontario designate public transit in Toronto an essential service.

The new city-wide Zoning By-law, Bylaw No. 1156-2010, was enacted by City Council on August 27, 2010. The idea of a single zoning by-law for the City is intended to bring greater efficiencies and effectiveness to the manner in which zoning regulations are administered and enforced. In creating the single Zoning By-law, the focus was on capturing the intent of the existing by-laws in one city-wide by-law. The existing standards (height, setbacks, density) were kept the same by recognizing many various zones throughout the City.

With respect to parking in driveways, the new Zoning By-law appears to be unclear as to how it may be interpreted. This report recommends that amendments be brought forward, clarifying this by-law does not prohibit parking in a driveway. 

The Executive Committee recommends that:

1.       City Council approve the 2011 Budget Process and Schedule which is designed to develop, review and adopt the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets by February 28, 2011 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report (December 6, 2010) from the City Manager and Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer.

The purpose of this report is to provide City Council with the Operating Variance for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2010 as well as year-end projections and to request Council's approval for amendments to the 2010 Council Approved Operating Budget with no change to the 2010 Approved Net Operating Budget.

Actual net expenditures were under budget by $197.437 million or 8.1%.  Projections to year-end indicate that the 2010 Council Approved Net Operating Budget will be under-spent by $282.287 million or 8.0%.  It is noted that the projected year-end operating surplus is based on the assumption that the City will be receiving the 2010 funding commitment of $52.0 million from the Province for the Ontario Work Cost of Administration (COA).  To date, the Province has not paid this amount.

Major contributions to the favourable results include:

• Municipal Land Transfer Tax of $89.505 million due to better than forecasted housing activities
• Toronto Transit Commission (Conventional and Wheel-Trans) passenger revenues of $58.5 million due to strong ridership growth
• Higher than expected Supplementary Taxes of $39.5 million
• Strong Interest and Investment Earnings of $29.722 million
• Savings on Debt Servicing Charges of $26.425 million
• Lower than budgeted caseload and social assistance and administration costs of $21.419 million by Toronto Employment and Social Services
• Hiring slow-down of $21.236 million across City Programs and Agencies.  This savings is expected to increase to $34.0 million by year-end due to a more aggressive hiring slow-down strategy requested by the City Manager in the fourth quarter.
• Savings on winter maintenance costs of  $18.322 million by Transportation Services

The projected year-end surplus also includes unfavourable results forecasted for the following:

• Over-expenditure of $8.279 million in Tax Deficiencies due to higher than expected assessment and tax appeals
• Higher than budgeted Street and Expressway Lighting Services electricity and contact voltage mitigation costs of $6.414 million
• Over-expenditure of $4.963 million by Court Services due to high growth of unpaid fines and increased overtime costs for police officers due to an increase in trial rates
• Lower than budgeted provincial revenues to fund the Central Ambulance Communication Centre (CACC) Program and over-expenditure of salaries and benefits of $4.314 million by Emergency Medical Services

The purpose of this report is to request Council’s approval of the 2011 Interim Operating and Capital Estimates in order to enable City Programs and Agencies to carry out their ongoing (base) operations and to continue work on urgent previously approved capital projects during the period January 1 to March 31, 2011, or the date on which the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets are approved.

In accordance with the Financial Control By-Law, an Interim Operating Budget must be approved prior to January 1, 2011 to ensure that appropriate Council approval is granted to fund the continuance of the City’s business during the period January 1 to March 31, 2011.  The 2011 Interim Operating Estimate is $3.080 billion gross; and requires cash outflows of $2.677 billion.

Council is also required to approve Interim Capital Estimates for the period January 1, 2011 to the date on which the 2011 Capital Budget is approved, in order to ensure that capital works on previously approved projects continue without interruption.  The Interim Capital Estimates total $315.499 million and are comprised of 100% of the 2011 commitments for the City's infrastructure stimulus projects and 10% of the 2011 cash for funding commitments for previously approved capital projects (see Appendix 2).

Dave Tomei has submitted an application for demolition approval under the former City of York By-law 3102-95, for the proposed demolition of a vacant one-storey building, formerly used as an industrial paint coating facility at 2431 Weston Road.

This application proposes to include a portion of the Gunns Road right-of-way north of 30 Weston Road within the parcel to be used for the proposed development at 30 Weston Road and part of 33 Gunns Road. This was previously discussed during community consultation and in staff’s Final Report on the proposed development.

North York Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor and any relevant Staff to attend at all proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board pertaining to the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision with respect to 11, 11A, 15 and 17 Roslin Avenue and to hire any consultants required to uphold the decision of the Committee of Adjustment.

These applications were made on March 17, 2010 and are subject to the new provisions of the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, which requires that a statutory public meeting be held for a Draft Plan of Common Element Condominium.

The application for a common elements condominium proposes a common driveway and a private parkette on lands known municipally as 61, 65, 69 and 71 Churchill Avenue and 2, 4 and 6 Basswood Road.  The common elements condominium is required to provide legal vehicular access to 30 three-storey residential townhouse units and to ensure shared ownership and maintenance of both the driveway and the parkette by the condominium corporation.

The requested exemption from the Part Lot Control provisions of the Planning Act is required in order to permit the creation of conveyable lots for the 6 residential townhouses along Basswood Road and the 30 residential lots fronting onto the common driveway.

This report reviews and recommends approval of the Draft Plan of Common Elements Condominium and approval of the application for Part Lot Control exemption. In addition, this report recommends that the owner of the lands be required to register a Section 118 Restriction under the Land Titles Act agreeing not to convey or mortgage any part of the lands without prior consent of the Chief Planner or designate.

Scarborough Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council assume the services installed for the above development and that the City formally assume the road within the development.

2.         City Council authorize the Legal Services Division to release the performance guarantee held with respect to this development.

3.         City Council direct that an assumption By-law be prepared to assume the public highways and municipal services in the above development.

4.         City Council authorize and direct the City Solicitor to register the assumption By-law in the Land Registry Office, at the expense of the Owner.

5.         City Council authorize the City Clerk and Treasurer to sign any release or other documentation necessary to give effect thereto.

6.         City Council authorize the appropriate City officials to transfer ownership of the street lighting system constructed within this development to Toronto Hydro.

Scarborough Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council assume the services installed for Registered Plan 66M-2433 and that the City formally assume the roads within the Plan of Subdivision.

2.         City Council authorize the Legal Services Division to release the portion of the performance guarantee held with respect to this development Plan 66M-2433.

3.         City Council direct that an assumption By-law be prepared to assume the public highway and municipal services in Subdivision Plan 66M-2433.

4.         City Council authorize and direct the City Solicitor to register the assumption By-law in the Land Registry Office, at the expense of the Owner.

5.         City Council authorize the City Clerk and Treasurer to sign any release or other documentation necessary to give effect thereto.

6.         City Council authorize the appropriate City officials to transfer ownership of the street lighting system constructed within Plan of Subdivision No. 66M-2433 to Toronto Hydro.

This report requests Council’s authority for the City to assume the services with respect to the above development.

Scarborough Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council authorize the City to accept the Offer to Purchase from Dewan Mutaher and Farhana Ahmed to purchase the City-owned property, located at  182 Aylesworth Avenue, being Lots 162 and 163, Plan 1964, Toronto (the "Property") in the amount of $255,500.00 substantially on the terms and conditions outlined in Appendix "A".

2.         City Council authorize each of the Chief Corporate Officer and the Director of Real Estate Services severally to accept the Offer to Purchase on behalf of the City.

3.         City Council authorize that a portion of the proceeds of closing be directed to fund the outstanding expenses related to the Property and the completion of the sale transaction.

4.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to complete the transaction on behalf of the City, including paying any necessary expenses, amending the closing, due diligence and other dates, and amending and waiving terms and conditions, on such terms as she considers reasonable.

5.         City Council rescind that portion of Administration Committee Report No. 19 (30) adopted, as amended, by Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000 and its Special Meetings held on October 6, 10, 11 and 12, 2000 requesting the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to submit a report to the Administration Committee on the appropriate action that should be taken to serve the City's interest when the specified tenant(s) vacate the properties.

6.         City Council authorize and direct the appropriate City Officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The purpose of this report is to obtain approval for the sale of the City-owned property at 182 Aylesworth Avenue.

The property was listed for sale on the open market, and the Offer to Purchase from

Dewan Mutaher and Farhana Ahmed is being recommended for acceptance by the City.

The terms for completing the transaction as set out herein are considered to be fair, reasonable and reflective of market value.

Scarborough Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council rescind all turn prohibitions at the intersection of Steeles Avenue East and Staines Road.

2.         City Council pass or amend the appropriate by-law(s) accordingly.

Scarborough Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council refuse the applications for Official Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Draft Plan of Subdivision at 3010 McCowan Road, for the following reasons:

            a.         the proposal conflicts with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;

b.        the proposal is inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

c.         the proposal does not conform to the Official Plan and the proposed redesignation does not represent good planning;

d.         the proposal is inconsistent with Council-approved guidelines/policies such as: the policy of prudent avoidance to reduce childhood exposure to electromagnetic fields in and adjacent to hydro corridors, and the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Townhouses; and

e.         the proposal does not provide for appropriate development.

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor and City staff to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in support of City Council’s decision to refuse these applications, in the event that the applications are appealed to the OMB.

This application was made after January 1, 2007 and is subject to the new provisions of the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

These applications propose an affordable housing development consisting of 25 townhouses with frontage on a proposed public street that would extend westward from McCowan Road.  The development scheme proposes a public park at the westerly portion of the lands.  The subject lands are vacant and privately owned.  These lands are situated between the transmission lines contained within the Finch Hydro Corridor that extends throughout most of the northern portion of the City.  The subject lands are known municipally as 3010 McCowan Road.

The proposed residential development is located on lands designated in the Official Plan for utility corridor purposes, with site specific uses which are considered compatible within the context of the Hydro Corridor.  These lands are not located within an area contemplated for residential redevelopment or intensification by the Official Plan, Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), or the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.  The proposal represents a development scheme that does not conform to Official Plan policies or City policies and guidelines for infill residential development.

While details of these applications are in a preliminary stage, planning staff consider the proposal inappropriate given the nature of the proposed residential and park uses, and the location and context of the subject lands.  This report reviews and recommends refusal of the applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and to refuse the draft plan of subdivision application.

At its meeting of August 25, 26 and 27, 2010, City Council considered a Direction Report from the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District dated July 29, 2010, as well as a Supplementary Report from the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, dated August 24, 2010 in connection with appeals related to 2 True Davidson Drive.

City Council received the August 24, 2010 report, and directed the City Solicitor to request an adjournment of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled for October 25-28, 2010, to a date in 2011, in order to permit community consultation.  City Council also requested the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to convene an information meeting with the Governor's Bridge Community on the development applications, prior to September 30, 2010.

This report provides details on the adjournment request of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing, the information meeting held with the Governor’s Bridge Community, and seeks final direction with respect to the pending appeals.

The Toronto and East York Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council reissue the Draft Plan of Condominium approval for 2 Ridelle Avenue with the conditions that were approved at the City Council meeting of October 23, 2007, with the following changes, the reissued conditions to be substantially as set out in Attachment 1 to the report dated November 17, 2010, from the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District:

            a.         The conditions of draft condominium approval be satisfied by October 23, 2011.

This application involves the conversion of a 44-unit residential co-ownership building at 2 Ridelle Avenue to condominium.  The associated Official Plan Amendment was enacted by City Council on October 23, 2007. Draft Plan approval was granted by the City in 2008. The three-year time limit to register the condominium has lapsed as of October 23, 2010, and it is recommended that the approval be reissued to permit fulfilment of the conditions of draft plan approval and registration of the condominium within a one year period ending October 23, 2011. As the deadline has lapsed, the consideration of this report is an urgent matter.

The Toronto and East York Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to hire outside planning staff to uphold the Committee of Adjustment refusal regarding the 32 Glenayr Road application at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

The Toronto and East York Committee of Adjustment refused an application for variances regarding 32 Glenayr Road. The owner of 32 Glenayr Road has appealed the Committee of Adjustment decision to the Ontario Municipal Board and a hearing date has been set for January 10, 2011. The Committee of Adjustment's decision notice is attached.

The density of the proposed building – .84 times the area of the lot (.35 is permitted) – is simply far too great, well above other densities in the neighbourhood, and would set a dangerous precedent should it be approved. The issue of “Monster Homes” is becoming increasingly concerning to residents and myself as these types of applications are being made more frequently in this neighbourhood. The increasing pressure by developers to build massive homes with little to no lot setbacks and increased height is slowly eroding the character of these neighbourhoods.

I believe the Committee of Adjustment made the right decision in rejecting the application. The density and impacts on neighbours are out of line with character of the Forest Hill neighbourhood.

The Toronto and East York Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor and City Planning staff to explore with the appellant/owner of 310 Rosemary Road revisions to the proposed house that would address the concerns described in the letter dated November 23, 2010, from Councillor Mihevc, and, if satisfactory revisions are achieved, agree to terms of settlement in consultation with the Ward Councillor, failing which staff be directed to support the Committee of Adjustment refusal decision.

The Toronto and East York Committee of Adjustment refused an application for variances regarding 310 Rosemary Road. Community Planning also wrote to the Committee of Adjustment in opposition to the application. The owner of 310 Rosemary Road has appealed the Committee of Adjustment decision to the Ontario Municipal Board and a hearing date has been set tentatively for January 19, 2011. The Committee of Adjustment's decision notice and Community Planning's letter of opposition to this application are attached.

The 310 Rosemary Road application presents many concerns because of the 10 variances requested, including a below grade reverse slope driveway, which are consistently opposed by the City, increase height, setbacks and an increase of floor space index from .6 to .825 times the area of the lot. The proposed building will be out of keeping with the surrounding established neighbourhood. This proposal is part of an increasing trend to build "Monster Homes" that is slowly eroding the character of the neighbourhood.

The Toronto and East York Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council authorize the City Clerk to place a Public Notice in a major newspaper prior to rescinding permit parking on Broadview Avenue, between Fairview Boulevard and Simpson Avenue and between Dundas Street East and Eastern Avenue.

2.         Subject to a confirmation from the City Clerk to the General Manager of Transportation Services that there are no objections to rescinding on-street parking, City Council direct that Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 925, Permit Parking, be amended by deleting on-street permit parking on Broadview Avenue, between Fairview Boulevard and Simpson Avenue and between Dundas Street East and Eastern Avenue.

It is requested that overnight on-street permit parking on Broadview Avenue, between Fairview Boulevard and Simpson Avenue and between Dundas Street East and Eastern Avenue, be rescinded. In accordance with City of Toronto, Municipal Code Chapter 925, Permit Parking, prior to rescinding on-street permit parking the City Clerk must place a Public Notice in a major newspaper.

Should the City Clerk report that there are no objections, Municipal Code Chapter 925, Permit Parking, can be amended by rescinding on street parking on Broadview Avenue, between Fairview Boulevard and Simpson Avenue and between Dundas Street East and Eastern Avenue.  However, should objections be received, Transportation staff will report back to Toronto and East York Community Council.

For the Committee's information, Broadview Avenue, between Fairview Boulevard and Simpson Avenue and between Dundas Street East and Eastern Avenue is a TTC route, therefore Community Council does not have the delegated authority to deal with this matter and it must be referred to City Council to make a final decision.

The Toronto and East York Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council direct the City Clerk to advise the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (the “AGCO”) that the issuance of a liquor licence for the Fox and Fiddle at 17 Fort York Boulevard (the “Premises”), is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents and that the Registrar should issue a Proposal to Review the liquor licence application.

2.         City Council request AGCO to provide the City of Toronto with an opportunity to be made a party to any proceedings with respect to the Premises.

3.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to attend all proceedings before the AGCO in this matter and be directed to take all necessary actions so as to give effect to this motion, including adding conditions to any liquor licence issued for the Premises, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, which address the issues as set out in the letter dated December 9, 2010, from Councillor Adam Vaughan, including but not limited to noise, safety, signage, lighting and litter.

An application for a new liquor licence has been made for an establishment to be located at the base of an existing residential building located at 17 Fort York Boulevard to be operated under the name of “The Fox and Fiddle” (the “Premises”, AGCO File 814696). This Motion requests that Toronto and East York Community Council recommend that City Council advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (the “AGCO”) that this application for a liquor licence is not in the public interest unless certain conditions, addressing the concerns of the local residents, are attached to the licence.

As this establishment is to be located in the base of a 42-storey residential condominium building, there is some concern that it may cause noise and other disturbance to residents in the area and the condominium in which it is located. If conditions are put in place, these concerns may be mitigated. Under no circumstance should the establishment be granted a liquor sales licence without conditions attached.

The Toronto and East York Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council direct the City Clerk to advise the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (the “AGCO”) that the issuance of a liquor licence for the Abode Lounge at 128 Peter Street (the “Premises”), is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents and that the Registrar should issue a Proposal to Review the liquor licence application.

2.         City Council request the AGCO to provide the City of Toronto with an opportunity to be made a party to any proceedings with respect to the Premises.

3.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to attend all proceedings before the AGCO in this matter and be directed to take all necessary actions so as to give effect to this motion, including adding conditions to any liquor licence issued for the Premises, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, which address the issues as set out in the letter dated December 9, 2010, from Councillor Vaughan, including but not limited to noise, safety, signage, lighting and litter.

An application for a new liquor licence has been made for the premises at 128 Peter Street, to be operated under the name of “Abode Lounge” (the “Premises”). This Motion requests that Toronto and East York Community Council recommend that City Council advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (the “AGCO”) that this application for a liquor licence is not in the public interest unless certain conditions, addressing the concerns of the community, are attached to the licence.

This proposed establishment may have a capacity of up to 470 people. It is located in close proximity to residential units. The Premises has been operating by way of Special Occasion Permits in the course of the last year, and there have been complaints related to noise and litter from the immediate neighbours of the Premises. There are concerns in the community that the proposed club will cause noise and disturbance to residents in the area. If conditions are put in place, these concerns may be mitigated. Under no circumstance should the establishment be granted a liquor sales licence without conditions attached.

The Toronto and East York Community Council recommends that:

1.         City Council authorize the City Clerk to provide notice of a statutory public meeting for the property municipally known as 288A, 290 and 294 Adelaide Street West to be scheduled for the January 18, 2011 meeting of the Toronto and East York Community Council, as per the requirements of the Planning Act.

2.         City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to submit to the January 18, 2011 meeting of the Toronto and East York Community Council a Final Report for 288A, 290 and 294 Adelaide Street West, which includes an implementing Zoning By-law and Section 37 Agreement securing both the proposed design, as well as the contribution of $2 million towards John Street streetscape improvements and local parks.

The City Solicitor recommends that:

1.         City Council authorize the Director of Real Estate Services to negotiate to acquire interests in parts of the properties municipally known as 1 Four Winds Drive, 3926-3932 Keele Street, 3940 Keele Street, 44-46 Romfield Drive and 1280-1300 Finch Avenue West as set out in Appendix "A", in connection with the construction of a portion of the Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension, and to re-initiate expropriation proceedings, if necessary.

2.         City Council authorize the Director of Real Estate Services to serve and publish Notices of Application for Approval to Expropriate interests in parts of 1 Four Winds Drive, 3926-3932 Keele Street, 3940 Keele Street, 44-46 Romfield Drive and 1280-1300 Finch Avenue West and to forward any requests for hearings that are received to the Chief Inquiry Officer, to attend any hearings in order to present the City’s position, and to report the Chief Inquiry Officer’s recommendations back to City Council for its consideration.

3.         City Council authorize the appropriate City officials to report directly to Council in the event any further authorizations are required.

At its meeting held on May 21, 22 and 23, 2003, Toronto City Council recommended that the Hearn Generating Station, which is owned by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) be added to the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties as a significant heritage resource for architectural and contextual reasons. However, provincial heritage properties and prescribed public bodies, including OPG, are exempt from designation by the City.

In July 2010 the Province established its Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties for the identification, maintenance, protection, conservation, use and disposal of provincial heritage properties which stress the importance of consultation with interested communities and groups when making decisions about provincial heritage property.

These new standards and guidelines provide that demolition or removal be considered only as a last resort after all other alternatives have been considered and subject to heritage impact assessment and public engagement.

On August 18, 2010 OPG applied to the City for a permit to demolish the former Hearn Generating Station. The application complies with all applicable law and therefore the City, by law, has had to issue a demolition permit.

The current provisions of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 693, ARTICLE III 693-18. Portable signs; A-frame signs do not recognize long-standing business and built form conditions in two distinct districts.  In particular the one-size fits all by-law does not recognize the unique heritage of Chinatown and the exemptions recently granted to the district under the City’s new harmonized sign by-law. The Queen Street Heritage Conservation District also has a unique approach to signage and public realm design. These two districts also have significantly different sidewalk dimensions.

(Submitted to City Council on December 16, 2010 as MM2.5 )

Councillor Cesar Palacio, seconded by Councillor Sarah Doucette recommends that:

1.         City Council authorize the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor to attend the Ontario Municipal Board appeal hearing in support of the  Committee of Adjustment refusal decision with respect to File Numbers B48/09EYK in addition to A331/09EYK and A332/09K.

Councillor Mike Layton, seconded by Councillor Kristyn Tam-Wong recommends that:

1.         Toronto City Council disassociate itself from the views expressed by Maclean's in its article entitled "Too Asian?" and request that MacLean's apologize unreservedly for the negative stereotyping of the Asian-Canadian community.

2.         City Council request the City Clerk to advise Maclean's Magazine of this decision in writing.

Councillor Paula Fletcher, seconded by Councillor Janet Davis, recommends that:

1.         City Council request that prior to the New Year, the City Manager provide City Council with a list of all advisory committees, subcommittees and task forces from the previous term of Council to which Councillors were appointed.

2.         City Council request that the process for the re-establishment of advisory, subcommittees and task forces be communicated to City Council early in the New Year.

At its December 8, 2010 meeting, City Council appointed Council Members to the Executive, Standing and Special Committees and to External Bodies.  Councillors are also appointed to other advisory committees, subcommittees and task forces which have not yet been established or re-established by Council.

(Submitted to City Council on December 16, 2010 as MM2.8)